New TV ad pressures Max Baucus on public option

miniscule? (0.00 / 0)

at least one state shows that 21% of all claims are denied according to this nurses association....
http://www.calnurses.org/media...

so how about you tad? how covered are you? if you have insurance what makes you think you won't be denied by these weasels. unless you are covered by medicare, you are looking at the same roulette wheel (fixed by the dealer of course) that we are.

you are not listening to people in the street at all if you think this is a "miniscule" problem. it is a huge problem for most of us who are insured. we don't trust the bastards because they act like weasels. they take our money and then withold the coverage we pay for. and thanks to  erisa (the law which came into effect in the seventies making the hmo's untouchable by the courts, we cannot sue them for damages if the denial causes irreparable harm to us.

what makes you immune to denial? do you work for the weasels? or do you just have a gold-plated ceo plan?

---

by: problembear @ Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 22:26:31 PM UTC

*** (0.00 / 0)

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs...
Large majorities of Americans happy with their health insurance.

Who am I not listening to?  I think the number of young people like Bing who happen to run into this sort of problem is miniscule.  Maybe he can give some statistics, because kids in their 20s encountering $100,000 bills for heart problems doesn't sound like the majority.  And your point doesn't seem valid, health insurance denying claims for their customers and someone who has a $100k heart problem not getting coverage are apples are and oranges.

I think it's ironic the ad says insurance companies need competition, yet nobody will ever entertain the idea of opening up interstate commerce laws so there is more.  No, only the GOVERNMENT should provide "competition".  Which means the government makes laws so no one else can compete.  

I really do feel for this guy.  But there are things like bankruptcy laws and guaranteed health laws that made sure he's alive today, and can go the rest of his life without trying to pay these bills until he's 80.  Instead of dwelling on this freak medical happening and propping it up as the poster child for your cause, why don't you give more common examples people can relate to, instead of sob stories.

---

by: tadamsmt @ Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 22:52:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

~sigh~ (0.00 / 0)

Large majorities of Americans are (sic) happy with their health insurance .

No shit, Sherlock.  SO WHAT?  The vast majority of Americans also want Health care reform.  They want it cheaper and they more people covered.  So, do you have a point beyond farting in the wind?

I think it's ironic the ad says insurance companies need competition, yet nobody will ever entertain the idea of opening up interstate commerce laws so there is more.

The Republicans were in complete control of the Govt. for 6 years.  Did they move to do this?  No.  Not once.  And why?  Because a removal of interstate commerce laws of this nature will have two effects:  1)  Monopoly and higher costs for all. 2)  Loss of revenue for those states that can't compete in such a market; you know, states like Montana?

No, only the GOVERNMENT should provide "competition".

Now you're whistling Dixie out your anus. Nobody has said that.  What has been said is that non-profit Governmental competition will give companies incentive to offer better quality product for more people.  Isn't that what competition is?

Which means the government makes laws so no one else can compete.  

No law has been proposed abolishing business opportunity. If they can't compete, then it sucks to be them.  That's the Republicant way, remember?  

I really do feel for this guy.

No you don't, liar.

there are things like bankruptcy laws and guaranteed health laws that made sure he's alive today, and can go the rest of his life without trying to pay these bills until he's 80.

Thank you very much, asshole.  You just volunteered me and every other tax payer to pay more because ... ?  I have no idea why you want us to pay more.  None.  All I know is that if you think people should be happy with a system that requires us to pay more just so that you feel comfortable, then you're pretty stupid.

They examples you ask for are out there aplenty.  The CBO has said it.  The voters have said it.  90% of the commenters and all writers at this blog have said it.  A strong public option health insurance will save us all money.

Now you tell me, little Mr. T, what is your sob story such that you want to cost me more money?

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 00:54:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just a few points (0.00 / 0)

I don't want to turn this into a pissing match.

They want it cheaper and they more people covered.

Maybe so, but there's not much there that makes it cheaper. At least half of the private insurance plans are offered through not-for-profit organization and 60% of all employer sponsored plans are self-insured. And insurance profits only account for about 1.5% of total health care spending.

Yet costs for everyone are going up. The impact of a government competitor my drive down the cost of insurance relative to today's market at the margins but it does almost nothing to reduce the costs of the underlying health care inflation.  It attempts to address insurance costs but not medical services costs. The proposition that preventative medicine reduces costs is highly disputed (although I call it a good practice and a desirable goal) and I just read a study from Kaiser Family Foundation that said the "cost shifting" to cover people that aren't insured results in about an $8 billion/year price tag - which is less than 1% of total health spending.    

Because a removal of interstate commerce laws of this nature will have two effects:  1)  Monopoly and higher costs for all. 2)  Loss of revenue for those states that can't compete in such a market; you know, states like Montana?

I don't see the thread that causes monopoly but I can tell you that insurance is one of the few areas that is not affected by the Commerce Clause - unlike almost everything else.  States are free to bar interstate trade in insurance.  If it were under federal jurisdiction it could only do so under the commerce clause.

That said, it doesn't have to affect state's revenues at all.  States are free to impose any kind of excise tax they want provided that it doesn't disadvantage any out-of-state company at the expense of a "domestic company" - which is the point of the Commerce Clause.

