[QUOTE=Odin;296849]Old bigoted white men have no right to tell women what to do with their bodies.[/QUOTE

They're not old, white men. Silents are probably the most liberal of the generations including abortion. There are plenty of young people, minorities (indeed blacks and Hispanics are more pro-life than whites), and women opposed to abortion.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

...I couldn't tell whether she was playing poker or chess -- but whatever game she was playing she played it well.

It matters not , herr pbrower, poker and chess share 1 attribute, "strategic planning". For this is why rags plays poker instead of the loser's game of slots and lottos.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I might actually register to vote again by Nov.
Might.

As a what? And for what ends?

Oh, and if it's to maintain the status quo (TM) , will "THE RANI" help out her friend, RAGS? Oh, the PM"s I could send to The RANI ... Rag's is a sick puppy!

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

So who would have expected that the person who pulled out all the stops, was ruthless, and willing to take whatever it takes to get HCR passed would be a Silent? Of course, I'm speaking of Nancy Pelosi.

Any thoughts?

As James50 cited in an earlier post, this law is not reform but instead about making access more fairly distributed. Seems very Silent to me.

Andrew Jackson and Theodore Roosevelt also were Adaptives.

Thanks, corrected.

Originally Posted by General Mung Beans

Andrew Jackson and Theodore Roosevelt also were Silents.

Close, but no cigar. < INTP nitpick. They were both ARTISTS, but not necessary, SILENT. </ INTP nitpick>

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Close, but no cigar. < INTP nitpick. They were both ARTISTS, but not necessary, SILENT. </ INTP nitpick>

Ragnarök is a typical 4T.com Generational Bigot.

Originally Posted by Publius

Yet, what an utterly worthless and outright disgustingly partisan forum the 4T.com has become.

Not gonna even bother...

Originally Posted by James50

When you get down to it, this version of HCR is a coverage bill, not a reform bill. It is a fairness and distributive justice bill, but it does nothing to fundamentally change the system. We are going to be adding trillions to the same revenue and service buckets we have now. Costs will skyrocket. The day of financial reckoning not only for health care but our society as a whole has just moved closer.

Well of course, any cost reduction would require that some health care interest (doctors, hospitals, pharma companies, insurers etc) is going to be adversely affected. Since these interests, in combination, have the power to block reform, reform was impossible.

What was possible was to buy off all but one interest and design a bill that would implement some regulation on the one interest not protected. This time the interest was insurance companies. They will now have to deal with with restrictions on how they operate.

To address cost issues the approach will have to be similar. For example an easy target woudld be to reform the Medicare Part D to allow negotiation over prices. This will save taxpayer money directly by obtaining lower drug prices. It targets only the drug companies, not the doctors, hospitals or insurance companies. In fact if they were really clever they could construct a bill that allows private insurers to join a pool along with Medicare to jointly bargain for lower drug prices. To qualify, the insurers would have to maintain a payout ratio of X%, where X is somewhat higher than the industry average of 80%. This might produce some support amongst the insurance interests.

And you continue to play off one interest against another, each time focusing on the fact that the bill's purpose is to reduce government spending on medical care. The poltiical opposition then is forced to be in favor of NOT cutting spending (and so enlarging the debt).

Parts of HCR that will raise private insurance premiums:

1. ENDS RESCISSIONS—Bans health plans from dropping people from coverage when they get sick. Effective 6 months after enactment.

2. NO DISCRIMINATON AGAINST CHILDREN WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS—Prohibits health plans from denying coverage to children with pre?existing conditions. Effective 6 months after enactment. (Beginning in 2014, this prohibition would apply to all persons.)

3. BANS LIFETIME LIMITS ON COVERAGE—Prohibits health plans from placing lifetime caps on coverage. Effective 6 months after enactment

4. BANS RESTRICTIVE ANNUAL LIMITS ON COVERAGE—Tightly restricts new plans’ use of annual limits to ensure access to needed care. These tight restrictions will be defined by HHS. Effective 6 months after enactment. (Beginning in 2014, the use of any annual limits would be prohibited for all plans.)

5. FREE PREVENTIVE CARE UNDER NEW PRIVATE PLANS—Requires new private plans to cover preventive services with no co?payments and with preventive services being exempt from deductibles. Effective 6 months after enactment. (Beginning in 2018, this requirement applies to all plans.)

6. NEW, INDEPENDENT APPEALS PROCESS—Ensures consumers in new plans have access to an effective internal and external appeals process to appeal decisions by their health insurance plan. Effective 6 months after enactment.

7. EXTENDS COVERAGE FOR YOUNG PEOPLE UP TO 26TH BIRTHDAY THROUGH PARENTS’ INSURANCE – Requires health plans to allow young people up to their 26th birthday to remain on their parents’ insurance policy, at the parents’ choice. Effective 6 months after enactment.

More here: http://bit.ly/a56C3P

Watch what happens to insurance premiums when these are put into effect. There is no free lunch. I probably would support all of these as a consumer. As a business person, it scares the beejeesus out of me. (I told you I am conflicted.) Who is going to pay for all of this?

