TPMDC
Blunt Opposes Ending Discrimination Against Adults With Pre-Existing Conditions (VIDEO)
Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO)
Share
Send to a friend!
Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO)--who's running to replace retiring Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) in this year's midterm elections--has a position on health care reform that may prove unpopular, even with conservative voters. Blunt says adults with pre-existing conditions should not be prevented from suffering discrimination at the hands of insurance companies.
"Access for kids who have pre-existing conditions, who would be against that?" Blunt asked a group of health care professionals in Springfield, MO. "But access for adults who've done nothing to take care of themselves, who actually will have as I just described every incentive not to get insurance until the day that you know that you're going to have medical expenses--that's a very different kind of story."
There's an added layer of irony here, which is that, at the beginning of last year, House Minority Leader John Boehner appointed Blunt to chair the GOP's health care task force.
Since the passage of health care reform, Republicans have been all over the map. Some say the entire law should be repealed. Others say only the unpopular provisions should be. Blunt's statements highlight just how tricky that dance can be. Blunt's office was not immediately available for comment. Video below.
Comments (215) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
holyhandgrenaid
April 13, 2010 9:04 AM
I think Blunt might have just handed that seat to Carnahan. Today is a good day.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ben_nelsons_hair
April 13, 2010 9:11 AM in reply to holyhandgrenaid
Indeed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
April 13, 2010 9:18 AM in reply to ben_nelsons_hair
As a Missourian, I truly hope so! And since this IS my birthday, I will consider this a small gift from Roy Blunt. But to be fair, Blunt has been making a series of bone-headed remarks this past year or so. I guess we shall see if it works against him in November.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rick Jones
April 13, 2010 9:35 AM in reply to CityGuy
Blunt: "But access for adults who've done nothing to take care of themselves ... that's a very different kind of story." Yeah, like the woman who was raped; the man with a congenital heart defect that showed up in adulthood; the mother who developed breast cancer at the age of 35; those who have been severely injured/disabled on the job - all pre-existing conditions that I guess Blunt figures should disqualify them from coverage since they were adults. Sounds like a winning strategy to me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EnnuiDivine
April 13, 2010 9:43 AM in reply to Rick Jones
Blunt just lost the campaign with that statement.
Robin Carnahan is a breast cancer survivor.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jdb316
April 13, 2010 11:30 AM in reply to EnnuiDivine
Now Carnahan (and the DSCC) has to hammer Blunt constantly with that line. I mean really hit him over the head with it, and keep doing it until the polls swing her way. Right now, she still trails Blunt by six points despite Blunt being a seven-term member of a very unpopular Congress.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
April 13, 2010 10:10 AM in reply to Rick Jones
You do understand that a condition is "pre-existing" because it "pre-exists" a person's insurance coverage. In other words, a person was UNinsured, and after a condition appears, decides to THEN try to purchase health insurance. This is the reason why ObamaCare rightly, from the standpoint of viable insurance, makes a bow to the individual mandate, which purports to require all individuals to maintain insurance at all times (therefore, in theory no conditions "pre-exist" coverage and premiums from a very large pool cover all risks). The removal of denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions makes no economic sense unless everyone is required to, and actually does, maintain and pay for health insurance at all times.
ObamaCare does not do that because its "individual mandate" imposes a "tax" that is FAR below the cost of the premium, so that the rational thing to do is to pay the tax and just purchase insurance when it is needed and drop it again when it is not needed. That is a formula (as intended) to SHRINK the pool of insureds, cause insurance companies to HAVE TO raise premiums on the suckers who buy insurance before they need it, and ultimately cause insurance companies to experience payment of benefits in excess of premiums collected, and thus go out of business. It is not a difficult concept to understand, if one has a basic understanding of how insurance works and does a little critical thinking.
For those who DON'T understand insurance or are unwilling or unable to do even a little critical thinking, the next cause celebre will be against:
1. Car insurance companies who deny coverage for motorists who apply for insurance with a "pre-existing condition" (e.g. multiple fatal accidents, or coverage for an accident that occurred a week or even a year before applying)
2. Home insurance companies who deny coverage for a homeowner who applies for coverage on their burning home (that's not fair, is it?)
3. Life insurance companies who deny coverage for an individual who applies for coverage after leaving the doctor's office with a prognosis of 3 months to live (that's not fair either).
Yeah, "compassion" is wonderful, but think through the implications of doing away with denial of coverage for "pre-existing conditions" without having ALL individuals maintain and pay for health insurance at all times, either by way of their own individual responsibility (the preferred way) or by means of an "individual mandate" imposed by government (the ObamaCare way, phony as it is).
I concede that dealing with the "pre-existing conditions" problem is a valid concern, but there is no easy answer to it that works in terms of both real world insurance economics and real world politics. ObamaCare is long on a political "solution" that is designed to appeal to voters, but VERY short on working in the real world of the economics of insurance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JimmyBobby
April 13, 2010 10:14 AM in reply to acriticalthinker
This argument assumes that insurance companies are required to charge everyone the same premium. Where does it say that? If you buy insurance when you're young and healthy, then get sick, they can't just ramp up your payments overnight to cover themselves. If you wait to buy insurance until you're sick, though, you're going to pay through the nose for it. Yes, they can't TURN YOU DOWN for a pre-existing condition or because you are in the process of needing care, but they damn sure can charge you more. Thus, your argument kinda falls apart -- also that "tax" is going to go up in years to come, the HCR bill starts it low as a way to ease into the process. No offense, but you really need to read more carefully...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
blkblt
April 13, 2010 10:51 AM in reply to JimmyBobby
Somebody correct me, but isn't there language in the bill limiting the disparity in premium payments?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
April 13, 2010 11:59 AM in reply to blkblt
That's my understanding, yes. They can charge you more based on your age (up to 3x the base premium, I think), but not based on pre-existing conditions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bruce Webb
April 13, 2010 11:10 AM in reply to JimmyBobby
Nope. Under the bill everyone in the same area of the same age and the same family composition gets charged the same premium, regardless of health history.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
April 13, 2010 11:30 AM in reply to Bruce Webb
Which means that a healthy 20 year old subsidizes the cost of a very sick 70 year old. That is OK as long as everyone understands the effect of the same premium for everyone. It also removes the incentive for taking responsibility for maintaining good health, if there is no "penalty" for being overweight, smoking, etc.
Should a good driver also pay the same car insurance premium as a bad driver with 5 DIU's and 2 fatal accidents? Same premium for all sounds "fair", but someone is going to pay MORE in premiums than he or she would otherwise pay based upon his or her individual risk and someone else is going to pay LESS in premiums (thanks to the lower risk person who pays the higher premium) based upon his or her individual risk.
"Equality" and "fairness" are the touchstones of liberalism. But, as in Animal House (not the movie), some people are more equal than others.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
human
April 13, 2010 11:34 AM in reply to acriticalthinker
Which means that a healthy 20 year old subsidizes the cost of a very sick 70 year old.
No, actually older people can be required to pay higher premiums, up to three times as much I believe.
I don't have the details right in front of me, but you obviously know even less about it. Go figure, just another excuse for endless and ignorant "libertarian" ranting.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
April 13, 2010 11:49 AM in reply to human
"No, actually older people can be required to pay higher premiums, up to three times as much I believe."
I believe you are correct, but will "up to three times as much" be enough to cover the full difference between the low "same" premium and what the older person would have actuarily been required to pay under standard underwriting. Maybe, maybe not.
My point is still valid though. The healthy 20 year old will subsidize the unhealthy (whether by chance or bad choices) 20 year old.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
April 13, 2010 12:18 PM in reply to acriticalthinker
And healthy 40-year-olds will subsidize care for children with chronic asthma, or cystic fibrosis. And single people will subsidize care for families with children. There's nothing new in that; the tax system works in many of the same ways.
I don't have a problem with it; I think that's the way societies should work. Archaeological and anthropological evidence suggests that the Neanderthals took care of the old and infirm of their societies; seems to me we modern humans should at least be able to meet that mark.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hollywood
April 13, 2010 1:28 PM in reply to slb
Thanks for that! What pigs want to let their fellow human beings die for not affording healthcare when they get sick? The most greeeeedy fuckers on Earth ..... AMERICANS!
I GOT MINE !!!
This is an excellent reason for SINGLE PAYER! You do not have to argue about who lives and dies to save a dollar. The Canadian system is almost half as expensive per capita. The British system is about half as expensive per capita. So if you greedy fuckers wanted to save your PRECIOUS money you would all be in favor of SINGLE PAYER right? Oh no!! A much cheaper system that treats everyone with dignity is SOCIALISM! Better to pay twice as much and fight over who deserves to live and die.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
skitzo
April 13, 2010 2:00 PM in reply to acriticalthinker
But someday, if he/she is lucky, that 20 year old will be 80 years old, and will benefit from those years of paying premiums to keep the system afloat.
In any advanced society, the young and healthy help support of the elderly and infirm. Just the way it should be.
And I would note, watching these Teaparty protests--an awful lot of these people do NOT look like people who work out and eat a healthy diet. There is a large percentage of fast food eating lardasses objecting to health care.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JimmyBobby
April 14, 2010 12:37 AM in reply to human
And don't forget deductibles -- they can go up, too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kristin126
April 13, 2010 11:48 AM in reply to acriticalthinker
I think you mean "Animal Farm."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
April 13, 2010 11:53 AM in reply to Kristin126
Exactly. Thank you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Publishermike
April 13, 2010 11:57 AM in reply to acriticalthinker
"Which means that a healthy 20 year old subsidizes the cost of a very sick 70 year old. That is OK as long as everyone understands the effect of the same premium for everyone. It also removes the incentive for taking responsibility for maintaining good health, if there is no "penalty" for being overweight, smoking, etc."
Isn't the incentive just staying alive?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
April 13, 2010 12:05 PM in reply to Publishermike
"Isn't the incentive just staying alive?"
Obviously that is not incentive enough for a lot of people who are overweight, alcohol or drug abusers, and so many other voluntarily assumed health risks. Many people will choose to indulge those behaviors knowing that they can be treated for the problems that occur because of them (even though they may not be able to be cured of those problems). Many of them will say say "what, me worry? I have ObamaCare!"----at least until the government eventually will have to "fix" that little problem too by banning foods, mandating exercise, and other actions for our own good.
Liberal policies are not the solution to a problem, they are beginning of the creation of a new set of even bigger problems.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
April 13, 2010 12:21 PM in reply to acriticalthinker
Sure, because being overweight, or diabetic, or alcoholic, etc. is just so much fun. Why wouldn't everyone want to be that way????
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
April 13, 2010 12:35 PM in reply to slb
Don't ask me, ask THEM! Maybe they have a good answer, like "I just love to eat, drink, do drugs, etc." Doesn't make sense to sensible people, but not everyone is sensible, as is clear from reading many of the comments of others here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pppwww
April 13, 2010 12:56 PM in reply to acriticalthinker
seriously? do you leave your house and interact with other people ever? [besides the people on the bus that takes you to middle school, that is.]
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
April 13, 2010 1:03 PM in reply to pppwww
Snide put downs merit no response other than to note the snide, substance free put down. Come back when you have something useful to contribute.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pppwww
April 13, 2010 1:07 PM in reply to acriticalthinker
i'm serious. what level of interaction do you have with people on a daily basis?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pppwww
April 13, 2010 1:38 PM in reply to acriticalthinker
really, i would pay to watch videos of you asking people "so, why are fat?"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pppwww
April 13, 2010 1:48 PM in reply to pppwww
or better yet "so, why are you fat?"
/blergh
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AdAbsurdum
April 13, 2010 12:00 PM in reply to acriticalthinker
Uhm, Animal Farm, that is.
People really ought to be more careful not get exposed to nuclear radiation, pesticides, industrial air pollution, iatrogenic maladies from recalled drugs, toxic wastes dumped in their low-income community, toxins they consumed as kids in their school cafeterias, and accidents in defective cars, and so many things that irresponsible liberals neglect in their care for themselves. Conservatives know better and are responsible enough to avoid these hazards. Well, except for Ronald Reagan and his irresponsible Alzheimers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
April 13, 2010 12:11 PM in reply to AdAbsurdum
Thank you, comrade.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AdAbsurdum
April 13, 2010 12:54 PM in reply to acriticalthinker
Most welcome,
It's always a pleasure to enlighten neoMcCarthyites who confuse Orwell with National Lampoon.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
skitzo
April 13, 2010 2:07 PM in reply to acriticalthinker
Instead of responding to a very valid point that undermines your "people who get sick only have themselves to blame" argument, you resort to red-baiting. You call yourself a critical thinker, but you are really just critical. If you want to call yourself a thinker, you need to dig deeper. Superficial "common sense" may be common, but it often doesn't make sense on further analysis.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
April 13, 2010 3:50 PM in reply to skitzo
I acknowledge that there are serious market information defects that are not EASILY fixed...not to say they could not be fixed.
