Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

(This Is Just Sick) - Bob Herbert: Obama plan to be windfall for insurance companies

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-18-09 08:36 AM
Original message
(This Is Just Sick) - Bob Herbert: Obama plan to be windfall for insurance companies
Edited on Tue Aug-18-09 08:38 AM by kpete
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Bob Herbert: Obama plan to be windfall for insurance companies

The hope of a government-run insurance option is all but gone. So there will be no effective alternative for consumers in the market for health coverage, which means no competitive pressure for private insurers to rein in premiums and other charges. (Forget about the nonprofit cooperatives. That’s like sending peewee footballers up against the Super Bowl champs.)

Insurance companies are delighted with the way “reform” is unfolding. Think of it: The government is planning to require most uninsured Americans to buy health coverage. Millions of young and healthy individuals will be herded into the industry’s welcoming arms. This is the population the insurers drool over.


So just to get this straight. You and I are probably going to pay more in taxes, regardless of what they tell us, and our country is going to be set back another trillion bucks, so that Blue Cross can make even more money, while continuing to up our premiums by 25% a year with no commensurate increase in benefits. It's good to be king. And let's not forget the drug companies:

The White House, for its part, agreed not to seek additional savings from the drug companies over those 10 years. This resulted in big grins and high fives at the drug lobby. The White House was rolled. The deal meant that the government’s ability to use its enormous purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices was off the table.



This is what it feels like to be rolled. And played.

more:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/opinion/18herbert.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
via:
http://www.americablog.com/2009/08/bob-herbert-obama-plan-to-be-windfall.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-18-09 08:42 AM
Response to Original message
1. And people in the 55 to 65 yr. old range better get prepared for higher rates....
From what I hear, in exchange for guarantees of not being dropped, insurance companies will now be able to charge more depending on age and health.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-18-09 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. No, they eliminated age and health
They will not be able to charge on health at all and age can only be a certain percentage higher as opposed to ten times higher like it is now. The exchange is everybody in so people can't wait until they get sick to get insurance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-18-09 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #3
13. Age is not eliminated
There is a limit as to how much more you can be charged based on age. It is a ratio. Basically, the House version has it that no one can be charged more that 2 times the amount of the lowest premium.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-18-09 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. That's what I said
"age can only be a certain percentage higher as opposed to ten times higher like it is now."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-19-09 05:05 AM
Response to Reply #3
17. Twice as high for older people is NOT acceptable, period. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Botany Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-18-09 08:43 AM
Response to Original message
2. This is what it feels like to be Rick rolled. And played.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu_moia-oVI
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-18-09 08:52 AM
Response to Original message
4. BOHICA!
Bend Over, Here It Comes Again!

WOOT!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-18-09 08:56 AM
Response to Original message
5. That is not right
Putting aside the public option, there are many new regulations on insurance companies that will provide more coverage and security. No annual caps, caps on co-pays and deductibles, no lifetime caps, regulated packages, no pre-existing conditions. Your argument is as wrong as death panels.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Juche Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-18-09 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. True
I think the CBO estimated the public option would save $150 billion over 10 years. I have a moral objection to being forced to pick only from private insurance companies, and the fact that we have an extra $150 billion we have to spend because they didn't want the insurance companies to have the competition is unfair. But there are still meaningful regulatory changes that will hopefully pass through.

W/o a public option it is just insurance reform, but I guess that is still better than the situation we have now.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MidwestTransplant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-18-09 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. Yeah but there will be no lower cost alternative and so to provide this "security" everybody's rates
will get jacked up even more. Mine are up 150% in 6 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-18-09 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. And there will be subsidies to help pay
So the government will be screaming at the insurance companies because they won't be able to raise taxes to cover the subsidies to pay those jacked up rates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democracy1st Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-19-09 05:09 AM
Response to Reply #5
18. Insurance lobby paying you also?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ipaint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-18-09 09:26 AM
Response to Original message
7. No strong public option, no mandate. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wolfgangmo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-18-09 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
9. Sharpen your job skills folks
Canada is still looking for highly skilled workers, professionals and business owners.

It's not too late to live in a sane country.

Ahem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-18-09 10:25 AM
Response to Original message
10. i sense some hyperbole in the article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-18-09 10:29 AM
Response to Original message
11. The idea that forcing everyone to buy insurance could lower cost is Neo-liberal pretzel logic
Edited on Tue Aug-18-09 10:29 AM by Romulox
Price is set by supply and demand, not by cost. The government proposes the control price by increasing demand? Riiiighhht. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
timeforpeace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-18-09 11:01 AM
Response to Original message
14. He's a big support of Obama, yet he's also right about this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Echo In Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-18-09 11:03 AM
Response to Original message
15. Jesus...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-19-09 05:30 AM
Response to Original message
19. Recommend
rating Democratic presidents the past 100 years

1 FDR
2 LBJ
3 Truman
4 Clinton
5 Wilson
6 Kennedy
7 Carter
8 Obama

Let's hope the president doesn't continue this slide into mediocrity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-19-09 05:32 AM
Response to Original message
20. no, no. obama's playing chess. at the last moment, the grand vision will emerge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
and-justice-for-all Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-19-09 05:36 AM
Response to Original message
21. Well luckily he is just shooting off his opinion...
which we all have..So I am not going to concern myself with this article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Herbert
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 05:21 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC