Repubs, Obama Warned You, He Gave You Sincere Opportunities To Cooperate, Now He Will Fuck You Up

The End Game is coming.

He sees the long game. I know it's very difficult for a lot of people to get this, but it's the way he's always behaved. He's methodical, he's deliberate, he's not swayed by ups and downs in the polls. He has a plan. He sticks to it and he's persistent. Damn is he persistent. Like the terminator.

You Repubs, you're all about short term political gain. You shoot your wad early hoping it will stick. You run out of steam. Your focus has turned from HCR. Your money has gone elsewhere. Your energy has gone elsewhere. But now it has new life. Why? Obama doesn't give up. He's swooping in just when it looked like it was dead. And now, he's going to fuck your shit up.

You're walking right into it. Yup, Thursday's summit is a trap. But it doesn't have to be. Obama told you this. He's told everyone. And he gave you a taste of what's coming, a warning, when he walked into your lions den a few weeks ago and singlehandedly turned you all into quivering pustules. That was the shot across the bow. He's giving you one last chance. This is the way he works. He's done this time and time again. He's been very clear. He wants you to act in good faith. He means that and takes you at your word that you are acting in good faith. He will work with you if you really want to work to help make this country better. He is sincere. He's told you all along. The problem is, you don't want to make this country better. He knows that, but he takes you at your word that you do.

Well, he's strung you along for a year with this healthcare debate taking you at your word that you wanted to really do something (and whether or not this was smart strategy is debatable, go ahead and debate). The whole thing has happened in slow motion so it's very, very clear to just about everyone what's going on. The polls show it. People trust Obama. They don't trust Republicans. Now you're whining about this summit. Guess what? No one buys your bullshit and Obam is going to fuck your shit up on Thursday. And health care reform is going to happen and it's going to a pretty decent package and you will reap what you sow.

Welcome to Oblivion.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/2/22/839389/-Obama-HCR-to-Include-DiFis-Rate-Control-BillUpdated-wWH-Proposal

We were always on our own.

is so much more rewarding.

}(

a rude awakening. Get this damned thing passed and add the amendments down the road. Public Option will find its way in there, sooner or later..

this guy cut his poltical teeth in CHICAGO.
I woudn't want to cross swords with such...

Otherwise, meh.

They will push for a fake health care reform package, effectively nothing; Obama will refuse them; and they will campaign and propagandize against a health care reform plan that will be easily distorted and fear-mongered about. We will probably get health care reform passed, but the political price--which has already mostly been paid--will be there.

He's going to force the congress to pass a GOP plan from 15 years ago. That'll teach them Republicans.

I'm sure they're quaking in their boots now!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8597761

Seven months later . . .

My own little secret admirer! Guess I make an impression. But I must warn you, I'm not a cheap date.

Chess master?

I mean, really...

:shrug:

Actually, my point was they blew their wad early and ran out of steam. They did. Now here we are, end game, and HCR is happening and we're using reconciliation. How did I get nailed? :shrug:

Talk to me when HCR is dead. It ain't.

HCR may not be "over," but we don't have much hope for any GOOD reform.

That is all.

It's not a crime to be an optimist, as long as you don't insist on it from others.

Aww, poor you. :rofl:

What I do not like is the content of the bill.

Tens of millions of people finally getting health care.

Big diff.

Single-Payer this is not.

Far from it.

It's Romney-Care.

And all those who will be covered under the medicare expansions.

Oh, yeah, that's right, you don't care about those people.

Under this plan, I will probably be able to find something, but the cost will be enormous.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

This argument against the idea of insurance to pay for health care falls flat if you want the public option. It would be insurance and might even deny some claims.

Proving to me that even if we got the P.O., there would be plenty of posters still complaining that it was not good enough.

:shrug:

might be playing chess, he was playing against us. It was a real eye opener to see the deals with PhRMA and AHIP. After Rahm called us 'fucking retarded' for trying to run ads to support the PO which Obama claimed to be in favor of, it all came together for me.

The chess analogy is apropos.

I only remembered the post because it stood out as a particularly egregious declaration of chess strategy without any objective evidence speaking for it. Time, of course, has proven just how misguided the sentiment was.

And it's a good illustration of why these "He's practically a ninja!" boosterisms should be taken with entire salt trucks.

At this point in time, I'd almost settle for "passingly competent at checkers" from this President.

Although I must say, I have been admiring the skill it takes for a player to check-mate himself using only his own pieces. That has been truly inspired.