I appreciate, and agree with you, that things are not as simple as they seem....to anybody. Reforming health care and health insurance is a VERY complex matter. It took over 2700 pages for Democrats to devise their Rube Goldberg system. It purports to deal with the serious issue of pre-existing conditions. The bill pays lip service to the crucial balance to doing away with denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions, which is the necessity of having a pool of people that nearly approximates the number of people who are covered who must pay premiums. Too many here want to oversimplify the problem of pre-existing conditions to say that insurance companies should not be allowed to deny coverage to anyone, but pay little attention to the real world consequences of not ALSO having everyone paying premiums that will provide the funds to pay benefits for everyone. Utopia is simple, the real world is complex.
Without that necessary balance, doing away with denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions can only lead to higher premiums for those in the pool and ultimately, insurance companies going out of business. That is either the intended or unintended consequence of ObamaCare.
Earlier, you charged that Blunt and I subscribe to the view that "people who get sick only have themselves to blame". I have certainly not said that here (although SOME people are to blame for their health condition). The headline for the article here is "somewhat" of a distortion of Blunt's position. As far as I can tell, he did not say or imply that EVERYONE with a pre-existing condition had it due to their own fault.
Quoting the story, he said "Access for kids who have pre-existing conditions, who would be against that?" Blunt asked a group of health care professionals in Springfield, MO. "But access for adults who've done nothing to take care of themselves, who actually will have as I just described every incentive not to get insurance until the day that you know that you're going to have medical expenses--that's a very different kind of story."
All he was trying to do was to point out the problem of how to treat people who DO NOT take care of themselves and the problem now inherent in ObamaCare of the incentive not to get insurance until it is needed. Those are legitimate issues, and should not be the subject of demogoguery with distorted and exaggerated charges that "Blunt Opposes Ending Discrimination Against Adults with Pre-Existing Conditions". That is a slanted and dishonest characterization of Blunt's statement.
I have never claimed to have all the answers. If I did, I would not be able to do it justice in 2000 words. I do believe, however, that ObamaCare is the wrong solution for health care, health care costs, and the long term fiscal health of the country.
My purpose here is to inspire some critical thinking and a civil discussion among some liberals of good will. I assume there are at least a few here. I have seen some serious and good points made here in response to my comments and the comments of others. The hyperpartisans who rely on simplified talking points have no interest in a real discussion or considering anything that disturbs their assumptions and beliefs in any way. They are free to ignore my comments.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
blkblt
April 14, 2010 12:32 PM in reply to acriticalthinker
It seems like the underlying message is that there are people in the country who are not worthy of our help. I would respectfully disagree.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
April 13, 2010 12:11 PM in reply to acriticalthinker
That is the reason why, prior to Medicare, when you reached age 65 you could no longer buy health insurance at any price, and any health insurance you had at that time (including through your employer) was canceled.
Medicare largely solves that problem by taxing all employees for Part A. The insurance then goes to those who no longer work because of age or disability.
The insurance companies solve their side of the problem by insuring only those they are reasonably certain will remain healthy and not require extensive health insurance coverage. Insurance people make a profit by continuously making more subtle ways to identify those they should not insure and then overcharging the healthy. It's called skimming the healthy off the pool of people who want insurance. They can overcharge for the insurance for the healthy because the product is so complicated no one but an actuary knows what it should cost.
Those not selected as part of the "cream" are then relegated to whatever medical care they can pay for themselves, get from government, or get from charity. Or they just suffer and die.
Single payer universal health care, anyone?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
April 13, 2010 12:30 PM in reply to Richardxx
And, of course, the people without insurance end up getting (very expensive) critical care in hospital emergency rooms, and when they cannot pay for it, the hospital makes up the shortfall by adding the cost to what they bill the paying patients. So we end up subsidizing the care one way or another; it's just cheaper to subsidize routine care so that a lot of the critical care can be prevented.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jimbomoron
April 13, 2010 5:24 PM in reply to acriticalthinker
Except everyone needs health insurance. Not everyone needs auto insurance.
Also, driving a car is a lifestyle choice; getting cancer is not.
Furthermore, health insurance is different from any other insurance in that the higher your income, the less insurance you need. While a $5,000 deductible policy may work for someone earning $250,000/yr., I don't think you'd advise a waitress with a diabetic child to purchase such a policy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
April 13, 2010 9:42 PM in reply to jimbomoron
"While a $5,000 deductible policy may work for someone earning $250,000/yr., I don't think you'd advise a waitress with a diabetic child to purchase such a policy.
A $5000 deductible policy would work fine for a majority, if not a great majority, of people when coupled with a health savings account. Most young people will have annual health care expenses of $1000 or less. If you have a health savings account, those expenses can be paid from the health savings account with any unspent savings left to accumulate. After a few years,many people would be able to accumulate enough in their health savings account to fully cover a $5,000 deductible. HSA's are not for people who need a lot of health care services on a regular basis, but they are great for relatively healthy people like me. ObamaCare targets them for extinction, however.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
April 13, 2010 12:23 PM in reply to JimmyBobby
The law allows insurers on the invidudal market to charge only three rate: one for smokers, one for older people and one for everyone else. The highest rate charged can be no more than 3X the smallest.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
April 13, 2010 10:15 AM in reply to acriticalthinker
1. You work for Bank of America for 15 years, during which time you get cancer and go into remission for 3 years.
2. BofA lays you off and now you must buy your insurance in the individual market.
3. You can't buy insurance because you have a preexisting condition--cancer.
4. You think that's justifiable.
5. You're still too stupid and long-winded for your own good. Rightwing, teabagging, nutcase.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
April 13, 2010 10:21 AM in reply to FreeRider
acritical thinker is one of the bigger idiots who post here as you know. I;m embarrassed for it's sorry ass.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
April 13, 2010 10:53 AM in reply to lousgirl84
I would say to you what Professor Kingsfield used to say in the movie "The Paper Chase": "Fill this room (this thread) with YOUR brilliance!" We are all eagerly awaiting to be enlighted by the SUBSTANCE of your comments, and not just empty put-downs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Msinformed
April 13, 2010 2:53 PM in reply to acriticalthinker
That put-down wasn't empty, it was correct.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
April 14, 2010 12:25 AM in reply to Msinformed
Put downs are "great" and they FEEL good, but they do not educate or advance mutual learning. Do you and the other put down artists here really think that I am bothered by juvenile name calling and EMPTY (i.e no comments with substance to them) put downs? I actually find them very amusing and they confirm what I have come to learn about liberals (plus they also demonstrate to others)--- how arrogant and lacking in substance many liberals are.
We are all STILL waiting for you to fill this thread with some brilliant substance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
April 13, 2010 11:05 AM in reply to lousgirl84
Totally stupid, not to mention long-winded and boring as hell.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
April 13, 2010 10:25 AM in reply to FreeRider
The solution to the lay off problem is portability of coverage. Also, have your ever heard of COBRA? Is that short enough for you? Name calling is still not a substitute for facts and real thinking.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
truth > spin
April 13, 2010 10:35 AM in reply to acriticalthinker
But this site would have little use or traffic without name calling, you.. you... critical thinker, you!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kristin126
April 13, 2010 10:46 AM in reply to acriticalthinker
COBRA does not last forever, you know.
18 months I think is the limit? Around there.
Then, what is our cancer victim supposed to do?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
April 13, 2010 10:49 AM in reply to Kristin126
Why can't COBRA last forever? Congress can change the law.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
human
April 13, 2010 11:07 AM in reply to acriticalthinker
yeah, so you have the limitless "freedom" to pay for insurance that you can't afford anyway. Hard to fill the room with brilliance when your black hole of stupidity is swirling here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kristin126
April 13, 2010 11:15 AM in reply to acriticalthinker
What if your former employer goes out of business? How could we make cobra last forever if the employer group you once belonged to no longer exists?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
April 13, 2010 12:42 PM in reply to acriticalthinker
But unlike the employer-subsidized insurance you had as an employee, you pay full price for COBRA. This, when you are unemployed and trying to somehow cover your bills.
Too many simply can't afford the coverage.
Generalize that a little bit and you will notice that you can only get insurance if you are healthy and working so that you have enough income to pay for it, since most Americans are employees and not trust fund babies. So if you lose your job because of illness, you can no longer afford the care required to get well enough to return to work. That's an economic loss to the economy in the value of that person's experience, training and talents.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
miggon
April 13, 2010 3:17 PM in reply to acriticalthinker
COBRA is a government program, btw. If it were to be extended indefinitely, then we would have a government "take over" of health care. What are you trying to accomplish?
I'm on COBRA right now with my wife and two healthy children. It runs out no-matter-what in 18 months. Then we must go to the "free market." If, God forbid, any of us develop a condition or have an initial diagnosis of a condition during this time on COBRA, then we're screwed.
I have in the past purchased a high-deductible plan and kept an HSA (health savings account) to pay for OOPs (out of pocket expenses). I like the system, and I think it works. However, even in that case there must be protection from being denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions -- which can arise at any time.
As for incentives for healthy living and/or disincentives. The current system doesn't incentivize healthiness -- obesity and related diseases in the US are at all time highs.
The statement that people will adopt unhealthy behaviors because the law of the land mandates that health insurance coverage cannot be denied is flawed and plainly false. It wouldn't last five minutes in a sophomore HS debating team practice session.
The fact of the matter is that in order to offset the costs of the unhealthy, the pool of the healthy needs to include every citizen of the nation. Otherwise you are one illness away from the poor house no matter what you do.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
progressive_buckeye
April 13, 2010 10:48 AM in reply to acriticalthinker
Yeah, because COBRA is so affordable when you are between jobs and have an uncertain economic future. My premium when I was last employed was $200/mo. When I was laid off, I was offered COBRA at $800/mo. That's two weeks of unemployment checks! Yup, seems like a reasonable solution to me! *end snark*
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
April 13, 2010 11:03 AM in reply to progressive_buckeye
Yes, health insurance is expensive. I know that because I have been there. But SOMEONE has to pay for your care. Liberals believe it should be "free"---i.e paid for by someone else, either other people who pay premiums (that would have to go up if you or I can't or won't pay our own), or by other taxpayers (your neighbors, or in the case of government "benefits" via deficit spending, by your children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren. In liberal fantasyland, there is free health care for all that costs no one anything---except the rich. Not so in the real world. Every benefit has a cost. Sorry about that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hollywood
April 13, 2010 1:44 PM in reply to acriticalthinker
Please explain how Canada has about half the cost per capita and insures everyone with a single payer system. My Canadian friends think we are complete savages as we fight over who DESERVES to live and die. You obviously like to pick who lives and dies because you are so perfect and holy. I might want to live in a world where people actually do not have to get approval from self righteous greedy moral superiors before they get their cancer treatments ...........
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
April 13, 2010 11:04 AM in reply to acriticalthinker
COBRA only lasts for 18 months. What are you supposed to do for the rest of your life?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
April 13, 2010 12:02 PM in reply to acriticalthinker
COBRA lasts 18 months for most folks. If you were paying $200/month for family coverage while working, you will now pay $750/month for family coverage. Even if you can afford it (thanks, Democrats for the subsidies) after 18 months you or yours spouse or your child still has the preexisting condition. Assuming you find a new job, it may not come with insurance. If not, you have to go in the individual market - and you still have that preexisting condition.
As for the premiums of 20 year olds subsidizing the premiums of 70 year olds - one assumes that all 20 somthings aspire to be 70 someday. What goes around comes around.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
April 13, 2010 12:27 PM in reply to Powkat
"As for the premiums of 20 year olds subsidizing the premiums of 70 year olds - one assumes that all 20 somthings aspire to be 70 someday. What goes around comes around."
You are exactly right. I said above that that was OK as long as everyone understood what was happening. As a 60-something, I would benefit from that because I have NOT paid the subsidizing premium that 20 year olds will have to pay for 40 years. But you have to begin someplace, I guess. This is part of the cynical political calculation of Democrats, give benefits to voters in their 40s, 50s, and 60's at the expense of voters in their 20s (who do not vote in great numbers) and at the expense of under 18 and unborn children who CANNOT vote! Buy the farm with a big mortgage, live on the farm, and then bequeath the mortgage (instead of the farm) to our descendants. That is the effect of expanding entitlements, courtesty of compassionate liberals. Our descendants will be greatful for all the debt and unfunded liabilities that are attached to SS, Medicare, ObamaCare and all other entitlements.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bud-in-Florida
April 13, 2010 1:07 PM in reply to FreeRider
You are obviously mentally incapable of understanding what either Blunt or CriticalThinker was saying - or just like to jump to conclusions. The point that Blunt was making was that to stop the pre-existing conditions provision in insurance without requiring everyone everywhere to carry insurance at all times would lead to people not carrying insurance until they know they are going to need it. This was quite well pointed out by the comparisons to only getting fire insurance on your house when it's already on fire - obviously an unworkable solution.
