Originally Posted by TnT

Hey, all I want is exactly the kind of healthcare that John Boehner has.

Anyone who examines the healthcare system of the US up close cannot possibly believe that it has any of our best interests at heart. It's as if we went out of our way to manufacture a care system that is virtually guaranteed to malfunction, eventually even pulling the quality of care for the richest people down.

I think I would burst into tears of gratitude if I heard a civil conversation that actually tried to assess our needs and our current system and then tried to define a transition from our current insanity to something that made a little sense.

Apparently we will have to wait until 2014 to get what Congress gets. But then again, the Feds will still have a separate system then the rest of us.

Change we can Believe In. Recall time.

Originally Posted by wtrg8

Change we can Believe In. Recall time.

It would be interesting if we were given the power to recall the President.

Originally Posted by Rose1992

It would be interesting if we were given the power to recall the President.

We elected too many Snake oil saleman's as President. ACTIONS means more than words.

Originally Posted by Rose1992

It would be interesting if we were given the power to recall the President.

Heck, as long as it was written so that there wouldn't be 75 referendums every November I'd be happy with a constitutional amendment that allowed the voters to overturn laws.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Heck, as long as it was written so that there wouldn't be 75 referendums every November I'd be happy with a constitutional amendment that allowed the voters to overturn laws.

What's the matter with so many referendums? I mean, if there are 75 new arguably bad laws every year, why wouldn't you want the possibility of undoing them?

The last few comments in this thread, gives me a sense that the future will have many smart citizens who will not be duped into believing everything they are told by politicians, when the evidence is contrary to their actions. Now "that" is hopeful.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

What's the matter with so many referendums? I mean, if there are 75 new arguably bad laws every year, why wouldn't you want the possibility of undoing them?

Well, that of course is a perfectly legitimate point of view.

Mostly I'm concerned that a national system of referendums would lead to the kind of ballot proleferation that's seen in California.

By Doctor Don McCanne

The insurance industry supported the
Democrats just long enough to get passed into law their one policy proposal
made in insurance heaven: a mandate for everyone to purchase their private
insurance products. Now that we have to buy their plans, they want
Republican-style market reforms to make sure that their insurance products
are not priced totally out of the market, even if that leaves health care
itself unaffordable.

What are these measures that Republicans support and that Democrats don't?

* Insurers want to be able to sell their plans across state lines. By
opening up markets in the less regulated states, insurers can sell more
competitively priced products, even if they provide patients less protection
against loss.

* They want to sell less expensive, high-deductible plans linked to health
savings accounts that attract their favored healthier and wealthier
clientele, even if it harms the sick by pushing them into more expensive,
higher-risk insurance pools.

* They want to increase wasteful taxpayer subsidies of their private
Medicare Advantage plans in order to create incentives to shift more
patients from our government Medicare program into their own industry plans.

* They want relief from having to insure high-needs, high-cost patients.
They would do this by shifting the burden to taxpayer-financed high-risk
insurance pools or reinsurance programs.

* They don't want to be exposed to some of the transitional programs such as
requiring coverage of children with preexisting disorders.

* They want to be sure that required "standard benefits" are defined as
loosely as possible to protect their market of low cost products, even if
those products fail to provide adequate protection.

* They want to be sure that rules for waivers will be applied liberally so
that they can continue to offer innovative products such as the mini-med
plans for McDonald's employees that have basic benefits paying a maximum of
$2,000 per year, or up to $10,000 maximum per year for the deluxe plan.
(These plans are a cruel hoax.)

* They want to be sure that overall regulatory oversight will be relaxed as
much as possible so that the free market can offer the highest quality
insurance products at the very best prices (sic).

Right now Sandy and I have the pleasure and honor of hosting some of the Mad
as Hell Doctors at our home during their current California tour in support
of single payer. At dinner last night, one of them asked me if, when I'm
writing the Quote of the Day, aren't there times that I want to say...
like... Bullshit!!... or something like that.

Yes! Right now. Bullshit!! Today I'm also a Mad as Hell Doctor!

We have to get this uncaring, thieving industry out of our health care and
out of our lives. The Republicans won't do that, but don't ever forget that
it was the Democrats who set up the framework that will keep them there
forever - unless we start exercising more effectively our responsibilities
to participate in a citizen-run democracy.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ealth_care_law

Originally Posted by Rasmussen Reports

Health Care Law
Support for Repeal of Health Care Law Down to 50%
Monday, October 04, 2010


The number of voters who favor repeal of the health care law has fallen to its lowest level since the bill was passed by Congress in late March.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Voters shows that 50% still favor repeal of the bill, including 41% who Strongly Favor repeal. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Forty-four percent (44%) now oppose repeal of the law, with 34% who Strongly Oppose repeal.

