Hr 3962 passes!

[Care4all]

I also heard that insurance companies will be required to spend 85% of what they charge people in premiums, on actual health care services....

15% allowed for overhead/administration costs.

That really surprised me....

had any of you heard about this measure in the bill....

I am uncertain what to make of it....need to think about it a bit....

Now, that actually is interesting. Did you hear it mentioned if this only applied to insurance plans that received government-subsidies (in the form of subsidized premiums for the poor), or is it some general across-the-board requirement?

Although, since most plans currently take medicare, I'm guessing that most will also not want to be cut out of all the new people who will get insured as a result of the mandate.

I'm not quite sure what to make of that either - seems to be essentially capping the insurance companies' profits, but not sure to what end. (and we don't know if this will survive the meshing with the Senate bill anyway, but still).

well, my first thought was, I need to review their numbers, their books, for the past decade to see if 15% administration/overhead costs fall in to the norm of what they have been running...

if it does fall in to the ''norm'' then why write this in to the bill?

Did they foresee insurance companies spending millions more on top level executive salaries from the gift horse of new mandatory customers congress handed them, with the bill paid thru taxes for the affordability credits for millions, and are trying to cover their rear ends down the road when we hear that the CEO worked a $500 MILLION DOLLAR yearly contract with the money from all these mandatory new customers, and they want to curb this from happening by making them use 85% of the money we give them for health care, for actual health care...

MY second thought was HOLY PAJESUS ALMIGHTY, 15% of our collective health insurance costs go to absolutely NOTHING but paying the middle man shuffling papers....and THAT is a TON of money! Medicare spends less than 2% in administrative costs....? less than 1.5% actually...

 

[KittenKoder]

they had to suck a lot a cocks and lick a lot a assholes, black and white, clean to get get it done. and the march of the dangerous extreme radical left march's on.

Actually it was quite easy to get it done in the House. Democrats have quite a large majority if you recall.

so did the Nazi's.

Gotta give you props ... you used a Nazi analogy correctly.

 

[ayiakri]

So, you first assume that I'm a "left wingnut" - probably the real left wingnuts would be offended that someone as centrist as I am would get included in their group.

Then you assume that I assume a bunch of things, none of which I'm on record as saying, I think.

Finally, you point out the obvious - that to you, this is just a game that you're "playing", which means your opinion probably counts for less than even CrusaderFrank, since while he's crazier than a bat on crack, he seems earnest and serious about it.

If this really were a game with scores, it would be game, set, and match, you lose. But to me, it's not really a game, it's about pointing out the lies, misinformation, deluded and illogical thinking and faulty reasoning by people like you

You are quite naive, I call it how I see it, and if you believe the tripe you posted then you are a left wingnut. Again, thanks for playing. Learn something about me, I don't like wingnuts on either side of the aisle. I pointed out the lies from the left, that was a rebuttal, but of course you ignored that completely ... because you simply cannot counter them. This is a bad bill, period, it will ruin what's left of our economy and drive businesses over seas.

Wrong.

(see how great that works? lol)

You're quite naive. I call it how I see it, and if you believe the tripe you've posted then you are an ill-informed wing-nut. I don't like wing-nuts on either side. I pointed out the lies from the right, but of course, you ignored that completely... because you simply cannot counter my arguments (you haven't even come close to trying).

If you really believe that health-reform is going to "ruin what's left of our economy", then you are more than just naive, you have learned nothing from history (either because you're too young to have lived through it, or perhaps because you're just not smart enough - I really don't know what your particular handicap is).

When you decide to stop with the hyperbole about how the bill will destroy the country, and "crash the American dream" into pieces, etc, maybe you can make some kind of a point. Until then, I'm more than happy to call you out on your little "OMG, THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING" rants. I sort of hope you just keep going with the rants, though, it's making me laugh out loud to see how your thinking works. Like mice in a cage....

 

[namvet]

wonder how many Osama voter's were taken to the ER ????

 

[KittenKoder]

Learn to use the damned quote feature, Ayi. As for your "the sky is falling" reference, it was many Obamaborg who claimed: Turn about's fair play.