And I'm a dinner and movie night kinda guy. But given movie tickets now require a second mortgage, it isn't too, too cheap these days.

Talk to me when HCR is dead. It ain't. I was spot on. The GOP is out of steam, they blew their wad in August, and now HCR is going to happen.

Did I say HCR was going to pass right at that moment? No. Misguided my ass. I've always said he was playing a long game, never said HCR was happening RIGHT THEN. So, WTF are you talking about?

You remember that post because I'm so charming and eloquent and you can't keep your eyes off me. Not to mention handsome. Just admit it. I'm flattered.

See, back in August, coinciding with the chess master declarations, we were receiving assurances from even the most ardent talking-pointists that the President would prevail and we would have a Strong Public Option with all these various good things.

Now, all that is gone.

Oh, we all know how this will go. People who are less interested in reform and more interested in a political win - the people cheering on for the sheer look of the thing - will declare whatever gets signed as the Greatest Accomplishment Since the Pyramids. But that was a given. Something was always going to be signed. It's the what that matters.

What that is today bears very little resemblance to what it was in August. The reform you were so terribly sure the President was out-maneuvering everyone to achieve is so far gone, we'd have to launch an infrared space telescope just to see a fuzzy dot in the distance.

He failed last fall. We lost.

Now, we're watching this, whatever this proves to be. This is a slightly modified version of the Senate bill. This is nowhere close to what you and others were insisting we'd get back in August.

Declaring it the same thing is deeply dishonest and pure political propaganda.

You were dead wrong then. I suspect you are dead wrong now.

HCR is going to pass. Sucks for you that that upsets you. :rofl:

This, of course, is part of the propaganda. The only thing being "reformed" is insurance and how much money we're about to compel Americans to shovel into private corporations.

I tend to care quite a bit more for my fellow citizens access to quality, affordable health care and the actual reforms that will make that possible. The President's PR is a very distant thousandth on the list of things that concern me.

Who didn't have access before, and you hate that. Why? I dunno, but that's your problem.

They will be mandated to BUY it form the very same companies that are screwing us all right now.

Tell it to all those who will no longer be denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions.

Yes, I know, they don't matter to you.

Oh, that's right, you probably already have health insurance, so you could give a fuck.

Not that it is any of your freaking business.

How's your insurance? I guess you'd rather wait then, huh? Oh, it's not perfect, so I'd rather die.

But I spend hundreds a month on medicine.

Got it!

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'll be laughing all the way to the Dr's office, secure in the knowledge my coverage can't be revoked.

n/t

n/t

and not raise deductibles?

Since Obama is proposing they review and approve rate increases.

It's not. A rate increase makes insurance companies richer. A deductible has no direct effect on insurance company bottom lines.

That my deductibles are going to increase.

Right now they are raising rates, and that has to stop.

So again, says you.

There is going to be oversight and regulation that will stop the worst of the abuses and hopefully, more to come.

you will learn that industries that screw over those they are supposed to be serving will, given the chance, continue to do that to the extent that they can.

In fact, I'm chewing off my imbilical chord as I type.

That's why we have federal regulations. Duh. And we will have a whole new slew of them controlling ins. co.'s that didn't exist before. Will it be perfect? No. Will ins. co's try to cirucumvent them? Damn straight they will. But that's not a reason to NOT try.
You get done what you can and then improve.

Maybe we should all just give up since we're all just going to get screwed anyway? :eyes:

You can wallow in your defeatism. Me, I'll continue to push for progress. Every little bit helps and builds the foundation for further progress and serves as a bullwark against the reactionary forces that are always one step behind looking to tear down everything we've built up.

quite as quick on your feet thinkingwise as you will become, over time.

Cheers! :)

You need some glasses, grandpa.

but I don't want this loophole ridden giveaway to the insurance companies to pass. Sometimes an issue is bigger than my personal needs and this is one of those times.

You stand on your principles and die. Right. Good thing you don't get to make that decison for others.

But we have become a nation of cowards and sheep who will take what the corporations offer us and hope they don't screw us again.

:eyes:

and this is every bit as big a civil rights issue as that. I would qualify under the Medicaid expansion for coverage and my husband and I are without now. I can get him enrolled at VA but there is nothing for me. I would rather forgo this coverage than to see a bill that enshrines the current system with a mandate. I believe you are sincere in your belief of lots of help for people in this bill. I have worked in the field too long to deny what I can plainly see will happen with this.