The percentage of voters who favor repeal of the bill is down seven points from last week and is the lowest level measured since March. Prior to the latest survey, support for repeal ranged from a low of 53% to a high of 63%. Meanwhile, the number that Strongly Opposes repeal is the highest level reached since late March.

Eighty percent (80%) of Republicans and 51% of voters not affiliated with either party continue to favor repeal, while 69% of Democrats are opposed.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on October 2-3, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95%level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Thirty-nine percent (39%) now say the plan will be good for the country overall, the highest level of optimism since mid-August. Forty-eight percent (48%) say the law will be bad for the country, the lowest result found to date.

Forty percent (40%) say it’s likely the law will be repealed, while slightly more (45%) say this outcome is unlikely. Those results have shifted little over the past few months.

Forty-four percent (44%) of voters say repeal of the law would be good for the economy, while 33% say it would be bad for the economy.

However, just 30% say repeal would lead to the creation of more jobs, showing little change since April. Thirty-seven percent (37%) disagree and says the law’s repeal would not lead to more job creation. Another 33% are not sure.

With midterm elections scarcely a month away, health care ranks as the second most important issue out of a list of 10 regularly tracked by Rasmussen Reports.

It would seem that the political equivalent of the Achilles heel of Democratic politics has become less relevant.

Guess what? Businesses and insurers don't want to implement certain provisions of the health care law.

So guess what? The Administration is telling them. . . .that they don't have to.

From today's NY Times:

Waivers Aim at Talk of Dropping Health Coverage
By REED ABELSON

As Obama administration officials put into place the first major wave of changes under the health care legislation, they have tried to defuse stiffening resistance — from companies like McDonald’s and some insurers — by granting dozens of waivers to maintain even minimal coverage far below the new law’s standards.

The waivers have been issued in the last several weeks as part of a broader strategic effort to stave off threats by some health insurers to abandon markets, drop out of the business altogether or refuse to sell certain policies.

Among those that administration officials hoped to mollify with waivers were some big insurers, some smaller employers and McDonald’s, which went so far as to warn that the regulations could force it to strip workers of existing coverage.

At a time when the midterm elections are looming and Republicans have been vocal in campaigning against the law, reaction to the rollout has been closely watched.

To date, the administration has given about 30 insurers, employers and union plans, responsible for covering about one million people, one-year waivers on the new rules that phase out annual limits on coverage for limited-benefit plans, also known as “mini-meds.” Applicants said their premiums would increase significantly, in some cases doubling or more.

These early exemptions offer the first signs of how the administration may tackle an even more difficult hurdle: the resistance from insurers and others against proposed regulations that will determine how much insurers spend on consumers’ health care versus administrative overhead, a major cornerstone of the law.

Several leading insurers, including WellPoint, Aetna and Cigna, have also objected to new rules requiring them to cover even those children who are seriously ill, warning that they will stop selling new policies in some states because the rules do not protect them from having to cover too many sick children.

“The hardest part of health reform is always going to be the transition,” said Peter T. Harbage, a former state health official who is a policy consultant in Sacramento. He predicts more insurers and employers will lean on the government to delay or weaken the new regulations. “I think this pressure just increases until we get to 2014,” he said, referring to the year that the law will fully go into effect.

How much the administration can, or should, compromise in ways that could dilute the effect of the new law in the next few years is a subject of much debate, depending on the politics from state to state or the economic dynamics in a particular market.

Policy experts say much of the authority to enforce the new law rests with the states, and they say the federal government may have little ultimate control over whether insurers will keep offering coverage in specific markets.

Nancy-Ann DeParle, the director of the Office of Health Reform at the White House, acknowledged that the concessions given to companies and insurers reflected attempts to avoid having people lose their current coverage before the full law goes into effect while meeting the aim of improving that coverage.

“It is a balancing act,” Ms. DeParle said. “The president wants to have a smooth glide path to 2014.”

The waivers issued so far include the policies offered by McDonald’s to its fast-food workers, typically capped at just a few thousand dollars, sold by a profit-making company owned by Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans. As a result of the administration’s efforts, McDonald’s says it is “confident that we’ll continue to provide health care coverage for our 30,000 hourly restaurant employees.”

Aetna and Cigna have also received waivers to continue selling limited-benefit policies, according to the list released by the Department of Health and Human Services, as have small employers like Sanderson Plumbing Products and Guy C. Lee Manufacturing. HealthMarkets, which offers policies through MEGA Life and Health and other insurers, says it also plans to apply for a waiver for some of its plans.

