Maybe I am missing something, but I have never seen anything that suggests that the any version of the health care bill (Senate or House or Obama's proposal) that would suggest that insurance companies could never charge different premiums to people with different health risks.

If you could provide a link, I would greatly appreciate it.

2/25/2010 3:02:20 PM

Just listening today. they are calling it "premium discrimination"...even compared it to segregation...no shit. They dont want to "discriminate" based on age, gender, or illness. They are fighting against these high risk pools, which LET people with preexisting conditions get insurance, but it costs them more.

2/25/2010 3:19:51 PM

2/25/2010 3:27:20 PM

eyedrb,

I have not been able to watch except for a little at lunch (and the sound was low in the cafeteria).

But I premium discrimination is different than eliminating the preexisting condition exclusion. I don't think the latter is a bad idea.

But premium discrimination could be worrisome (though maybe not a deal breaker for me as I think such a provision would be abandoned quickly down the road, and that I would rather get something imperfect in place that could be fixed over time).

[Edited on February 25, 2010 at 3:33 PM. Reason : ``]

2/25/2010 3:32:50 PM

Banning insurance companies from denying someone with a pre-existing condition makes no sense at all. What if we banned home insurance companies from denying someone whose house already burned down? Would anyone buy home insurance if you could do that?

2/25/2010 4:15:35 PM

insurance is fucking PRICED based on risk. A guy who buys a sports car gets charged more for his car insurance. a 16 year old gets charged more for his car insurance. A sky diver gets charged more for his life insurance.

How the fuck can you say that health insurers shouldn't be able to price based on risk? Who, exactly, do you think picks up the tab when the insurance companies can no longer charge the riskiest people the most?

2/25/2010 4:24:01 PM

Because it just isn't fair, damn it. Why should I have to pay more for a service that costs the insurance company more? The price should be the same for everything, regardless of what services were actually rendered, right?

2/25/2010 4:38:24 PM

The group guaranteed to get boned the most in any sort of health insurance reform which limits the ability to set prices based on actual risk is young, healthy people. If you are looking for a specific subset really likely to take it up the pooper - young, healthy recent college graduates who are likely to be looking for work for a good while in this economy but want to find at least high deductible, "in case of emergency" type coverage.

[Edited on February 25, 2010 at 4:55 PM. Reason : ]

2/25/2010 4:54:37 PM

In any case, the insurance companies are on-board with it if it comes with a law making health insurance compulsory.

2/25/2010 4:56:55 PM

"The insurance companies opposed the public plan bc they couldnt take the competition. " Pelosi


God help us

2/25/2010 4:57:42 PM

I'd really appreciate it if insurance companies would mandate extensive yearly physicals, reporting of cigarette and fast food purchases to insurance companies from the retailers, and cable settop boxes reporting back hours of tv watched so I can start getting my discount for being a healthy motherfucker and all those risky bitches can pay more.

2/25/2010 5:02:15 PM

Quote :

"insurance is fucking PRICED based on risk."

Which is why the free market sucks at health insurance.

2/25/2010 5:19:17 PM

^ What economic system, pray tell, DOESN'T suck at health insurance?

2/25/2010 5:41:34 PM

2/25/2010 6:00:20 PM

Ooo pictures. The way I read that, the opinions of people in a given country are as follows:

Canada - sucks
Great Britain - really sucks
U.S. - balls deep

2/25/2010 6:28:33 PM

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/?fbid=vacbGhdj34C

Lolbama seems like he really wants to compromise and bring good change.

2/25/2010 6:30:30 PM

Quote :

"Which is why the free market sucks at health insurance."

only, not really. we have very little resembling a free market when it comes to health insurance.

2/25/2010 7:44:15 PM

Quote :

"Banning insurance companies from denying someone with a pre-existing condition makes no sense at all. What if we banned home insurance companies from denying someone whose house already burned down? Would anyone buy home insurance if you could do that?"

which is why we have the individual mandate.

try and keep up.

2/25/2010 7:55:01 PM

Quote :

"only, not really. we have very little resembling a free market when it comes to health insurance."

doesn't mean it wouldn't suck at it. asymmetric information. google it.

2/25/2010 7:57:27 PM

^ Did you just compare insurance companies to used car salesmen selling lemons? I like it.

2/25/2010 8:41:44 PM

Lamar Alexander (R-TN): “if we took all the profits of the insurance companies, the health insurance companies entirely away, every single penny of it, we could pay for 2 days of the health insurance of Americans”

That line needs to get out there. Kinda blows the whole evil ungodly profit arguement out of the water.

2/25/2010 8:53:12 PM

That doesn't mean it's not wasteful

2/25/2010 9:14:22 PM

I don't think the profit margin is the reason health insurance companies get a bad wrap. Perhaps it is dropping some middle aged lady because she "fraudulently" forgot she had acne 21 years ago, but only after she gets cancer?

