Headlines warning that the so-called public plan may be "dropped" entertain the same fallacy as The Obama's liberal supporters engage--those on the left-hand side of the idiot corpus as it were. They assume that there exists a "public plan" to be dropped. Meanwhile, the rightards engage in some supremely amusing agitprop, creating a fictional groundswell of chimerical grassroots opposition to a proposed system of socialized medicine that was never really proposed. The whole thing is a sham, and in the end the circular genius of state capital will again reward itself by reforming a system in favor of the system already in place.This isn't completely fair, except for the dig at the rightards. Even a public option which affects but ten million citizens will matter an awful lot to those ten million citizens. And when the other 290-something million citizens see how well those ten million do, larger changes may be afoot. That's one of the points Bill Clinton made in his speech, and it explains why the vampire octopi of the insurance industry seem to be genuinely annoyed.
The same observation may go to the provisions of HR3200 which would allow those with pre-existing conditions to obtain insurance. I've seen some lefties dismiss such provisions as insufficient. And so they are: I still much prefer a single-payer system. But how dismissive would you feel if you had a pre-existing condition?
Elsewhere in the post, the same blogger submits more lovely writing:
Well, Even the Libertarian Friedrich Hayek™ believed that there was such a thing as a reasonable provision for public health, although to be fair, I was recently taking a shit and flipping through The Road to Serfdom, which I keep on the tank along with Freemasonry for Dummies, a Stephen Baxter paperback, a book of daily AA affirmations, and Left Behind: Assassins: Assignment—Jerusalem, Target—Antichrist, and it occurred to me that, properly understood, Serfdom should be read in the same vein as one reads Nineteen-eighty-four. Or 2001. Or Revelations. Not a criticism--I am a fan of "speculative fiction"--but a critique, perhaps. In any case, Even the Libertarian Friedrich Hayek™ believed that there was such a thing as a reasonable provision for public health, and given such illustrious ancestry, we're obliged to take arguments that public health options traduce the fundamental spirit of liberty with the same seriousness that we would take arguments that Arlen Specter, the Democratic Senator from Dorian Gray's closet, plans personally to garrote Grandma in her sleep, shake infants to death, poison the wells, etc.Ah, the art of the run-on sentence! I do not practice it, but I admire it when it is done well. My own sentences tend to be brief. Truncated. Clipped.
Like my paragraphs.
As for Arlen: Compared to his work on the Warren Commission, garroting Grandma would be insignificant.
7 comments:
With all this talk about pre-existing conditions no longer being a hindrance to obtaining insurance, does the bill state anywhere that the insurance companies won't be able to gouge those with pre-existing conditions when it comes to premiums? Can the insurance companies say, "Fine, we'll accept you, it'll just cost three times as much for your premium." If that's the case, that's not much of a deal.
grayslady
I never thought the Administration was serious about the public option. I think it was just a diversion - something to distract the rubes (a/k/a "Progressives") while they arranged some corporate welfare for the insurance companies.
Found the answer in both the House and Senate versions to my earlier question. In both versions, insurers can charge up to twice as much as normal premiums based on the age of the insured. Also, insurers can rate various groups as more expensive, with no specified limit on charges. Don't know if that's done by geographic area, nature of business for company-purchased policies, etc. So discrimination is still allowed.
grayslady
One other note, while it is certainly true that HR 3200 bans *exclusion* from coverage on the basis of pre-existing conditions (Subtitle B, Sec.111, on page 19), I haven't found anything that prohibits increasing premiums on those with medical conditions. The only restriction I've found so far is on page 17:
The issuer cannot vary the percentage increase in
the premium for a risk group of enrollees in specific
grandfathered health insurance coverage without
changing the premium for all enrollees in the same
risk group at the same rate, as specified by the
Commissioner."
The term "risk group" is not defined in the bill.
As far as I can tell, the bill still allows for-profit insurance companies to "cherry pick" well patients through their premium structure while charging prohibitively expensive premiums to people who actually need medical treatment. This will force the "non-profit cooperatives"/"public option" to be stuck with all the sick people - which will render them actuarially unsound since there will not be a large enough risk pool of healthy individuals. All this plan does is *guarantee* the profitability of the big carriers.
I also note that there's a little bonus for pharamceutical companies in the bill:
Title V, subtitle B, section 251 prohibits hospitals from using group purchasing arrangements to obtain discounts on outpatient drugs without obtaining an exception from the Secretary of HHS. (pp 982-983)
Still think this is a step in the right direction, Joseph?
"
OT, or is it?
Joseph, you probably are already on top of it, but here is a rich minefield of strained whateveritis you like laughing at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/art-brodsky/the-politics-of-destructi_b_260653.html
Joseph, good article. There is a huge variety of issues that have been in the news, some a long time and some more recent. What's up ahead will be a big surprise to everyone's thinking of what really has been happening. It's hoped that even the most uninformed will start to understand what's happening. Of course those who will start to understand have to be reading the news and I mean news that makes sense and is truthful. But even those bocks encountered will certainly fall on the wayside to leave the real truth for all of us to see.
Marty Didier
Northbrook, IL
Sextus, thanks for the research on the pre-existing conditions hook.
As long as HR-3200 will allow insurance companies to "cherry pick" well patients, it's setting up the public/non-profit cooperative recipients in this Quasimoto in the basement two-tier version of have and have not healthcare for a grand subsidy of insurance companies. What's the point in supporting that? Why continue to keep the insurance industry model in place and let them decide to bump you if you get in the way of Wade Worthington's liver transplant?
If we are going to end up with a watered down plan that forces millions of people who do not currently have health insurance to pay *mandatory* monthly/annual premiums for a two-tier solution or else get stuck with a fine, better for everyone to just stop paying for them altogether and pay for medical care out of pocket for what they can afford. That could be the biggest, backhanded boost for Barry's 2003 Single Payer dream (the only sensible and cost effective plan.) I'm all for paying big bucks to good doctors and hospitals to decide the course of my healthcare, not insurance brokers.
Post a Comment