Some states, like Iowa and Maine, have already said they might seek additional authority from federal officials to exempt some insurers, at least for a time, because of the potential disruption if carriers leave the market over the new standards on medical spending.

“We have some very small carriers in the state,” said Susan E. Voss, the Iowa insurance commissioner, who said she favored letting state regulators decide whether some carriers should be given more leeway. The state has already lost some carriers, including the Principal Financial Group, which announced its decision last week.

The new standards may prove a challenge to the administration in its attempt to protect the limited-benefit plans. Under the legislation, insurers are required to spend at least 85 cents of every dollar in premiums on the welfare of their customers, and many of these plans spend far less.

The administration says it has the authority to change the way medical spending is calculated. But the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, which has been charged with drafting the regulations that will go to the Health Department for approval, has so far rejected the notion that these plans deserve special treatment.

A committee looking at the issue concluded that there was no reason to calculate spending differently for these plans, saying state regulators could always request exemptions later if they foresaw too much market turmoil.

Some consumer advocates argue that Congress did not intend for these mini-plans to be unaffected by the new standards. “If they wanted to exclude mini-meds, they would have excluded mini-meds,” said Timothy S. Jost, a law professor at Washington & Lee University who has been working with state regulators on these issues.

And even some state regulators, like Ms. Voss, whose state has formally requested a federal waiver to allow Iowa to decide case by case what considerations to give individual carriers, acknowledges that some plans should be allowed to leave the market. “I don’t think my job as a commissioner is to make sure every company is viable forever,” Ms. Voss said.

The struggle to stop insurers from dropping child-only coverage illustrates the limited power that the administration, and some states, may have to pressure companies to participate. While federal officials have tried to address the concerns by insurers that the rules allow parents to wait until their children are sick to sign up, some insurers have remained reluctant to commit to the market.

While states like California can force their hands by passing legislation requiring any insurer who plans to sell policies in the new exchanges to also sell child-only policies, other states have little recourse other than to try to persuade insurers to stay.

In Washington State, for example, Regence BlueShield, a major insurer, has announced it plans to no longer sell child-only policies, and Mike Kreidler, the insurance commissioner, is trying to persuade the other major insurers to stay. He cannot force them, he said, under current state law. “I couldn’t do anything other than use the bully pulpit,” said Mr. Kreidler, who was optimistic that he had succeeded.

And politics surrounding the health care law may intrude. In Minnesota, Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a Republican and a potential 2012 presidential candidate who has long opposed the law, has become the target of accusations that he is stonewalling discussions over certain types of coverage. (He has already refused federal money for rate reviews and to set up the 2014 exchanges.)

“We are seriously disappointed that we appear to have hit a wall,” said Julie Brunner, executive director of the Minnesota Council of Health Plans, which represents the state’s insurers. The insurers had been meeting with regulators to hash out the child-only coverage policies.

Mr. Pawlenty’s office, however, said it had no knowledge that negotiations over children’s insurance had been halted, and a spokesman, Bruce Gordon, denied that the governor had played any role in ending the talks. He said, however, the request by the insurers for a standardized period in which parents can buy coverage was unwarranted: “The insurance companies’ request for an exemption is yet another example of the failings of Obamacare.”

We have wasted two years and a Democratic majority trying to do the impossible--to reform for-profit health care. It can't be reformed. We need a public substitute, and heaven only knows when we'll get one now.

One would think that after two years wasting all that political capital to try to get that thing up and running, the Dems would pay a bit more attention to how it is enforced.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Guess what? Businesses and insurers don't want to implement certain provisions of the health care law.

So guess what? The Administration is telling them. . . .that they don't have to.

From today's NY Times:

Waivers Aim at Talk of Dropping Health Coverage
By REED ABELSON

As Obama administration officials put into place the first major wave of changes under the health care legislation, they have tried to defuse stiffening resistance — from companies like McDonald’s and some insurers — by granting dozens of waivers to maintain even minimal coverage far below the new law’s standards.

The waivers have been issued in the last several weeks as part of a broader strategic effort to stave off threats by some health insurers to abandon markets, drop out of the business altogether or refuse to sell certain policies.

Among those that administration officials hoped to mollify with waivers were some big insurers, some smaller employers and McDonald’s, which went so far as to warn that the regulations could force it to strip workers of existing coverage.

At a time when the midterm elections are looming and Republicans have been vocal in campaigning against the law, reaction to the rollout has been closely watched.