It has nothing to do with a child nor congenital birth problems. His statements are simply about someone who doesn't get insurance because he's healthy and then wants to get it when he becomes unhealthy. How do you handle that?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
April 13, 2010 1:35 PM in reply to Bud-in-Florida
Ah....another island of sanity in an ocean of insanity. I will save FreeRider some time and post for him his standard line:
"You're are stupid and long-winded rightwing, teabagging, nutcase."
There, that settles THAT!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
truth > spin
April 13, 2010 2:02 PM in reply to acriticalthinker
Oh and you slap gonads on your forehead for fun, too. And you are inbreed and have less than ideal dental health. Also, it's likely true that your mother and father are also blood related.
Further, you hate black people.
I think that about covers the more thoughtful replies you'll see.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
April 13, 2010 1:52 PM in reply to Bud-in-Florida
You rightwingers are opposed to the individual mandate, remember? So saying you can't ban pre-exisiting conditions without a mandate is stupid and stupid people like you buy into it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Measure for Measure
April 13, 2010 4:29 PM in reply to FreeRider
And this is where Blunt gets tripped up. In practice you have to choose. Either you allow cancer survivors to be denied insurance if they change jobs -- or you combine a ban on pre-existing conditions with an individual mandate.
Blunt chooses to screw over those working for a small business that can't afford insurance, those wanting to enter self-employment, those losing their jobs, etc. In doing so he takes a position far more extremist than even the Heritage foundation was pushing in the early 1990s.
The takeover of the GOP by the loons is complete.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
April 13, 2010 10:27 AM in reply to acriticalthinker
Roy Blunt gets his coverage from a large health insurance exchange that covers around 8 million people--healthy people, sick people, young people old people, workers, worker's spouses and children. He pays the exact same premium as every other member of the exchange for a particular health plan, even though he is 60 years old and undoubtedly a bigger risk than a 20 year old triathlete who is also part of the exchange. Every year he can, if he is unhappy with his coverage choose another plan. He can never be denied coverage, nor charged a higher rate because of his age or health. He cannot be kicked off, or told he has exceeded his lifetime or annual limit. His employer pays 75% of his premium costs.
It's good enough for Roy. But apparently not good enough for you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
John M
April 13, 2010 10:53 AM in reply to Economides
Blunt has his treatemnt and surgery at Bethesda Naval Hospital, which is OWNED AND RUN by the government and has Pphysicians and staff who are CIVIL SERVANTS, which, unlike single payer, is the deffinition of socialized medicine, and this is where Blunt has had several treatments and surgeries (never a "for profit" hospital).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/02/gopers-decrying-socialize_n_275196.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
April 13, 2010 1:10 PM in reply to John M
Blunt is free to use the doctors/hospitals of his choice consistent with his employer-sponsored health plan.
I have no idea if he has ever been treated at the Bethesda naval hospital, but whether that counts as "socialized" is mostly a red herring. That Senators and representatives get their own security force, and office space, and access to military facilities as well as health facilities is irrelevant to how insurance is provided to the citizens of the country.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jackster
April 13, 2010 10:35 AM in reply to acriticalthinker
"pre-existing" because it "pre-exists" a person's insurance coverage. In other words, a person was UNinsured, and after a condition appears, decides to THEN try to purchase health insurance."
WRONG
"pre-existing conditions do not occur only while un-insured.
As noted some IC's consider it preexisting even if never diagnosed or treated.
I had the big C while self employed and paying my own insurance.
I would get calls from IC's wanting my money, hoping I was a healthy piggy bank. I mention Cancer, the next thing I hear is dial tone.
F@#K EM!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cornelius
April 13, 2010 10:47 AM in reply to acriticalthinker
It has nothing to do with critical thinking. It's the insurance industry finding any way possible to deny coverage:
You're a marathon runner. your older sister and mother, who smoke, have diabetes, and are obese, had breast cancer. And because of this, you, marathon runner, are a "pre-existing condition". If you accept the premise, family gene history, then you have to accept the conclusion - denial of coverage. It's called "insurance think".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rick Jones
April 13, 2010 10:48 AM in reply to acriticalthinker
We were talking the politics of Blunt's dumbass statement. And certainly the individual mandate is necessary if pre-existing conditions are going to be covered; Obama made that clear. Further, you can develop a condition while insured, then have to change insurance companies, and bingo you are considered a person with a pre-existing condition to that new insurer; happens all the time now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
April 13, 2010 11:06 AM in reply to Rick Jones
I will say again to the problem of changing jobs: portability of insurance and the availability of deductions or credits to individuals.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
April 13, 2010 12:41 PM in reply to acriticalthinker
Portability of insurance would be lovely; of course, it would be a moot point in a single payer system, which would be an even better solution, IMHO.
But back to portability: the Republican who tried to incorporate this idea into the current health care bill was ... who, exactly?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
April 13, 2010 1:26 PM in reply to slb
A number of Republicans proposed bills that would include portability, among other good things. See "Democrats Stifle Republican Health Care Plans"
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Democrats-stifle-Republican-health-care-plans-8224780-58644807.html
"Obama didn't directly accuse Republicans of not having a plan. But he did say he would welcome "serious" health care proposals. "My door is always open," Obama said.
That's when Price held up the sheaf of papers he was carrying --a copy of H.R. 3400, the Empowering Patients First Act, which Price and the Republican Study Committee proposed in July. Other GOP lawmakers held up their own bills. Some raised a list of all the health care bills -- there are more than 30 -- proposed by members of the Study Committee.
Republicans have authored a number of health care bills -- serious legislation addressing portability, pre-existing conditions, cost and other issues that most trouble American consumers -- and hardly anyone has noticed.
Republicans don't really blame Nancy Pelosi. The speaker is as partisan a Democrat as they come, and no one is surprised that she has used her power to stifle Republican efforts.
The virtual embargo on reporting Republican legislation has allowed Democrats and their allies in the media to keep up the "Republicans have no plan" attack. Just hours after the president's speech, for example, the Democratic National Committee released a new commercial claiming that Republicans "refuse to offer a plan" to reform the health care system.
Just for the record, in case you want to check them out, these are the bills proposed, so far, by Price and his allies in the House: H.R. 77; H.R. 109; H.R. 198; H.R. 270; H.R. 321; H.R. 464; H.R. 502; H.R. 544; H.R. 917; H.R. 1086; H.R. 1118; H.R. 1441; H.R. 1458; H.R. 1468; H.R. 1658; H.R. 1891; H.R. 2520; H.R. 2607; H.R. 2692; H.R. 2784; H.R. 2785; H.R. 2786; H.R. 2787; H.R. 3141; H.R. 3217; H.R. 3218; H.R. 3356; H.R. 3372; H.R. 3400; H.R. 3438; H.R. 3454; and H.R. 3478."
Why did Obama and Democrats NOT include portablity in ObamaCare? Answer: because it might actually HELP cover people without THEM. The goal is to put private insurance out of business and to end up with a nationalized single payer system. Everything in ObamaCare is directed to that goal.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jimbomoron
April 13, 2010 5:34 PM in reply to acriticalthinker
acriticalthinker,
All of those Republican plans retain standard, preferred, super-preferred, substandard, gender, occupation, unlimited age, unlimited smoking status, etc. ratings. Vigilant as those Republican plans are against giving money to undeserving people, they also unfairly and grotesquely punish people because of their circumstances. Which is what the new law is designed to eliminate (although I'd argue it doesn't go far enough because of the 3:1 age rating and the "prevention and wellness" discounts. I also oppose the smoker rating as I think requiring every American to take a blood test to get health insurance is unworkable.)
That said, I agree with you that the individual mandate -- both the income exemption and the tax penalty level -- is not nearly strong enough to deter a 27-year-old bachelor from waiting until he gets sick to get health insurance. That will have to strengthened, as will the subsidies, the community rating, and the minimum benefits package.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
April 13, 2010 11:36 AM in reply to Rick Jones
Yes, the POLITICS of Blunt's statement is great. Democrats will surely demogogue the hell out of it, while downplaying the real world economic realities that go with eliminating pre-existing conditions. It is not a simple problem, but it will make for a simple demogogic sound bite that uninformed voters will eat up. That is one of the purposes of government schools---to dumb down the public so that liberalism sounds good.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jdb316
April 13, 2010 12:19 PM in reply to acriticalthinker
It goes both ways. Both sides greatly oversimplify issues and concepts so they can frame them for the mostly uninformed, low attention span public in 30 second soundbytes. The GOP have been masters at this for decades.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
human
April 13, 2010 10:53 AM in reply to acriticalthinker
In other words, a person was UNinsured, and after a condition appears, decides to THEN try to purchase health insurance.
Or they were INSURED, then were dumped by their previous insurer because an illness or injury made them no longer cost effective, and they then try to obtain insurance elsewhere if they can even get it or afford it without going bankrupt. Apparently you don't consider other possibilities that don't conform to your established story line.
ObamaCare does not do that because its "individual mandate" imposes a "tax" that is FAR below the cost of the premium, so that the rational thing to do is to pay the tax and just purchase insurance when it is needed and drop it again when it is not needed.
Might seem "rational" from your perspective, unless you "think" about it a bit more, if you can break yourself away from your own little established story line. I could argue that most people and families don't know what health problems they might have throughout the year, and that most people might determine that it makes more sense to purchase and keep insurance rather than having to scamble every time an emergency comes up and purchase insurance only to drop it the same year and then pay a tax penalty for not having it again after that.
That possiblity is no more unrealistic than your own assumption that most people will only buy and drop insurance when they get sick or injured. You also assume that no changes or improvements will be made to the law as passed from here on out--which is only possible if Republicans take control of all branches of government again, repeal the whole thing, and throws everyone back to the good old days where everyone acted with "individual responsibility" and paid whatever prohibitive price the insurers demanded, if they were even accepted, and assuming that those benevolent free market actors didn't just drop people from coverage when it was no longer cost effective(prevented insurance executives from buying a $5 million vacation home).
Now, if you're simply saying that the penalty needs to be higher for those who choose not to purchase insurance, you might have a point. But it remains to be seen whether or not that's necessary, regardless of your special ability to predict how it will work. Waving your magical individual responsibility wand isn't going to make every single person buy health insurance any more than it makes them purchase car insurance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
April 13, 2010 11:16 AM in reply to human
You make a lot of points that I can agree with for the most part. However, your comment is way to long winded for the taste of FreeRider, who subscribes to the witty two sentence substance free persuasion for comments here.
We will have to see how people actually react to a tax that is far below the premium. Undoubtedly, it will have to be tightened later. The initial low tax was the cynical "bait" to lower political opposition to ObamaCare. Imagine how many more people would have joined the majority which already opposed ObamaCare if the tax was equal to or greater than the premium as it should be in order to be a REAL individual mandate. After the "bait" will come the "swithch" or the "fix" that Dems knew all along would be necessary-----later, after ObamaCare is already in place. One CANNOT be too cynical (ie. realistic) when judging the political motivations of Democrats.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
human
April 13, 2010 11:44 AM in reply to acriticalthinker
yes, not like they started a trillion dollar war, off the books, passed a huge expansion of Medicare(again, not paid for), or passed huge tax cuts for the wealthiest(you guessed it, not paid for)--heaven forbid that the Democrats actually come back and fix a budget shortfall, if it should arise.
You probably didn't intend this, but you're actually making a good case for Democrats being more fiscally responsible. All we have from the Republicans is "you can trust us THIS time, we promise!"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
April 13, 2010 12:46 PM in reply to human
"You probably didn't intend this, but you're actually making a good case for Democrats being more fiscally responsible."
Democrats enacted pay go (immediately after passing HUGE unpaid for programs), with an escape hatch for "emergency" spending (for Democrats all spending, except military, is emergency spendging)and a deferred start date.
For Democrats, being "fiscally responsible" means raising taxes again and again. Watch out, the value added tax is coming, which will have the political benefit of being a largely hidden tax---except that for some strange reason the price of everything will be higher to cover the tax that everyone in the chain of production, sale, and distribution will have to pay. Democrats will say it is because "greedy" companies are raising prices to increase "obscene" profits. The lapdog media will lap it up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
skitzo
April 13, 2010 2:18 PM in reply to acriticalthinker
Democrats ARE more fiscally responsible. Under Dubbya, we had eight years of Republican pork-fest, with tax cuts, running huge deficits, starting a war under false pretenses and supporting it with money borrowed from China. Under Clinton, we had bipartisan balanced budgets.
The Bush administration ran the economy into the fucking ground and handed it to the Dems. Now you accuse them of being fiscally irresponsible for investing in the fix? Lame. You can't be taken as a serious thinker if you can't look at history somewhat objectively.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
April 13, 2010 2:41 PM in reply to skitzo
"You can't be taken as a serious thinker if you can't look at history somewhat objectively."
Bush and Republicans WERE irresponsible in trying to be "Democrats Light". You seem to forget that Dems controlled the House in 2006, and have had the WH, House and Senate since 2009. Dems took the Bush deficits and exploded them so that it is now projected that if Obama serves 2 terms (heaven forbid) he will have added more to the national debt than all 43 Presidents before him COMBINED! Also, do not forget the role that Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and other "compassionate" Democrats who wanted to make housing "affordable" for more people had in the financial crisis.
It seems that a lot of history has already gone down the memory hole.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
matts2
April 13, 2010 10:54 AM in reply to acriticalthinker
Or it pre-exists as in you had the condition when covered by your employer's policy, then you want insurance on your own. Or you had some condition of some sort 10 years ago and no treatment since and now want individual coverage.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
April 13, 2010 12:52 PM in reply to matts2
Continuous coverage with portability is the answer for most people.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MT from CC
April 13, 2010 11:46 AM in reply to acriticalthinker
There is actully a very easy answer to this concern, that virtually every other advanced nation in the world has adopted -- either (i) a single payer system with universal coverage, funded through taxed (Medicare for All), or (ii) a heavily regulated, profit controlled, insurance based system (like Switzerland) where aggressive governmental regulation is what keeps the insurance companies from raping consumers when consumers are subjected to a mandate. The alternative is denying medical care to those who need it, which is immoral. Sadly, enacting a single payer system was not a polically viable option. But now that HCR has been adopted, and we have taken the first steps toward ending the immoral practices of a private insurance-based medical care system that lacked any requirement of universal coverage, the merits of shifting away from a very inefficient private insurance model into a single payer model is all but inevitable.
The GOP fearmongered the political arm of government which is most susceptible to fearmongering -- the Congress -- into taking meeker steps to making this change. It has been their mission, in league with private corporate interests, for the past 70 years, to continue a "for-profit" medical care system that leaves 10-20% of the population without affordable access to medical care, in the name of "free markets" that are anything by free - monoploistic, anti-competitive, oligarchic, and inefficient, perhaps, but not even close to "free." It is nothing less than immoral -- and any nations which believes itself to be the greatest country on earth will never be that until it provides universal access to affordable, quality medical care to all of its citizens.
There is no comparison to auto insurance or homeowners insurance here. That is a very false quivalency. First of all, State laws in all 50 states mandate coverage, and people have unisured/underinsured morotist coverage available (usually by state law). With Homeowners insurance, if you took out a loan to buy your house, like 99.99% of those who but houses in the USA, the lender requires you to have the insurance. A mandate is absolutely necessary and appropriate so that the costs of medical care are not disproportionately borne by those who do buy insurance, while the uninsured procure inefficient and expensive care at places that cannot legally deny them care, like hospitals, etc. So financially, it is irresponsible -- and anything but conservative -- to not require everybody to be part of the system, and to contribute toward paying its costs on an equivalent basis to other medical consumers and potential medical consumers. But turning away sick people, and telling them "too bad" unless they can afford outrageously expensive medical care, out of pocket? In a word, immoral.
To paraphraase Jesus, we will all be measured by how we treat the least of his children -- the time to end the immoral practice of for-profit medical care, and excluding sick people from treatment, has long since passed, except for a cult of flat-earthers who favor greed and religion to compassion and science.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
April 13, 2010 12:07 PM in reply to acriticalthinker
I'd have more sympathy with your argument if your side hadn't sat on its hands all through the process of putting this bill together. The mandate would be stronger if there had been Republicans to support a bill with a stronger mandate, and a stronger mandate would have been more palatable for a lot of the Congress had there been a stronger alternative to private insurance in the bill, like the ability to buy into Medicare.
Those things might have been possible had the Republican party not decided that it was in their political interest to try to make it impossible to come to any sort of agreement that could get 60 votes in the Senate. So we ended up with a bill that is a lot weaker than a lot of us would like it to be. But that was your party's choice, my friend. It is unseemly for you to gripe about the results now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
skitzo
April 13, 2010 1:45 PM in reply to acriticalthinker
What you have done is explained why "insurance" is not the proper model in the health care arena. It works for potential but unlikely catastrophic losses, like home fires and car accidents. It does not work for health care, which is a necessity for most everyone at some point. Health care risk needs to be allocated differently. And while I would prefer a single payer system handled through tax dollars rather than having for profit insurance in the loop, everyone needs to participate in the health care system, just like everyone has to pay for schools, roads and national defense. Young people who are less likely to need care will need it some day. The burden placed on taxpayers by uninsured people coming to emergency rooms is threatening to bankrupt the whole system. We are already paying for these uninsured individuals; why not do it in a more efficient way?
Health care is also a highly imperfect model for "free market" competition. The goal of our health care system is not to increase output and profits, as with most good and services. We need a comprehensive system that focuses on prevention, and distributes services in the most efficient, non-profit way possible. Our current system is a gouge-fest for drug companies, hospitals, doctors, and insurance companies. It cannot sustain itself.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
April 13, 2010 2:01 PM in reply to skitzo
"It (insurance) works for potential but unlikely catastrophic losses, like home fires and car accidents. It does not work for health care, which is a necessity for most everyone at some point."
Nearly everyone needs health care at some point, but not everyone has a "catastrophic" health care loss or expense of $500,000, $100,000, or even $20,000. THOSE kinds of things should be covered by insurance, not routine exams or less than "catastrophic" surgeries. Car insurance does not cover oil changes, new batteries, or replacing engines (although you can purchase service contracts if you wish). Home insurance does not cover new roofs or furnaces (but again you can purchase insurance or service contract if you wish).
Part of the problem is the expectation that ALL health care should be "free", paid for by "someone else". What would restaurant insurance cost if you could go to a restaurant for every meal and order everything and anything you might want?
A lot of wasted food and people ordering things they would never order if they had to pay for it themselves. That is one of the dangers of "free" health care.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
skitzo
April 13, 2010 2:30 PM in reply to acriticalthinker
That analogy breaks down too. In a restaurant, people usually have enough information to make informed choices based on cost, quantity and quality. Most people don't know what their health care needs are or what is good quality service or what health care should cost. Consumers cannot make informed choices in health care because they lack the information and knowledge to do so. Consumers rely on doctors, yet they don't have the knowledge or information to evaluate them either. It is called a market imperfection.
Things are not as simple as they seem to you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pppwww
April 13, 2010 2:54 PM in reply to skitzo
"Things are not as simple as they seem to you."
bingo. often, when someone uses ill-considered analogies, it shines a light on the fact that they are rather disconnected from the realities of day-to-day life.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MTinMO
April 13, 2010 3:33 PM in reply to acriticalthinker
You are not necessarily correct about pre-existing. You can have a condition while under one insurance and lose that insurance due to lay off or other cause and have to go under new insurance. I have had to change insurance more than once and know that more often than not a person can't afford to maintain the high cost of Cobra themselves until covered under another policy. So having a preexisting condition doesn't mean you didn't have any insurance, only that you have need of changing insurance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Aljstl
April 14, 2010 3:05 AM in reply to acriticalthinker
Do you mean the economics of insurance where the woman who had acne as a teen was denied coverage for her cancer because some clerk in a doctor's office mistakenly labeled the acne as a pre-cancerous condition? The economics of insurance where this company continued to fight and deny coverage even after that doctor's office notified them of the mistake? Who is doing a better job of scamming the system, patients or insurance companies?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
davewtf
April 13, 2010 10:23 AM in reply to Rick Jones
Hell, genetic high-blood pressure and cholesterol would be considered pre-existing as well, despite the fact that I eat right and exercise. What a dumbass!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kristin126
April 13, 2010 10:52 AM in reply to davewtf
Indeed. I know plenty of people who do all the right things and still have these conditions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
blkblt
April 13, 2010 10:55 AM in reply to davewtf
Being a victim of domestic violence can also be a pre-existing condition.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
human
April 13, 2010 11:09 AM in reply to blkblt
so could being a woman. Which is what the Repubs and teabaggers want to restore.
I swear, if Repubs were handed all of the talking points that Dems now have at their disposal, they'd win every seat in congress.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
April 13, 2010 11:49 AM in reply to Rick Jones
Of course those adults should be disqualified from getting health insurance! All those preexisting conditions you listed are the fault of those who have them. Right?
They should be punished for having those conditions. They didn't take care of themselves. They have sinned! They deserve what they get.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
April 13, 2010 9:45 AM in reply to CityGuy
No way. LOL. You live in MO AND today 4/13 is your birthday? Same here. Happy B-day to u! Next thing your gonna tell is you turned 34.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
barrelhse
April 13, 2010 9:19 AM
Who paid him, and how much? The whore.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Xantar
April 13, 2010 9:24 AM
Well there's a very simple fix for that: just require that everybody purchase insurance so that everyone is in the system, even healthy people who don't think they're going to be sick any time soon. And if you want to be really effective, give them a public option so that they're not stuck with private for-profit insurance companies.
What's that? You support lawsuits to repeal the individual mandate on the grounds that it's unconstitutional? Well that's...an interesting pretzel you've turned yourself into.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
April 13, 2010 10:21 AM in reply to Xantar
Xantar says:
"Well there's a very simple fix for that: just require that everybody purchase insurance so that everyone is in the system, even healthy people who don't think they're going to be sick any time soon."
You are correct, so far.
"And if you want to be really effective, give them a public option so that they're not stuck with private for-profit insurance companies."
Giving people a public option would "allow" people not to be "stuck" with private for-profit insurance companies, because it would not take long for the government "public option"--which would not have to make a profit and which would be kept afloat by deficit spending--would put private insurance companies out of business (which is the whole intention behind those who push the "public option".
"What's that? You support lawsuits to repeal the individual mandate on the grounds that it's unconstitutional? Well that's...an interesting pretzel you've turned yourself into."
Yes, it is, but there is a way around it. How about instead of IMPOSING a MANDATE, let people exercise their own RESPONSIBILITY to maintain insurance on their own or face the consequences if they don't. I know that it is more complex than this, but I have been criticized for "too long" comments, so I will not go into the complexities of fully dealing with individual responsibility, rather than the individual mandate, as the solution to the constitutional pretzel.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
April 13, 2010 10:31 AM in reply to acriticalthinker
Your word games are for stupid people. Your are MANDATED to pay your taxes. You have the RESPONSIBILITY to pay them.
If I cannot afford my insurance premium because I don't make much money cleaning your house, or if the cost of an individual insurance is prohibitively high because of my congenital health condition how am I being irresponsible?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
human
April 13, 2010 11:01 AM in reply to Economides
It was irresponsible of you not to be born with limitless money so that you can exercise your "freedom" to pay whatever ridiculous amount the insurance companies demand.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
April 13, 2010 1:14 PM in reply to human
It;s worth making this distinction: Some people can't afford normally priced insurance (~$4500/yr) because they don't make enough money. Other people are sick so that the cost of "insuring" them ($25,000/yr) is prohibitively high. Community rating takes care of the latter case, subsidies takes care of the former.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
southsidered
April 13, 2010 10:47 AM in reply to acriticalthinker
"it would not take long for the government "public option"--which would not have to make a profit and which would be kept afloat by deficit spending--would put private insurance companies out of business"
God, I hope so. If public insurance can do a better job for less money - and every example on Earth shows that indeed it can - it's time to sweep the for-profit health-insurance industry into the Dumpster of history.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kristin126
April 13, 2010 10:59 AM in reply to southsidered
Agreed totally.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Xantar
April 13, 2010 11:17 AM in reply to acriticalthinker
You do know that the individual mandate is an unenforceable provision of the tax law, right? The IRS can't even use liens or levies to recover the fines associated with not having health insurance. It says so in plain language if you want to look it up. It's a mandate in name only (say, do you think MINO could catch on?).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
April 13, 2010 1:49 PM in reply to Xantar
That is exactly the point! The individual mandate is an intentional illusion to the all too real "no denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions" requirement. Without a REAL mandate, prohibiting consideration of pre-existing conditions inevitably leads to private insurance going out of business because premiums on the smaller pool will have to keep rising to the point where no one can afford them or will be capped to the point where benefits paid will exceed premiums collected. VOILA! No more private insurance, no more competition, no more choice ("if you like your doctor or your insurer you can keep them"). Hello, single payer.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
euphman21
April 13, 2010 11:45 AM in reply to acriticalthinker
You know, public and private insurance markets co-exist in Australia. People who don't want to deal with the wait times can purchase private insurance, and those who cannot afford private insurance still have access to care. Consequently, I don't buy the "public option will drive private insurance companies out of the market" carnard one little bit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
April 13, 2010 2:27 PM in reply to euphman21
"People who don't want to deal with the wait times can purchase private insurance, and those who cannot afford private insurance still have access to care."
