|
Delicious...
Dems eye insurance industry's antitrust protection
By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent WASHINGTON – Top Senate Democrats intend to try to strip the health insurance industry of its exemption from federal antitrust laws as part of the debate over health care, according to congressional officials, the latest evidence of a deepening struggle over President Barack Obama's top domestic priority. If enacted, the switch would mean greater federal regulation for an industry that recently has stepped up its criticism of portions of a health care bill moving toward the Senate floor. Congressional officials said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, arranged to make the announcement Wednesday, joined by Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York. The officials who disclosed the plans did so on condition of anonymity to avoid pre-empting a formal announcement. In a statement, the major industry trade group, America's Health Insurance Plans, said the industry already was one of the most regulated in the country. The focus on the industry's antitrust exemption, it said, was "a political ploy designed to distract attention away from the real issue of rising health care costs." The move against the antitrust exemption came as Obama appealed to congressional Democrats not to let internal differences sink his comprehensive plan to remake the nation's health care system. "The bill you least like" improves coverage for millions, he said in New York. "Let's make sure that we keep our eye on the prize." After months of struggle, Democratic leaders in the House and Senate hope to have legislation ready for votes in both houses within a few weeks, and plan on having a compromise measure ready for Obama's signature by the end of the year. Progress has been slow, particularly as Democrats squabble over whether to allow the federal government to sell insurance in direct competition with private insurers, and if so, under what terms. Obama's remarks appeared an attempt to place that and similar disagreements in a larger context — a decades-long attempt to provide insurance for millions who lack it while cracking down on insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions. Insurance industry officials have been involved in discussions for months with the White House and key congressional Democrats over proposed legislation. They repeatedly said they would accept a series of new restrictions, as long as the legislation required Americans to purchase insurance, thus assuring insurers millions of new customers. --- There's no rational reason why health insurers should be exempt from anti-trust laws. |
Delicious...
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:27:17 -0400, H the K wrote:
They repeatedly said they would accept a series of new restrictions, as long as the legislation required Americans to purchase insurance, thus assuring insurers millions of new customers. Requiring all Americans to purchase insurance, without some form of public option (competition), would be a disaster. There's no rational reason why health insurers should be exempt from anti-trust laws. It goes back to when there were small insurance companies, and they needed to share data. Those days are long gone, and I would welcome the removal of any antitrust exemptions. |
Delicious...
On Oct 21, 6:50*am, thunder wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:27:17 -0400, H the K wrote: They repeatedly said they would accept a series of new restrictions, as long as the legislation required Americans to purchase insurance, thus assuring insurers millions of new customers. Requiring all Americans to purchase insurance, without some form of public option (competition), would be a disaster. There's no rational reason why health insurers should be exempt from anti-trust laws. It goes back to when there were small insurance companies, and they needed to share data. *Those days are long gone, and I would welcome the removal of any antitrust exemptions. It's called retaliation, racketeering at it's best read the quote below. "If enacted, the switch would mean greater federal regulation for an industry that recently has stepped up its criticism of portions of a health care bill moving toward the Senate floor." The fact is, this would not have happened if they had not criticized the administration... Straight up Chicago politics... And your party supports it only because it suits your agenda, pretty sick stuff. |
Delicious...
More likely is that it's straight up politics in response to the ins.
cartel's refusal to allow a public option. They're afraid of the competition, and they're using all means available to prevent it. What's wrong with competition? That's what anti-trust laws are all about. Why should they be exempt? They've shown that they don't have restraint. "JustWaitAFrekinMinute!" wrote in message ... On Oct 21, 6:50 am, thunder wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:27:17 -0400, H the K wrote: They repeatedly said they would accept a series of new restrictions, as long as the legislation required Americans to purchase insurance, thus assuring insurers millions of new customers. Requiring all Americans to purchase insurance, without some form of public option (competition), would be a disaster. There's no rational reason why health insurers should be exempt from anti-trust laws. It goes back to when there were small insurance companies, and they needed to share data. Those days are long gone, and I would welcome the removal of any antitrust exemptions. It's called retaliation, racketeering at it's best read the quote below. "If enacted, the switch would mean greater federal regulation for an industry that recently has stepped up its criticism of portions of a health care bill moving toward the Senate floor." The fact is, this would not have happened if they had not criticized the administration... Straight up Chicago politics... And your party supports it only because it suits your agenda, pretty sick stuff. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Delicious...
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:48:34 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: More likely is that it's straight up politics in response to the ins. cartel's refusal to allow a public option. They're afraid of the competition, and they're using all means available to prevent it. What's wrong with competition? That's what anti-trust laws are all about. Why should they be exempt? They've shown that they don't have restraint. "JustWaitAFrekinMinute!" wrote in message ... On Oct 21, 6:50 am, thunder wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:27:17 -0400, H the K wrote: They repeatedly said they would accept a series of new restrictions, as long as the legislation required Americans to purchase insurance, thus assuring insurers millions of new customers. Requiring all Americans to purchase insurance, without some form of public option (competition), would be a disaster. There's no rational reason why health insurers should be exempt from anti-trust laws. It goes back to when there were small insurance companies, and they needed to share data. Those days are long gone, and I would welcome the removal of any antitrust exemptions. It's called retaliation, racketeering at it's best read the quote below. "If enacted, the switch would mean greater federal regulation for an industry that recently has stepped up its criticism of portions of a health care bill moving toward the Senate floor." The fact is, this would not have happened if they had not criticized the administration... Straight up Chicago politics... And your party supports it only because it suits your agenda, pretty sick stuff. If the public option were enacted, would the government be subject to 'anti-trust' laws? |
Delicious...
In article ,
says... More likely is that it's straight up politics in response to the ins. cartel's refusal to allow a public option. They're afraid of the competition, and they're using all means available to prevent it. What's wrong with competition? That's what anti-trust laws are all about. Why should they be exempt? They've shown that they don't have restraint. "JustWaitAFrekinMinute!" wrote in message ... On Oct 21, 6:50 am, thunder wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:27:17 -0400, H the K wrote: They repeatedly said they would accept a series of new restrictions, as long as the legislation required Americans to purchase insurance, thus assuring insurers millions of new customers. Requiring all Americans to purchase insurance, without some form of public option (competition), would be a disaster. There's no rational reason why health insurers should be exempt from anti-trust laws. It goes back to when there were small insurance companies, and they needed to share data. Those days are long gone, and I would welcome the removal of any antitrust exemptions. It's called retaliation, racketeering at it's best read the quote below. "If enacted, the switch would mean greater federal regulation for an industry that recently has stepped up its criticism of portions of a health care bill moving toward the Senate floor." The fact is, this would not have happened if they had not criticized the administration... So you admit it's nothing but brute retaliation, glad you are finally coming around... Straight up Chicago politics... And your party supports it only because it suits your agenda, pretty sick stuff. |
Delicious...
"John H." wrote in message
... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:48:34 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: More likely is that it's straight up politics in response to the ins. cartel's refusal to allow a public option. They're afraid of the competition, and they're using all means available to prevent it. What's wrong with competition? That's what anti-trust laws are all about. Why should they be exempt? They've shown that they don't have restraint. "JustWaitAFrekinMinute!" wrote in message ... On Oct 21, 6:50 am, thunder wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:27:17 -0400, H the K wrote: They repeatedly said they would accept a series of new restrictions, as long as the legislation required Americans to purchase insurance, thus assuring insurers millions of new customers. Requiring all Americans to purchase insurance, without some form of public option (competition), would be a disaster. There's no rational reason why health insurers should be exempt from anti-trust laws. It goes back to when there were small insurance companies, and they needed to share data. Those days are long gone, and I would welcome the removal of any antitrust exemptions. It's called retaliation, racketeering at it's best read the quote below. "If enacted, the switch would mean greater federal regulation for an industry that recently has stepped up its criticism of portions of a health care bill moving toward the Senate floor." The fact is, this would not have happened if they had not criticized the administration... Straight up Chicago politics... And your party supports it only because it suits your agenda, pretty sick stuff. If the public option were enacted, would the government be subject to 'anti-trust' laws? That's funny! Did you make that up? -- Nom=de=Plume |
Delicious...
"Tosk" wrote in message
... In article , says... More likely is that it's straight up politics in response to the ins. cartel's refusal to allow a public option. They're afraid of the competition, and they're using all means available to prevent it. What's wrong with competition? That's what anti-trust laws are all about. Why should they be exempt? They've shown that they don't have restraint. "JustWaitAFrekinMinute!" wrote in message ... On Oct 21, 6:50 am, thunder wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:27:17 -0400, H the K wrote: They repeatedly said they would accept a series of new restrictions, as long as the legislation required Americans to purchase insurance, thus assuring insurers millions of new customers. Requiring all Americans to purchase insurance, without some form of public option (competition), would be a disaster. There's no rational reason why health insurers should be exempt from anti-trust laws. It goes back to when there were small insurance companies, and they needed to share data. Those days are long gone, and I would welcome the removal of any antitrust exemptions. It's called retaliation, racketeering at it's best read the quote below. "If enacted, the switch would mean greater federal regulation for an industry that recently has stepped up its criticism of portions of a health care bill moving toward the Senate floor." The fact is, this would not have happened if they had not criticized the administration... So you admit it's nothing but brute retaliation, glad you are finally coming around... Brute force legislation. They've had a choice about being serious about reform, and they've chosen to continue their base practices. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Delicious...
In article ,
says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... More likely is that it's straight up politics in response to the ins. cartel's refusal to allow a public option. They're afraid of the competition, and they're using all means available to prevent it. What's wrong with competition? That's what anti-trust laws are all about. Why should they be exempt? They've shown that they don't have restraint. "JustWaitAFrekinMinute!" wrote in message ... On Oct 21, 6:50 am, thunder wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:27:17 -0400, H the K wrote: They repeatedly said they would accept a series of new restrictions, as long as the legislation required Americans to purchase insurance, thus assuring insurers millions of new customers. Requiring all Americans to purchase insurance, without some form of public option (competition), would be a disaster. There's no rational reason why health insurers should be exempt from anti-trust laws. It goes back to when there were small insurance companies, and they needed to share data. Those days are long gone, and I would welcome the removal of any antitrust exemptions. It's called retaliation, racketeering at it's best read the quote below. "If enacted, the switch would mean greater federal regulation for an industry that recently has stepped up its criticism of portions of a health care bill moving toward the Senate floor." The fact is, this would not have happened if they had not criticized the administration... So you admit it's nothing but brute retaliation, glad you are finally coming around... Brute force legislation. They've had a choice about being serious about reform, and they've chosen to continue their base practices. If they were serious they would allow us to buy drugs overseas, tort reform, cross state insurance purchase... But they won't do any of these things because then there would be no more boogie man to point at... |
Delicious...