To date, the administration has given about 30 insurers, employers and union plans, responsible for covering about one million people, one-year waivers on the new rules that phase out annual limits on coverage for limited-benefit plans, also known as “mini-meds.” Applicants said their premiums would increase significantly, in some cases doubling or more.

These early exemptions offer the first signs of how the administration may tackle an even more difficult hurdle: the resistance from insurers and others against proposed regulations that will determine how much insurers spend on consumers’ health care versus administrative overhead, a major cornerstone of the law.

Several leading insurers, including WellPoint, Aetna and Cigna, have also objected to new rules requiring them to cover even those children who are seriously ill, warning that they will stop selling new policies in some states because the rules do not protect them from having to cover too many sick children.

“The hardest part of health reform is always going to be the transition,” said Peter T. Harbage, a former state health official who is a policy consultant in Sacramento. He predicts more insurers and employers will lean on the government to delay or weaken the new regulations. “I think this pressure just increases until we get to 2014,” he said, referring to the year that the law will fully go into effect.

How much the administration can, or should, compromise in ways that could dilute the effect of the new law in the next few years is a subject of much debate, depending on the politics from state to state or the economic dynamics in a particular market.

Policy experts say much of the authority to enforce the new law rests with the states, and they say the federal government may have little ultimate control over whether insurers will keep offering coverage in specific markets.

Nancy-Ann DeParle, the director of the Office of Health Reform at the White House, acknowledged that the concessions given to companies and insurers reflected attempts to avoid having people lose their current coverage before the full law goes into effect while meeting the aim of improving that coverage.

“It is a balancing act,” Ms. DeParle said. “The president wants to have a smooth glide path to 2014.”

The waivers issued so far include the policies offered by McDonald’s to its fast-food workers, typically capped at just a few thousand dollars, sold by a profit-making company owned by Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans. As a result of the administration’s efforts, McDonald’s says it is “confident that we’ll continue to provide health care coverage for our 30,000 hourly restaurant employees.”

Aetna and Cigna have also received waivers to continue selling limited-benefit policies, according to the list released by the Department of Health and Human Services, as have small employers like Sanderson Plumbing Products and Guy C. Lee Manufacturing. HealthMarkets, which offers policies through MEGA Life and Health and other insurers, says it also plans to apply for a waiver for some of its plans.

Some states, like Iowa and Maine, have already said they might seek additional authority from federal officials to exempt some insurers, at least for a time, because of the potential disruption if carriers leave the market over the new standards on medical spending.

“We have some very small carriers in the state,” said Susan E. Voss, the Iowa insurance commissioner, who said she favored letting state regulators decide whether some carriers should be given more leeway. The state has already lost some carriers, including the Principal Financial Group, which announced its decision last week.

The new standards may prove a challenge to the administration in its attempt to protect the limited-benefit plans. Under the legislation, insurers are required to spend at least 85 cents of every dollar in premiums on the welfare of their customers, and many of these plans spend far less.

The administration says it has the authority to change the way medical spending is calculated. But the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, which has been charged with drafting the regulations that will go to the Health Department for approval, has so far rejected the notion that these plans deserve special treatment.

A committee looking at the issue concluded that there was no reason to calculate spending differently for these plans, saying state regulators could always request exemptions later if they foresaw too much market turmoil.

Some consumer advocates argue that Congress did not intend for these mini-plans to be unaffected by the new standards. “If they wanted to exclude mini-meds, they would have excluded mini-meds,” said Timothy S. Jost, a law professor at Washington & Lee University who has been working with state regulators on these issues.

And even some state regulators, like Ms. Voss, whose state has formally requested a federal waiver to allow Iowa to decide case by case what considerations to give individual carriers, acknowledges that some plans should be allowed to leave the market. “I don’t think my job as a commissioner is to make sure every company is viable forever,” Ms. Voss said.

The struggle to stop insurers from dropping child-only coverage illustrates the limited power that the administration, and some states, may have to pressure companies to participate. While federal officials have tried to address the concerns by insurers that the rules allow parents to wait until their children are sick to sign up, some insurers have remained reluctant to commit to the market.

While states like California can force their hands by passing legislation requiring any insurer who plans to sell policies in the new exchanges to also sell child-only policies, other states have little recourse other than to try to persuade insurers to stay.

In Washington State, for example, Regence BlueShield, a major insurer, has announced it plans to no longer sell child-only policies, and Mike Kreidler, the insurance commissioner, is trying to persuade the other major insurers to stay. He cannot force them, he said, under current state law. “I couldn’t do anything other than use the bully pulpit,” said Mr. Kreidler, who was optimistic that he had succeeded.