BTW Mike - there is also this provision re payout ratios:

ENSURING VALUE FOR PREMIUM PAYMENTS—Requires plans in the individual and small group market to spend 80 percent of premium dollars on medical services, and plans in the large group market to spend 85 percent. Insurers that do not meet these thresholds must provide rebates to policyholders. Effective on January 1, 2011.

James50

James:

There are in fact three cost-cutting features in the early portions of the bill, and two more that come in as of 2014. The three early ones are the requirement that (in effect) premiums be no more than 15 or 20% higher than medical-care payouts, the requirement that preventing care be covered without deductibles or copayments, and the subsidies. You listed the second of those as a cost increaser, but I believe you're wrong; preventive care is relatively cheap, and encouraging it will help to reduce expenses on much more expensive remedial care. The third will act to broaden the risk pool by making insurance available to those who cannot currently afford it, which will lower pressures on premiums. It will also reduce use of the emergency rooms for basic medical care by poor people, which will help keep hospital costs down.

The two that take effect in 2014 are the individual mandate and the exchanges. The first will broaden the risk pool further, and the second will push prices down and coverages up through competition.

A lot depends on how close you think insurance companies are to the profit margin right now, how much of current premiums consist of necessary revenues to cover payouts and basic expenses and how much consist of profit-taking. I don't think they're very close to the margin at all.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

James:

There are in fact three cost-cutting features in the early portions of the bill, and two more that come in as of 2014. The three early ones are the requirement that (in effect) premiums be no more than 15 or 20% higher than medical-care payouts, the requirement that preventing care be covered without deductibles or copayments, and the subsidies. You listed the second of those as a cost increaser, but I believe you're wrong; preventive care is relatively cheap, and encouraging it will help to reduce expenses on much more expensive remedial care. The third will act to broaden the risk pool by making insurance available to those who cannot currently afford it, which will lower pressures on premiums. It will also reduce use of the emergency rooms for basic medical care by poor people, which will help keep hospital costs down.

The two that take effect in 2014 are the individual mandate and the exchanges. The first will broaden the risk pool further, and the second will push prices down and coverages up through competition.

A lot depends on how close you think insurance companies are to the profit margin right now, how much of current premiums consist of necessary revenues to cover payouts and basic expenses and how much consist of profit-taking. I don't think they're very close to the margin at all.

Fortunately, we don't have to argue these points. We can follow premiums and see what happens. One thing the bill does is give every insurance company an excuse if not a reason to raise rates. Every premium increase between now and November will be blamed on HCR.

Part of me wonders if this is just some kind of n-dimensional chess on Obama's part. Something like this:

1. Add a lot of expensive mandatory requirements to the system.
2. Cover 30 million more people.
3. Watch the health care industry collapse under the strain.
4. Offer to save it with a public plan.
5. Voila - we have a public option to great cheers and sighs of relief to all concerned.

As a point of information, when you say the insurance companies are not close to the 80% level, what are you basing that on?

James50

This might have been posted already; sorry if it's a repeat.

I saw last night and read this morning that 10 states, led by Florida, are hoping to sue the U.S. government over passage of the health care bill.

Trying to figure out how to post a link...I'm rather computer illiterate...

Originally Posted by The Rani

Here's what the NYT says:

Methinks you are so late to the show, as to have missed it's devastating punchline.

Alas, you are not alone. Your belated misery will now simply love some comforting company, as the Brian Rush Obami run roughshod over a tattered Ms. Liberty.

'Cause, you know, our dearest liberties are just being violated now.

Sorry, but this anti-authoritarian fears the statist right far more than the statist left.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

'Cause, you know, our dearest liberties are just being violated now.

Haven't you heard? Our liberty to continue being dependent on insurance companies subsidized by a tax break that only our employers receive is sacrosanct. I mean without that crucial linchpin to our Constitutional order we might one day do something truly awful like torture people or imprison them without trial.

Originally Posted by James50

As a point of information, when you say the insurance companies are not close to the 80% level, what are you basing that on?

Just an intuitive guess, but the Rani confirmed it. I was thinking that the strategy pursued by health insurance companies seems to have been to maximize premiums while minimizing payouts, using methods which are completely lacking in compassion.

It's the classic strategy of a company that has a captive market and ineffective competition: get as much money from customers as possible while delivering to them as little as possible. It's not the only profitable strategy, of course; another way is to try to get as many customers as possible by delivering a good product at a low price. High volume/low margin works, but it seemed clear to me that the health insurance industry has been pursuing low volume/high margin instead. From this, it's a reasonable assumption that the percentage of premium that goes into profit-taking rather than payouts would be pretty high (26% according to that NYT source).

One thing the bill does is give every insurance company an excuse if not a reason to raise rates.

They will be forbidden to do so, however.

"Freedom" is a cheap and easy word, and meaningless unless one specifies whose freedom to do what one is talking about. Those in an earlier Crisis era who defended the institution of slavery were, in a sense, defending "freedom" -- the freedom of slaveowners to possess and enjoy their property, which abolitionists proposed to take from them. But in another sense, they were denying much more basic freedoms to the slaves, who should not have been property in the first place.