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:33:38 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:48:34 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: More likely is that it's straight up politics in response to the ins. cartel's refusal to allow a public option. They're afraid of the competition, and they're using all means available to prevent it. What's wrong with competition? That's what anti-trust laws are all about. Why should they be exempt? They've shown that they don't have restraint. "JustWaitAFrekinMinute!" wrote in message ... On Oct 21, 6:50 am, thunder wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:27:17 -0400, H the K wrote: They repeatedly said they would accept a series of new restrictions, as long as the legislation required Americans to purchase insurance, thus assuring insurers millions of new customers. Requiring all Americans to purchase insurance, without some form of public option (competition), would be a disaster. There's no rational reason why health insurers should be exempt from anti-trust laws. It goes back to when there were small insurance companies, and they needed to share data. Those days are long gone, and I would welcome the removal of any antitrust exemptions. It's called retaliation, racketeering at it's best read the quote below. "If enacted, the switch would mean greater federal regulation for an industry that recently has stepped up its criticism of portions of a health care bill moving toward the Senate floor." The fact is, this would not have happened if they had not criticized the administration... Straight up Chicago politics... And your party supports it only because it suits your agenda, pretty sick stuff. If the public option were enacted, would the government be subject to 'anti-trust' laws? That's funny! Did you make that up? Came off one his fave White Power websites. |
Delicious...
"Tosk" wrote in message
... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... More likely is that it's straight up politics in response to the ins. cartel's refusal to allow a public option. They're afraid of the competition, and they're using all means available to prevent it. What's wrong with competition? That's what anti-trust laws are all about. Why should they be exempt? They've shown that they don't have restraint. "JustWaitAFrekinMinute!" wrote in message ... On Oct 21, 6:50 am, thunder wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:27:17 -0400, H the K wrote: They repeatedly said they would accept a series of new restrictions, as long as the legislation required Americans to purchase insurance, thus assuring insurers millions of new customers. Requiring all Americans to purchase insurance, without some form of public option (competition), would be a disaster. There's no rational reason why health insurers should be exempt from anti-trust laws. It goes back to when there were small insurance companies, and they needed to share data. Those days are long gone, and I would welcome the removal of any antitrust exemptions. It's called retaliation, racketeering at it's best read the quote below. "If enacted, the switch would mean greater federal regulation for an industry that recently has stepped up its criticism of portions of a health care bill moving toward the Senate floor." The fact is, this would not have happened if they had not criticized the administration... So you admit it's nothing but brute retaliation, glad you are finally coming around... Brute force legislation. They've had a choice about being serious about reform, and they've chosen to continue their base practices. If they were serious they would allow us to buy drugs overseas, tort reform, cross state insurance purchase... But they won't do any of these things because then there would be no more boogie man to point at... Why would you want to buy drugs that haven't been tested by the FDA? I know they don't do the best job, but people die or get sick from tainted medicine. Tort reform has been going on a long time. Nothing wrong with continuing. Crossing state lines seems fine to me. It fosters competition, just like the public option will. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Delicious...
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:02:53 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... More likely is that it's straight up politics in response to the ins. cartel's refusal to allow a public option. They're afraid of the competition, and they're using all means available to prevent it. What's wrong with competition? That's what anti-trust laws are all about. Why should they be exempt? They've shown that they don't have restraint. "JustWaitAFrekinMinute!" wrote in message ... On Oct 21, 6:50 am, thunder wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:27:17 -0400, H the K wrote: They repeatedly said they would accept a series of new restrictions, as long as the legislation required Americans to purchase insurance, thus assuring insurers millions of new customers. Requiring all Americans to purchase insurance, without some form of public option (competition), would be a disaster. There's no rational reason why health insurers should be exempt from anti-trust laws. It goes back to when there were small insurance companies, and they needed to share data. Those days are long gone, and I would welcome the removal of any antitrust exemptions. It's called retaliation, racketeering at it's best read the quote below. "If enacted, the switch would mean greater federal regulation for an industry that recently has stepped up its criticism of portions of a health care bill moving toward the Senate floor." The fact is, this would not have happened if they had not criticized the administration... So you admit it's nothing but brute retaliation, glad you are finally coming around... Brute force legislation. They've had a choice about being serious about reform, and they've chosen to continue their base practices. If they were serious they would allow us to buy drugs overseas, tort reform, cross state insurance purchase... But they won't do any of these things because then there would be no more boogie man to point at... Why would you want to buy drugs that haven't been tested by the FDA? I know they don't do the best job, but people die or get sick from tainted medicine. Tort reform has been going on a long time. Nothing wrong with continuing. Crossing state lines seems fine to me. It fosters competition, just like the public option will. These are bandaids for a seriously broken system. Tort reform could help the situation but it's going to require it's own process. |
Delicious...
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:33:35 -0700, jps wrote:
These are bandaids for a seriously broken system. Tort reform could help the situation but it's going to require it's own process. Tort reform is a red herring. There are enough states that have passed tort reform to get a good idea whether it will work or not. Medical malpractice costs are too small a percentage, roughly 1-1 1/2%, to affect health care costs dramatically. There have also been many studies that note the tort reform savings do not "trickle down" to the consumer. |
Delicious...
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:02:53 -0700, nom=de=plume wrote:
Why would you want to buy drugs that haven't been tested by the FDA? I know they don't do the best job, but people die or get sick from tainted medicine. Look north. There are many online pharmacies in Canada, that will sell drugs at savings between 20-50%. The same drugs we have here. |
Delicious...
|
Delicious...
thunder wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:33:35 -0700, jps wrote: These are bandaids for a seriously broken system. Tort reform could help the situation but it's going to require it's own process. Tort reform is a red herring. There are enough states that have passed tort reform to get a good idea whether it will work or not. Medical malpractice costs are too small a percentage, roughly 1-1 1/2%, to affect health care costs dramatically. There have also been many studies that note the tort reform savings do not "trickle down" to the consumer. The for-profit health insurance companies fear a public option because it would show them up for the rip-off artists they are, and it would force them to behave more reasonably with their customers. As it is now, there is no meaningful oversight of health insurers, nor any real competition. And they don't want any. Their model does not work for working Americans. |
Delicious...