And politics surrounding the health care law may intrude. In Minnesota, Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a Republican and a potential 2012 presidential candidate who has long opposed the law, has become the target of accusations that he is stonewalling discussions over certain types of coverage. (He has already refused federal money for rate reviews and to set up the 2014 exchanges.)

“We are seriously disappointed that we appear to have hit a wall,” said Julie Brunner, executive director of the Minnesota Council of Health Plans, which represents the state’s insurers. The insurers had been meeting with regulators to hash out the child-only coverage policies.

Mr. Pawlenty’s office, however, said it had no knowledge that negotiations over children’s insurance had been halted, and a spokesman, Bruce Gordon, denied that the governor had played any role in ending the talks. He said, however, the request by the insurers for a standardized period in which parents can buy coverage was unwarranted: “The insurance companies’ request for an exemption is yet another example of the failings of Obamacare.”

We have wasted two years and a Democratic majority trying to do the impossible--to reform for-profit health care. It can't be reformed. We need a public substitute, and heaven only knows when we'll get one now.

CNN:http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/07/news...dex.htm?hpt=T1

Anybody want to tout the wonderful HCR the Congress passed, now?

This Administration keeps coming up with it's own October Surprises- on itself.

And Obama wonders why his own party doesn't like him very much anymore.

As I have said before, the health-care system will have to destroy itself, before real reforms can be made. It's just too politically powerful.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Guess what? Businesses and insurers don't want to implement certain provisions of the health care law.

So guess what? The Administration is telling them. . . .that they don't have to.

From today's NY Times:

Waivers Aim at Talk of Dropping Health Coverage
By REED ABELSON

As Obama administration officials put into place the first major wave of changes under the health care legislation, they have tried to defuse stiffening resistance — from companies like McDonald’s and some insurers — by granting dozens of waivers to maintain even minimal coverage far below the new law’s standards.

The waivers have been issued in the last several weeks as part of a broader strategic effort to stave off threats by some health insurers to abandon markets, drop out of the business altogether or refuse to sell certain policies.

Among those that administration officials hoped to mollify with waivers were some big insurers, some smaller employers and McDonald’s, which went so far as to warn that the regulations could force it to strip workers of existing coverage.

At a time when the midterm elections are looming and Republicans have been vocal in campaigning against the law, reaction to the rollout has been closely watched.

To date, the administration has given about 30 insurers, employers and union plans, responsible for covering about one million people, one-year waivers on the new rules that phase out annual limits on coverage for limited-benefit plans, also known as “mini-meds.” Applicants said their premiums would increase significantly, in some cases doubling or more.

These early exemptions offer the first signs of how the administration may tackle an even more difficult hurdle: the resistance from insurers and others against proposed regulations that will determine how much insurers spend on consumers’ health care versus administrative overhead, a major cornerstone of the law.

Several leading insurers, including WellPoint, Aetna and Cigna, have also objected to new rules requiring them to cover even those children who are seriously ill, warning that they will stop selling new policies in some states because the rules do not protect them from having to cover too many sick children.

“The hardest part of health reform is always going to be the transition,” said Peter T. Harbage, a former state health official who is a policy consultant in Sacramento. He predicts more insurers and employers will lean on the government to delay or weaken the new regulations. “I think this pressure just increases until we get to 2014,” he said, referring to the year that the law will fully go into effect.

How much the administration can, or should, compromise in ways that could dilute the effect of the new law in the next few years is a subject of much debate, depending on the politics from state to state or the economic dynamics in a particular market.

Policy experts say much of the authority to enforce the new law rests with the states, and they say the federal government may have little ultimate control over whether insurers will keep offering coverage in specific markets.

Nancy-Ann DeParle, the director of the Office of Health Reform at the White House, acknowledged that the concessions given to companies and insurers reflected attempts to avoid having people lose their current coverage before the full law goes into effect while meeting the aim of improving that coverage.

“It is a balancing act,” Ms. DeParle said. “The president wants to have a smooth glide path to 2014.”

The waivers issued so far include the policies offered by McDonald’s to its fast-food workers, typically capped at just a few thousand dollars, sold by a profit-making company owned by Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans. As a result of the administration’s efforts, McDonald’s says it is “confident that we’ll continue to provide health care coverage for our 30,000 hourly restaurant employees.”

Aetna and Cigna have also received waivers to continue selling limited-benefit policies, according to the list released by the Department of Health and Human Services, as have small employers like Sanderson Plumbing Products and Guy C. Lee Manufacturing. HealthMarkets, which offers policies through MEGA Life and Health and other insurers, says it also plans to apply for a waiver for some of its plans.

