Barry Makes a Boo-Boo

[atlantainsguy]

VolAgent, I was watching some industry-paid far-right talking heads on the news today, and my stem just got wound too tight. That, or too much coffee and on-the-road Sunday morning boredom. So, I wrote that post to vent.

You seem open-minded, and not a name caller. There's too much civility lost already over healthcare. Industry's strategy looks like one designed to polarize us back to the "culture wars" mentality. If you can't win fair -- then fight dirty.

Industry seems to be doing all it can without regard to truth, to disrupt what should be a rational and vital national debate. OK, maybe that's not curruption -- but it's not in our best national interest either. They are not partiularly "good citizens" in my view.

But, I do think it's corrupt when they spend hundreds of millions through their lobbyists at influence peddling. I hope that's illegal soon.

I don't think anyone wants to change healthcare models for it's own sake, though. Our system costs twice as much as other industrialized countries, and delivers consistently lower outcomes. We die sooner, have higher infant mortality, costs are skyrocketing, millions are uninsured or under-insured -- and I imagine you know all this anyway. To me, it all sounds like something that needs changed.

Phil Graham, Newt, and the rest of the far-right crowd have had their chance with deregulation theories. Did I spell AIG correctly?

Regulation is a frequent necessary -- to counter-balance greed and self-interest. Effective self-regulation proposals are currently being delivered by the Tooth Fairy.

Too much regulation -- you're right. India once had a top marginal tax bracket of 99%. Guess how many entreneurs showed up? Same concept. The "sweet spot" is somewhere in the middle. It will take intelligent compromise, but instead the industry wants us polarized as a people.

Glad to hear you want some of this stuff standardized. And, sure, have some non-standardized plans too. Industry will fight it though, they always do.

The industry itself is the primary reason we all rank somewhere below used car salesmen and Richard Nixon in the average survey and focus group.

I think it's time for a change.

atlantainsguy

 

[ins.dave]

In response to -

Rivers1 vbmenu_register("postmenu_180152", true);
Super Genius​

Join Date: May 2009
Posts:64
State:
Re: Barry Makes a Boo-Boo Go to Top ​

Another failure I'd like to point out is his repeated analogy concerning the post office vs FedEX & UPS. That is VERY misleading at best. Why? Because FedEx & UPS do not have regulations to uphold, nor is the government trying to force regulations upon those companies. BUT, government is going to slap the private ins companies with HUGE regulations to abide by, dictating how to run their business. ​

Look, it's a STACKED deck in favor of the government. How? 1. govt doesn't need capital reserves to pay claims
2. govt doesn't have to pay taxes, private companies do
3. govt doesn't have to account for payroll & costs, private companies do
4. govt gets to dictate what it pays providers(doctors & hospitals), private companies can not ​

"You can keep you private coverage if you like it". Yeah, for the first few years until the private companies slide into failure. That rhetoric is baloney. ​

The whole purpose of the public option is to crowd out & displace the private ins companies. How can they compete when the govt is like the referee & player in the same game? Answer, they can't. ​

That's MY "fact check" for the day!​

------------------------------------
Welcome to America - my wallet is your wallet ​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Exactly right. For those reasons listed.
So condescending in my opinion.
Just ridiculous to state that any private company in any industry can "compete" with a govt. option.
Huh?
Back dealing. Back door. B.S.
I could smash the TV when I see his smug face regurgitate that one out over and over again.
How can anyone possibly entertain that as anything but a phase out move?


P.S.
Number 4 on your list could be our saving grace?
What are the feds going to do? Force medical providers to accept their idea of payment?
Force medical providers to accept the "public" plan or co - op (or whatever they are calling it this week) terms?
If that's what it comes to, then this truely has become one socialist s hole.
If not, maybe only doc's who recently graduated from Shanghais U. would accept it? You know basically a substandard HMO type deal that only the broke would have anything to do with. You know, like in Canada ... eh?

 

[Winter_123]

Industry's strategy looks like one designed to polarize us back to the "culture wars" mentality. If you can't win fair -- then fight dirty.

atlantainsguy

You and Pelosi are trying to recycle old Hillarycare type arguments. The reality is that Obama has come quite far this time around through the support of the industry on fundamental issues such as guaranteed issue and mandate. However, Obama is in trouble with the folks on Main Street now due to his big spending socialist habits and with members of his own party for the same reason. In addition, no one in Congress or Main Street can figure his plan out even though he is the Great Communicator, or else he avoids the details because the more Congress and Main Street find out about it, the less they like it.

He has all the dems he needs in both th e Senate and the House to get whatever he wants. Time to move up a notch from blaming Republicans and the industry. It is not his fault he is providing poor leadership for a poorly defined plan. This is his first time out with an issue that he can't blame on Bush so he is a little lost.

If Obama does not agree with this, then just pass whatever you are going to pass. The dems have reminded us many times over that they do not need the agreement of republicans or the industry or anyone on this. So if they can't get their act together and their house in order they want to revert back to slaying dragons that went with the Hillaycare scenario. They can do that if they want but they should not be surprised if they don't end out passing a bill with the public option in it before the August recess.......ooops.

 

[ins.dave]

In response to –

atlantainsguy vbmenu_register("postmenu_180194", true);
Super Genius​

Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts:25
State:
Re: Barry Makes a Boo-Boo Go to Top ​

It seems a lot of posts over an Obama-bashing message have been about what is guaranteed issue and when it isn't (to where some agents seem to have trouble keeping up, let alone consumers); not all states having risk pools (if you're unemployed without income, how do you pay COBRA anyway? Oh yeah, there's a public subsidy now because of those **** socialists); how the insurance company can "rescind" something compared to when it's OK to just pull the plug on your coverage;​

---------------------------------------------------

I respect your thoughts on the necessity of reform, as long as you are not in favor of a "public" option, but for the sake of clarity as emboldened above, there is a substantial difference in what you refer to as a company "pulling the plug" on an insured's coverage and a rescission.
Outside of someone going to a GI plan, as discussed with Somarco, (which is very expensive) if and when their carrier leaves an area, I think they should have more protection from this.
Although this doesn't happen with major companies much. Because it has happened, we see this being used against us by the present administration.

In terms of selling it to the public, what they are saying in deference to what it really means is this … Here is some garbage coverage for you, but at least it can't leave the area (be cancelled).

Now a rescission, whether you think an insurance company should be able to "post approval underwrite" or not, is a different thing entirely.
This is an insurance company utilizing the two year period of contestability to call an insured out for fraud. If claim activity arises after approval that is deemed as suspect in regards to having possibly been part of a condition not disclosed prior to said approval, then they are within their legal rights to review that medical history again to substantiate whether or not their was intentional lack of discloser. If they deem this as such they can refund the premium and it would be as if the policy never existed. They of course would not pay on any claims in this event.

Mixed "feelings" on this. Personally, "do not like" being lied to by an applicant as far as medical history goes, but on the other hand perhaps ins. companies could underwrite more completely prior to approval. This is a tough one to call.
Medical records standardization, another issue of reform, could help resolve this.

 

[somarco]

I'm still trying to understand why so many practitioners defend such a corrupt industry. Not talking aout the products, but the industry itelf.

And govt is honest and to be trusted?

If you believe the insurance industry is corrupt, then why are you working in that field?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I do think it's corrupt when they spend hundreds of millions through their lobbyists at influence peddling.

You must not be aware of how deals are cut in Congress to assure passage of a new spending bill. The Hill is not alive with the Von Trapp family or Mary Poppins.

Our system costs twice as much as other industrialized countries, and delivers consistently lower outcomes. We die sooner, have higher infant mortality, costs are skyrocketing,

You might want to factor in lifestyle, Bubba. We are the fattest nation of any on earth. Almost half the money spent on health care is for obesity related illness.

 

[Mr. Bill]

 

[VolAgent]

I hate to break it to you Atlanta, but if that is your definition of corrupt, then the entire system is corrupt. As Somarco pointed out, Washington is awash with lobbyists and influence peddlers. Also, every single state capitol is exactly the same. A corporation and industry of any size is a complete and utter moron if it does not have some lobbyists on staff.

Obviously I don't associate with health insurance executives, but I would bet you that the executives at the top carriers hate recissions just as much if not more than anyone else. Its expensive and generates bad PR. They are forced to do it because someone lied to them. Do you really think anyone likes denying someone coverage or a treatment?

My favorite, and I wish I could remember the source for this, but I think it was Cigna. They were administering an employer's self-insured plan and had to deny a young girl treatment because the plan didn't cover it. Eventually Cigna decided to pay for the treatment itself. But it was too late, and Cigna got villianized, when it was really the employer that wouldn't cover the treatment.

Face facts Atlanta, people love to hate insurance companies and insurance agents. If you can't handle that, it might be time to find a new industry.

 

[somarco]

You are thinking of Nataline Sarkisyan. You can find almost any major (insurance related) news story at our blog.

http://insureblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/this-is-toughie.html

InsureBlog: 9/11, The Mick and Nataline

InsureBlog: More on Nataline...

InsureBlog: Nataline a Year Later: Even More Disturbing News

InsureBlog: CIGNA & Nataline: A Broader Perspective