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 06:16:17 -0500, thunder
wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:33:35 -0700, jps wrote: These are bandaids for a seriously broken system. Tort reform could help the situation but it's going to require it's own process. Tort reform is a red herring. There are enough states that have passed tort reform to get a good idea whether it will work or not. Medical malpractice costs are too small a percentage, roughly 1-1 1/2%, to affect health care costs dramatically. There have also been many studies that note the tort reform savings do not "trickle down" to the consumer. That's really an inflexible position, flawed in a couple respects. First, you ignore "defensive medicine." Second, if it's as you say that there's a "good idea whether it will work or not," why can't what works be federalized? Seems to me this is a case of the trial lawyers being in the Dem pocket. Big mistake not reconciling this and shutting up one of the Rep talking points. I don't think the right to redress medical grievances will be hampered by engaging in tort reform, if done right. But it might cut into the business of the malpractice suit lawyers. I don't have the facts and figures, as I haven't studied it, but my impression is that it could be easily reformed, but for trial lawyer lobbying. Special interest bull****. Dems are no more immune to criticism on that than are Reps. --Vic .. |
Delicious...
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:32:20 -0500, Vic Smith wrote:
Defensive medicine isn't necessarily wasted medicine. One of the dirty little secrets in our health care system, is that roughly 100,000 deaths per year, result from medical mistakes. That's twice as many deaths than are caused by motor vehicles. Perhaps, more doctors should practice defensive medicine. Mistakes and "defensive medicine" are separate issues. True, but then so is health care reform, and tort reform. Second, if it's as you say that there's a "good idea whether it will work or not," why can't what works be federalized? Seems to me this is a case of the trial lawyers being in the Dem pocket. Big mistake not reconciling this and shutting up one of the Rep talking points. You are willing to give up your right to sue for peanuts? Medical malpractice costs are 1-2% of health care costs. Some incompetent doctor makes you a paraplegic and you are willing to accept $250,000 for your pain and suffering? Not me. Over 35 states already limit compensation patients can receive for medical errors. Where are all the savings? 35 states have tort reform. Why are Republicans bitching about the other 15? It's a red herring. I think it's not so simple as a red herring. http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/2...o-tort-reform- because-trial-lawyers-too-intimidating/ As to the $250,000 cap, according to this your paraplegic scenario has recourse. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/18/ dems_ace_in_the_hole_on_health_care_tort_reform_97 919.html# "Where the cap is insufficient in particularly egregious cases a "Health Court" could hear appeals and make awards above the cap from a compensation fund provided by the healthcare industry." Beckel pretty much restates my feeling about the political trump card the Dems can play here by going with some version of tort reform. You have to get away from the playing of rhetorics here if you want to get something done. Not so sure about the "health court" idea, as courts can be bought. But it could work if tweaked right. The health court idea shows some promise, IMO. I also wouldn't mind seeing some sort of entry bar before one can sue. What I can't see, is protecting some doctor's wallet at the expense of a crippled patient. Just as important and not much discussed is the pulling of licenses of docs who make too many mistakes, and an effort to get more docs trained. Looking at ratios of doc/patient here and in other 1st world countries, we are way behind. Both very good points, that should be addressed. Most doctors are well qualified and competent, but the incompetent ones, the ones that are responsible for the majority of malpractice, need to go. As for the number of doctors, ever notice many emergency rooms are staffed with immigrant doctors? It's my understanding that the AMA will only certify so many slots at medical schools. It's time to change that. That's the doc lobby. Went through this bull**** when one of my daughters was heading for a dental hygienist track. Lack of schools for attaining that cert here in Illinois is a disgrace and a joke. She'll soon be a schoolteacher instead, despite working as a dental assistant since she was 16. That's ok with her anyway. She found out during the torture of getting into a hygienist cert school that it was really pressure from her orthodontist boss that had pushed her in that direction, not a real desire to enter that occupation. Good choice, IMO. Maybe it's just me, but spending a work day inside someone's mouth ... ;-( |
Delicious...
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:33:38 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:48:34 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: More likely is that it's straight up politics in response to the ins. cartel's refusal to allow a public option. They're afraid of the competition, and they're using all means available to prevent it. What's wrong with competition? That's what anti-trust laws are all about. Why should they be exempt? They've shown that they don't have restraint. "JustWaitAFrekinMinute!" wrote in message ... On Oct 21, 6:50 am, thunder wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:27:17 -0400, H the K wrote: They repeatedly said they would accept a series of new restrictions, as long as the legislation required Americans to purchase insurance, thus assuring insurers millions of new customers. Requiring all Americans to purchase insurance, without some form of public option (competition), would be a disaster. There's no rational reason why health insurers should be exempt from anti-trust laws. It goes back to when there were small insurance companies, and they needed to share data. Those days are long gone, and I would welcome the removal of any antitrust exemptions. It's called retaliation, racketeering at it's best read the quote below. "If enacted, the switch would mean greater federal regulation for an industry that recently has stepped up its criticism of portions of a health care bill moving toward the Senate floor." The fact is, this would not have happened if they had not criticized the administration... Straight up Chicago politics... And your party supports it only because it suits your agenda, pretty sick stuff. If the public option were enacted, would the government be subject to 'anti-trust' laws? That's funny! Did you make that up? Can you answer the question? |
Delicious...
