Lu Powell wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 21:49:49 -0500, jpjccd wrote:


A public option, as it is currently framed in the conversation, will
invariably drive private insurer's out of the market. "Corporate
insurers" currently compete against each other for your business, and
the marketplace is replete with providers that compete with each other.
The contention that a public option will keep providers honest is itself
a dishonesty. Insurers have to keep premiums as low as possible in the
free market if they are to remain viable. And if providers are required
to carry all applicants without consideration of medical history, most
providers would not be able to remain viable. Too, there are
organizations that provide various forms of indemnification for the
uninsurable. But, as in all insurances, higher premiums are required.
And all states have policy renewal and cancellation regulations. Health
insurers are subject to oversight and state regulation. And the states
generally shape their legislation and regulations to conform to the
recommendations of the NAIC. Likewise, the standard for pre-x, or
pre-existing conditions is that any condition that could have been
reasonably diagnosed by a physician 12 months prior to the activation
date of the policy is not covered for 12 months following that date.
Too, most insurers for an array of conditions, will attach riders to
policies that will exclude coverage for those conditions for
approximately 2 years after which those conditions will be covered.

If a public option is approved and installed, necessarily and ultimately
most citizens will have to subordinate themselves to that option. And
the the insidious, unassailable truth of this is that without the
competition of the free market to keep it streamlined, efficient, and
honest, the public option will inexorably provide mediocre health care,
and that on a good day.

Why is it that so few can think this through?

Quite a few people have thought this through. That's why there is a need
for a public option. You think that the marketplace is competitive. The
reality is it's reaching monopoly status.

http://www.marke****ch.com/story/stu...monopoly-fears

http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/...lth-insurance-

oxymoron

Now, what's the party line in light of this from Bloomerg?

Aug. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen
Sebelius said providing citizens with the option of government-run
insurance isn’t essential to the Obama administration’s proposed
overhaul of U.S. health care.

“What’s important is choice and competition,� Sebelius said today on
CNN’s “State of the Union.� The public option itself “is not the
essential element.�

Asked if a cooperative plan is a possible replacement, Sebelius said she
didn’t know what alternatives Congress would settle on among competing
versions of the health legislation now under consideration. The Senate
Finance Committee is discussing cooperatives, or networks of
health-insurance plans owned by their customers, that would get started
with government funds.

Sebelius’ comments suggest that the Obama administration may be
considering backing off its commitment to create a government-run health
insurance system to operate alongside private insurers in order to get
health legislation passed.

“There are not the votes in the Senate for the public option, there
never have been,� North Dakota Senator Kent Conrad, one of the lead
Democratic negotiators on health care in the Finance Committee, said on
“Fox News Sunday.�

“To continue to chase that rabbit, I think, is just a wasted effort,� he
said.

“President Obama and his cabinet have read the tea leaves,� said Senator
Richard Shelby, an Alabama Republican, on the Fox program. The American
people “don’t want a government- run program,� Shelby said. Shelby also
said that the creation of co-ops, while “that would be government
involvement� would be “a step in the right direction.�




The "party line," of course, is that the Republicans want to kill any
possibilities of a "public option," because that's what their owners in
the health insurance industry have told them to do.

Easy, Lu-ser. Even for someone as dumb as you are.

BTW, you're not enrolled in a publicly funded health care program, are
you? Just wondering, because most of "conservative" opponents here are.

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 08:03:53 -0400, "Lu Powell"
wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 21:49:49 -0500, jpjccd wrote:


A public option, as it is currently framed in the conversation, will
invariably drive private insurer's out of the market. "Corporate
insurers" currently compete against each other for your business, and
the marketplace is replete with providers that compete with each other.
The contention that a public option will keep providers honest is itself
a dishonesty. Insurers have to keep premiums as low as possible in the
free market if they are to remain viable. And if providers are required
to carry all applicants without consideration of medical history, most
providers would not be able to remain viable. Too, there are
organizations that provide various forms of indemnification for the
uninsurable. But, as in all insurances, higher premiums are required.
And all states have policy renewal and cancellation regulations. Health
insurers are subject to oversight and state regulation. And the states
generally shape their legislation and regulations to conform to the
recommendations of the NAIC. Likewise, the standard for pre-x, or
pre-existing conditions is that any condition that could have been
reasonably diagnosed by a physician 12 months prior to the activation
date of the policy is not covered for 12 months following that date.
Too, most insurers for an array of conditions, will attach riders to
policies that will exclude coverage for those conditions for
approximately 2 years after which those conditions will be covered.

