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

[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.

[knight_shadow]

Kids Didn't Hear Obama, But Will Be Bussed for Bush

The Arlington Independent School District, which passed on airing President Barack Obama's live classroom address, has announced that some students will be bussed off campus to hear a message from former President George W. Bush on Sept. 21.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32747095/from/ET

[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.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

Yep. And I think this is why the initial big push to pass something without careful review and discussion of the final bill was really odd and to me suspicious. Things have slowed down now, it seems, but do any of us really feel like we know what's going to get passed?

I think the fear about single payer is based on kind of a slippery slope thing as people reflected on how the public option would function. How do you keep that merely competitive when it is subsidized by the federal government? Well, one negative possibility is that you can't and it will drive private insurers out of the marker. What would be left? At that point, wouldn't it be easier to go to a single payer system? Seeing a lot of people in favor of single payer in the media while this was being discussed added to the perception that it might be deliberately where we were headed. Without a bill to look at and any provisions explaining how this would be prevented, I think it's easy to see why people got concerned.


I think Obama's rhetoric in the speech about the public option being self-funded is kind of delusional. If more people could have been insured at a low enough cost to break even, I suspect they would have been in the existing system, but I may be underestimating the value of the government forcing people to buy insurance. Again, I'd like to see the details (or actually I'd like to see a layman's summary of the details), wouldn't you?

ETA: http://energycommerce.house.gov/Pres...00_summary.pdf
I thought the second sentence under Coverage and Choice was interesting.

ETA: Here's the text: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text of the house bill. My impression was that changes had already been made. Does anyone know where you can review those?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Yep. And I think this is why the initial big push to pass something without careful review and discussion of the final bill was really odd and to me suspicious.

See, I didn't find that odd or suspicious at all -- to me that seemed like business as usual. Congress passes monster bills all the time that lots of people (including too many members of Congress) haven't studied carefully. Something like this (typically) has to be done in an off-election year. It made perfect sense, while there was a "mandate" behind the president and while he has a majority in Congress to try and do something quickly, especially on an issue that historically generates lots of heat. And it's not like it came out of a vacuum or was unexpected.

As for the single-payer fear, I think it has less to do with a slippery slope per se and much more to do with deep-seeded (and sometimes rational, sometimes irrational) American distrust of anything that seems to have even a sniff of socialism or government control/oversight about it.

And sorry -- right now I don't know where to look for the latest versions of any bills.

[UGAalum94]

Politics as usual sure. Good government in an area of huge importance, probably not.

I think a lot of the changes I was thinking of are just in the proposed Senate version.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Politics as usual sure. Good government in an area of huge importance, probably not.

All to often, the two do not go together, I'm afraid.

[honeychile]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Politics as usual sure. Good government in an area of huge importance, probably not.

I think a lot of the changes I was thinking of are just in the proposed Senate version.

Originally Posted by MysticCat

All to often, the two do not go together, I'm afraid.

FTW

Bottom line: if health care is to be universal, then every American citizen should have exactly the same health care plan as the President, both Houses, and their families. Anything less is an insult to our intelligence.

I'm going to add a link, but the way this computer has been acting, I'm posting this much now.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by honeychile

FTW

Bottom line: if health care is to be universal, then every American citizen should have exactly the same health care plan as the President, both Houses, and their families. Anything less is an insult to our intelligence.

I'm going to add a link, but the way this computer has been acting, I'm posting this much now.

But your proposing that everyone should have the same insurance and that is not what Americans want. We all want to choose our own insurance...which may be the policy that the President and Congress enjoy, but it may also be a cheaper policy that only covers catastrophic coverage so that we don't have to pay huge monthly bills for the policy. If health care is to be universal, then every American citizen should be expected to have some level of responsibility towards covering their own insurance needs. Leaving the health care expenses for the nation to the tax payers is ridiculous. Instead of buying expensive electronics and cars, first, we all need to cover ourselves for the very real threats to our health. For those that cannot afford coverage, the government can subsidize policies. I understand that paying for health insurance is an expense that doesn't seem to make sense when you don't make much money and you can't see the tangible benefits. Unfortunately, responsibility mandates that you buy the insurance anyway. I sure hated to pay for it when I lived off of $9000 a year in med school, but I didn't really have much of a choice since it was a requirement for enrollment.

[VandalSquirrel]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

But your proposing that everyone should have the same insurance and that is not what Americans want. We all want to choose our own insurance...which may be the policy that the President and Congress enjoy, but it may also be a cheaper policy that only covers catastrophic coverage so that we don't have to pay huge monthly bills for the policy. If health care is to be universal, then every American citizen should be expected to have some level of responsibility towards covering their own insurance needs. Leaving the health care expenses for the nation to the tax payers is ridiculous. Instead of buying expensive electronics and cars, first, we all need to cover ourselves for the very real threats to our health. For those that cannot afford coverage, the government can subsidize policies. I understand that paying for health insurance is an expense that doesn't seem to make sense when you don't make much money and you can't see the tangible benefits. Unfortunately, responsibility mandates that you buy the insurance anyway. I sure hated to pay for it when I lived off of $9000 a year in med school, but I didn't really have much of a choice since it was a requirement for enrollment.

I am so glad my coverage is through work and it comes out of my paycheck before I even get paid. I also have it set up to take out my car and renter's insurance as well, so it is a real budgeting boon to have that all taken care of so I know a) it is paid b) I am covered c) exactly how much money I have left for other crap. My prescriptions are pretty stable (other than a random illness) and I get my tax return in January so I always set aside enough to cover my deductible.

Furthermore my employer requires you to have our insurance, or show proof of coverage on another plan or you will be charged for insurance. They feel that people without insurance are less likely to go to the doctor, come to work ill, and not only get other people ill, but also have children who are sick longer. We get sick leave and two hours a month for medical appointments, and sick leave can be used to cover time for family member illnesses which most people with kids do.