John H. wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:33:38 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:48:34 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: More likely is that it's straight up politics in response to the ins. cartel's refusal to allow a public option. They're afraid of the competition, and they're using all means available to prevent it. What's wrong with competition? That's what anti-trust laws are all about. Why should they be exempt? They've shown that they don't have restraint. "JustWaitAFrekinMinute!" wrote in message ... On Oct 21, 6:50 am, thunder wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:27:17 -0400, H the K wrote: They repeatedly said they would accept a series of new restrictions, as long as the legislation required Americans to purchase insurance, thus assuring insurers millions of new customers. Requiring all Americans to purchase insurance, without some form of public option (competition), would be a disaster. There's no rational reason why health insurers should be exempt from anti-trust laws. It goes back to when there were small insurance companies, and they needed to share data. Those days are long gone, and I would welcome the removal of any antitrust exemptions. It's called retaliation, racketeering at it's best read the quote below. "If enacted, the switch would mean greater federal regulation for an industry that recently has stepped up its criticism of portions of a health care bill moving toward the Senate floor." The fact is, this would not have happened if they had not criticized the administration... Straight up Chicago politics... And your party supports it only because it suits your agenda, pretty sick stuff. If the public option were enacted, would the government be subject to 'anti-trust' laws? That's funny! Did you make that up? Can you answer the question? lol lol |
Delicious...
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:32:20 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote: Looking at ratios of doc/patient here and in other 1st world countries, we are way behind. We're way behind in turning out GPs. We've got specialists coming out the kazoo. |
Delicious...
"John H." wrote in message
... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:33:38 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message . .. On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:48:34 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: More likely is that it's straight up politics in response to the ins. cartel's refusal to allow a public option. They're afraid of the competition, and they're using all means available to prevent it. What's wrong with competition? That's what anti-trust laws are all about. Why should they be exempt? They've shown that they don't have restraint. "JustWaitAFrekinMinute!" wrote in message ... On Oct 21, 6:50 am, thunder wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:27:17 -0400, H the K wrote: They repeatedly said they would accept a series of new restrictions, as long as the legislation required Americans to purchase insurance, thus assuring insurers millions of new customers. Requiring all Americans to purchase insurance, without some form of public option (competition), would be a disaster. There's no rational reason why health insurers should be exempt from anti-trust laws. It goes back to when there were small insurance companies, and they needed to share data. Those days are long gone, and I would welcome the removal of any antitrust exemptions. It's called retaliation, racketeering at it's best read the quote below. "If enacted, the switch would mean greater federal regulation for an industry that recently has stepped up its criticism of portions of a health care bill moving toward the Senate floor." The fact is, this would not have happened if they had not criticized the administration... Straight up Chicago politics... And your party supports it only because it suits your agenda, pretty sick stuff. If the public option were enacted, would the government be subject to 'anti-trust' laws? That's funny! Did you make that up? Can you answer the question? Can you ask questions that have some thought to them? -- Nom=de=Plume |
Delicious...
"Tosk" wrote in message
... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:33:35 -0700, jps wrote: These are bandaids for a seriously broken system. Tort reform could help the situation but it's going to require it's own process. Tort reform is a red herring. There are enough states that have passed tort reform to get a good idea whether it will work or not. Medical malpractice costs are too small a percentage, roughly 1-1 1/2%, to affect health care costs dramatically. There have also been many studies that note the tort reform savings do not "trickle down" to the consumer. The fact is, there have been several great suggestions and dozens of admendments/bills introduced that would provide bipartisan to the bill and each and every one has been rejected out of hand. Obama clearly promised sunshine on the process but so far all we have seen is Chris Dodd's door in Washington and the democrats hiding behind it. Just like Monday when Obama spent 2 1/2 hours with the MSM plotting an agenda. More time by the way than he has spent with his commanders in Afghanistan... I don't hate Obama, just want to see him take his finger out of the wind and be a president. Nope, that's not true. Both houses have listened to and included many Rep. amendments. Look it up. Went through this with someone here about two months ago.. You are wrong, period.. Prove it. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Delicious...
wrote in message
... On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 06:16:17 -0500, thunder wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:33:35 -0700, jps wrote: These are bandaids for a seriously broken system. Tort reform could help the situation but it's going to require it's own process. Tort reform is a red herring. There are enough states that have passed tort reform to get a good idea whether it will work or not. Medical malpractice costs are too small a percentage, roughly 1-1 1/2%, to affect health care costs dramatically. There have also been many studies that note the tort reform savings do not "trickle down" to the consumer. A quarter of a million dollar cap per suit is not reform. That just means they have to file more suits. That is why you see so many lawyer ads on TV I disagree with this cap in any case. Caps do not tort reform make. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Delicious...