I'm just not sure you are. This bill WILL help tens of millions, and just because insurance companies will try to find loopholes, doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. We should do it, and continue to fight to improve it. Just like with civil rights. The first civil rights legislation wasn't perfect either and the fight didn't end there.

I worked as an RN for 25 years. First 15 years as an oncology nurse, pediatrics and adults. I worked 2 years doing home infusions with AIDS patients in the worst of the epidemic in Houston. I worked 8 more years as a hospice nurse. I have worked with some of the most disaffected populations in the country. And I am now among them. Nurses who are not sincere in wanting to see people helped do not work in these fields. No one has seen more of the devastation of this immoral, for profit health care system than I. And no one has wanted to see reform more than I. I have, probably, wished for reform of this system since before most people knew there was a problem. I know you believe the bill will help millions of people. I know you believe that. What I know is it is not going to help nearly as much as the proponents say it will. The insurance companies do not have to 'look for' loopholes. Our Senate put the loopholes right there for them.

Initial civil rights legislation was not perfect but it was heading the right direction. The problem with this bill is it is heading us further down the wrong path we have been on. It must have a modicum of something which can be built on and improved and, as tempting as it is to believe it does, it does not. Denial would be easier for me at this point. But I have never been one to avoid looking reality in the eye. What I don't want is a bill that forces people to take money out of their pockets and provides very little, if any, more access to health care services. That is what the Senate bill is.

That said, I will now go read what the President is proposing and see if he has corrected any of the abuses the Senate will allow to continue.

Regardless of your opinion.

insurance. The community ratings allowed in the Senate bill will make the cost prohibitive for many. And there is always the danger their policy will be rescinded when they need expensive treatment. Perhaps a reading of the bill would clear things up a bit for you.

Until then, you have only an opinion and it seems to be based on the talking points issued by the supporters of the bill. Find me the relevant portions of the bill that proves your opinion and get back to me.

Medicare expansion, subsidies etc. will make coverage available for tens of millions more than it is now. It is a step in the right direction.

This is an additional level of FEDERAL consumer protections.

It won't work, doesn't work, to make healthcare a for-profit industry.

I worked ten years in hospitals, and I know that the majority of people working in them (where I worked anyway) were totally committed to a public, single-payer remedy.

We may not be able to get THAT right now, but something with a public option should be doable.

I have the experience of entering the health care field in the days before the for profits took over the industry. We have seen nothing but deteriorating quality and skyrocketing costs since then. The bill enshrines this system.

bill. Otherwise those with preexisting conditions will get a policy which will be canceled when they become inconvenient for the insurance company. Oh, and I hope he took out the loophole allowing annual limits but it did not sound like it when he spoke here Friday. He only mentioned no 'lifetime' caps.

Bullshit. Stop making shit up.

Here's the relevant section from the Senate bill:

‘‘SEC. 2712. PROHIBITION ON RESCISSIONS.
‘‘A group health plan and a health insurance issuer
offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall
not rescind such plan or coverage with respect to an enrollee
once the enrollee is covered under such plan or coverage in-
volved, except that this section shall not apply to a covered
individual who has performed an act or practice that con-
stitutes fraud or makes an intentional misrepresentation of
material fact as prohibited by the terms of the plan or cov-
erage.

http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act-as-passed.pdf

See that part where it says "shall not rescind...except that this section shall not apply to a covered individual who has performed an act or practice that constitutes fraud or makes an intentional misrepresentation of material fact..."

That means rescissions are, exactly, as they have been. The insurance companies have always called it fraud or intentional misrepresentation when they cancelled people. Remember? If you forget to tell them you were treated for acne at 16 or your doctor made a note in your chart of which you were not aware, you could be cancelled just before you were due to start cancer treatments. Or do we think these will be kinder, gentler insurance companies who won't use this loophole they were given?

The onus will now be on the insurance company to prove FRAUD. It is not the same.

This is exactly the oppossite of what you say. They cannot rescind for pre-existing conditions, but if you commit fraud, then they can cancel your policy.

All they need is that one note on a chart about something you forgot (in their parlance it is 'you withheld') to prove fraud. They never rescinded for the preexisting condition or even the condition at hand. They found something unrelated that you 'withheld' on your application and cancelled you when an expensive course of treatment was pending.

Believe what you want. I've worked on behalf of my patients for over 2 decades fighting these monsters. But you just keep believing they will play nice, now. BTW, have you seen any indication we are allocating any funds for enforcement? Because the states are overwhelmed and backlogged trying to enforce the meager regs in existence, now (that's the ones who aren't outright bought by the industry).