Some states, like Iowa and Maine, have already said they might seek additional authority from federal officials to exempt some insurers, at least for a time, because of the potential disruption if carriers leave the market over the new standards on medical spending.

“We have some very small carriers in the state,” said Susan E. Voss, the Iowa insurance commissioner, who said she favored letting state regulators decide whether some carriers should be given more leeway. The state has already lost some carriers, including the Principal Financial Group, which announced its decision last week.

The new standards may prove a challenge to the administration in its attempt to protect the limited-benefit plans. Under the legislation, insurers are required to spend at least 85 cents of every dollar in premiums on the welfare of their customers, and many of these plans spend far less.

The administration says it has the authority to change the way medical spending is calculated. But the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, which has been charged with drafting the regulations that will go to the Health Department for approval, has so far rejected the notion that these plans deserve special treatment.

A committee looking at the issue concluded that there was no reason to calculate spending differently for these plans, saying state regulators could always request exemptions later if they foresaw too much market turmoil.

Some consumer advocates argue that Congress did not intend for these mini-plans to be unaffected by the new standards. “If they wanted to exclude mini-meds, they would have excluded mini-meds,” said Timothy S. Jost, a law professor at Washington & Lee University who has been working with state regulators on these issues.

And even some state regulators, like Ms. Voss, whose state has formally requested a federal waiver to allow Iowa to decide case by case what considerations to give individual carriers, acknowledges that some plans should be allowed to leave the market. “I don’t think my job as a commissioner is to make sure every company is viable forever,” Ms. Voss said.

The struggle to stop insurers from dropping child-only coverage illustrates the limited power that the administration, and some states, may have to pressure companies to participate. While federal officials have tried to address the concerns by insurers that the rules allow parents to wait until their children are sick to sign up, some insurers have remained reluctant to commit to the market.

While states like California can force their hands by passing legislation requiring any insurer who plans to sell policies in the new exchanges to also sell child-only policies, other states have little recourse other than to try to persuade insurers to stay.

In Washington State, for example, Regence BlueShield, a major insurer, has announced it plans to no longer sell child-only policies, and Mike Kreidler, the insurance commissioner, is trying to persuade the other major insurers to stay. He cannot force them, he said, under current state law. “I couldn’t do anything other than use the bully pulpit,” said Mr. Kreidler, who was optimistic that he had succeeded.

And politics surrounding the health care law may intrude. In Minnesota, Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a Republican and a potential 2012 presidential candidate who has long opposed the law, has become the target of accusations that he is stonewalling discussions over certain types of coverage. (He has already refused federal money for rate reviews and to set up the 2014 exchanges.)

“We are seriously disappointed that we appear to have hit a wall,” said Julie Brunner, executive director of the Minnesota Council of Health Plans, which represents the state’s insurers. The insurers had been meeting with regulators to hash out the child-only coverage policies.

Mr. Pawlenty’s office, however, said it had no knowledge that negotiations over children’s insurance had been halted, and a spokesman, Bruce Gordon, denied that the governor had played any role in ending the talks. He said, however, the request by the insurers for a standardized period in which parents can buy coverage was unwarranted: “The insurance companies’ request for an exemption is yet another example of the failings of Obamacare.”

We have wasted two years and a Democratic majority trying to do the impossible--to reform for-profit health care. It can't be reformed. We need a public substitute, and heaven only knows when we'll get one now.

And now for some level-headed thinking -

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...the_statu.html

'The real problem was the status quo'
Here's the play: Someone somewhere reports that the Affordable Care Act will require some change in the status quo. Maybe it's that insurers can no longer discriminate against sick children, and so some of them are pulling products that were only financially viable so long as they could discriminate against sick children. Maybe it's that McDonald's won't be able to offer miniature health-care "coverage" that caps annual benefits at $2,000, a form of insurance that wouldn't protect anyone from a real illness and that Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley once described as "not better than nothing." Maybe it's that 3M is changing its early-retiree health-care plans, for reasons that may or may not be related to the new health-care law. Opponents of the reforms jump on the story. "See!" they say. "This is a catastrophe!" Supporters -- at least some of them -- e-mail me. "This needs a rebuttal, thanks."