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:09:56 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:33:38 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:48:34 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: More likely is that it's straight up politics in response to the ins. cartel's refusal to allow a public option. They're afraid of the competition, and they're using all means available to prevent it. What's wrong with competition? That's what anti-trust laws are all about. Why should they be exempt? They've shown that they don't have restraint. "JustWaitAFrekinMinute!" wrote in message ... On Oct 21, 6:50 am, thunder wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:27:17 -0400, H the K wrote: They repeatedly said they would accept a series of new restrictions, as long as the legislation required Americans to purchase insurance, thus assuring insurers millions of new customers. Requiring all Americans to purchase insurance, without some form of public option (competition), would be a disaster. There's no rational reason why health insurers should be exempt from anti-trust laws. It goes back to when there were small insurance companies, and they needed to share data. Those days are long gone, and I would welcome the removal of any antitrust exemptions. It's called retaliation, racketeering at it's best read the quote below. "If enacted, the switch would mean greater federal regulation for an industry that recently has stepped up its criticism of portions of a health care bill moving toward the Senate floor." The fact is, this would not have happened if they had not criticized the administration... Straight up Chicago politics... And your party supports it only because it suits your agenda, pretty sick stuff. If the public option were enacted, would the government be subject to 'anti-trust' laws? That's funny! Did you make that up? Can you answer the question? Can you ask questions that have some thought to them? Are you saying you can't answer the question because you've backed yourself into another corner? lol lol |
Delicious...
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:10:18 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:33:35 -0700, jps wrote: These are bandaids for a seriously broken system. Tort reform could help the situation but it's going to require it's own process. Tort reform is a red herring. There are enough states that have passed tort reform to get a good idea whether it will work or not. Medical malpractice costs are too small a percentage, roughly 1-1 1/2%, to affect health care costs dramatically. There have also been many studies that note the tort reform savings do not "trickle down" to the consumer. The fact is, there have been several great suggestions and dozens of admendments/bills introduced that would provide bipartisan to the bill and each and every one has been rejected out of hand. Obama clearly promised sunshine on the process but so far all we have seen is Chris Dodd's door in Washington and the democrats hiding behind it. Just like Monday when Obama spent 2 1/2 hours with the MSM plotting an agenda. More time by the way than he has spent with his commanders in Afghanistan... I don't hate Obama, just want to see him take his finger out of the wind and be a president. Nope, that's not true. Both houses have listened to and included many Rep. amendments. Look it up. Went through this with someone here about two months ago.. You are wrong, period.. Prove it. lol lol |
Delicious...
"John H." wrote in message
... On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:09:56 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message . .. On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:33:38 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message m... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:48:34 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: More likely is that it's straight up politics in response to the ins. cartel's refusal to allow a public option. They're afraid of the competition, and they're using all means available to prevent it. What's wrong with competition? That's what anti-trust laws are all about. Why should they be exempt? They've shown that they don't have restraint. "JustWaitAFrekinMinute!" wrote in message ... On Oct 21, 6:50 am, thunder wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:27:17 -0400, H the K wrote: They repeatedly said they would accept a series of new restrictions, as long as the legislation required Americans to purchase insurance, thus assuring insurers millions of new customers. Requiring all Americans to purchase insurance, without some form of public option (competition), would be a disaster. There's no rational reason why health insurers should be exempt from anti-trust laws. It goes back to when there were small insurance companies, and they needed to share data. Those days are long gone, and I would welcome the removal of any antitrust exemptions. It's called retaliation, racketeering at it's best read the quote below. "If enacted, the switch would mean greater federal regulation for an industry that recently has stepped up its criticism of portions of a health care bill moving toward the Senate floor." The fact is, this would not have happened if they had not criticized the administration... Straight up Chicago politics... And your party supports it only because it suits your agenda, pretty sick stuff. If the public option were enacted, would the government be subject to 'anti-trust' laws? That's funny! Did you make that up? Can you answer the question? Can you ask questions that have some thought to them? Are you saying you can't answer the question because you've backed yourself into another corner? lol lol You're barking about something, but at this point the burgler already left the premises. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Delicious...
|
Delicious...
In article ,
says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:33:35 -0700, jps wrote: These are bandaids for a seriously broken system. Tort reform could help the situation but it's going to require it's own process. Tort reform is a red herring. There are enough states that have passed tort reform to get a good idea whether it will work or not. Medical malpractice costs are too small a percentage, roughly 1-1 1/2%, to affect health care costs dramatically. There have also been many studies that note the tort reform savings do not "trickle down" to the consumer. The fact is, there have been several great suggestions and dozens of admendments/bills introduced that would provide bipartisan to the bill and each and every one has been rejected out of hand. Obama clearly promised sunshine on the process but so far all we have seen is Chris Dodd's door in Washington and the democrats hiding behind it. Just like Monday when Obama spent 2 1/2 hours with the MSM plotting an agenda. More time by the way than he has spent with his commanders in Afghanistan... I don't hate Obama, just want to see him take his finger out of the wind and be a president. Nope, that's not true. Both houses have listened to and included many Rep. amendments. Look it up. Went through this with someone here about two months ago.. You are wrong, period.. Prove it. Trust me, I am not known for fabrication here... I am not much for going over hundreds of posts from the past... |
Delicious...
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:51:29 -0400, Tosk
wrote: In article , says... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:33:38 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:48:34 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: More likely is that it's straight up politics in response to the ins. cartel's refusal to allow a public option. They're afraid of the competition, and they're using all means available to prevent it. What's wrong with competition? That's what anti-trust laws are all about. Why should they be exempt? They've shown that they don't have restraint. "JustWaitAFrekinMinute!" wrote in message ... On Oct 21, 6:50 am, thunder wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:27:17 -0400, H the K wrote: They repeatedly said they would accept a series of new restrictions, as long as the legislation required Americans to purchase insurance, thus assuring insurers millions of new customers. Requiring all Americans to purchase insurance, without some form of public option (competition), would be a disaster. There's no rational reason why health insurers should be exempt from anti-trust laws. It goes back to when there were small insurance companies, and they needed to share data. Those days are long gone, and I would welcome the removal of any antitrust exemptions. It's called retaliation, racketeering at it's best read the quote below. "If enacted, the switch would mean greater federal regulation for an industry that recently has stepped up its criticism of portions of a health care bill moving toward the Senate floor." The fact is, this would not have happened if they had not criticized the administration... Straight up Chicago politics... And your party supports it only because it suits your agenda, pretty sick stuff. If the public option were enacted, would the government be subject to 'anti-trust' laws? That's funny! Did you make that up? Can you answer the question? Well, I don't really know but if they were they would be sued immediately. After all, how can a for profit org compete with a public funded not for profit? Shoot, you stole my 'thunder'. (That's a pun. A ****ty one, but one anyway.) |
Delicious...
