Parents and lawmakers speak out against Obama's speech to students

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I happen to think the line about you won't have to change your insurance if you like it is about as honest as Palin's comments about the death panels. ETA: he says "nothing in this plan" will require it. No, but it might be a relatively predictable outcome if your employer thinks they can get something cheaper.

But is that any different from the way it is now? How many Americans choose their own insurance program now? For most of us, our employers choose our insurance -- at most we get options as to premiums and co-pays/deductables. Surely whether any reform passes or not, employers can go for something cheaper if they can find it. I don't see how that can be pinned on reform; pin that on the free market.

The part of the debate that I don't quite get is the "just don't let it affect my coverage" sentiment. I know I've seen my premiums go up at a ridiculous rate in recent years, while benefits go down. Theoretically, I could look for somewhere else to cover my family, but practically speaking, pre-existing conditions rule that out. Sure, I'm basically satisfied with what I have, but I'd be a lot more satisfied if there was some stability in cost and benefits.

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

I addressed the school speech in my column (I was pro-speech, anti-stupidity).

Care to share?

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

But is that any different from the way it is now? How many Americans choose their own insurance program now? For most of us, our employers choose our insurance -- at most we get options as to premiums and co-pays/deductables. Surely whether any reform passes or not, employers can go for something cheaper if they can find it. I don't see how that can be pinned on reform; pin that on the free market.

The part of the debate that I don't quite get is the "just don't let it affect my coverage" sentiment. I know I've seen my premiums go up at a ridiculous rate in recent years, while benefits go down. Theoretically, I could look for somewhere else to cover my family, but practically speaking, pre-existing conditions rule that out. Sure, I'm basically satisfied with what I have, but I'd be a lot more satisfied if there was some stability in cost and benefits.

Care to share?

My problem with it is the implied guarantee that couldn't possibly exist. No one can honestly expect to deliver on the promise that anyone who likes their coverage, will get to keep it.

You're right doesn't work that way now, and it's not likely to work that way in the future.

But if you tell people that in the context of "reform" they are likely to assume that you really mean it.

I think a lot of Americans who heard Obama's comments, especially in the past* more than last night, will really believe that if "I like my insurance now; 'reform' will mean that I get to keep it like I like it."

Why wouldn't they? Isn't it being sold to them as if this plan is only going to improve the health system?

I don't think it's going to work like that, do you?

*last night's comments were a little savvier because at least he said, nothing in this bill will require you to change. But if you require all plans to meet certain requirements, it's pretty unlikely that things are going to stay like they are for most people.

[Little32]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

But is that any different from the way it is now? How many Americans choose their own insurance program now? For most of us, our employers choose our insurance -- at most we get options as to premiums and co-pays/deductables. Surely whether any reform passes or not, employers can go for something cheaper if they can find it. I don't see how that can be pinned on reform; pin that on the free market.

The part of the debate that I don't quite get is the "just don't let it affect my coverage" sentiment. I know I've seen my premiums go up at a ridiculous rate in recent years, while benefits go down. Theoretically, I could look for somewhere else to cover my family, but practically speaking, pre-existing conditions rule that out. Sure, I'm basically satisfied with what I have, but I'd be a lot more satisfied if there was some stability in cost and benefits.

This is exactly the point that I was making to my grannie this morning. That's all.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

My problem with it is the implied guarantee that couldn't possibly exist. No one can honestly expect to deliver on the promise that anyone who likes their coverage, will get to keep it.

You're right doesn't work that way now, and it's not likely to work that way in the future.

But if you tell people that in the context of "reform" they are likely to assume that you really mean it.

I think a lot of Americans who heard Obama's comments, especially in the past* more than last night, will really believe that if "I like my insurance now; 'reform' will mean that I get to keep it like I like it."

Why wouldn't they? Isn't it being sold to them as if this plan is only going to improve the health system?

I don't think it's going to work like that, do you?

*last night's comments were a little savvier because at least he said, nothing in this bill will require you to change. But if you require all plans to meet certain requirements, it's pretty unlikely that things are going to stay like they are for most people.

I see what you're saying, but I've never heard the comments the way you seem to be hearing them. The way I've heard it from Day 1 (by which I mean the way I have interpreted what has been said) is simply that you shouldn't worry if you like your current plan, because the law is not going to require you to switch to a different plan. That's all. I've never interpreted any statement as an implied promise that nothing about your coverage will ever change.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I see what you're saying, but I've never heard the comments the way you seem to be hearing them. The way I've heard it from Day 1 (by which I mean the way I have interpreted what has been said) is simply that you shouldn't worry if you like your current plan, because the law is not going to require you to switch to a different plan. That's all. I've never interpreted any statement as an implied promise that nothing about your coverage will ever change.

I interpreted the message the same way you did because there's no way that it ever really could have meant what he said, but the exact message delivered has varied a little bit:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...e-promise.html

Sometimes he clarifies; others he doesn't. I tend to think that you and I have a pretty good handle on what government can actually do for people. Sadly, I don't have the same faith in the general health care debate audience*, and I think the repetition of this point is kind of deceitful. It reassures people of something that, in good conscience, he probably shouldn't be reassuring them of.

Even if the reform doesn't change the nature of the coverage required in such a way to knock people's plans out of the market entirely, which honestly I think was and could still be on the table, it's just not something that ever should have been expressed the way Obama expressed it some of the time. What he apparently really meant was "at present, we do not intend to pass a bill that will require you to buy an entirely different government approved insurance plan."

* Please take a moment to think about how plausible you considered Palin's death panel comments and then to consider the number of people who apparently took them very literally. Personally, I think if we ever end up with government run single payer, we will ration care, so I don't think Palin's comment was 100% deranged. But to suggest that was a likely outcome anytime soon from Obama's reform was manipulative, and apparently successfully so.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Sadly, I don't have the same faith in the general health care debate audience*, and I think the repetition of this point is kind of deceitful.
. . .

* Please take a moment to think about how plausible you considered Palin's death panel comments and then to consider the number of people who apparently took them very literally.

As best I can tell, the people who believed that were the people who wanted to believe it -- who were already convinced that anything Obama offers is a socialist plot and who were more than happy to believe it. Those people (and yes, the left has certainly its counterparts) wouldn't believe Obama no matter what he said.

Personally, I think if we ever end up with government run single payer, we will ration care, so I don't think Palin's comment was 100% deranged. But to suggest that was a likely outcome anytime soon from Obama's reform was manipulative, and apparently successfully so.

We already have rationed care. It's just that apparently, we're willing to let insurance companies do the rationing.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

As best I can tell, the people who believed that were the people who wanted to believe it -- who were already convinced that anything Obama offers is a socialist plot and who were more than happy to believe it. Those people (and yes, the left has certainly its counterparts) wouldn't believe Obama no matter what he said.

We already have rationed care. It's just that apparently, we're willing to let insurance companies do the rationing.

And we currently have some redress if you feel that your care has been rationed in a way that has harmed your health.

I don't think we'd have that ( or as much of that) if we go to single payer, but again, I don't think that Obamacare = single payer.

I think there are many people who want to believe that health care reform equals making their health care perfect while spreading out the cost of this care onto someone else, in addition to providing care for everyone, of course. I think these people exceed the number of Palinites. I think Obama is trying to woo a certain segment of the insured with claims that he knows are overstated. But that's how the political game is played.

I don't think it's unlikely at all that someone with your general feelings about wanting more stability in your plan will believe that this reform package will make that more likely, based on what Obama has said. But I don't think there's anything in this reform that actually makes it more likely, and in fact, it's probably less likely.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

And we currently have some redress if you feel that your care has been rationed in a way that has harmed your health.

I don't think we'd have that ( or as much of that) if we go to single payer, but again, I don't think that Obamacare = single payer.

I don't know whether we would or not (and I don't know whether, if we did, it would be any more effective than what we have now or not). But I agree -- no one has actually proposed single payer.

That's why the whole debate is so frustrating to me. Some are debating proposals that are on the table or could well be on the table. Others -- many more others, perhaps -- are debating (loudly) things that aren't likely to be on the table.

I think discussion about the sky falling in with single payer are a red herring. Aside from the fact that that's not being proposed and would never pass here, "single payer" alone isn't going to fix things or make them worse. If we look around we see plenty of other countries with a variety of ways of doing things, from Canada's and Britain's systems to Germany's universal coverage using only private insurers. The devil is, as always, in the details, not in "single payer" vs. free market private insurance.