But it doesn't need a rebuttal. It needs explanation, and that's what's usually lacking. And when they do explain the particular rule or regulation causing the disruption, the situation often looks very different. The McDonald's plans, for instance, shouldn't continue after 2014, though it looks like the administration is going to give them a waiver to escape the bad press. The point of health-care reform was to get people into real insurance and protect them from illusory plans that run out when they get sick. The 3M situation is too opaque to say anything about. And though I'm actually sympathetic to the argument that there shouldn't be rules limiting insurers from discriminating against applicants until there's an individual mandate and subsidies that can support a universal market, I doubt that there's much support for the "sure, continue turning away sick children" position.

The administration promised that if you liked your health care, you could keep it. In the overwhelming majority of cases -- far more than 95 percent -- that's true. But there are companies and insurers offering spartan products that don't meet the new -- and frankly, quite minimal -- standards. In some cases, they'll improve their products. In some cases, they'll stop offering the product. And in some cases -- and it's important to watch this, too -- they'll continue the pre-health-care reform trend of dropping coverage for employees, but they'll blame the new law, as it's better to have your employees mad at the government than at you. The end result will be a vastly better health-care system, where 32 million more people have coverage and where tens of millions of more are in far better plans than they would've had without the law. But that will require changes in some of the worst plans, and on the part of some of the worst employers and insurers.

"With each new disruption come loud claims -- some from insurance executives -- that the health overhaul is damaging American health care," writes David Leonhardt, who's been looking at the same stories. "On the surface, these claims can sound credible. But when you dig a little deeper, you often discover the same lesson that the McDonald’s case provides: the real problem was the status quo."

Next time one sees another 'Obamacare crime,' rather than do the knee-jerk, try putting the thinking cap on and see if you really got a full explanation of the 'crime' and whether its a result of HCR or a holdover from the pre-HCR status quo.

Just saying, you know?

Originally Posted by Poodle

CNN:http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/07/news...dex.htm?hpt=T1

Anybody want to tout the wonderful HCR the Congress passed, now?

This Administration keeps coming up with it's own October Surprises- on itself.

And Obama wonders why his own party doesn't like him very much anymore.

As I have said before, the health-care system will have to destroy itself, before real reforms can be made. It's just too politically powerful.

Rather than tout it, I'll remind you of simple arithmetic.

100% of Senate Dems (including even Ben Nelson!) were lined up to vote for the Public Option on the Senate floor; 100% of Repugs were lined up voted against it - the Dems had a wide majority 59-39; unlikely to be repeated by either party for some time. The tipping point was Joe Lieberman, an Independent - he killed the public option.

Only in Idiot America would someone blame Obama and the Dems for any failings of what they did manage to get. And given simple arithmetic and today's political realities, only in Idiot America would someone believe they can now get something better without putting up an enormous fight that will take years if not decades. It's must easier to simply bitch in Idiot America.

Originally Posted by Rose1992

One would think that after two years wasting all that political capital to try to get that thing up and running, the Dems would pay a bit more attention to how it is enforced.

Waivers for certain companies and Insurance Companies are being throw around like it going out of style. Nothing going to change other than your wallet will feel lighter every year until 2020.

Originally Posted by wtrg8

Waivers for certain companies and Insurance Companies are being throw around like it going out of style. Nothing going to change other than your wallet will feel lighter every year until 2020.

Yep, more corporate campaign contributions at work.

Originally Posted by Poodle

CNN:http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/07/news...dex.htm?hpt=T1

...As I have said before, the health-care system will have to destroy itself, before real reforms can be made. It's just too politically powerful.

You may be correct(I hope not). What we have now is a health care kludge and do need somehow to develop a real SYSTEM.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Rather than tout it, I'll remind you of simple arithmetic.

100% of Senate Dems (including even Ben Nelson!) were lined up to vote for the Public Option on the Senate floor; 100% of Repugs were lined up voted against it - the Dems had a wide majority 59-39; unlikely to be repeated by either party for some time. The tipping point was Joe Lieberman, an Independent - he killed the public option.

Only in Idiot America would someone blame Obama and the Dems for any failings of what they did manage to get. And given simple arithmetic and today's political realities, only in Idiot America would someone believe they can now get something better without putting up an enormous fight that will take years if not decades. It's must easier to simply bitch in Idiot America.

I don't think that is right about Nelson--I think he had bailed as well, and others might have. But Lieberman was the most vocal.

The general point remains that a Senate minority, just 40 Republicans, made it possible for a very few conservative Democrats and Independents to hold veto power. The Affordable Care Act rests as far to the right as if the most conservative Democrats plus Lieberman had designed it from the beginning, all because of the Senate rules that allow a minority to hold the majority hostage.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The general point remains that a Senate minority, just 40 Republicans, made it possible for a very few conservative Democrats and Independents to hold veto power. The Affordable Care Act rests as far to the right as if the most conservative Democrats plus Lieberman had designed it from the beginning, all because of the Senate rules that allow a minority to hold the majority hostage.