On 10/22/09 7:53 PM, Tosk wrote:
Trust me, I am not known for fabrication here... bull****. |
Delicious...
|
Delicious...
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:23:41 -0400, H the K
wrote: On 10/22/09 7:53 PM, Tosk wrote: Trust me, I am not known for fabrication here... bull****. Out of whole cloth, or what he reads on the Fox News website -- which is totally legal, you know. |
Delicious...
wrote in message ... On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 06:16:17 -0500, thunder wrote: On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:33:35 -0700, jps wrote: These are bandaids for a seriously broken system. Tort reform could help the situation but it's going to require it's own process. Tort reform is a red herring. There are enough states that have passed tort reform to get a good idea whether it will work or not. Medical malpractice costs are too small a percentage, roughly 1-1 1/2%, to affect health care costs dramatically. There have also been many studies that note the tort reform savings do not "trickle down" to the consumer. A quarter of a million dollar cap per suit is not reform. That just means they have to file more suits. That is why you see so many lawyer ads on TV And it is the extra $5000 every time someone shows up at the hospital in unneeded tests to cover their butts against a liability suit. Probably a bigger cost than the suits themselves by a factor of 10 or more. |
Delicious...
"Tosk" wrote in message
... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:33:35 -0700, jps wrote: These are bandaids for a seriously broken system. Tort reform could help the situation but it's going to require it's own process. Tort reform is a red herring. There are enough states that have passed tort reform to get a good idea whether it will work or not. Medical malpractice costs are too small a percentage, roughly 1-1 1/2%, to affect health care costs dramatically. There have also been many studies that note the tort reform savings do not "trickle down" to the consumer. The fact is, there have been several great suggestions and dozens of admendments/bills introduced that would provide bipartisan to the bill and each and every one has been rejected out of hand. Obama clearly promised sunshine on the process but so far all we have seen is Chris Dodd's door in Washington and the democrats hiding behind it. Just like Monday when Obama spent 2 1/2 hours with the MSM plotting an agenda. More time by the way than he has spent with his commanders in Afghanistan... I don't hate Obama, just want to see him take his finger out of the wind and be a president. Nope, that's not true. Both houses have listened to and included many Rep. amendments. Look it up. Went through this with someone here about two months ago.. You are wrong, period.. Prove it. Trust me, I am not known for fabrication here... I am not much for going over hundreds of posts from the past... Or, you could just cite some sources that back up your assertion... that would save you going over hundreds of posts. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Delicious...
In article ,
says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:33:35 -0700, jps wrote: These are bandaids for a seriously broken system. Tort reform could help the situation but it's going to require it's own process. Tort reform is a red herring. There are enough states that have passed tort reform to get a good idea whether it will work or not. Medical malpractice costs are too small a percentage, roughly 1-1 1/2%, to affect health care costs dramatically. There have also been many studies that note the tort reform savings do not "trickle down" to the consumer. The fact is, there have been several great suggestions and dozens of admendments/bills introduced that would provide bipartisan to the bill and each and every one has been rejected out of hand. Obama clearly promised sunshine on the process but so far all we have seen is Chris Dodd's door in Washington and the democrats hiding behind it. Just like Monday when Obama spent 2 1/2 hours with the MSM plotting an agenda. More time by the way than he has spent with his commanders in Afghanistan... I don't hate Obama, just want to see him take his finger out of the wind and be a president. Nope, that's not true. Both houses have listened to and included many Rep. amendments. Look it up. Went through this with someone here about two months ago.. You are wrong, period.. Prove it. Trust me, I am not known for fabrication here... I am not much for going over hundreds of posts from the past... Or, you could just cite some sources that back up your assertion... that would save you going over hundreds of posts. Not so fond of searching youtube either.. I have a bunch of pics to post for some folks I was photographing at the track today... But if I get time I will.. While you have time however, you can show me cites of bills or amendments the Dems haven't squashed... |
Delicious...
"Tosk" wrote in message
... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:33:35 -0700, jps wrote: These are bandaids for a seriously broken system. Tort reform could help the situation but it's going to require it's own process. Tort reform is a red herring. There are enough states that have passed tort reform to get a good idea whether it will work or not. Medical malpractice costs are too small a percentage, roughly 1-1 1/2%, to affect health care costs dramatically. There have also been many studies that note the tort reform savings do not "trickle down" to the consumer. The fact is, there have been several great suggestions and dozens of admendments/bills introduced that would provide bipartisan to the bill and each and every one has been rejected out of hand. Obama clearly promised sunshine on the process but so far all we have seen is Chris Dodd's door in Washington and the democrats hiding behind it. Just like Monday when Obama spent 2 1/2 hours with the MSM plotting an agenda. More time by the way than he has spent with his commanders in Afghanistan... I don't hate Obama, just want to see him take his finger out of the wind and be a president. Nope, that's not true. Both houses have listened to and included many Rep. amendments. Look it up. Went through this with someone here about two months ago.. You are wrong, period.. Prove it. Trust me, I am not known for fabrication here... I am not much for going over hundreds of posts from the past... Or, you could just cite some sources that back up your assertion... that would save you going over hundreds of posts. Not so fond of searching youtube either.. I have a bunch of pics to post for some folks I was photographing at the track today... But if I get time I will.. While you have time however, you can show me cites of bills or amendments the Dems haven't squashed... Five seconds worth of google search, including typing: republican amendments to health care bill (no quotes). http://whitenoiseinsanity.com/2009/0...lth-care-bill/ From Slate: That said, some context: Of the 788 amendments filed, 67 came from Democrats and 721 from Republicans. (That disparity drew jeers that Republicans were trying to slow things down. Another explanation may be that they offered so many so they could later claim-as they are now, in fact, claiming-that most of their suggestions went unheeded.) Only 197 amendments were passed in the end-36 from Democrats and 161 from Republicans. And of those 161 GOP amendments, Senate Republicans classify 29 as substantive and 132 as technical. I hope this helps! -- Nom=de=Plume |
Delicious...
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:47:01 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote: "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:33:35 -0700, jps wrote: These are bandaids for a seriously broken system. Tort reform could help the situation but it's going to require it's own process. Tort reform is a red herring. There are enough states that have passed tort reform to get a good idea whether it will work or not. Medical malpractice costs are too small a percentage, roughly 1-1 1/2%, to affect health care costs dramatically. There have also been many studies that note the tort reform savings do not "trickle down" to the consumer. The fact is, there have been several great suggestions and dozens of admendments/bills introduced that would provide bipartisan to the bill and each and every one has been rejected out of hand. Obama clearly promised sunshine on the process but so far all we have seen is Chris Dodd's door in Washington and the democrats hiding behind it. Just like Monday when Obama spent 2 1/2 hours with the MSM plotting an agenda. More time by the way than he has spent with his commanders in Afghanistan... I don't hate Obama, just want to see him take his finger out of the wind and be a president. Nope, that's not true. Both houses have listened to and included many Rep. amendments. Look it up. Went through this with someone here about two months ago.. You are wrong, period.. Prove it. Trust me, I am not known for fabrication here... I am not much for going over hundreds of posts from the past... Or, you could just cite some sources that back up your assertion... that would save you going over hundreds of posts. Not so fond of searching youtube either.. I have a bunch of pics to post for some folks I was photographing at the track today... But if I get time I will.. While you have time however, you can show me cites of bills or amendments the Dems haven't squashed... Five seconds worth of google search, including typing: republican amendments to health care bill (no quotes). http://whitenoiseinsanity.com/2009/0...lth-care-bill/ From Slate: That said, some context: Of the 788 amendments filed, 67 came from Democrats and 721 from Republicans. (That disparity drew jeers that Republicans were trying to slow things down. Another explanation may be that they offered so many so they could later claim-as they are now, in fact, claiming-that most of their suggestions went unheeded.) Only 197 amendments were passed in the end-36 from Democrats and 161 from Republicans. And of those 161 GOP amendments, Senate Republicans classify 29 as substantive and 132 as technical. I hope this helps! That didn't come from Worldnet Daily!!! It didn't come from Fox News!!! Slate is a decidedly left-wing rag that surely doesn't report the tin hat theories most loved by the wingnuts. |
Delicious...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... "Tosk" wrote in message ... In article , says... On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:33:35 -0700, jps wrote: These are bandaids for a seriously broken system. Tort reform could help the situation but it's going to require it's own process. Tort reform is a red herring. There are enough states that have passed tort reform to get a good idea whether it will work or not. Medical malpractice costs are too small a percentage, roughly 1-1 1/2%, to affect health care costs dramatically. There have also been many studies that note the tort reform savings do not "trickle down" to the consumer. The fact is, there have been several great suggestions and dozens of admendments/bills introduced that would provide bipartisan to the bill and each and every one has been rejected out of hand. Obama clearly promised sunshine on the process but so far all we have seen is Chris Dodd's door in Washington and the democrats hiding behind it. Just like Monday when Obama spent 2 1/2 hours with the MSM plotting an agenda. More time by the way than he has spent with his commanders in Afghanistan... I don't hate Obama, just want to see him take his finger out of the wind and be a president. Nope, that's not true. Both houses have listened to and included many Rep. amendments. Look it up. Went through this with someone here about two months ago.. You are wrong, period.. Prove it. Trust me, I am not known for fabrication here... I am not much for going over hundreds of posts from the past... Or, you could just cite some sources that back up your assertion... that would save you going over hundreds of posts. Not so fond of searching youtube either.. I have a bunch of pics to post for some folks I was photographing at the track today... But if I get time I will.. While you have time however, you can show me cites of bills or amendments the Dems haven't squashed... Five seconds worth of google search, including typing: republican amendments to health care bill (no quotes). http://whitenoiseinsanity.com/2009/0...lth-care-bill/ From Slate: That said, some context: Of the 788 amendments filed, 67 came from Democrats and 721 from Republicans. (That disparity drew jeers that Republicans were trying to slow things down. Another explanation may be that they offered so many so they could later claim-as they are now, in fact, claiming-that most of their suggestions went unheeded.) Only 197 amendments were passed in the end-36 from Democrats and 161 from Republicans. And of those 161 GOP amendments, Senate Republicans classify 29 as substantive and 132 as technical. I hope this helps! It sure does. It shows that democrats in congress, buy and large, are complacent on the issue and probably haven't even read it. They will rubber stamp anything that is sent to them by king obama. Even obama doesn't really give a **** as long as the bill has his name on top. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:56 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com