Why would there be wait times with ObamaCare? Are we not going to get all the Cadillac health care we want whenever we want it---for little or no money---in fact, according to the CBO and Nancy Pelosi, ObamaCare will REDUCE the deficit.
Why do we have to pay for single payer nationalized health care with our tax dollars and then also pay for private insurance to get us health care that single payer does not provide or does not timely provide, or if doctors refuse to accept government payment for care?
You "don't buy the "public option will drive private insurance companies out of the market" carnard one little bit." Well, if ObamaCare is not repealed we will begin to see before the end of this decade.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
skitzo
April 13, 2010 2:36 PM in reply to acriticalthinker
Obamacare will not get repealed. That is just ignorant smokeblowing by the reactionaries. The AGs who claim it is unconstitutional are either political whores or bad lawyers, and probably both.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
April 13, 2010 9:56 PM in reply to skitzo
"Obamacare will not get repealed. That is just ignorant smokeblowing by the reactionaries." Your first sentence may turn out to be correct. Your second sentence is utterly incorrect.
Have you ever heard of the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988. Unlike ObamaCare it passed with HUGE bipartisan majorities, but like ObamaCare it was unpopular with its intended "beneficiaries". It was repealed in 1989. You can read about it here:
http://mnfamilycouncil.blogspot.com/2010/03/will-obamacare-be-repealed.html
Is repeal likely? Only if voters DEMAND that it be repealed. Voters always get what they want eventually. ObamaCare was enacted against the will of a majority of Americans. It already has a head start on the way to repeal. Obama will veto the will of the people, so the 2012 election will likely be a referendum on ObamaCare.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
April 13, 2010 1:08 PM in reply to acriticalthinker
Actually, my recollection is that the public option that was proposed was required to be self-funding; that is, it could not run on government subsidies.
Also, there is no requirement that private insurance companies must be for-profit companies. That is their choice. Blue Cross started out as a not-for-profit company, and did very well that way, until for-profit companies started popping up like weeds and cherry-picking the healthy prospects.
It's ironic that your party's mantra is that private enterprise is ALWAYS more efficient and cost-effective than anything that has the taint of government attached to it, and yet you are arguing that private insurance companies could not possibly compete against a publicly-run insurance pool.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
April 13, 2010 4:04 PM in reply to slb
"my recollection is that the public option that was proposed was required to be self-funding; that is, it could not run on government subsidies."
Yeah, right. Just like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Last time I looked the federal government is now on the hook for hundreds of billions in Fannie and Freddie liabilities. "Proposed" and "planned" is one thing, reality is quite another. A public option would be subsidized by the government (i.e., taxpayers) in short order.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pppwww
April 13, 2010 4:26 PM in reply to acriticalthinker
don't forget TARP: they're also on the hook for private institutions like AIG.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
April 13, 2010 10:14 PM in reply to pppwww
"don't forget TARP: they're also on the hook for private institutions like AIG."
Right you are. AIG was another victim of the "affordable housing" dream of Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Democrats, and Fannie and Freddie that set off the financial crisis. Barney, Maxine, and others blocked Republican attempts to regulate Fannie and Freddie and mortgages. Maxine said Fannie was doing "an outstanding job under the leadership of Franklin Raines(of Clinton Administration fame)...everything has worked just fine and GSEs have exceeded their housing goals" which included "100% mortgages". Raines said "these assets (home mortgages) are so riskless that capital for holding them should be under 2%" Ooops. Don't take my word for it. See and hear for yourself----if you have the courage to face the truth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
docrocktex
April 13, 2010 9:26 AM
I guess he has no clue about what passes for a pre-existing condition these days seeing as how he believes all pre-existing conditions result from people not taking good enough care of themselves. Even if he did it wouldn't matter one iota because it shouldn't matter how one contracts a disease, only that quality healthcare is available to them when they do. What a selfish, senseless prick.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jim H
April 13, 2010 9:46 AM
Well everyone knows that you get a preexisting condition by not believing in Jesus enough. duh!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Condor
April 13, 2010 9:49 AM
The GOP cult of "Personal Responsibility" is a remarkable thing to behold. It's how soulless assholes convince themselves that they're not soulless assholes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
human
April 13, 2010 11:30 AM in reply to Condor
our "critical thinker" seems to be really hung up on that. A lot of mocking of those with "compassion", or those who also realize that our recent "health care" system could not sustain itself and would continue to cripple our economy and country--but not a whole lot offered in the way of solutions aside from empty rhetoric about "personal responsibility". Oh, and a limitless extension of COBRA.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AhTrini1
April 13, 2010 9:50 AM
You sick adult teabagging/republican/conservative slackers shouldn't be sheilded from insurance companies discrimnating against you - good for you all!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
California Dreamer
April 13, 2010 10:03 AM
Man, I wish I knew where to come down on this.
I think of myself as at least very liberal, and clearly Blunt is off his rocker if he thinks that all pre-existing conditions are self inflicted.
But I'm very concerned about creating a system with too few incentives to keep ourselves healthy. I really don't want everybody who's living responsibly to be stuck with the (very expensive) diabetes treatment bills of every pizza-gorging, soda-guzzling couch potato.
Think of the "moral hazard" of telling banks (and auto makers and insurance companies) they can be too big to fail -- it just encourages them to make bets that the rest of us are then stuck covering when they go bad. It's clear to me that we're crazy not to protect ourselves against that, and I'm worried about an impending epidemic of diabetes (as well as various alcohol/tobacco/drug-induced diseases) overwhelming our economy.
Not a health care policy expert, but I see no evidence that we've addressed this sort of threat, and I think we're crazy not to be doing more to disincentivize unhealthy life styles.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
April 13, 2010 10:36 AM in reply to California Dreamer
You are on the right track. You are right, not all pre-existing conditions are self inflicted. What the compassion crowd does not take into account is that insurance companies do not have unlimited supplies of money. For every benefit dollar paid, a premium dollar must be collected---sorry about that FreeRider (is that an appropriate name or what?) and lousgirl. If an insurance companies is required to pay benefits for pre-existing conditions SOMEONE has to pay the premiums to cover them. If the pool is large, the total costs of benefits can be spread over that large pool and everyone can be covered, pre-existing condition or not. If the pool is not VERY large, then premiums must go up on those in the pool or the insurance companies will have to go out of business because benefits paid are greater than premiums collected. It is very simple, even I a "rightwing, teabagging nutcase", get it...and so simple even cave man and a liberal SHOULD be able to understand it too. Maybe not.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
human
April 13, 2010 11:19 AM in reply to acriticalthinker
Well since everyone will be required to purchase insurance, I'd say the insured pool will in fact be VERY large.
In fact, I'd say that, aside from your constant stream of petty insults and condescending put-downs laced throughout your posts, you're not really making any intelligent points other than arguing that maybe the tax penalty should be higher.
Or, maybe we need to find a more powerful "individual responsibility" wand that will cause everyone to purchase insurance, insurers to consequently reduce their premiums(since their alleged justification for bankruptcy inducing prices will have been removed), and no one to be dropped from coverage after they are sick or injured.
I expect that to happen right around the time you complete your perpetual motion machine.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
April 13, 2010 1:14 PM in reply to acriticalthinker
Actually, for every benefit dollar paid out, private companies try very hard to collect at least $1.30.
But putting that aside, I believe you have just made a very nice argument in favor of a single payer system, which would indeed have a very large insurance pool.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jason Miller
April 13, 2010 10:37 AM in reply to California Dreamer
Two thirds of the country now fit your description to one degree or another. That said, I agree we need to build preventative measures into any sort of mandated health insurance schema as well as massive restructuring of our farming subsidy programs toward good calories over bad.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Matt Jones
April 13, 2010 10:54 AM in reply to California Dreamer
We all end up paying for the care in your example one way or another: the only question is, do we prefer to cover the diabetic's supplies to stay healthy, or cover the ER and surgical costs when the disease goes untreated and they show up in the ER with a septic infection in an extremity and wind up needing an amputation.
Well, unless you add the Republican option - let the poor bastard die.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
California Dreamer
April 13, 2010 11:53 AM in reply to Matt Jones
"the only question is, do we prefer to cover the diabetic's supplies to stay healthy, or cover the ER and surgical costs when the disease goes untreated and they show up in the ER ..."
That's probably the only short term question. But for the long-term viability of the system and the economy as a whole, there's another question, which is whether we can do anything to reduce the terrible drain that diabetes treatment (by either course) seems likely to unleash on our economy.
For that I fear we need a reasonably draconian set of incentives/disincentives. I say this as someone who *wants* to take care of people but worries about
1) funneling even more of our resources into the relatively unproductive health care sector,
2) a backlash to "out-of-control entitlement spending."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Frex
April 13, 2010 11:15 AM in reply to California Dreamer
The simple way to encourage 'healthy' behavior is to provide a financial incentive e,g. a surcharge on the cost of the policy for smokers, the obese etc. No need to deny coverage.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
California Dreamer
April 13, 2010 11:30 AM in reply to Frex
I suppose you're right.
I'd so prefer a single-payer "social insurance" system. Could we do that and also include the sorts of "premium enhancements" that would protect us from all paying to subsidize some people's self indulgence?
Otherwise the current approach may actually be best, i.e. letting private insurance companies reap huge profits in exchange for enforcing the market controls on lifestyle that we're to timid/compassionate to impose.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
April 13, 2010 1:23 PM in reply to Frex
Smoking is unquestionably a choice, but obesity--not so much. Genetics can have a lot to do with whether or not a person is obese. Not to mention that "healthy lifestyles" are expensive in terms of both time and money. There is a reason that the poor are so often also obese. It's because the cheapest food is often the least healthy. So putting higher premiums on people who are over some ideal weight would punish a lot of people for the sins of (a) having bad genes; and/or (b) being poor.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
April 13, 2010 4:14 PM in reply to Frex
"provide a financial incentive e,g. a surcharge on the cost of the policy for smokers, the obese etc."
Isn't that discrimination based upon a pre-existing condition? Of course it is. Could it be that there is SOME place in a rational health care system for such "discrimination" (i.e. making rational distinctions) so as to place at least some responsibility and incentives for choices within our control concerning our health? If so, could it be that Rep. Blunt has at least a kernal of a valid point? Just askin'
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
April 13, 2010 1:22 PM in reply to California Dreamer
How much disincentive is there in getting sick? Who wants that? Not everything important is motivated by desire for money.
Ever hear the old saying "If you have your health you have everything"?
Just one example of the disincentives to staying healthy - the processed food industry. If you want to maintain a healthy weight you will cut out all processed sugar and processed starches like potatoes, wheat bread, etc. and replace them with fruits and vegetables and low-glycemic bread like Rye. Eat meat as a garnish, not just the main course. By eliminating the high glycemic foods, you gain control over your hunger pangs and find yourself eating smaller portions and less frequently.
Now walk through a grocery store and look at what is for sale. Mostly it is processed and convenience foods that are bad for you, but they are low-cost high profit foods that are designed to travel well and have a long shelf-life. Breakfast cereals are a prime example, especially the sugared ones.
If you eat on a low budget you will find yourself buying primarily foods that cause weight gain and lead to diabetes. (The introduction of sugared canned drinks to Mexico coincided with a shift from too few calories for many people to an obesity epidemic.) You can't eat well and cheap at the same time in America. But the food sellers distributing cheap foods advertise and the people pushing healthy foods don't. The economy of scale goes to the processed foods, and advertising for long production runs from a food factory costs the same total amount as advertising for small production runs of locally produced but more healthy foods.
The short-term financial incentives are all on the side of eating unhealthy cheap and convenient foods. Just look at the fast food industry that has replaced most restaurants selling more healthy fare, and we all eat out more.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
April 13, 2010 1:32 PM in reply to Richardxx
If you eat on a low budget you will find yourself buying primarily foods that cause weight gain and lead to diabetes. ... You can't eat well and cheap at the same time in America.
Thank you, thank you! I was just trying to make the same point in a reply I left upthread. This was hammered home to me in one of the sections in Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickel and Dimed, the one in which the only housing she can find within the budget she has is one of those motels where you rent rooms by the week. She had a hot plate, but no refrigerator, which really limited the sorts of foods that she could even contemplate buying. And, as you say, the cheap foods are the ones most detrimental to your long-term health.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
California Dreamer
April 13, 2010 1:37 PM in reply to Richardxx
Lots of excellent points about the food production/marketing system. Makes me wonder why the health insurance companies aren't lobbying for a healthier food system.
Certainly not everything is motivated by a desire for money, and almost nobody wants to get sick.