If a public option is approved and installed, necessarily and ultimately
most citizens will have to subordinate themselves to that option. And
the the insidious, unassailable truth of this is that without the
competition of the free market to keep it streamlined, efficient, and
honest, the public option will inexorably provide mediocre health care,
and that on a good day.

Why is it that so few can think this through?

Quite a few people have thought this through. That's why there is a need
for a public option. You think that the marketplace is competitive. The
reality is it's reaching monopoly status.

http://www.marke****ch.com/story/stu...monopoly-fears

http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/...lth-insurance-
oxymoron

Now, what's the party line in light of this from Bloomerg?

Aug. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius
said providing citizens with the option of government-run insurance isn’t
essential to the Obama administration’s proposed overhaul of U.S. health
care.

“What’s important is choice and competition,” Sebelius said today on CNN’s
“State of the Union.” The public option itself “is not the essential
element.”

Asked if a cooperative plan is a possible replacement, Sebelius said she
didn’t know what alternatives Congress would settle on among competing
versions of the health legislation now under consideration. The Senate
Finance Committee is discussing cooperatives, or networks of
health-insurance plans owned by their customers, that would get started with
government funds.

Sebelius’ comments suggest that the Obama administration may be considering
backing off its commitment to create a government-run health insurance
system to operate alongside private insurers in order to get health
legislation passed.

“There are not the votes in the Senate for the public option, there never
have been,” North Dakota Senator Kent Conrad, one of the lead Democratic
negotiators on health care in the Finance Committee, said on “Fox News
Sunday.”

“To continue to chase that rabbit, I think, is just a wasted effort,” he
said.

“President Obama and his cabinet have read the tea leaves,” said Senator
Richard Shelby, an Alabama Republican, on the Fox program. The American
people “don’t want a government- run program,” Shelby said. Shelby also said
that the creation of co-ops, while “that would be government involvement”
would be “a step in the right direction.”

Apparently these 'ultra-compassionates' aren't even reading there own
linked articles carefully.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

H the K wrote:
Lu Powell wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 21:49:49 -0500, jpjccd wrote:


A public option, as it is currently framed in the conversation, will
invariably drive private insurer's out of the market. "Corporate
insurers" currently compete against each other for your business, and
the marketplace is replete with providers that compete with each other.
The contention that a public option will keep providers honest is
itself
a dishonesty. Insurers have to keep premiums as low as possible in the
free market if they are to remain viable. And if providers are
required
to carry all applicants without consideration of medical history, most
providers would not be able to remain viable. Too, there are
organizations that provide various forms of indemnification for the
uninsurable. But, as in all insurances, higher premiums are required.
And all states have policy renewal and cancellation regulations.
Health
insurers are subject to oversight and state regulation. And the states
generally shape their legislation and regulations to conform to the
recommendations of the NAIC. Likewise, the standard for pre-x, or
pre-existing conditions is that any condition that could have been
reasonably diagnosed by a physician 12 months prior to the activation
date of the policy is not covered for 12 months following that date.
Too, most insurers for an array of conditions, will attach riders to
policies that will exclude coverage for those conditions for
approximately 2 years after which those conditions will be covered.

If a public option is approved and installed, necessarily and
ultimately
most citizens will have to subordinate themselves to that option. And
the the insidious, unassailable truth of this is that without the
competition of the free market to keep it streamlined, efficient, and
honest, the public option will inexorably provide mediocre health care,
and that on a good day.

Why is it that so few can think this through?

Quite a few people have thought this through. That's why there is a
need
for a public option. You think that the marketplace is competitive.
The
reality is it's reaching monopoly status.

http://www.marke****ch.com/story/stu...monopoly-fears

http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/...lth-insurance-

oxymoron

Now, what's the party line in light of this from Bloomerg?

Aug. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen
Sebelius said providing citizens with the option of government-run
insurance isn’t essential to the Obama administration’s proposed
overhaul of U.S. health care.