It is absolutely not the same. Now, you can argue it won't be enforced, I disagree. It will be enforced by Dem administrations and not enforced by Repubs, but that's always the case and not a reason to not do it.

That clause STOPS the recissions you are talking about. it does the oppossite of what you claim. You are intentionally spreading lies.

Please, then, tell me how this differs from the reasons they give for cancelling policies, now? I'm not sure what you mean by the "rescissions you are talking about." There is only one type of rescission I have ever known about-cancelling a person's policy because they left something off the application and the insurance company calls that fraud. I don't see anywhere in the bill where they redefine 'fraud.' If the intent was to stop rescission, there was no reason to put the loophole in there. It was not in the blended bill Reid wrote, originally. No one is sure which of the industry whores put it in but it is there. Likewise, the loophole for annual limits, mysteriously, made it into the final bill with no one claiming credit for that.

I posted the loophole in black and white straight from the bill. You are more that welcome to find me anything in the bill that disputes what I have said and posted for all to see. But, just continuing to say 'bullshit' to the evidence does nothing to disprove what I have said.

I've worked with these monsters for over 20 years. I think I am in a fairly good position to read and analyse health care policy.

It's like putting up a black cat and claiming it's white.

That provisions prevents policy revokation unless the insurance company can PROVE fraud. You're telling me there was a law on the books like this already? Where?

All they need is a note on a chart about some condition or other that you were seen for or that the doctor noticed which you failed to mention in your application. That is all they need now and it is all they will need if the language in that Senate bill remains as it is.

Yes, the laws are on the books, now. Or do you think they were just allowed to cancel a policy at any time with no explanation? It has always been allowed in cases of 'fraud,' which they define as withholding information about your health history. How many people even know the extent of what they have been treated for? I have done many health histories on patients and it is pretty common, when asking lay people questions about their conditions, for them to say they don't know. It is common for people who have been hospitalized for Congestive Heart Failure to tell me they went in for a 'heart attack.' It is common for me to find totally different stories on their charts when I send for them than I hear from them. This is not because they try to deceive me. It is because they are not medical professionals and do not understand much of what they hear from the doctor. But the insurance companies do and will claim this is fraud. They count on people being confused by medical terminology and then use some omission or another to 'prove' they were committing fraud. Yes, this is already law. The states have regulated the insurance companies and I know of no state that does not require them to 'prove' the fraud. It is very simple to 'prove' under the current definitions that this bill does not change. Perhaps I'm wrong. Please find me the relevant portion of the bill that changes the current definition of fraud for the purposes of this loophole. I'd welcome it cause I've read the damned thing through quite a few times and I haven't found it.

"...and only as permitted under section 2702(c) or 2742(b)."

Funny how you left that out.

Here is section 2702 in its entirety:


‘‘SEC. 2702. GUARANTEED AVAILABILITY OF COVERAGE.
4 ‘‘(a) GUARANTEED ISSUANCE OF COVERAGE IN THE
5 INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP MARKET.—Subject to subsections
6 (b) through (e), each health insurance issuer that offers
7 health insurance coverage in the individual or group mar8
ket in a State must accept every employer and individual
9 in the State that applies for such coverage.
10 ‘‘(b) ENROLLMENT.—
11 ‘‘(1) RESTRICTION.—A health insurance issuer
12 described in subsection (a) may restrict enrollment in
13 coverage described in such subsection to open or spe14
cial enrollment periods.
15 ‘‘(2) ESTABLISHMENT.—A health insurance
16 issuer described in subsection (a) shall, in accordance
17 with the regulations promulgated under paragraph
18 (3), establish special enrollment periods for qualifying
19 events (under section 603 of the Employee Retirement
20 Income Security Act of 1974).
21 ‘‘(3) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary shall pro22
mulgate regulations with respect to enrollment periods
23 under paragraphs (1) and (2).

Please explain where this places any additional requirements, other than the ones I have outlined, on the insurance company to 'prove' fraud.

Subsection 2742 is not even listed in the table of contents. I would not expect, however, it concerns any other requirements of the insurance companies to 'prove' fraud. If I'm mistaken, please provide the language from the text of the bill which disproves what I have said.

"...this section shall not apply to a covered
individual who has performed an act or practice that con-
stitutes fraud or makes an intentional misrepresentation of
material fact as prohibited by the terms of the plan or cov-
erage."