But:
1) you seem to me to undermine your main point by arguing that eating unhealthfully is, in fact, motivated by monetary concerns;
2) people DO act in ways that make them sick. We choose near-term convenience, comfort, pleasure over long-term health.
I'm all in favor of re-engineering our food production/marketing/delivery system to support better health. Maybe that will be enough. But as long as people are making decisions that sabotage our economy and cost everybody else money, they shouldn't expect everyone else to pay for them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
D Mac
April 13, 2010 10:04 AM
I still don't get it: you tell 31,000,000 Americans they
have to buy health insurance when this passed, and this
Turkey said their waiting until they get sick to buy insurance.
He voted not to pass health care so he can make this lame
statement. I have more respect for the people in the show me
state than to elected Mr Blunt.. Lets get people to quit
showing up at emerency rooms for their check up Roy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
D Mac
April 13, 2010 10:05 AM
I still don't get it: you tell 31,000,000 Americans they
have to buy health insurance when this passed, and this
Turkey said their waiting until they get sick to buy insurance.
He voted not to pass health care so he can make this lame
statement. I have more respect for the people in the show me
state than to elected Mr Blunt.. Lets get people to quit
showing up at emergency rooms for their check up Roy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cambridgeMR
April 13, 2010 10:12 AM
You know, that Lou Gehrig guy really deserved what he got, considering how he didn't take care of himself.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
drinal
April 13, 2010 10:15 AM
Yeah so my 50 year old friend who developed type 1 diabetes at age 19, thru no fault of his own, and has never been able to get health insurance as a result - let's continue to just leave him hanging out there. Great idea. geez.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
California Dreamer
April 13, 2010 10:25 AM in reply to drinal
This was probably not a response to my post, but let me clarify that I'm completely in favor of a social insurance system (single payer, if we can ever get that passed) that fully covers your friend and everybody else whose problems are "no fault of [their] own."
Not a "soulless asshole," but worried about the effects on all of us of underwriting unhealthy lifestyles.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
April 13, 2010 11:12 AM in reply to California Dreamer
Unhealthy lifestyles are cheaper for healthcare. They die younger of a heart attack. It's the old folks who live into their 90's who cost all of the money.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
drinal
April 13, 2010 11:36 AM in reply to California Dreamer
CalifDreamer, actually I hadn't yet read your post. The new bill does (wisely) promote wellness care, preventive medicine, improves education and access to information. Not sure if there are direct incentives for healthy living (i.e. discounts) but it's a huge step in the right direction. . http://www.taxalmanac.org/index.php/Health_Care_Act_of_2010
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
California Dreamer
April 13, 2010 11:58 AM in reply to drinal
I hope it's a "huge" step. I worry that, compared to the *size* of the problem, it's just a couple (token) baby steps.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Msinformed
April 13, 2010 3:02 PM in reply to California Dreamer
Yeah, I am sure all the partying we did in our late twenties is what caused my friend's Parkinson's.
Ailments are not punishments for behaviors one dislikes in others.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
April 13, 2010 10:46 AM in reply to drinal
If you have coverage from the day you are born and it is portable and you maintain it throughout your life, there would be no condition that "pre-exists" the insurance coverage. The connection of health insurance with employment (which arose as a result of government wage and price controls in the 1940's and has solidified as a result of the federal income tax exclusion of employer provided insurance---but no deduction for an individual who buys insurance on his own) is one piece of the problem. "Compassionate" Democrats oppose allowing individuals to deduct or receive a credit toward the cost of health care premiums so that they are treated equally with those who have employer provided insurance. They also oppose allowing people to buy insurance offered at a lower price in other states. Why?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nedbalzer
April 13, 2010 11:55 AM in reply to acriticalthinker
I agree with your point that employer-based health insurance is part of the problem -- health insurance costs should not be different depending on whom you work for (and especially not higher just because you're self-employed). For one thing, it discourages people from paying attention to how much their health care costs, when the premiums are buried in the fine print of a pay stub, and the reported costs themselves vary so widely from one coverage plan to another. (My insurance plan pays a different amount for a lab test than my wife's does, even though it's the same test administered by the same lab.)
As such (and as what you call a compassionate Democrat), I have no particular objection to allowing individuals to deduct or receive a credit toward the cost of health care premiums so that they are treated equally with those who have employer provided insurance. But how would a deduction or credit that was valuable enough to cover the difference be less expensive, or more efficient, than just selling people health care coverage directly? If the government just sold people their coverage, employers wouldn't have to pay their share, and they could hire more people, and at a higher wage to boot! In other words, if you're arguing for a tax credit or deduction, why aren't you arguing for single-payer?
As for allowing people to buy insurance in other states at a lower cost, that would be fine too, if only there were a minimum regulatory standard set for the insurance industry across states (and that minimum standard should be set much much higher than it is in some states currently). Otherwise, the insurance industry will behave in exactly the same way that you predict health insurance buyers will behave in not buying insurance until they need it. Insurance Cos will only sell in the least regulated markets, ie. the markets that are cheapest for them. There will be a race to the bottom in terms of the level and quality of coverage. That's why.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
April 13, 2010 4:43 PM in reply to nedbalzer
"As for allowing people to buy insurance in other states at a lower cost, that would be fine too, if only there were a minimum regulatory standard set for the insurance industry across states (and that minimum standard should be set much much higher than it is in some states currently)."
Much of the "minimum standards" relate to what benefits must be included. Some states might require catastrophic coverage as their minimum standard while others may require full first dollar coverage for everything, with other states somewhere in between. What a person in a full coverage state only wants (or can only afford) more limited coverage? He or she is FORCED to buy and pay for a plan he or she does not want or can afford.
Why not let each individual choose for themselves the level of coverage that they want and can afford to pay. Of course, clearly setting out what is covered and not covered is essential so there are no surprises.
Requiring people to purchase full or nearly full coverage is like forcing everyone to buy a BMW with a full service warranty package when maybe what they want and can afford is a new Honda Civic or a used Chevy. Some might say it is not fair that one person has a BMW and another person drives a Chevy. I am afraid that the country can no more afford to give everyone a Cadillac health plan than it can afford to provide everyone with a BMW or a $300,000 house. I know health is different.
Universal health care cannot come without tradeoffs. There ARE unforeseen and hidden costs (financial, access, innovation, coverage, etc) that will accompany ObamaCare.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jimbomoron
April 13, 2010 5:46 PM in reply to acriticalthinker
Why have no mandated benefits? Because what insurer is going to cover big bucks items such as mental health, maternity care, DME, etc. if they aren't required to do so? And if items are only required to be offered as a rider, how on earth are you going to get a risk selection for that rider that spreads risk across users and non-users, and makes the rider affordable to its users?
Also, if you mandate even a low level of coverage, what is there to prevent healthy people from buying catastrophic coverage while people with diabetes, HIV, etc. buy a much richer plan? And how will health insurance become affordable to those with pre-existing conditions if the risk pools get this out of whack?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jimbomoron
April 13, 2010 5:57 PM in reply to acriticalthinker
Why do Democrats oppose nationwide plans? Because all they will do is muck up community ratings, and make health insurance unaffordable for sick people.
Here in Massachusetts, for example, we have a 2:1 community rating, a minimum 56 percent actuarial value, and we require an insurance policy to cover maternity care, mental health parity, general mental health, substance abuse treatment, contraceptives, and well-child care. Wyoming has no community rating, and requires none of the services I listed to be covered in an insurance policy. So if we allowed nationwide plans, healthy 30-year-olds like me would buy policies Wyoming where we could get a much better deal, leaving those with pre-existing conditions in a pool to themselves, and beginning an insurance death spiral when the entire point of the community rating was to make health insurance affordable for those with pre-existing conditions.
Let me put it another way: allowing insurers to sell across state lines amounts to taking several hundred thousand dollars out of a cancer patient's pockets and putting it into the pockets of a bunch of 25-year-old bachelors and insurance company CEOs.
And I say this as an actuary.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
April 13, 2010 10:30 PM in reply to jimbomoron
Thank you for pointing out one of the tradeoffs of allowing states to approve policies with different minimum benefit packages. I can see how it would "muck up" community rating. There is a tension between community rating which spreads the risk for a very broad benefit package over a very broad pool of insureds, and allowing individuals the freedom to choose the kind of benefit (possibly narrower) package they want at a lower cost.
Coming down on the community rating side of the tradeoff, you say:
"Let me put it another way: allowing insurers to sell across state lines amounts to taking several hundred thousand dollars out of a cancer patient's pockets and putting it into the pockets of a bunch of 25-year-old bachelors".
Someone on the side of freedom of individuals to choose their own, possibly narrower, benefit package might say:
"Let me put it another way: NOT allowing insurers to sell across state lines amounts to taking several hundred thousand dollars out the pockets of a bunch of 25-year-old bachelors and putting it into a cancer patient's pockets."
(Forget the "CEO pocket's" riff--they get their share either way).
In the end, someone pays. There is no choice that comes without a price or tradeoff.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PorkBelly
April 13, 2010 10:22 AM
Yeah, my Crohn's disease, which prevents me from getting insurance, was the result of me not taking care of myself?
Fuck you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Given Up
April 13, 2010 10:36 AM
Well obviously if you give people an incentive not to get sick then they won't. The power of the free market!
/snark
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
California Dreamer
April 13, 2010 10:44 AM in reply to Given Up
If you give people a big enough incentive not to smoke, they won't.
If they don't smoke, they'll be less likely to get sick.
Am I missing something here?
Let's try to think clearly. The extreme of any position is ridiculous, but we're fools if we simply underwrite everybody's destructive choices.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kristin126
April 13, 2010 10:51 AM in reply to California Dreamer
My concern is how far would we go with this.
Are we going to condemn everyone who might not be perfect? If you're 10 pounds overweight, is that a "destructive choice?" Should we ban all sports that might be possibly a touch dangerous (that would be most of them)?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
California Dreamer
April 13, 2010 11:45 AM in reply to Kristin126
"If you're 10 pounds overweight, is that a "destructive choice?" Should we ban all sports that might be possibly a touch dangerous (that would be most of them)?"
Certainly good questions. At about 10 pounds overweight, it strikes home, too.
Again, not an expert, but perhaps the solutions is to try hard to understand the actual risk of these behaviors and adjust premiums to compensate for them. (People would probably just lie about their participation in motocross and bull riding, but what can ya do?)
I don't think this is an ignorable problem, given the impending diabetes epidemic, so I'm resistant to slippery slope arguments. Given that I strongly prefer a single-payer system, the question for me is whether we have the backbone to resist accusations of engineering a "nanny state."
Or maybe this (premiums genuinely adjusted for risk) is what will emerge from letting the private sector pursue profits without being able to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions. I worry it'll be pretty harsh, and that genetic conditions (which I would like to cover without higher premiums) will be treated even more harshly than life-style-induced ones.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
April 13, 2010 1:48 PM in reply to California Dreamer
Again, not an expert, but perhaps the solutions is to try hard to understand the actual risk of these behaviors and adjust premiums to compensate for them.
But see, this is part of what makes the current system of insurance expensive relative to a system that covers everyone at the same basic rates. Paul Krugmann has talked about this a lot, comparing the overhead of private companies to the overhead of systems like that provided by the VA or by Medicare. Private companies burn up a great deal of overhead screening patients, trying to figure out who to charge more and how much, and who to deny coverage to altogether. Part of the reason that the VA and Medicare have such low overhead is that they don't have to do all that screening -- they just take all comers and don't worry about differential rates.
And once you start slicing and dicing the insurance pool, there is no end to it. Should social drinkers be charged more than teetotalers? Should meat-eaters be charged more than vegans? Should single people be charged more than married ones? Studies show that pets are beneficial to human health; should people without pets get a premium surcharge? Should people living in smoggy cities have to pay more than people in rural areas?
There are all sorts of lifestyle choices that affect health. How much do we really want insurance companies prying into those?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
California Dreamer
April 13, 2010 3:11 PM in reply to slb
Krugman is right, if I understand him, that Medicare is more "efficient," in the sense that they have MUCH less overhead. But that doesn't make them cheaper. They could have virtual 100% efficiency in that sense by simply paying all claims and never checking anything.
"And once you start slicing and dicing the insurance pool, there is no end to it." I'm not sure this is a conclusive argument. There is a slippery slope, but that's true of so much policy. The fact that something can be overdone should, in general, make us careful, but it's not a good reason to do nothing. (Cf. Medicare, educational reform, Title IX, etc, etc.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
April 13, 2010 2:06 PM in reply to California Dreamer
Your mistake is to try to limit all incentives to financial incentives aimed at the individual. What about financial incentives aimed at the organizations that profit from the poor behavior?