No you don't, liar.

Facts not in evidence?  How could you know that?

---

by: Dave Budge @ Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 20:31:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

... (0.00 / 1)

Yes, the point was if people are happy with it, why are we changing it?  Keep on going, you've already disenfranchsied the biggest voting bloc in America, senior citizens.  

So... your argument is.. we need government health care, to compete with private insurance, but the way we encourage the competition is to keep laws in place that keep them from competing?  Is regulation helpful or not here?  

Insurance is regulated by not being able to sell in different states.  Which creates a monopoly.  But the way we're going to stop the monopoly is... more government regulation?  You state that eliminating interstate commerce laws would create bigger monopolies, although you acknowledge already that there are monopolies with them in place.  Which is it?

When the government can take taxpayer subsidies and make the laws, of course it's going to outcompete the private entities.  It doesn't have to deal with being sued and doesn't get free taxpayer dollars to subsidize it's existence.  You really think ANY private enterprise will be able to price match our out compete a publicly subsidized entity?  C'mon.  And if the private enterprise can, isn't that evidence the government run program is inefficient and not doing it's job?  

How did you make the leap from bankruptcy and guaranteed health care to me wanting you to pay more?  Show me how you made THAT leap, logic master.  

Ah, there are more examples out there.  You just can't point to any.  Why don't you point me to the statistic that shows what percentage of medical cases involve 20 yr olds falling over from heart problems so I can truly grasp this is not a sob story.  

---

by: tadamsmt @ Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 21:33:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

answer the questions tad (0.00 / 0)

what makes you feel invulnerable to your health insurance denying your claims? got an axe to grind here for cigna or blue cross or aetna? you sound pretty astroturfy to this bear....

they must be pretty generous to their lobbyists with gold plated ceo health care plans???

---

by: problembear @ Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 02:58:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

... (0.00 / 0)

what are you talking about?  why can't people around here just answer an argument I'm making without looking for shadow points or paranoid conspiracies...

---

by: tadamsmt @ Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 21:34:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Pressure Max ? (0.00 / 0)

How would this ad pressure Max ?

Please explain that part of this post in more detail.

---

by: Eric Coobs @ Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 13:32:53 PM UTC

Just a reminder to all... (0.00 / 0)

...that a lot of misinformation is being spread about the public option by the right, including our own trolls.

The facts:

- No one would be forced to buy the public option.
- Once the public option is set up, it will require no additional taxpayer money.
- A robust public option open to all would actually lower the cost of health care reform. If you're worried about budget deficits, you should support the public option.

In the ad, Bing is simply asking for an alternative to private insurance, so he can pay his fair share and expect his insurer to cover his medical bills when he's sick.

Under the current system, private insurers deny policy claims and refuse to cover the ill, thereby driving up the cost of medical care, as the uninsured wait to treat illness, often until it's catastrophic. Health care providers pick up the tab, and pass on the costs to policy-holders and taxpayers.

You are already paying for Bing's health care.

So don't get confused by the naysayers' pestilence poured in your ears.

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 14:18:06 PM UTC

The public option, (0.00 / 0)

like most everything else we "debate", is all about insurance reform....the other side of this problem is getting the cost of the services we receive lowered...

To some extent a public option will help there, but as long as we have physicians calling for procedures that are not truly needed, as long as we allow pharmacutical companies to gouge on the cost of drugs...etc. etc...the cost of the public option and private insurance will continue to rise..

---

by: bigsage @ Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 15:02:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

true... (0.00 / 0)

...cost control measures aren't yet determined for the public option...

But insuring everyone and getting them access to health care providers early on should bring down some costs. And having a robust public option with millions of members should also address some administrative costs - hopefully forcing private insurers to become more efficient and spend more money on health care instead of executive bonuses and byzantine bureaucracy...

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 17:53:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

... (0.00 / 1)

You're right, you won't be asked to buy the public option, just face $2k in fines or a year in jail if you don't.  So technically it's not "forcing."

Really, once it's set up, it will require no additional funding?  Care to point me to any examples.  Post Office, Military, Social Security, Medicare.... I'm pretty sure every government program needs additional money once set up.  You really think it will just run off premiums with no subsidization?  Get real.

How would a robust public option lower the cost of health care reform?  Last I checked all the massive government programs are bankrupting the country, none of them, except maybe the IRS, is running in the black.  

Bing knew he should have had insurance and now is mad he'd have to pay more for premiums.  His case is also about one in a million.  I don't see the point in overhauling the whole government for one in a million fluke medical cases.  

---

by: tadamsmt @ Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 21:38:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yo, Tad and Rusty ... (0.00 / 0)

There seems to be some rebound after the town hall and teabagger antics -- more-and-more people want health care reform:

http://www.boston.com/news/pol...

---

by: pete talbot @ Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 16:43:06 PM UTC

... (0.00 / 1)

rasmussen has it at 41%... lowest since he began taking the poll.  and

gallup still has more people wanting the economy fixed before health care.

just out of curiousity

SINCE THE ECONOMY IS STILL SHIT WHY DO YOU THINK ANYONE SHOULD HAVE ANY FAITH IN THE ABILITY OF THE LEFT TO "FIX" HEALTH CARE?

---

by: tadamsmt @ Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 21:41:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]