Universal Healthcare is Wonderful and Will Ensure Better Health care for everyone

[Debaser]

Obama Health Reform from whitehouse.gov:

No Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions
Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.

No Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays
Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.

No Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care
Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.

No Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill
Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.

No Gender Discrimination
Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.

No Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage
Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.

Extended Coverage for Young Adults
Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.

Guaranteed Insurance Renewal
Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.

[Future Boy]

Originally Posted by Debaser

That's a mischaracterization.

I guess it is. I knew he harped on it for quite a bit, but I guess he never outright said it, my mistake. The only thing a quick search turned up was some supposed email exchanges. Honestly I wrote him off a long while back over Iraq and some other stuff. Maybe I'll give him another look.

One of the things that turned up
Terry Ann Online: Sullivan's Trig Trutherism

there are sufficient questions about her very bizarre pregnancy to
wonder if she is indeed trig's mother. and there must be medical
records proving it. but none are available, and the doctor won';t talk
and the media has been intimidated. maybe mercede will halp get to the
bottom of it whatever it is

---
You could easily swap things out and make this an exchange on Obamas birth certificate. But I dont much care to look into it further, so Ill take your word for it.

[Future Boy]

Originally Posted by Debaser

Obama Health Reform from whitehouse.gov:

No Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions
Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.

No Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays
Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.

No Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care
Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.

No Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill
Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.

No Gender Discrimination
Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.

No Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage
Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.

Extended Coverage for Young Adults
Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.

Guaranteed Insurance Renewal
Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.

But if the plan mandates coverage and increased profits for them they would be perfectly fine with most anything, no? Plus coupled with a weak public option with no chance of becoming actual universal coverage, or better yet no public option.

[Debaser]

true enough.


but it doesn't cancel out the tremendous benefits of those new regulations.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by Debaser

true enough.


but it doesn't cancel out the tremendous benefits of those new regulations.

perfect example of a criticism of Obama that you make

[Future Boy]

Originally Posted by Debaser

true enough.


but it doesn't cancel out the tremendous benefits of those new regulations.

Ill just weigh them against how far actual universal coverage gets kicked down the road while we guarantee the insurance industry a large market with our reformed system. And thats assuming the bill actually performs well.

[jczeroman]

Originally Posted by Debaser

Obama Health Reform from whitehouse.gov:

No Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions
Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.

No Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays
Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.

No Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care
Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.

No Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill
Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.

No Gender Discrimination
Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.

No Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage
Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.

Extended Coverage for Young Adults
Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.

Guaranteed Insurance Renewal
Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.

Holy Jesus, this will at least double the cost of insurance.

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

perfect example of a criticism of Obama that you make

actually nothing I said there is really a criticism of obama.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by Debaser

actually nothing I said there is really a criticism of obama.

precisely

[Debaser]

that was the intention.

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by jczeroman

Holy Jesus, this will at least double the cost of insurance.

so will the status quo.

[J.H.]

Originally Posted by Debaser

No Gender Discrimination
Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.

So they're going to charge me more because of someone else's gender. Makes sense.

[Debaser]

what the

[J.H.]

On average, women pay more for health care than men (because of susceptibility to diseases requiring more expensive treatments). If they cannot be charged higher premiums, for example, then the difference between the two sets of average premiums will have to be made-up elsewhere.

How will that happen?

1/2 x (women's premiums - men's premiums) = A

Probably, A will be added to men's premiums and subtracted from women's premiums. Now, no one is being charged more because of their own gender; but men will pay more because of someone else's gender (i.e. they will pay half the gender premium of women).

Obviously I don't know whether this is the actual plan, as written. But those costs will need to be paid for somehow. Since this is not an issue that savings can influence - because differences in premiums are based on susceptibility, nothing other than better medical technology can change the relative cost - I can't think of any other feasible way.

Let me know if you hear something different.

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by J.H.

On average, women pay more for health care than men (because of susceptibility to diseases requiring more expensive treatments).

I don't think this is true.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/30/us...ewanted=1&_r=1

[dudehitscar]

Originally Posted by jczeroman

Holy Jesus, this will at least double the cost of insurance.

i'll remember you made this claim.

[J.H.]

Originally Posted by Debaser

I don't think this is true.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/30/us...ewanted=1&_r=1

IF you don't consider pregnancy a disease, that is. (Joking)

OK - my parenthetical comment was incorrect, but not so widely that it fails on all counts. The article makes clear that women pay higher premiums than men, and that pregnancy is largely responsible for the disparity. Pregnancy is expensive and it also increases susceptibility to certain dangerous conditions later in life.

So, your caveat is understood. But the point stands that preventing gender discrimination will only add to the cost of men's healthcare -- which is an odd sort of discrimination itself.

Your article seems to agree outright:

Cecil D. Bykerk, president of the Society of Actuaries, a professional organization, said that if male and female premiums were equalized, women would pay less but “rates for men would go up.”

And there is no other way to prevent gender discrimination than to equalize rates, which - again - still constitutes gender discrimination, but a discrimination based upon ideas about social fairness rather than actuarial knowledge and the marketplace.

[Debaser]

Don't you think it's unfair for only women as a group to bear the extra cost of having a child?