Financial incentives are a lot less important to a tobacco addict than the need created by his addiction. So are the social pressures to look "cool." (Why else would high schoolers spend so much on designer jeans and overpriced tennis shoes? Social pressures.)
The social system is often a great deal more important than the economic system alone. Playing with financial incentives aimed only at individuals ignores the financial incentives for the sellers and producers and completely ignores the social and medical incentives which are often much more powerful than just individual financial incentives.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
California Dreamer
April 13, 2010 3:03 PM in reply to Richardxx
Excellent points. Should also be incorporated, if at all possible, into comprehensive health care policy.
I strongly support things like banning Camel from advertising to kids. More of the same!
But I think, based on centuries of economic data, that individual incentives are also a significant piece of the cost reduction puzzle.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Given Up
April 13, 2010 10:55 AM in reply to California Dreamer
I agree with the fact that we should not underwrite people destructive choices, and to my knowledge we are not being forced to do that. Correct me if i'm wrong on this but it is my understanding that insurance companies can charge people who are bigger risks higher premiums in the same way a car insurance company gets to charge higher premiums to people with lots of speeding tickets.
If you smoke you will have higher premiums, its that simple. However, even if a smoker gets lung cancer and it is demonstrably directly related to his/her smoking habits i still feel it would be immoral not to allow them to access adequate medical care.
This is not the case with a large fraction of pre-existing conditions however. They are quite often things which the victim had no direct control over.
Granted underwriting poor lifestyle choices isn't great but that does not mean we should cut off a large number of people from essential care in order to avoid a minimal moral hazard, especially in context of the much greater moral issue of cutting off medical care to those who need it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
California Dreamer
April 13, 2010 11:22 AM in reply to Given Up
As I understand it, and as regards the current law, you're completely right.
My comments arose from a self-examination of my own preference for a single-payer system.
As long as we rely on insurance companies that can charge whatever they claim they need to to make a profit, I suppose the problem goes away (replaced, in my view, by at least profiteering and weaker controls on costs).
I still worry that our society is swirling down a health care cost maelstrom due to our self-indulgent lifestyles, but I suppose that's a separate issue.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Given Up
April 13, 2010 11:32 AM in reply to California Dreamer
I definitely see where you are coming from but i believe that it has different roots than healthcare. If single payer led to less healthy lifestyles we would expect the populations of Canada and most European nations to be considerably less healthy than the population of the US, at least as far as lifestyle choices are concerned. This does not however seem to be the case, in fact obesity rates are significantly lower (last i checked anyways).
I suspect the problem lies elsewhere, maybe with food subsidies as was mentioned above, or perhaps with the fact that many Americans do not have the free time necessary to live healthily.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
California Dreamer
April 13, 2010 12:20 PM in reply to Given Up
>> it [unhealthy lifestyle choices leading to high risk of disease] has different roots than healthcare.
Agree completely. Frequent foreign traveler, appalled that nearly every fat, loud person I encounter has American accent.
The fact that the primary cause lies elsewhere doesn't negate the fact that health care policy can either exacerbate or reduce it. [The mortgage/banking crisis was rooted in greed, but could have been at least greatly reduced by adequate regulation.]
It also doesn't, alas, negate the consequences for the economy of the health care costs of those lifestyle choices. And it may be that that is where we have the most leverage to control them.
Possible Approaches:
1) Remove food subsidies: logically simple, politically difficult, dubiously effective (how much would the cost of sugar have to rise before people stopped drinking their sodas?).
2) Give us more free time: logically complicated (i.e. how would we do it?), politically might be a winner, possibly helpful.
3) Incentivize healthy living: not too complicated (with discounts/surcharges), politically challenging ("nanny state! taking away my freedom!!! nanny state!"), probably quite effective.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jimbomoron
April 13, 2010 5:19 PM in reply to California Dreamer
California Dreamer,
I think using the underwriting process to penalize lifestyles (1) increases the average cost of insurance (You have to pay for the blood tests to determine smoking status and you have to pay an underwriter to ask questions about a person's lifestyle choices) and (2) leads to a slippery slope. Clearly, procreation is more a lifestyle choice than, say, obesity. So why shouldn't married couples who choose to get sterilized pay a lower premium than those who don't? You can see where this can go.
I think sin taxes (i.e., cigarette) and removing subsidies is a much better way to encourage healthy lifestyles than the underwriting process.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
April 13, 2010 1:40 PM in reply to California Dreamer
Yes. You are missing something. For generations the incentives were all to smoke and the information that it was bad for you was suppressed by the tobacco industry. There was no money to be made by contradicting the Marlboro Man, so no one did. Finally a few people started getting the word out, and pressuring the government to stop the tobacco industry from advertising (especially to children.)
The financial incentives have been in favor of smoking because the tobacco industry was so highly profitable. Tobacco is an addictive drug, as we mostly know now - unless we are smokers. Addicts often refuse to face this truth, and convenience stores exist to supply them with tobacco products (as well as sugar, alcohol and generally unhealthy fast food products.)
The tobacco industry still pressures the community of tobacco addicts to addict new customers in a variety of ways. The addicts are happy to go along with it because they don't want the pain of withdrawal.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
California Dreamer
April 13, 2010 7:53 PM in reply to Richardxx
This all seems close enough to true, but I'm not sure what your point is. Hooking people on smoking was once (and still is?) profitable. I assume you're implying that this was bad and that we should fix it. I agree, of course.
From your other posts, I gather that you also feel that the society and economy are so arranged that less healthy food is cheaper and drinks that make you less healthy are considered (by many) to be cool. Again, I agree.
I hope I'm not taken as arguing that we should do NOTHING besides dis/incentivize individuals. If we want to contain health care costs (which I think we must, both for the vitality of our own economy and for global competitiveness), we'll probably need a variety of tools, including health-oriented regulation of the food production/marketing system, serious taxes on stuff that clearly makes you less healthy, etc.
I'm concerned about the slippery slope problems everybody here worries about, but that's what nearly all policy has to worry about (at least the tax code, etc.).
Again, I'm not disagreeing, but I still think my points are valid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
April 13, 2010 4:49 PM in reply to California Dreamer
"Let's try to think clearly. The extreme of any position is ridiculous, but we're fools if we simply underwrite everybody's destructive choices."
A reasonable position that everyone SHOULD be able to subscribe to....but maybe not by some here. Some are locked into their extreme positions and are not willing to consider budging an inch.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pppwww
April 13, 2010 6:52 PM in reply to acriticalthinker
the minute everybody agrees to that is the same minute the religious right starts talking about the "destructive choice" people make by "choosing" to be in a same-sex relationship or the minute tobacco lobbyists [hi, mrs. blunt!] start lobbying that smoking isn't a "destructive choice".
it's not even a slippery slope; it happens immediately.
here's a madlib version:
"i don't want to pay for his/her insurance because he/she is ______"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
California Dreamer
April 13, 2010 8:05 PM in reply to pppwww
I just don't see how we can avoid having this argument (or "conversation" in the euphemistic jargon of the moment).
At least in my opinion, we're not likely to be able to pay for everything everyone would like us to.
Some lifestyle choices can be proven to place a much greater burden on society than others. People who insist on driving 30mph over the speed limit should have to pay much more for insurance. The same is true of people who insist on smoking. There are plenty of gray areas. There may be some costly behaviors (getting pregnant at a more advanced age?) that we still want to avoid punishing. I know it gets messy, but if the alternative is a prohibitively expensive health care sector and a declining quality of life for everyone, I think we're justified in trying to protect ourselves against too much economically destructive behavior.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
imagiste
April 13, 2010 11:48 AM in reply to Given Up
!! you have to make sure they know it's a snark, sometimes. To many, you've just laid out a plausible argument.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CPM
April 13, 2010 10:40 AM
Stumps me how the good people of "The Show Me " state can elect a person who shows no understanding of the human condition. I'm sure he must have some constituents who breathed in their dad's second-hand smoke and developed lung cancer. The person who had childhood diabetes and as an adult needs to purchase health insurance on thier own. And the list goes on.
Looking at photographs and video of Senator Blunt, it's hard to see that he's a shining example of one who takes care of himself starting with the appearance of some excess fat. If he's never indulged in a piece of birthday cake or fried fish and french fries, a little too many holiday treats, well, maybe. If he gets an hour of aerobic exercise a day, well maybe. He who is perfect may cast the first stone but it's hard to believe he's perfect.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
thomaswoof
April 13, 2010 10:52 AM
"But access for adults who've done nothing to take care of themselves..."
Dear Mr. Blunt;
I was born with my pre-existing condition.
Fuck you, you ignorant, insensitive, privileged bastard.
Sincerely,
Thomas
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
human
April 13, 2010 11:03 AM in reply to thomaswoof
It was irresponsible of you not to arrange for insurance coverage before you left the womb.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
April 13, 2010 2:13 PM in reply to human
So you also favor single payer universal health coverage, right?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jackster
April 13, 2010 10:57 AM
This is the direct result of a health care reform bill that is severely weakened by corporate interests. All of the teeth have been taken out to allow people to opt out and pay a pittence as a result. They get sick, can't pay, the costs get passed to those who can. There are solutions that could have been put in place but were removed by R's and blew dawgs. ie: Expand Medicare to all, pay less get more. Medicare won't go broke if properly funded with premiums. Non profit, less overhead.
More people would take personal responsibility if the cost of Insurance was not half of what they make or more. Choice; food and housing or HI?
Comparing HI to auto, home or life ins. is an apples to watermelon argument and hearing it makes me scream.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Big Al
April 13, 2010 11:08 AM
Mr Blunt is a Tom Delay type of republican. This is what we can expect from a cigarette lobbyist. Oh don't forget this fuckwang gets free health insurance for life.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Texar
April 13, 2010 11:12 AM
Blunt = PIG
Any questions?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Xantar
April 13, 2010 12:15 PM in reply to Texar
Are you sure? I think a good argument could be made for "ASS" personally.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rlkinny
April 13, 2010 11:17 AM
What happens when a child with a pre-existing condition becomes an adult? Would the insurance companies have the right to then drop them when they reach the age of 18?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
imagiste
April 13, 2010 11:40 AM in reply to rlkinny
....death camps
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GTFOOH
April 13, 2010 11:17 AM
Wonder if he was an idiot since childhood, or this is a pre-existing condition acquired during adulthood!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lucieann
April 13, 2010 11:20 AM
Blunt is done.....put a fork in him!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
septictank
April 13, 2010 11:29 AM
Blunt's position is really quite consistent with the overarching conservative view that bad things only happen to bad people, except when bad things happen to them personally (i.e., the poor are so because they're insufficiently virtuous and God doesn't love them like He loves the herrenvolk).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GenePoole
April 13, 2010 11:37 AM
Blunt makes the argument FOR single-payer insurance, and doesn't even know it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Charmin
April 13, 2010 11:38 AM
I live in MO and I want ALL the Blunts out of MO politics. We've had his little boy as governor for one term and like Sarah, he decided he couldn't handle the pressure. Blunts are crooked and give MO politics a bad name. Old Harry Truman is probably wondering where WE all went wrong!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
imagiste
April 13, 2010 11:39 AM
Responsibility for insurance begins at conception! So, guys, remember to tuck policies neatly under your little guys' headcaps when they go out. .
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DICKM
April 13, 2010 11:52 AM
He's making the argument for the "mandate" right in his speech. If there is no "mandate" then the whole idea of no pre-conditions simply won't work (assuming you're going to go with a private insurance rather than a single-payer system). It's like car insurance - you can't call up and ask for car insurance after you have an accident - makes no sense. So in order to cover no pre-conditions there has to be a "mandate" of some kind where everyone is in and the actuaries can calc accordingly. In an odd way I am being fair to the insurance companies but it's the only fair way to do it.
The other alternative is to have a kind of "pre-condition amnesty day" when everyone can sign up regardless, after which if you didn't sign up for insurance then you are on your own if you come down with a pre-condition before you ask for insurance in the future. It would mean you would have to have an amnesty day ona certain birthday as kids become adults and when people become citizens. This WOUD work and these a-holes could turn it down and then they could have their beloved pre-conditions all they want :-).
Makes too much sense I guess.
Dick
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bud-in-Florida
April 13, 2010 1:57 PM in reply to DICKM
Yes - exactly. He does make the case for a mandate for everyone to have insurance right is his discussion - he's sitting at a table with people having a discussion - it's not a "speech".
People, you have got to recognize the difference between INSURANCE and WELFARE.
"Insurance" is a commercial contract that must be even-handed for it to work.
"Welfare" is providing 'services' or 'benefits' to people who have not earned them.
You can't expect any business to give out their products to people who have not payed for that product in a business environment. If that business wants to make charitable GIFTs of its services out of their compassion for a person in need, that's fine, but that gift obviously must come out of their profits. Insurance companies only make 6% profits so if they gave it all out as charitable gifts, it still wouldn't be very much.