“What’s important is choice and competition,� Sebelius said today on
CNN’s “State of the Union.� The public option itself “is not the
essential element.�

Asked if a cooperative plan is a possible replacement, Sebelius said
she didn’t know what alternatives Congress would settle on among
competing versions of the health legislation now under consideration.
The Senate Finance Committee is discussing cooperatives, or networks
of health-insurance plans owned by their customers, that would get
started with government funds.

Sebelius’ comments suggest that the Obama administration may be
considering backing off its commitment to create a government-run
health insurance system to operate alongside private insurers in order
to get health legislation passed.

“There are not the votes in the Senate for the public option, there
never have been,� North Dakota Senator Kent Conrad, one of the lead
Democratic negotiators on health care in the Finance Committee, said
on “Fox News Sunday.�

“To continue to chase that rabbit, I think, is just a wasted effort,�
he said.

“President Obama and his cabinet have read the tea leaves,� said
Senator Richard Shelby, an Alabama Republican, on the Fox program. The
American people “don’t want a government- run program,� Shelby said.
Shelby also said that the creation of co-ops, while “that would be
government involvement� would be “a step in the right direction.�




The "party line," of course, is that the Republicans want to kill any
possibilities of a "public option," because that's what their owners in
the health insurance industry have told them to do.

It appears that Obamacare is in its death throes. The public option was
the cornerstone of the plan and the basis for the rest of the plan. And,
in light of the CMA's meeting this week where they are discussing the
failures of centralized health care management and the need to move to
patient centered health care.

Easy, Lu-ser. Even for someone as dumb as you are.

BTW, you're not enrolled in a publicly funded health care program, are
you? Just wondering, because most of "conservative" opponents here are.

Everyone aged 65 and over is compelled by the full force of the US
government to "participate" in a government run health care program
whether they choose to participate or not.

Nice try anyway.

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 00:13:15 -0500, jpjccd wrote:

Quite a few people have thought this through. That's why there is a
need for a public option. You think that the marketplace is
competitive. The reality is it's reaching monopoly status.

http://www.marke****ch.com/story/stu...monopoly-fears

http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/...s/1025/health-
insurance-
oxymoron

http://ezinearticles.com/?Illinois-H...nies&id=271269

The marketplace is competitive. And as the first article intimates,
among other things, antitrust legislation (or simply the threat of) is a
capable tool to discourage monopolistic efforts. Likewise, the article
illustrates state roles in managing the marketplace, and states have
options available for their respective residents. The fact remains that
states can determine their respective domestic insurers. A federal
public option will follow the course I outlined above. It's a
pernicious ploy, and it is a design for political gain, nothing else.
It's inhumane.

I'm sorry to disagree, but health care insurance is far from
competitive. There's the McCarran-Ferguson Act, exempting much Federal
anti-trust legislation from affecting the insurance industry. There's
Ingenix, a wholly owned subsidiary of United Health, that provides the
schedules used in determining reimbursement for out-of-network charges,
used by most of the major players. Then there is the acquisitions,
subsidiaries, and consolidation, resulting in a few major players. It
ain't a competitive market.

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 08:03:53 -0400, Lu Powell wrote:


Now, what's the party line in light of this from Bloomerg?

I don't know what the party line is, but, IMO, Obama better start playing
hardball or his Presidency is going to become a wasted one. His bi-
partisan efforts have failed. The Republicans aren't playing. It's time
for him to control his party, and start ramming legislation down the
Party of No's throat. To allow a small minority to control this debate
is a major mistake.

BAR wrote:

It appears that Obamacare is in its death throes. The public option was
the cornerstone of the plan and the basis for the rest of the plan. And,
in light of the CMA's meeting this week where they are discussing the
failures of centralized health care management and the need to move to
patient centered health care.


Nothing would please me more than to see morons like you lose their
jobs, their health care insurance, their homes, and then be faced with a
significant chronic illness for which they cannot afford treatment.

It's really sad in this country that the only contribution the GOP makes
is in the area fear-mongering, but they are good at it.