It says it right there.

They can only revoke a policy if there is fraud. What's 2742 say? Why did you leave that out?

Again, you may argue it may not be enforced, but that's a different argument. There are protections that weren't there before.

You could look for it yourself but I would not expect it lays out, as you seem to think, some criteria for the insurance company to 'prove' fraud. Find it and let me know if I'm mistaken.

Uh huh.

You can argue it may not be enforced, but there are protections for consumers. They cannot be dropped unless there is fraud and this is a federal law. That was not the case before.

and show me where it defines fraud as anything other than what I have stated. The state laws have all prohibited insurance companies from cancelling coverage except in the case of fraud. I do not think the federal law changes the nature of their definition of fraud. What would you think they believe constitutes fraud?

The fact that 2742 does not even appear in the table of contents does not suggest there is much of significance to it. But, again, you are welcome to find it, post it, and show me where it proves me wrong. I'm beginning to suspect you have not read this bill.

It means they can rescind coverage for those they deem to have committed fraud or made a material misrepresentation.

That did not exist before that they cannot revoke your plan unless you have committed fraud. Now, you can claim that it may not be enforced and that insurance companies will just claim people are fraudulent, but they will have to prove it, and if there is proper regulation they won't be able to get away with it. Now, you may argue it won't be regulated, and maybe you'll be right, but if it's regulated, this IS protection from being dropped for no reason.

under their regulations. This bill does not change the nature of what they define as fraud. Or do you believe the state laws let them cancel policies for no reason until now?

This is federal.

In states w/ good enforcement, this does not happen.

Now the consumers will have a federal law protecting them from being dropped unless they are fraudulent.

If you want to be cynical, fine, but don't claim this provision which protects consumers for the first time on a federal level is the exact oppossite of what it is. This is PROTECTION unless you are fraudulent.

There is not one state that has allowed that. They all prohibit that except in cases of 'fraud' exactly as the Senate bill does. It will not change it.

Fraudulent is you didn't tell them your doctor noticed a precancerous lesion on your face 5 years ago and you didn't tell them on your application. It is EXACTLY the same as ever. I have worked with this crap for 20+ years and I do know whereof I speak.

Is it your position that the Senate Blue Dogs did not put all the industry friendly loopholes they could find in this bill? Really?

Stop spreading lies. This is additional federal regulation and protection that was not there before. So if your state fails to protect you, you can go to the Feds.

just that the federal law is not different than the laws which have always existed which allowed the insurance companies to cancel policies in the case of 'fraud.' You can go to the Feds over it but if you failed to relate some part of your medical history on your application, they can still call it fraud. Whether the state of the feds will back them up would be on a case by case basis. Many win their cases after waiting a long time for the regulators to get to it. Many are, by then, dead or so far into the disease process that treatment is ineffective.

Why are you wasting energy on this with me? Why are you not contacting your reps and demanding this loophole be removed and demanding to know which one of the Senate's insurance concubines inserted this loophole. It was not in Reid's original bill. Someone added it. Finding out who and getting it out of there would seem a more productive use of your time.

Holy crap. There is additional protections if you think you are being fucked, different regulators and different enforcement.

and does not change how the industry defines fraud. But it's a HUGE change. You win.

Damn straight I win.

They did, in this last round, add the ability of the the secretary of HHS to crack down on premium increases which was a good thing but enforcing the regs remains where it has always been. Don't believe that? Read the bill.

The exchanges will have federal oversight.

I've read the bill (in fact, I read every bill that passed out of every committee and Reid's original blended bill) and I welcome anyone who has done likewise to show me where the federal oversight is created. There is oversight to make sure you buy insurance and the IRS will monitor that and collect the fines if you fail to do so in the time defined. If the House version is the one adopted the exchanges will be national. The Senate bill has them in the hands of the states. I've found nothing that creates any consumer protection at the federal level. Please let me know when you find it.

:eyes:

entity. In the bill. Not in your mind.

Federal protections and recourse are self evident. You got a problem, you take it to a federal court, at the very least. That's how the fucking law works.

Just becuase you argue you think they won't be enforced doesn't entitle you to make up facts.

It's YOUR OPINION that it won't be enforced. That's NOT FACT. The fact is, there will be NEW FEDERAL LAW prohibiting rescission unless there is fraud. That's the fact.

the way the industry defines fraud. HUGE change. I've seen the error of my ways.