The whole thing is a very big and very complex problem and perhaps the simple solution is for the government to take over all of it and run it as forced charity - aka "welfare", aka "entitlements" - aka "socialism" - which leads to Loss of Freedom.
What conservatives don't like about the government running it is that the government doesn't seem to be able to run anything well - medicare is bankrupt, medicaid is bankrupt, the post office is bankrupt, Amtrack is bankrupt, etc., etc. The only reason the military is not bankrupt is that they throw enough money at it to keep it going despite the inefficiencies and disasteristic decisions and methods they follow.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyleleander
April 13, 2010 11:53 AM
Let's see what the reaction would be if he proposed Medicare not treat/cover conditions that people had before they turned 65.
Of course, it's the same thing as 'Waning ourselves off Social Security'.
I.e. Appeal to all the selfish, hypocritical teabagging idiots who have got theirs, thanks, but as far as you... go fuck yourself. Govt. Hands off my MEDICARE!!!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Numbersguy
April 13, 2010 11:56 AM
He's a turd. He dumped his old wrinkly wife for a new, shiny, better lubricated model who was a lobbyist. While she was blowing him under the table, he was writing bills which helped her client. Supposedly his wife is not happy. Maybe she can be persuaded to discuss his disgusting behavior.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Numbersguy
April 13, 2010 11:58 AM in reply to Numbersguy
Note that Roy is a strong "family values" turd. So, a discussion of his personal morality, or lack thereof, is quite appropriate.
Why do older women support this cad?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Decatur Dem
April 13, 2010 12:08 PM
"Access for kids who have pre-existing conditions, who would be against that?"
--But if those kids become orphaned because Dad or Mom couldn't get themselves insured, that's OK by you, huh, Roy?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bud-in-Florida
April 13, 2010 1:34 PM in reply to Decatur Dem
That's not what he was saying at all. He was simply addressing one specific circumstance - that of a person who was healthy not buying insurance until he becomes sick. Nothing to do with kids - he, in fact, said something to the order of who would be against a child with pre-existing conditions getting coverage - no one.
The pre-existing conditions problem is one that definitely needs/needed to be addressed - one of many problems that needs to be fixed in the healthcare system.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
April 13, 2010 2:04 PM in reply to Bud-in-Florida
It could have been better addressed while the bill was being written if your side hadn't chosen to sit on its hands and say "NO" to everything rather than trying to craft a strong bill. So spare us your whining now about where the bill falls short. You had a chance to make it better, and you chose not to use it. So kwitcherbitchin.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
April 13, 2010 10:47 PM in reply to slb
You must have missed this:
A number of Republicans proposed bills that included many positive proposals. See "Democrats Stifle Republican Health Care Plans"
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Democrats-stifle-Republican-health-care-plans-8224780-58644807.html
"Obama didn't directly accuse Republicans of not having a plan. But he did say he would welcome "serious" health care proposals. "My door is always open," Obama said.
That's when Price held up the sheaf of papers he was carrying --a copy of H.R. 3400, the Empowering Patients First Act, which Price and the Republican Study Committee proposed in July. Other GOP lawmakers held up their own bills. Some raised a list of all the health care bills -- there are more than 30 -- proposed by members of the Study Committee.
Republicans have authored a number of health care bills -- serious legislation addressing portability, pre-existing conditions, cost and other issues that most trouble American consumers -- and hardly anyone has noticed.
Republicans don't really blame Nancy Pelosi. The speaker is as partisan a Democrat as they come, and no one is surprised that she has used her power to stifle Republican efforts.
The virtual embargo on reporting Republican legislation has allowed Democrats and their allies in the media to keep up the "Republicans have no plan" attack. Just hours after the president's speech, for example, the Democratic National Committee released a new commercial claiming that Republicans "refuse to offer a plan" to reform the health care system.
Just for the record, in case you want to check them out, these are the bills proposed, so far, by Price and his allies in the House: H.R. 77; H.R. 109; H.R. 198; H.R. 270; H.R. 321; H.R. 464; H.R. 502; H.R. 544; H.R. 917; H.R. 1086; H.R. 1118; H.R. 1441; H.R. 1458; H.R. 1468; H.R. 1658; H.R. 1891; H.R. 2520; H.R. 2607; H.R. 2692; H.R. 2784; H.R. 2785; H.R. 2786; H.R. 2787; H.R. 3141; H.R. 3217; H.R. 3218; H.R. 3356; H.R. 3372; H.R. 3400; H.R. 3438; H.R. 3454; and H.R. 3478."
Pelosi, Reid, and Obama went for the most partisan, leftwing bill they could get with all votes from Democrats. They could have gotten at least a handful of Republican votes with SOME Republican ideas, but the Democrat strategy was that they had a perfect storm of control of the House, Senate, and WH and they were going to go as radical as they could with that once every 50 years event----and even THAT turned out to be too radical for a few Democrats in the House. Many libs were angry that Dems did not go for single payer. Senators and Reps stray beyond what voters will support at their political peril. Bad as ObamaCare is and as unpopular with voters as it is, single payer and the public option had even less voter support. Dems will find out in November that it not nice or smart to ram things through against the will of the people.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acriticalthinker
April 13, 2010 5:03 PM in reply to Bud-in-Florida
Bud
Stop making sense. It causes some heads to explode.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
April 13, 2010 12:32 PM
This line is actually in keeping with the Republican dogma and will not upset anyone who would have voted for him in the first place. Real Republicans, teabaggers and the various right wing indies will process this message in one of two ways. Country club Republicans will agree because, in their world, everyone makes at least 200K a year and, therefore, can easily afford insurance. People who make minimum wage are simply cardboard cutouts floating around their world, occasionally doing things for them, not real people worthy of any real regard.
The working class Republicans, even the ones who can't afford insurance themselves, will simply hear "Obama is taxing you to give free insurance to shiftless, no-account, theivin' n****rs!"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bud-in-Florida
April 13, 2010 1:18 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Why don't you present your viewpoint and ideas instead of just guessing (wrongly) about how others might view things?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
April 13, 2010 3:48 PM in reply to Bud-in-Florida
Touched a nerve, did I?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Phoebe Fay
April 13, 2010 12:53 PM
What an a$$hole. I have pre-existing conditions BECAUSE I take care of myself. My pre-existing conditions, which have gotten me denied insurance, are depression and basal cell carcinoma (a very mild form of skin cancer). If I hadn't bothered to take care of myself, if I let my depression spiral out of control so that I was a huge drain on my family and society, or even if I hadn't bothered to check odd-looking moles, I would be able to get insurance. Because I took care of my self, I have these diagnoses in my past, and I could be screwed because of it in the future save for health reform.
So screw you, Blount.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bud-in-Florida
April 13, 2010 1:16 PM in reply to Phoebe Fay
Then he's not talking about you, fool! He simply was pointing out that eliminating pre-existing conditions must be coupled with that person maintaining insurance on themselves BEFORE they got sick. Those things are inseparable. You can't expect to buy fire insurance when your house is on fire - you buy and pay for it all along even though you don't expect your house to catch fire. It's called INSURANCE - insurance against losses due to an unlikely thing happening. If you only get it when that disaster is already in progress, it's not insurance - it's simply WELFARE. Learn the difference.
The Republicans and Conservatives aren't against everyone having medical care / insurance. Those who tell you they are are grossly distorting the facts - blowing smoke up you a$$ to distract you from the real issues. Try a little intelligent look at things for a change instead of knee-jerk emotional reactions based on mis-information.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pppwww
April 13, 2010 1:33 PM in reply to Bud-in-Florida
http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/chi-thu-problem-briana-rice-sep17,0,807488,full.column
this girl had insurance; then got diagnosed with celiac disease; then got dropped by the insurance company because they said it was something she had well before she got insurance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
skitzo
April 13, 2010 1:52 PM in reply to Bud-in-Florida
Someone has to pay, regardless of whether they have insurance. People may avoid treatment, particularly preventative treatment, but we don't turn people down for health care at the hospital. Doctors take an oath. We don't let people die on the hospital steps.
If you were intelligent, you would not simply resort to superficial analogies-- car/fire insurance = health insurance--and ANALYZE what distinguishes health care from fire or car insurance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Phoebe Fay
April 13, 2010 2:54 PM in reply to Bud-in-Florida
Of course he's talking about me. There's no provision in what he said distinguishing deserving cases. If you allow insurance companies to discriminate based on pre-existing conditions, then it affects both people who try to be responsible and people who try to game the system. You can imagine that he only *meant* to punish the irresponsible, but the direct impact of his policy position impacts everyone.
Also, it's disingenuous to compare health insurance to car/home insurance. The latter protects against the unlikely - most people's homes won't burn down. When it comes to health, however, odds are that everyone will need health care at some point. A few people will be perfectly healthy right up to the moment they're struck by lightening on the golf course and die instantly. The rest of us will eventually get sick and die, and we'll most of us need medical maintenance along the way. Health insurance is a means of financing that which is *likely,* not protecting against that which is unlikely.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
skitzo
April 13, 2010 1:54 PM
Blunt's comments about prevention are enough to make me want to vomit on him. HE IS A WHORE FOR BIG TOBACCO! The bitch he married is a lobbyist for the tobacco industry.
Fuck him. I hope he gets lung cancer.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeffgee
April 13, 2010 2:09 PM
Alan Grayson was right. The GOP wants you to die quickly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Marietz
April 13, 2010 3:13 PM
Ummmmm...he does understand that children with preexisting conditions will, if they're lucky, grow into adults with preexisting conditions, doesn't he?
Oh, I see that's the death panels his side is talking about. If you're a kid and you're sick it's not your fault, but once you pass that golden age of adulthood you're on your own and it's your fault.
As an adult with a preexisting condition who last year paid over 60% of their income to health insurance I'd like Mr. Blunt to be aware that it's not my behavior that caused my problems but the living on a military reservation as a child that was constantly bombarded with high doses of DDT. Talk to the hand Mr. Blunt because I'm not listening to your crap.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pppwww
April 13, 2010 4:04 PM in reply to Marietz
"Oh, I see that's the death panels his side is talking about. If you're a kid and you're sick it's not your fault, but once you pass that golden age of adulthood you're on your own and it's your fault."
Logan's Run Insurance
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
IcedTea
April 13, 2010 8:06 PM
I have a pre-existing condition. I developed the condition while in college and still under my parents' insurance. Now, being out of school and too old to be covered under my parents' insurance I am unable to get coverage except through my employer. I've spent multi-year spans uninsured, not because I'm lazy and neglectful, but because I can't get new coverage for because condition I developed while I was insured.
The idea that people are only denied for conditions that happen while they're uninsured is completely false. If you lose coverage for any reason the conditions you developed while previously covered are considered pre-existing.
The reason I've spent so much time uninsured is not, as Blunt suggests, that I'm trying to scam the system. The reason is that the system has been scamming me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
skitzo
April 14, 2010 9:11 PM in reply to IcedTea
Exactly. Its a "preexisting condition" as far as a new insurer is concerned, if you are trying to change carriers, i.e. change jobs.
These anti-HCR guys, like Bud and Deep thinker or whatever, rest a lot of their case on society not having to pay for individual lifestyle choices. So they are actually in favor of death panels judging whether someone's fatness or proclivity for red meat caused their need for a quadruple bipass, and if it was, then they should not get care?
That is a slippery fucking slope.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcjam
April 13, 2010 8:15 PM
Just contributed $100 to Carnahan. Preparing coffin for Blunt's front yard next.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
John
April 14, 2010 2:57 AM
It is good to see such pro-activeness. There is no excuse for such discrimination. I find it disturbing that print media has not flagged such issues, it is no wonder the integrity of the WSJ has come under such scrutiny.
http://www.newspaperintegrity.com
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jdb316
April 17, 2010 12:16 AM
So where is Robin Carnahan's angry, passionate response to this? Where are the TV ads from her and the DSCC hammering Blunt with this?
Once again, the Democrats don't know how to message.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
June 12, 2010 4:36 PM
All of those Republican plans retain standard, preferred, super-preferred, substandard, gender, occupation, unlimited age, unlimited smoking status, etc. ratings. Vigilant as those Republican plans are against giving money to undeserving people, they also unfairly and grotesquely punish people because of their circumstances. Which is what the new law is designed to eliminate (although I'd argue it doesn't go far enough because of the 3:1 age rating and the "prevention and wellness" discounts. I also oppose the smoker rating as I think requiring every American to take a blood test to get health insurance is unworkable.)
That said, I agree with you that the individual mandate -- both the income exemption and the tax penalty level -- is not nearly strong enough to deter a 27-year-old bachelor from waiting until he gets sick to get health insurance. That will have to strengthened, as will the subsidies, the community rating, and the minimum benefits package.
m65 kamagra
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?