We should call it "Romney Care".

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

We should call it "Romney Care".

The way things are going now, come 2012... they just might.

Once again, I'm stuck with the task of trying to acquaint you all with reality. The Democrats had a single goal. They wanted to put every uninsured resident of the United States (legal or illegal) on the government dole. The health care bill probably accomplishes that half way. The problem is that the 90% of Americans who were already insured are going to be punished for the sake of the other 10%, through higher taxes, higher premiums, shortages of doctors and nurses, and in many cases by losing their coverage altogether and being forced onto the dole with the others. People know that, and that's why they're so opposed to it.

The health care bill is going to be an albatross around the neck of the Democratic Party until the day it's repealed. If Obama is smart, he'll work with Republicans to roll back most of it and start from scratch. If he doesn't, he will lose in 2012.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Once again, I'm stuck with the task of trying to acquaint you all with reality.

Rather like a piece of dry ice trying to warm us up, but by all means. It's amusing if nothing else. Usually when you start talking about "reality," it indicates that you're about to display a particularly acute disconnect therefrom. EDIT: I see (after going through the entire post) that you are indeed true to form.

The Democrats had a single goal. They wanted to put every uninsured resident of the United States (legal or illegal) on the government dole.

Really? Which Democrats are you talking about? Getting Democrats to agree on something has been compared to herding cats in a rainstorm in downtown Los Angeles. And where are you getting this -- remarkable bit of information?

The health care bill probably accomplishes that half way.

Please explain how that works. It's not at all obvious.

The problem is that the 90% of Americans who were already insured

I started to answer this, but then I remembered that you flunked math. Very well, precise accuracy in percentages is not to be expected.

Just for the record, though, it's more like sixty percent.

are going to be punished for the sake of the other 10%, through higher taxes, higher premiums,

What higher taxes? The ACA does not raise taxes. Why higher premiums? Higher premiums than before, or higher premiums than they would have paid otherwise? In the former case, so what? In the latter, where's your evidence?

shortages of doctors and nurses

As the ACA has no impact on the supply of medical personnel, I hardly see how this is possible.

and in many cases by losing their coverage altogether

How so?

and being forced onto the dole with the others. People know that, and that's why they're so opposed to it.

First of all, people can't "know" what isn't true. Secondly, most people don't even agree with all of that -- actually, this is the first time I've even heard of most of it. I think you probably made it up yourself. If not, then you obtained it from some obscure right-wing source that most people will never see.

And third, the reasons that those who oppose the ACA do so are at least two reasons, not one, and neither reason is that one. A relatively small minority oppose it because they are doctrinaire right-wingers ideologically opposed to all government involvement in health care (except Medicare, which they have become used to and want to preserve even if it's ideologically inconsistent). A somewhat larger group of people oppose it because it doesn't go nearly far enough -- this is opposition from the left.

You'd know this if you had a grasp of reality.

The health care bill is going to be an albatross around the neck of the Democratic Party until the day it's repealed.

As it will never be repealed, that means forever. But of course, you're full of shit again.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Once again, I'm stuck with the task of trying to acquaint you all with reality. The Democrats had a single goal. They wanted to put every uninsured resident of the United States (legal or illegal) on the government dole. The health care bill probably accomplishes that half way. The problem is that the 90% of Americans who were already insured are going to be punished for the sake of the other 10%, through higher taxes, higher premiums, shortages of doctors and nurses, and in many cases by losing their coverage altogether and being forced onto the dole with the others. People know that, and that's why they're so opposed to it.

The health care bill is going to be an albatross around the neck of the Democratic Party until the day it's repealed. If Obama is smart, he'll work with Republicans to roll back most of it and start from scratch. If he doesn't, he will lose in 2012.

Most people who do have health insurance like it just the way it is. What should have happened is a health bill that provided basic health coverage for those (American citizens and legal residents) who don't have it through work, with premiums based upon ability to pay, and left everyone else alone. That would help, btw, to keep small businesses who often cannot afford HC for their employees, more competitive with large corporations who can.

But all this would be too smart for our Congresscritters, who at the end of the day only care about being reelected, and whose side of the aisle "wins".

What they should have done is to enact a single-payer system. Failing that, what they should have done is to enact what they did plus a public option, allowance of repurchase of drugs from foreign sources, and collective bargaining to drive costs down.

The ACA is about as poor an excuse for health-care reform as it's possible to achieve while achieving anything. It's still better than nothing, but there's a lot more work to do still.