2/25/2010 9:16:36 PM

^show me that example please.

[Edited on February 25, 2010 at 9:41 PM. Reason : .]

2/25/2010 9:24:49 PM

Quote :

"only, not really. we have very little resembling a free market when it comes to health insurance."

http://www.google.com/search?q=adverse+selection+spiral

2/25/2010 9:37:07 PM

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/25/democrats-new-health-target-end-of-march/?fbid=CeukDESvFZn

Quote :

"Democrats' New Health Target: End of March Washington (CNN) - As President Obama kicks off a health care summit to try and rescue his reform package, three top Democratic sources are privately telling CNN the new goal is to pass the final legislation by the end of March or else Congress will have to move back to other issues like job creation and unfinished spending bills. The new deadline adds more pressure to the White House negotiations because it gives the president only one month after Thursday's summit to get a final package completed or else he will risk seeing his signature domestic issue go down in flames. Three Democratic sources familiar with the negotiations say that after a series of missed deadlines last year, the new target is to get a final package completed by Friday March 26, when the House and Senate are scheduled to begin a recess to celebrate Passover and Easter. The House is not scheduled to return from that recess for floor votes again until Tuesday April 13, just seven months before the midterm elections. The Democratic sources said that Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, have privately signaled to the White House that after that recess they will have to move the focus back to jobs and a whole series of other important issues - such as climate change legislation, a financial reform package, and unfinished appropriations bills. Some Democratic leaders have warned the White House that if the health legislation is not finished before the spring recess, it is hard to craft a scenario in which Congress can return to the bill later in the year. "They would have to move on - they can't let this drag out," said one Democratic source familiar with the negotiations who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the sensitive deliberations."

I feel like the GOP just missed an opportunity. The most repeated GOP point today was lets scrap it, try again, and see whether or not they reject it again at the end of another year. The GOP are trying to run out the clock on the president's first term, and instead they missed a chance to have more televised input on a bill that is going to be passed before the next election.

2/25/2010 9:54:03 PM

Quote :

"a bill that is going to be passed before the next election."

time will tell.

2/25/2010 10:03:17 PM

Supplanter, the GOP used this summit to show real concerns with this bill. They offered to work towards reform and offered solutions. I had low expectations but they were clearly the better prepared party in that meeting. This didnt go as expected for the Dems. IMO

As for a bill passing. This was simply an excuse to say they tried to be bipartisan. But just an illusion. Alexander called them out from the beginning about reconciliation, and Reid stepped in it. But that was the plan all along. Im wondering if they have the votes in the house anymore. SHould be an interesting week next week.

2/25/2010 10:10:30 PM

The GOP did a good job lowering expectations by calling it a trap over and over for days on end, but the main thing they brought to the table was lets erase a years worth of work and start over. IMO they came empty handed, and were far worse prepared for this meeting.

2/25/2010 10:17:30 PM

NPR’S MARA LIASSON: “I Think That The Republicans Made Their Arguments Very Well.” (Fox News, 2/25/10)

CNN’S DAVID GERGEN: “Intellectually, The Republicans Had The Best Day They’ve Had In Years. The Best Day They Have Had In Years.” (CNN’s “The Situation Room,” 2/25/10)

CNN’S WOLF BLITZER: “And The Republicans Had Less Speaking Time, But They Took Full Advantage Of Every Minute They Had.” (CNN’s “The Situation Room,” 2/25/10)

THE HILL’S A.B. STODDARD: “I Think We Need To Start Out By Acknowledging Republicans Brought Their ‘A Team.’ They had doctors knowledgeable about the system, they brought substance to the table, and they, I thought, expressed interest in the reform. I thought in the lecture from Senator John McCain and on the issue of transparency, I thought today the Democrats were pretty much on their knees.” (Fox News’ “Live,” 2/25/10)

CNN’s GLORIA BORGER: “The Republicans Have Been Very Effective Today. They Really Did Come To Play. They Were Very Smart.” (CNN’s “Live,” 2/25/10)

JAMES CARVILLE: “First, In General, You’d Have To Say, By The Most Part Most Of These People Were Pretty Knowledgeable, They Had Done Their Homework … I Thought That Senator Alexander And Senator Coburn Did Great...” (CNN’s “The Situation Room,” 2/25/10)


Would've been nice if the GOP had done something about health care (the debt, borders etc..) when they held congress. But a good day for them.

2/25/2010 10:52:17 PM

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

2/25/2010 10:56:16 PM

Quote :

"Would've been nice if the GOP had done something about health care (the debt, borders etc..) when they held congress. But a good day for them."

I'm glad, I wanted them to do well. It wasn't a contest, we were all winners or we were all losers. I wish they would have had a lot less "let's scrap the plan", but they actually had a decent discussion at times, so I only hope they can carry this to the legislative floor.