On the federal level. So if you live in a shitty state that does not enforce it's laws, you can go to the FEDS. Yes, that IS change. GOOD change.

and allocates the funding to set it up. I've read the bill and found nothing. Perhaps you can find it and post it here for the edification of us all.

Including the exchanges. There are also federal courts that hear cases regarding federal law and DHHS, which doesn't need new funding to set it up.

DHHS has been given the authority (new, in fact) to crack down on premium increases. The House version of the bill creates a national exchange. The Senate leaves it to the states. So, you're 1/2 right on that one. And is the dept of HHS overrun with excess employees who will use all their free time now to enforce these regulations? No new employees and no additional funding needed? Wow! they're good!

At the very least you will have redress in federal courts if your state enforcment is not sufficient. That's how law works.

No, I claimed both, right from the first. The law is the exact same as it has always been under the states' regulations. They have always had to claim fraud to cancel people's policies. I have had to work to get coverage for patients for years. I damn well know the laws that have governed them. AND I claimed enforcement will, likely, be weak even for the weak regulation that is here.

No one said they could drop coverage for no reason. Not now, not ever. They drop coverage for fraud. That is defined as withholding or hiding a medical condition or part of your medical history from them. It is what they have used to rescind policies all along and this bill does not change it.

This is federal regulation and protection that did not exist before and to claim otherwise is dishonest.

Some states are better than others at enforcement. So what? Now all will ALSO be under FEDERAL regulators. So if you have a beef, you can appeal to State AND Feds. This is MORE PROTECTION that did not exist before.

Stop peddling bullshit.

There were state laws on the books that are exactly the same. Making the federal law the same as what has always been the laws in the states does not change the nature of their definition of fraud. Someone here, who seems not to have read the bill, is peddling bullshit but it's not I.

And now, there is ANOTHER layer of FEDERAL REGULATION on top of state regulation. This is MORE protection.

Stop spreading your bullshit. It is NOT the same as before.

Write your Senators and Reps and let them know you are not in favor of this loophole. I'm not the enemy here. I want people protected but some Senator put this in there to protect the industry. Stop protecting and making excuses for them.

If people don't enforce law, that's not a loophole. It's lack of enforcement. The law exists to protect you, but if it's not enforced, it doesn't protect you.

You can argue you don't think it will be enforced. I'd say it depends on the administration.

Someone added the exception for cases of fraud making it a loophole. The insurance company claims fraud and there you go. The Senate bill, actually, leaves enforcement in the hands of the states. But never mind that, it could interfere with a good press release reading of the bill.

So should consumers be free to commit fraud? :shrug:

I'm not saying insurance co. won't try to exploit this, they will, but now there are additional federal regulations and recourse for the consumer. THAT IS GOOD. It didn't exist before. It's all in how it's enforced.

Like the woman who did not mention she was treated for acne so she was cancelled right before her mastectomy. Leaving out part of your medical history is what they call fraud. Be sure to keep excellent records for when you fill out your applications.

Why, we should just trust everyone. :eyes:

In over 20 years of nursing I have never seen one rescission over anything I could define as a deliberate case of fraud. It is always an omission of something in the medical history that the insurance company claimed was intentional. I'm not sure I could list everything that has ever been listed on any medical record anywhere in my whole life. But, let's now start bashing the consumers who have been and will, likely, continue to be abuse by the industry.

Just because insurance companies are nasty mutherfuckers doesn't mean that people should be able to defraud them willy nilly.

Just show it to me. I'm willing to stand corrected. Am I sensing you have not read the bill?

You can't define every single instance of fraud. It's not possible.

It's the court cases they will have to win to drop people who don't deserve to be dropped. They will have to prove it.

people who omitted something, fairly insignificant, from their applications who were caught in this scam by the insurance companies. You are welcome to post the cases of fraud accusations by insurance companies to which you have been privy but I'm reporting on years of experience I've had in trying to get people the help they need.

And I'm not saying this doesn't happen becaue it does and I'm sure it will continue. But the fact of the matter is, this is progress and an additional level of federal protections and avenues of redress that did not exist before. It is not the same. It is progress and the efficacy of it lies in the enforcment, NOT in the law. The law is NOT a loophole, it IS additional protection.

For you to spin otherwise is dishonest.

There is only anecdotal evidence they ever practiced this abuse. Of course, the President has spoken of the anecdote of his mother going through it but we should not give a shit about his anecdote, either, I guess.