But that isn't the case here anyway, because, you see, so long as the government keeps pushing stupidity like this, it will push itself closer to being over thrown, which means us Independents and anti-government liberals are in charge again, which is a very good thing. So I say have at it, let them ruin things, soon enough people will see the plain ans wimple truth: You can't trust politicians to do anything more than line their own pockets with our hard earned money.

 

[Care4all]

No doubt. And as I said yesterday in another thread, and this morning in this thread?

I was hoping it wouldn't come to that. Just more money to be spent that we cannot afford. But they'll keep those presses greased and inked up to print more money I suppose...

Well at least with all the "saved jobs", we will have someone to help finance this bill.

Can you imagine how many jobs will be shipped over seas just because of this development? Not to mention how many more if it passes all the way? We're fucked, plain and simple.

Though, if the businesses move overseas it is because the countries overseas that they would move to, have UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE paid for with taxes....HOW IRONIC, no?

some very big gun manufacturers have moved their businesses to canada for this very reason....

Does this make you all support UNIVERSAL Health care coverage, knowing that it would KEEP more jobs and businesses here?

 

[ayiakri]

Actually it was quite easy to get it done in the House. Democrats have quite a large majority if you recall.

so did the Nazi's.

Gotta give you props ... you used a Nazi analogy correctly.

In a surprise to no one, you are both wrong.

The Nazi party's best performance in any election was just over 37% (in a parliament that awarded seats on a proportional basis), meaning the Nazis were not even the single largest party, prior to their seizing power in a coup in 1933.

Even after they burned the Reichstag, banned most of the opposition parties, and Hitler held new elections, they still only won 44% of the seats - not a majority.

But please, don't let the facts distract you from destroying your credibility by comparing a major American political party to the Nazis. I'd hate for anyone to start taking you seriously, lol.

 

[The T]

Learn to use the damned quote feature, Ayi. As for your "the sky is falling" reference, it was many Obamaborg who claimed: Turn about's fair play.

But that isn't the case here anyway, because, you see, so long as the government keeps pushing stupidity like this, it will push itself closer to being over thrown, which means us Independents and anti-government liberals are in charge again, which is a very good thing. So I say have at it, let them ruin things, soon enough people will see the plain ans wimple truth: You can't trust politicians to do anything more than line their own pockets with our hard earned money.

...AND? To manipulate things to ensure their status.

 

[KittenKoder]

so did the Nazi's.

Gotta give you props ... you used a Nazi analogy correctly.

In a surprise to no one, you are both wrong.

The Nazi party's best performance in any election was just over 37% (in a parliament that awarded seats on a proportional basis), meaning the Nazis were not even the single largest party, prior to their seizing power in a coup in 1933.

Even after they burned the Reichstag, banned most of the opposition parties, and Hitler held new elections, they still only won 44% of the seats - not a majority.

But please, don't let the facts distract you from destroying your credibility by comparing a major American political party to the Nazis. I'd hate for anyone to start taking you seriously, lol.

I said the analogy was correct, not the numbers. People forget that Nazi was a political party, not a military.

 

[KittenKoder]

Well at least with all the "saved jobs", we will have someone to help finance this bill.

Can you imagine how many jobs will be shipped over seas just because of this development? Not to mention how many more if it passes all the way? We're fucked, plain and simple.

Though, if the businesses move overseas it is because the countries overseas that they would move to, have UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE paid for with taxes....HOW IRONIC, no?

some very big gun manufacturers have moved their businesses to canada for this very reason....

Does this make you all support UNIVERSAL Health care coverage, knowing that it would KEEP more jobs and businesses here?

This is what I keep trying to explain to people, it's not the "universal health care" that keeps the prices lower in other countries. Look at how many regulatory agencies we have and how many licensing fees and application fees, as well as testing fees, we require here compared to those other countries. No system of health care is perfect, that's just impossible, but people like to blame the corporations for shit that they are not truly at fault for, ignoring the government completely. They have become too complacent, too trusting and too comfortable with the government "protecting" them and taking care of them so that they don't realize ... corporations do have an interest in public safety when they don't have the government forcing people to buy their brand products (like the US government does for most of our products now) because if we had more choices we'd pick what doesn't kill us ... and many of the corporations now in the US would fail because we simply wouldn't buy their products. But ... and here's where people's dependence on the government comes to light, that would mean we would all have to do our own research before buying said products instead of just blindly trusting someone to tell us what's "safe". Look at the track record, our country has more recalls and lawsuits, especially for medical products, than any other country, this isn't a coincidence, nor is it because the companies somehow "flew under the radar" ... it's because the government pushed these products and even went as far as to ban all other companies from doing business here through their use of heavy fees and regulatory fines. It's complicated now, but it shouldn't be, if the government would get out of our lives again it would be simple.

 

[jreeves]

they had to suck a lot a cocks and lick a lot a assholes, black and white, clean to get get it done. and the march of the dangerous extreme radical left march's on.

Actually it was quite easy to get it done in the House. Democrats have quite a large majority if you recall.

Hence why it passed by 5 votes

 

[ayiakri]

Now, that actually is interesting. Did you hear it mentioned if this only applied to insurance plans that received government-subsidies (in the form of subsidized premiums for the poor), or is it some general across-the-board requirement?

Although, since most plans currently take medicare, I'm guessing that most will also not want to be cut out of all the new people who will get insured as a result of the mandate.

I'm not quite sure what to make of that either - seems to be essentially capping the insurance companies' profits, but not sure to what end. (and we don't know if this will survive the meshing with the Senate bill anyway, but still).

well, my first thought was, I need to review their numbers, their books, for the past decade to see if 15% administration/overhead costs fall in to the norm of what they have been running...

if it does fall in to the ''norm'' then why write this in to the bill?

I have no idea, but in general, it's my view that elected Democrats tend to put a lot more into bills than needs to be there, and I'm betting there's a ton of other useless, do-nothing language in the bill that could be stripped out.

I know that there are legal limits for non-profit charities on what percentage of their donations must go to charity, but I don't remember what the limits are - it's pretty shocking in some cases (I believe it's more than 15% for some charities, that they can spend on administrative costs, etc).

Did they foresee insurance companies spending millions more on top level executive salaries from the gift horse of new mandatory customers congress handed them, with the bill paid thru taxes for the affordability credits for millions, and are trying to cover their rear ends down the road when we hear that the CEO worked a $500 MILLION DOLLAR yearly contract with the money from all these mandatory new customers, and they want to curb this from happening by making them use 85% of the money we give them for health care, for actual health care...

That sounds pretty likely, actually. If nothing else, politicians will always write in as much CYA into their bills as possible - especially a CYA provision that protects them from the outrage of the people that voted them in ;-)

In any case, if typical admin costs are down in the 1 - 2% range, that's really excellent. I've done consulting projects for some health-insurance companies (including Cigna, which was a monstrosity of paperwork, and a mass of I.T. systems that mostly were incompatible due to being inherited from smaller companies that Cigna acquired).

That was my first ever look "inside the beast", and I was pretty shocked at how much money was being spent on everything but actual medical care. (disclaimer - the work I did was in the late 1990s, so possibly it's even worse, now, ha ha)

 

[namvet]

they did have to threaten the dissenting dems to get it done. Pelosi was beating their backs with a bull whip to get em in line. someday when we saw off the head of this axis of evil they can vote with out fear.

MoveOn Threatens to Push Primary Opponents to Dems Voting Against Health Plan

Moveon.org has reportedly raised $3,578,117 in contributions to fund primary challenges against 'any Democratic senator who blocks an up-or-down vote on health care reform with a public option,' according to an e-mail sent to group members on Thursday.

[URL="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/06/liberal-activist-groups-threatens-democrats-opposed-government-run-option/"]link[/URL]

intimidation is a strong tool against the weak minded.

 

[alan1]

`SEC. 3. DECLARATION OF NATIONAL INDIAN HEALTH POLICY.