Similarly, there is no doubt that health care reform will restrict the "freedom" of health-insurance companies to do certain things that enhance their profits -- at the expense of everyone else. But it will enhance the wealth and peace of mind, and hence the fundamental liberty, of everyone else. In order to protect the freedom of the people, that of the oppressors must be sacrificed. It's a universal rule. Or, as it was once put so well: Remember that reform consists in taking a bone away from a dog.

Originally Posted by Publius

No more interesting and thoughtful place on the internet was ever conceived for political discussion, than the 4T.com.

Yet, what an utterly worthless and outright disgustingly partisan forum the 4T.com has become.

And to think that it wasn't terribly long ago that the most heated arguments on this forum centered around what birth cohorts belong to what generations.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

They will be forbidden to do so, however.

Not as long as their payout ratio stays about 80%. I know you believe overall costs will go down. I deeply disbelieve it. You cannot insure an additional 30 million people without increased costs. We will find out who is right in the next few years.

Like I said, destroying the insurance industry could be a very sophisticated strategy to bring about a public option.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

Not as long as their payout ratio stays about 80%. I know you believe overall costs will go down. I deeply disbelieve it. You cannot insure an additional 30 million people without increased costs. We will find out who is right in the next few years.

Like I said, destroying the insurance industry could be a very sophisticated strategy to bring about a public option.

James50

The question is, what are we going to do about it then? How are we going to react to it? And, what are we going to do about them? In my opinion, this is the biggest punk move that I've ever seen.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

The question is, what are we going to do about it then? How are we going to react to it? And, what are we going to do about them? In my opinion, this is the biggest punk move that I've ever seen.

What are we going to do about it? Probably very little. It is the nature of government to make you feel powerless.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

What are we going to do about it? Probably very little. It is the nature of government to make you feel powerless.

James50

OK, I'll ask the questions a different way, what do you want us to do about it? How do you want us to react? What do you want us to do about them? It is the nature of government to make you feel powerless. The attitude, we are powerless, has to change. We aren't welfare recipients.

Originally Posted by James50

Not as long as their payout ratio stays about 80%. I know you believe overall costs will go down. I deeply disbelieve it. You cannot insure an additional 30 million people without increased costs. We will find out who is right in the next few years.

James, I work in the insurance industry and am a licensed property and casualty broker-agent. I know how it operates. You cannot insure an additional 30 million people without increased costs, true, but you also cannot do so without increased revenue, and since most of the 30 million currently uninsured aren't seriously ill, the revenues will exceed the costs.

In the insurance business, you know that you are going to lose money on insureds who file big claims. That's just how it works. You make it back on insureds who don't file big claims, and the idea is to have more in the latter category than in the former. Except that the health insurance guys seem to have done it differently.

The health insurance companies seem to have made a calculation that by charging very high premiums and excluding anyone who gets sick or has a preexisting condition (i.e. anyone likely to make big claims), they will make higher profits than if they charged reasonable rates and tried to insure everyone (which they could do). If they insured everyone, they would make money on most people (because most people don't become seriously ill and file big claims), more than they would lose on the ones that file big claims. But they would be charging lower premiums per person, and paying more in claims, and their actuaries must have calculated that the profits would be lower that way than doing what they do, which is to cover fewer people for more per person and refuse to cover anyone who really needs it.

Correcting for that scam will cost the companies profits, no question about it. Cry me a river. They'll still get by.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

James, I work in the insurance industry and am a licensed property and casualty broker-agent. I know how it operates. You cannot insure an additional 30 million people without increased costs, true, but you also cannot do so without increased revenue, and since most of the 30 million currently uninsured aren't seriously ill, the revenues will exceed the costs.

In the insurance business, you know that you are going to lose money on insureds who file big claims. That's just how it works. You make it back on insureds who don't file big claims, and the idea is to have more in the latter category than in the former. Except that the health insurance guys seem to have done it differently.

The health insurance companies seem to have made a calculation that by charging very high premiums and excluding anyone who gets sick or has a preexisting condition (i.e. anyone likely to make big claims), they will make higher profits than if they charged reasonable rates and tried to insure everyone (which they could do). If they insured everyone, they would make money on most people (because most people don't become seriously ill and file big claims), more than they would lose on the ones that file big claims. But they would be charging lower premiums per person, and paying more in claims, and their actuaries must have calculated that the profits would be lower that way than doing what they do, which is to cover fewer people for more per person and refuse to cover anyone who really needs it.

Correcting for that scam will cost the companies profits, no question about it. Cry me a river. They'll still get by.

You are an idiot. You're not thinking about the internals (people who work). You work for insurance. If insurance can't pay you, what happens to you? Cry me a river Brian. Welfare will get you by until welfare runs out of money.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

You are an idiot.

Not only am I not an idiot, but unlike you, I even know what I'm talking about.

We'll talk some more after you sober up.