It's as good and believable as any of YOUR anecdotes.

the new HCR bill provides MORE of the SAME protection,or lack thereof. Look at it this way. If the insurance industry said your claim would only be paid if you were over 85 and accompanied by both your parents, and the state laws allowed that and then the Feds come along and allow it also, then you have the benefit of losing your argument twice - once to the states and once to D.C. Yes, you have a new law that protects you, but it is exactly as bogus as the state law you think it enhances because it uses the same language and conditions.

It's as if there's a law against murder, but since the cops don't arrest anyone for murder the law is actually pro-murderer. The law is not the problem here. The law protects your from murder (that's the intent).

There will be a law that makes it illegal for ins. co. to drop your coverage unless you are fraudulent. If it's not enforced, it's still the law that they can't drop you unless you are fraudulent. And NOW there will FEDERAL redress ON TOP of state redress if you feel you are being unfairly treated by your ins. co.

There are already laws making it illegal to drop your coverage except for fraud in the states. Good the federal gov't agrees with them. But it won't change the insurance company's responsibilities.

Sure, sue away. In the state and the federal court. Good luck delaying your treatment til you get a judgement in your favor. I'm guessing you never had to do this. Am I right?

In states with good enforcement this is not as much of a problem. As I've been saying all along, it's in enforcment. Now there are two levels, State and Federal. Extra protections. Additionally, as I've always said, this is just a start and if it's not enough protection (and it may not be sufficient, we'll see), it can be improved upon.

But it's not the same as it's been, which has been my point all along and it IS an improvement despite your egregious spin to the contrary.

Or, perhaps I overlooked them. Please post it here, from the bill, that I may be enlightened. Cause, with all due respect, your repeating of that as fact does not match up with my reading of the bill.

At the very least, you will have access to federal courts that was not available before.

National exchanges will have regulations that will be enforced by DHHS. That's just for starters. When I see the final bill, I will know more.

it's too late. Grisham's novel, "The Rainmaker", was not pulled out of his butt, you know. It was from the very real experiences of him and his fellow attorneys in dealing with the insurance companies. The insurance companies prefer those cases where they can just outright deny claims but delaying is their next favorite tactic.

Now the federal courts aren't good enough for you? :rofl:

You asked, I answered. The enforcement is there. At LEAST the federal courts and DHHS. And as I've said, this is the start. If it turns out to be insufficient and the abuses are not curbed, I expect it to be improved upon.

But you, obviously, do not want to show me, in the bill, where I am wrong and so all you've got is talking points fed to you by others. Not credible.

Not to mention DHHS. I mean, they are good enough to enforce all other federal laws.

For doing what the regulatory agency lets them do?

That makes no sense.

Enforcement has to come from sort of agency.

If they say I'm fraudulent, and I'm not, I can take them to Federal Court. It's pretty simple. Furthermore, DOJ will now have jurisdiciton to prosecute ins. co.'s who are fucking around.

I hope we can do better than that.

Way to go Nostradamus! Why try anything? We'll always be doomed to fail.

bill become more disastrous at each stage of the process. I read every bill out of committee. The first 3 out of the House were disappointing but a minimally respectable start. The final bill out of the House barely qualified as reform. The bill out of the Senate HELP committee was a good start which could certainly have been built on. The bill out of the Senate finance committee was a big fuck you to the American people and a total gift to the industry. The blended bill Harry Reid wrote was not a good bill but a vast improvement on the Baucus insurance industry blow job. The final bill passed in the Senate was a disaster. Let's hope the final bill that passes is better than the Senate bill but optimism is hard to come by after the road the bill has traveled thus far.

Thanks for the kick. Your whining is noted.

Since you've already pronounced them as dead.

for a catastrophic illness in which time is of the essence. But, if you're happy with the loophole being there, then it's all good.

Hopefully it will never get to that point for millions of newly insured people who would otherwise never even had a chance if you have it your way. Yes, waiting for perfection would certainly be a better option. :eyes:

The onus has always been on insurers and they have whole departments dedicated to making their case to deny coverage based on "material misrepresentations of fact." As you're well aware.

And now they will ALSO have to deal with Federal Enforcement and regulators.

As I've been saying all along, this is improvement. Perfect? No. But definitely improvement and progress despite your bullshit spin to the contrary.

My 'bullshit spin' comes from reading the bill (all the bills from the beginning of the debate, in fact) not from the talking points and press releases of the advocates of the bill. I trust the reading of the bill, more. Just funny that way.