`Congress declares that it is the policy of this Nation, in fulfillment of its special trust responsibilities and legal obligations to Indians--

`(1) to assure the highest possible health status for Indians and Urban Indians and to provide all resources necessary to effect that policy;

`(2) to raise the health status of Indians and Urban Indians to at least the levels set forth in the goals contained within the Health People 2010 or successor objectives;

`(3) to the greatest extent possible, to allow Indians to set their own health care priorities and establish goals that reflect their unmet needs;

`(4) to increase the proportion of all degrees in the health professions and allied and associated health professions awarded to Indians so that the proportion of Indian health professionals in each Service Area is raised to at least the level of that of the general population;

`(5) to require meaningful consultation with Indian Tribes, Tribal Organizations, and urban Indian organizations to implement this Act and the national policy of Indian self-determination; and

`(6) to provide funding for programs and facilities operated by Indian Tribes, Tribal Organizations, and Urban Indian Organizations in amounts that are not less than the amounts provided to programs and facilities operated directly by the Service.

I thought the politically correct term was "Native American".
Indians come from India.

I don't see it as politically correct ... but yeah, that's why I say native American ... simply because Indians come from India ... good catch there.

I was just scrolling through the section titles of the bill at the library of congress website, sometimes they use the term Native American, but most times they use the term Indian. It's actually quite amazing how much of the bill is specifically written for Native Americans, looks like a couple hundred pages are devoted to them.

 

[Care4all]

Now, that actually is interesting. Did you hear it mentioned if this only applied to insurance plans that received government-subsidies (in the form of subsidized premiums for the poor), or is it some general across-the-board requirement?

Although, since most plans currently take medicare, I'm guessing that most will also not want to be cut out of all the new people who will get insured as a result of the mandate.

I'm not quite sure what to make of that either - seems to be essentially capping the insurance companies' profits, but not sure to what end. (and we don't know if this will survive the meshing with the Senate bill anyway, but still).

well, my first thought was, I need to review their numbers, their books, for the past decade to see if 15% administration/overhead costs fall in to the norm of what they have been running...

if it does fall in to the ''norm'' then why write this in to the bill?

I have no idea, but in general, it's my view that elected Democrats tend to put a lot more into bills than needs to be there, and I'm betting there's a ton of other useless, do-nothing language in the bill that could be stripped out.

I know that there are legal limits for non-profit charities on what percentage of their donations must go to charity, but I don't remember what the limits are - it's pretty shocking in some cases (I believe it's more than 15% for some charities, that they can spend on administrative costs, etc).

Did they foresee insurance companies spending millions more on top level executive salaries from the gift horse of new mandatory customers congress handed them, with the bill paid thru taxes for the affordability credits for millions, and are trying to cover their rear ends down the road when we hear that the CEO worked a $500 MILLION DOLLAR yearly contract with the money from all these mandatory new customers, and they want to curb this from happening by making them use 85% of the money we give them for health care, for actual health care...

That sounds pretty likely, actually. If nothing else, politicians will always write in as much CYA into their bills as possible - especially a CYA provision that protects them from the outrage of the people that voted them in ;-)

In any case, if typical admin costs are down in the 1 - 2% range, that's really excellent. I've done consulting projects for some health-insurance companies (including Cigna, which was a monstrosity of paperwork, and a mass of I.T. systems that mostly were incompatible due to being inherited from smaller companies that Cigna acquired).

That was my first ever look "inside the beast", and I was pretty shocked at how much money was being spent on everything but actual medical care. (disclaimer - the work I did was in the late 1990s, so possibly it's even worse, now, ha ha)

MEDICARE runs below 2%..... i did not say businesses did.

at the few corporations i worked for, below 15% admin/overhead costs is what we tried to keep it in order to be profitable.... i realize each industry is different, but it could be that 15% is the norm for the insurance industry as well?

 

[Care4all]

we call the native Americans here where I live in Maine, the Penobscot INDIANS....not the penobscot native americans....at least from what i have heard.

 

[ayiakri]

Gotta give you props ... you used a Nazi analogy correctly.

In a surprise to no one, you are both wrong.

The Nazi party's best performance in any election was just over 37% (in a parliament that awarded seats on a proportional basis), meaning the Nazis were not even the single largest party, prior to their seizing power in a coup in 1933.

Even after they burned the Reichstag, banned most of the opposition parties, and Hitler held new elections, they still only won 44% of the seats - not a majority.

But please, don't let the facts distract you from destroying your credibility by comparing a major American political party to the Nazis. I'd hate for anyone to start taking you seriously, lol.

I said the analogy was correct, not the numbers. People forget that Nazi was a political party, not a military.