2/25/2010 11:13:17 PM

Sharpest knife in the drawer? Matthews kinda dissed the other two didn't he?

"Neither side was sparkling" ...I'd agree with that. Seemed like a mini session of congress. Seemed like they did a lot of "yielding" to each other and trying to look like they cared.
But I don't think Obama man-handled the GOPers this time around like he did when he met with them earlier.

2/25/2010 11:15:17 PM

I think Representative Slaughter had a solid point that domestic abuse shouldn't count as a preexisting condition for women. Our senator Burr was one of the very few who voted against ending this practice.

2/25/2010 11:16:14 PM

^ i can agree with that. abuse isn't a "pre-existing condition".

Quote :

"which is why we have the individual mandate. "

which is both unConstitutional and absurd. You don't fix a massive problem by simply creating another problem.

Quote :

"doesn't mean it wouldn't suck at it"

We don't know either way. Because we don't have much of a free-market for insurance. The claim was that the free-market sucks when it comes to health insurance.

2/26/2010 12:20:10 AM

^x a bunch, eyedrb - I made that up the details when posting, but the general idea is that insurance companies have done this to people. They take premiums and then when a major disease comes along they have people whose job it is to find any reason to drop them. Here is a story which is very similar: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/16/health.care.hearing/index.html

2/26/2010 12:36:05 AM

Quote :

"Robin Beaton found out last June she had an aggressive form of breast cancer and needed surgery -- immediately. Her insurance carrier precertified her for a double mastectomy and hospital stay. But three days before the operation, the insurance company called and told her they had red-flagged her chart and she would not be able to have her surgery. The reason? In May 2008, Beaton had visited a dermatologist for acne. "

2/26/2010 12:44:25 AM

Stories like that can be pulled from the UK, Canada, France etc. You don't fight a barely responsive system by installing the least responsive system known to man.


Simply stating that insurance companies do a poor job does not inherently imply that the government will do a better job. If anything, adding further layers of unaccountable bureaucracy will hinder treatment, not help it.

2/26/2010 12:52:15 AM

^ How would something like that happen in Canada? I was under the impression that medically necessary treatments were provided. I've heard that one may have to wait a bit longer or even go to the US for more advanced therapies, but I didn't think you would get "dropped" from state-run health care. Has this really happened, or are you talking about the refusal of more experimental treatments?

I don't disagree that a government takeover of health insurance would have all the usual symptoms of any government bureaucracy. I'm just saying why not reform this specific practice. I don't think a statute of limitations, of sorts, would be unreasonable. Require all the usual documentation. Set a specific amount of time after which, if premiums have been paid, insurance companies can't drop people because of "fraudulent" records (unless it can be shown that people purposefully left out information). In this example it appears that the insurance company already had this ladies medical history, but only after she got an expensive diagnosis did they go back and blow the whistle.

[Edited on February 26, 2010 at 8:53 AM. Reason : ]

2/26/2010 8:52:08 AM

Stalling tactics. It's all the Republicans have been doing since the start of the reform push. They don't want to contribute. They just want to delay delay delay, hoping that November will bring them enough seats to ignore the issue all-together.

2/26/2010 8:54:38 AM

^

2/26/2010 9:14:23 AM

^^ I can't understand why this wasn't stated as a given during the summit. It's obvious.

2/26/2010 10:23:23 AM

^About as obvious as the democrats pushing tons of special interest shit in the bill.

2/26/2010 10:53:18 AM

Ahahaha good one, tmmercer. Man I've never heard of Republicans wanting pork, oh wai-

2/26/2010 10:58:26 AM

Sure?

Tu quoque is not an argument. Especially when the two issues are only tangentially related.

2/26/2010 10:59:09 AM

Especially since pork makes up like 1% of the total federal budget.

Same stupid shit with Tort reform.

The GOP is like a fucking parrot about it

TORT REFORM

TORT REFORM

TORT REFORM *SQUAK*

Hey let's ignore that it's like 1% of the total cost of healthcare you fucking loons.

2/26/2010 11:03:51 AM

^^I never said they've never wanted pork. My point was, this bill is not for the american people. It's to line the pockets of special interests. We need to throw out this bill and start over. It is way too complex, 2500 pages, come on. Majority of those politicians have no idea what they are voting on. They should have to take a test on the bill before they can vote.

2/26/2010 11:04:59 AM

^^1%, pssh, I can't debate with someone who just makes up shit.

2/26/2010 11:08:04 AM

Quote :

"2500 pages, come on"

What sort of argument is this? Exactly how long should a health insurance reform bill be?

2/26/2010 11:11:06 AM

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_percentage_of_the_national_spending_is.html

Quote :

"About 1 percent."

Get.

The.

Fuck.

Out.

2/26/2010 11:11:23 AM