I'm sure we will have some form of health care insurance reform moving
through Congress this fall. No one expected it to do everything
necessary at once.

thunder wrote:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 00:13:15 -0500, jpjccd wrote:

Quite a few people have thought this through. That's why there is a
need for a public option. You think that the marketplace is
competitive. The reality is it's reaching monopoly status.

http://www.marke****ch.com/story/stu...monopoly-fears

http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/...s/1025/health-
insurance-
oxymoron
http://ezinearticles.com/?Illinois-H...nies&id=271269

The marketplace is competitive. And as the first article intimates,
among other things, antitrust legislation (or simply the threat of) is a
capable tool to discourage monopolistic efforts. Likewise, the article
illustrates state roles in managing the marketplace, and states have
options available for their respective residents. The fact remains that
states can determine their respective domestic insurers. A federal
public option will follow the course I outlined above. It's a
pernicious ploy, and it is a design for political gain, nothing else.
It's inhumane.

I'm sorry to disagree, but health care insurance is far from
competitive. There's the McCarran-Ferguson Act, exempting much Federal
anti-trust legislation from affecting the insurance industry. There's
Ingenix, a wholly owned subsidiary of United Health, that provides the
schedules used in determining reimbursement for out-of-network charges,
used by most of the major players. Then there is the acquisitions,
subsidiaries, and consolidation, resulting in a few major players. It
ain't a competitive market.




in fact, the only real competition is in the federally managed FEHBA
program, where hundreds of insurance companies compete for the health
care dollars of federal workers, who can pick the health care plans they
want.

Not true in the private sector. If you get health insurance through your
employer, you have no or very little choice. Your employer makes the
decision.

There is no marketplace for health insurance consumers.

H the K wrote:
BAR wrote:

It appears that Obamacare is in its death throes. The public option
was the cornerstone of the plan and the basis for the rest of the
plan. And, in light of the CMA's meeting this week where they are
discussing the failures of centralized health care management and the
need to move to patient centered health care.


Nothing would please me more than to see morons like you lose their
jobs, their health care insurance, their homes, and then be faced with a
significant chronic illness for which they cannot afford treatment.

It's really sad in this country that the only contribution the GOP makes
is in the area fear-mongering, but they are good at it.

I'm sure we will have some form of health care insurance reform moving
through Congress this fall. No one expected it to do everything
necessary at once.


Snerk

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 00:13:15 -0500, jpjccd wrote:

Quite a few people have thought this through. That's why there is a
need for a public option. You think that the marketplace is
competitive. The reality is it's reaching monopoly status.

http://www.marke****ch.com/story/stu...monopoly-fears

http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/...s/1025/health-
insurance-
oxymoron

http://ezinearticles.com/?Illinois-H...nies&id=271269

The marketplace is competitive. And as the first article intimates,
among other things, antitrust legislation (or simply the threat of) is a
capable tool to discourage monopolistic efforts. Likewise, the article
illustrates state roles in managing the marketplace, and states have
options available for their respective residents. The fact remains that
states can determine their respective domestic insurers. A federal
public option will follow the course I outlined above. It's a
pernicious ploy, and it is a design for political gain, nothing else.
It's inhumane.

I'm sorry to disagree, but health care insurance is far from
competitive. There's the McCarran-Ferguson Act, exempting much Federal
anti-trust legislation from affecting the insurance industry. There's
Ingenix, a wholly owned subsidiary of United Health, that provides the
schedules used in determining reimbursement for out-of-network charges,
used by most of the major players. Then there is the acquisitions,
subsidiaries, and consolidation, resulting in a few major players. It
ain't a competitive market.

So maybe anti-trust legislation, Tort reform should be the basis for a
"rework", not taking it over and running it into the ground...

--
Wafa free since 2009

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 08:03:53 -0400, Lu Powell wrote:


Now, what's the party line in light of this from Bloomerg?

I don't know what the party line is, but, IMO, Obama better start playing
hardball or his Presidency is going to become a wasted one. His bi-
partisan efforts have failed. The Republicans aren't playing. It's time
for him to control his party, and start ramming legislation down the
Party of No's throat. To allow a small minority to control this debate
is a major mistake.

Yeah, dozens of amendments, all squashed.. Biparitzan my ass... Just
because he says it doesn't mean it's true. The dems are not allowing the
repubs a say, they won and they keep reminding us of that.. Bipartizan?
snerk how rediculous...

--
Wafa free since 2009