Sure, sure. Tell us again how the analogy is correct, when the original assertion was that the bill passed easily because the Democrats have an overwhelming majority, to which the poster with the Obama-morphs-to-devil pic (whatever his nic is), said, "So did the Nazis".

His analogy is that, just as the Democrats are able to pass this bill due to their overwhelming majority, so too did the Nazis accomplish evil with their overwhelming majority. But they never had a majority - and in the event, they Hitler seized power after burning the Reichstag. So the analogy doesn't even hold.

But like I said - please encourage more comparisons of the Democrats to convicted war-criminals, it just plays into the hands of those who want to portray the opposition to the Democrats as being rooted in the lunatic fringe. I really mean that - I hope you do keep cheering on the nutcases, because it's going to cost the the Republicans any chance at retaking the house next fall - most Americans recoil at comparisons to Nazis.

 

[California Girl]

they did have to threaten the dissenting dems to get it done. Pelosi was beating their backs with a bull whip to get em in line. someday when we saw off the head of this axis of evil they can vote with out fear.

MoveOn Threatens to Push Primary Opponents to Dems Voting Against Health Plan

Moveon.org has reportedly raised $3,578,117 in contributions to fund primary challenges against 'any Democratic senator who blocks an up-or-down vote on health care reform with a public option,' according to an e-mail sent to group members on Thursday.

[URL="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/06/liberal-activist-groups-threatens-democrats-opposed-government-run-option/"]link[/URL]

intimidation is a strong tool against the weak minded.

Yep, let's not overlook the party faithful - ACORN and the SEIU who are known for their concept of 'persuasion'.... was it not Andy Stern who said "We use the power of persuasion. If that don't work, we use the persuasion of power". (Andy Stern, Head, SEIU). Was it not SEIU thugs - sorry - members, who beat the crap out of some black guy handing out American flags at a protest? What a charming bunch of 'persuaders' our POTUS has 'supporting' him.

 

[KittenKoder]

In a surprise to no one, you are both wrong.

The Nazi party's best performance in any election was just over 37% (in a parliament that awarded seats on a proportional basis), meaning the Nazis were not even the single largest party, prior to their seizing power in a coup in 1933.

Even after they burned the Reichstag, banned most of the opposition parties, and Hitler held new elections, they still only won 44% of the seats - not a majority.

But please, don't let the facts distract you from destroying your credibility by comparing a major American political party to the Nazis. I'd hate for anyone to start taking you seriously, lol.

I said the analogy was correct, not the numbers. People forget that Nazi was a political party, not a military.

Sure, sure. Tell us again how the analogy is correct, when the original assertion was that the bill passed easily because the Democrats have an overwhelming majority, to which the poster with the Obama-morphs-to-devil pic (whatever his nic is), said, "So did the Nazis".

His analogy is that, just as the Democrats are able to pass this bill due to their overwhelming majority, so too did the Nazis accomplish evil with their overwhelming majority. But they never had a majority - and in the event, they Hitler seized power after burning the Reichstag. So the analogy doesn't even hold.

But like I said - please encourage more comparisons of the Democrats to convicted war-criminals, it just plays into the hands of those who want to portray the opposition to the Democrats as being rooted in the lunatic fringe. I really mean that - I hope you do keep cheering on the nutcases, because it's going to cost the the Republicans any chance at retaking the house next fall - most Americans recoil at comparisons to Nazis.

Critical thinking is not your strength either I see. Go back and reread my post, read it a few times if you don't get it this next time. Here, I'll help:

"I said the analogy was correct, not the numbers. People forget that Nazi was a political party, not a military."

Thus ... comparing it to another political party does make the analogy correct, though does not make it accurate.

 

[The T]

I thought the politically correct term was "Native American".
Indians come from India.

I don't see it as politically correct ... but yeah, that's why I say native American ... simply because Indians come from India ... good catch there.

I was just scrolling through the section titles of the bill at the library of congress website, sometimes they use the term Native American, but most times they use the term Indian. It's actually quite amazing how much of the bill is specifically written for Native Americans, looks like a couple hundred pages are devoted to them.

But wait a sec here? Does not the Government already provide HealthCare to the tribes? And how good is it?