That's the fact. In your opinion, they won't be enforced. But that's just your opinion.

and enforcement mechanisms leads me to believe you have not read the bill.

Why the fuck is that so difficult for you to understand? They are good enough to enforce all other federal laws.

Perhaps we should create a new police force? Seriously, WTF do you think enforcement is?

their grief.

Now we're making progress. So, now we're back to it's just not GOOD enough for YOU. So as long as those people get to die while you stand on principle, it's ok that they don't have health insurance, just as long as they don't die while they are waiting to take their case to court.

Forget that it may never get to that point and maybe they just might get the health care they need (which they most certainly wouldn't NOW).

Got it. They should die without health insurance for your principles because you think the DOJ, federal courts and DHHS are not efficient enforcement mechanisms. That makes a lot of sense.

??

Who said anything about kicking butt?

??

He. is. going. to. fuck. their. shit. up. On. national. tv.

See. The legislation is anther issue (thoug related), which, while not perfect, will be a big improvement on the current system.

Two separate (but related) things.

1. Obama is going to fuck the Repubs up on national TV during the HC summit (yes, you can say he will kick their butts).

2. Dems are going to pass HCR.

Do I need to break it down further for you?

You said he was going to kick their butts, but how can modest improvements be likened to buttkicking?

Further, Obama himself refers NOT to "Health Care Reform", but "Health INSURANCE Reform".

He is going to fuck them up in the Summit and make them looks stupid.

n/t

At their retreat. Nahh, you didn't miss that, you just pretend it never happened.

How is that an improvement in health care for such people?

Duh.

they may or may not be able to afford to use. Will have to get to reading this new incarnation to see if it still includes the loophole the Senate bill has allowing rescissions to continue. If it does they will 'get' the honor of sending their money to the insurance companies til they get sick and the company cancels them. You know...just like now.

Before we start braying at the moon in ecstasy over this thing.

:fistbump:

I wouldn't imagine.lol

But I heard that you ARE easy...

:rofl:

I think we're in "Put Up or Shut Up" territory. If the Republicans punt on this, it's going to pass via reconciliation.

I resemble that remark!

it's happening now.

Thanks Beetwasher!

Not sure if I was crying with laughter, or despair.



sob!

Do you have anything constructive to add, or are you just doing a drive-by?

It's all some chess game.

We're nothing but his pieces.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:shrug:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

HCR doesn't really need a single GOP vote. It's the "moderate" Dems that are in the way.

:eyes:

"Get nowhere and be bogged down with infighting for a year, then ram it through with a parliamentary procedure everyone loves to hate and get in the bitter endgame what you could have had in the beginning months ago, all while turning your back on a major campaign promise and alienating your 'activist base.'"

Sounds like a plan to me.

"Nothing is what I want."

I'll bet on Obama every time. All through the campaign, whenever he made what I was sure was a dumb-assed move, he always got what he was after. The only thing he's lacking is strong support from The People. If a million of us took over D.C. and refused to leave till we had Universal Single Payer Healthcare, we'd have it in 90 days.

There are no heroes in elected office.

If Obama wants strong support from the people, he should do what the people put him in office to do.

72% of the people want a public option.

nor Ideology. Obama's not earned "hero" status yet (Ray Charles has!) but he's got a lotta potential. All I can say is, you get to vote again in a couple of years, give the man a chance to serve his term. I do believe his Endgame to be far superior to that of the other candidates for the gig, and you don't change Washington overnight. Keep Pushing!

privatization of Medicare.

"Obama doesn't give up. He's swooping in just when it looked like it was dead. And now, he's going to fuck your shit up.'

Best thing I read in ages! Kudos!

One thing the writer forgot to add is that Obama is going to fuck their shit up on live national television for all the world to see. God, I can't wait.

:applause:

Sure could use one in this thread.

:eyes:

That could be the motto for this whole thread.

I felt like I was being chased by a rabid dog in here earlier today.

Many of us who subscribed to the 11 dimensional chess theory gave up on that in favor of simple weakness and ineptitude a long time ago.

I like Obama (personally wish he was a better politician), but I don't buy this attempt to make him out to be a hardass.

I really wish he was the socialist hardball Chicago politician he is made out to be. The reality is he is a guy who you can shout 'you lie' to in a SOTU address, and he not only refuses to defend himself but changes the bill to make sure his attacker's wants are addressed.

I'll believe it when I see it.

"This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole."

Right on. :thumbsup: Makes perfect sense.

Are you going to discriminate against me? I'll sue.