Yes, I agree that this will be one factor increasing the cost for men, but I think it is fair. But this reform is not in a vacuum, I am hoping that many other different aspects of health reform will introduce factors to bring the overall cost down for everybody (e.g., universal coverage to spread the risk and cost to a larger base, eliminating free riders, etc.).

[killtrocity]

It's not like pregnancy is necessary to the perpetuation of humanity. I say women shut their baby makers so I don't have to pay for them.

[J.H.]

Originally Posted by Debaser

Don't you think it's unfair for only women as a group to bear the extra cost of having a child?

Yes, I agree that this will be one factor increasing the cost for men, but I think it is fair. But this reform is not in a vacuum, I am hoping that many other different aspects of health reform will introduce factors to bring the overall cost down for everybody (e.g., universal coverage to spread the risk and cost to a larger base, eliminating free riders, etc.).

From the link you posted:

“Many state insurance laws require insurance policies to cover complications of pregnancy, even if they do not cover maternity care,” Ms. Leif said. Insurers say those complications generate significant costs.

I think it sucks that women pay higher insurance premiums because they could conceivably conceive, whether or not they intend to conceive.

Laws like the one quoted above are responsible for some of the disparity in men's and women's premiums - it's just another cost of making certain that people are cared for during emergencies, which is a fine but expensive goal. Yet women do have some say in becoming pregnant and their insurance options should be allowed to reflect that.

If women were permitted by law to purchase insurance that did not cover any expenses related to pregnancy - past, present or future - the price of their insurance would be much closer to the rate paid by men. If I were King, women would be permitted to purchase such policies; subsequently, the disparity in premiums would become more reasonable (pay more only if/when you want to become pregnant) and I would live in a castle surrounded by evergreens.

How about this ...

A woman goes to the sperm bank and decides she wants to become a single mother. In that case, higher insurance payments are justified. No one needs help make easier her own choices. A pregnant woman will hopefully have a husband or boyfriend to help raise the child. If she does, then in effect the insurance premium for each partner ought to be (his + hers) / 2. In more difficult circumstances, child care payments can be a powerful tool. So while women pay a disproportionate cost on paper, the de facto cost evens out somewhat.

Come to think of it, lesbians really get screwed on the issue while gays have a fine time. Though I don't see any help for that.

To get to the heart of it - each time the playing field is raised for one person, another sees his own position diminished; and while this is good most of the time, there is no system (nor will there ever be) for summing up all of the costs imposed on people and then deciding whether they've paid the right amount, too much or too little. Take me for instance, I'm incredibly ugly. It's a significant disadvantage -- but the ugliness penalty isn't deducted from my payments! No, I think fairness ends once each person receives the basics; from there, they make what they will of them. And I just don't think the proposed reform is the thing for it.

[jczeroman]

Originally Posted by Debaser

so will the status quo.

Agreed. But part of the reason that insurance is so much money is because of state mandates like these ones. It is inevitable that once insurance, which is supposed to be for virtually uncontrollable catastrophes (as insurance is the monetisation of risk), is used for routine payments of controllable and regular purchases - there are going be be great price distortion. Mandate that all insurance cover maternity care (even though something like 30% would actually use this service) and costs will increase. More such interventions will increase the price even more than the status quo would

Originally Posted by dudehitscar

i'll remember you made this claim.

Just remember all of it, and the context of this discussion. Healthcare can still be "free" but have enormous costs. There are other non-monetary costs that I am factoring in here (opportunity cost, marginal utility, etc...). The gist of what I am saying, and it will happen (because it isn't a positivist claim), is that these mandates will increase the cost of insurance higher than it otherwise would be.

[ravenguy2000]

This happened down the road from me.

[Trotskilicious]

lloyd dogget was booed off stage at a town hall in austin

it would be nice if these people had some kind of dignity and respect

this country really fucking sucks.

[TuralyonW3]

These people need to get hobbies.

[TuralyonW3]

Besides exposing their laughable ignorance in a rude disruptive manner that is

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by ravenguy2000

This happened down the road from me.

Wow, look at the story the guy posted along with his video:

Well, I tried. Strategically I should have just sat there and videotaped as the Tea Baggers went through with their desire to shout down a United States Congressman and prevent him from speaking with his constituents.

But I couldn't just sit their and let thuggery rule the day, so I did what I could to try and record the screaming mob, and challenge them on their over-the-top obnoxious behavior. (Why aren't these guys in a protest pen where they belong?)

I hope the people involved will stop and reflect upon what it means to live in a free and democratic country. And maybe in the future they'll have a little more respect for our basic processes. (like the time-honored tradition of an elected official showing up at a grocery store, to simply talk with his constituents.)

So, protesting is "thuggery" and people should be placed in "protest pens" like in China.

People should have more respect for democratic processes and not exercise free speech.

I bet this guy got virtual handjobs over at Daily Kos and Huffington though

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

lloyd dogget was booed off stage at a town hall in austin

it would be nice if these people had some kind of dignity and respect

this country really fucking sucks.

boo hoo people exercised free speech, wah wah

[dudehitscar]

protest is only wrong when it's the opposition doing the shouting.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

boo hoo people exercised free speech, wah wah

the problem is their unabashed ignorance, not the fact that they're "protesting."

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by TuralyonW3

Besides exposing their laughable ignorance in a rude disruptive manner that is

you're a paid operative for rachel maddows, own up