Lalo Alcaraz for August 12, 2009

Incorrect - the Town Hall mobs are gullible enough to lobby for HMOs for free.

When community activists work this is what they do. I too am from Chicago and Obama understands that all too well.

The #1 article emailed from today’s WSJ

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070-email.html

Perhaps, but even community activists can go too far. I think you are making a rhetorical statement here, anyway.

As for the article, I disagree strongly with some of the points there. Particularly the par about repealing government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. If anything, companies tend to cover too little already. As for competition across state boundaries - didn’t California try that? Most state companies promptly cut their coverage, as far as I know. As for removing the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and HSAs… I do not claim to know all about the subject, but what ARE these obstacles? In the light of the financial crisis and what it showed for unregulated financial products (i.e. they are sometimes intentionally fraudulent, and sometimes just flop) I am very dubious of deregulation without good reason.

OTOH, I agree with making costs transparent or enacting reform per se. Possibly, to a point, about tort reform - but I do consider it important that the victims of an actual malpractice are compensated.

As for the comparisons with Canada and Britain: first, while they may be the systems Americans have the most (relative) familiarity with, they are most likely not what the US system would look like if a plan similar to what Obama campaigned for passes. First, they are actually among the most centralized systems in the West - the US one will most likely be much looser. Second, the complaints about being able to get supplemental coverage are mostly moot. Supplemental coverage, after all, is additional coverage above and beyond a certain minimum - a minimum that the current US system largely does not provide. Also, there are no signs supplemental coverage (purchased privately) will disappear in a reformed system, unless all private companies magically turn out to be so mismanaged they can’t even retain a niche in the market. Rather unlikely, as even a heavily subsidized government plan (and it probably will not be that heavily subsidized) can not reasonably cater to all specific niches. There is definitely nothing in either the House or Senate draft bills that indicates such a situation.

As for the whole “rationing” argument - currently the US has rationing as well, it’s just done by the insurance companies as well. Actually, I would hazard a guess that it is more prevalent than that in the UK. Also, I seriously doubt even insured people have absolutely no waiting periods or limitations. So it’s not just the evil Canadian system.

As long as congress accepts the same plan they want us to take.

Community activists block their opponents’ freedom of speech while spreading lies that they want to kill the elderly? Since when?

Hey Copperdomebodhi!! You are just trying to make a lie true by saying it often enough and louder than the real truth. You know nothing about community organizers. You may be from Chicago, but that doesn’t make you an expert. I dare you to go to an Acorn office near you to spend a day with them fighting for the poor and prejudice. Then try to say your lies. This is all about having a black President. My daughter-in-law teaches in MLK Jr. Laboratory public school in Evanston. I dare you to go and spend a day at King Lab. You will learn why everything you have said was first said by a racist!!!!! Now you are trying to make the lie into truth.

@4uk

The mandates states legally require add hundreds of dollars to the annual premium.

Acupuncture, alternative medicine, infertility, massage therapy, social workers, podiatrists, wigs etc etc.

If they weren’t mandated then the monthly premiums would be less and more people could afford health insurance. I remember early on when NYS mandated 2 days in the hospital after childbirth. Not a medical necessity but one of convenience. What happens is legislators cannot say no to any interest group.

Gary, be careful when you say that. What you just wrote was: From those that have to those that need. Now you may believe that but if Obama were to agree with Karl Marx and you it would be the death knell of then plan.

@ GNWachs - where do states mandate (as in, make necessary) massage therapy, acupuncture, or wigs? This sounds extraneous. As for infertility… well, this could be important. Actually, to many couples suffering from the problem, it probably is very important - but I really doubt all health insurers are bound by law to have it. Podiatry… why shouldn’t foot problems be treated? Being able to walk freely is imo quite important for a person’s life - and usually work.

All in all, it is quite possible that some of the restrictions are unnecessary, but dropping them altogether is even worse. In fact, it may lead to worse results as companies hurry to drop those customers who may end up too expensive to cover. There is a saying - “Do not burn an entire blanket to get rid of a single flea.”

4uk You obviously do not live in NYS. Here many of those benefits are indeed mandatory. From your shock I can see you have not been exposed to liberalism in its full success. That is just one reason why health insurance is so expensive. Here is a partial list from 1-2 years ago. There have been additions.

www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/…/HealthInsuranceMandates2008.pdf -

Canada and England suck so bad.

The Health Care issue is dead. These are the warriors they have sent out to save it: Pres. “Pain-Pill” Obama, Claire McCaskill, and Arlen Specter. Apparently only people who have their direct and immediate political future hanging on its success are interested in propping it up.

@ GNWachs - The link doesn’t work; I think the site has a problem with pasting long links. Can you give another? Otherwise, I am something surprised that acupuncture and massage therapy would be part of mandatory coverage, but then again I am not sure what the verdict is on their effectiveness. If they are proven to be useful, sure.

I definitely can believe that sometimes regulations can be extraneous or counterproductive. That does not mean they should be totally abolished rather than reformed, however.

@ NFP: “Canada and England suck so bad.”

Which kind of sucking did you mean? Sorry, I couldn’t resist ;)

Well, that’s your opnion, you are entitled to it. Mind you, WHO ranked Canada higher than the US in terms of healthcare (30th vs 37th). Even if their methodology is less than perfect, I’d say the two are at least comparable in their results. Canadians and Brits, mind you, pay much less (as GDP, per person, etc) for their systems.

Incidentally, a former university classmate of mine just wrote ” I love the NHS.” in his Facebook account ;)

@4uk

Google “Health Insurance Mandates in the States 2008” by the “Council for Affordable Health Insurance”

Some of these may indeed produce beneficial results but they each add to the monthly premium and every dollar added will mean someone will not be able to afford it.

@Gary As a very strong 1st amendment advocate obviously that is not banned speech but politically the words of Marx coming from a candidate or elected politician don’t go over well. I think they would even be enough to kill the projected program.

And red baiting or nazi-calling don’t work unless you are imprudent enough to actually quote Marx or Hitler.

I mean England and Canada would be nothing without the Yanks protecting their azz and funding their pharmaceutical habit and cutting edge medical care and research.

Duh.

@GNWachs: interesting. I can’t say I do not agree with some of those mandates - imo podiatricians or morbid obesity treatments may actually be beneficial both in terms of patient health and total cost. The wigs I am a little puzzled for, but as far as I saw it was only for cancer patients. Is hair loss particularly common in cancer patients, or is there some other reason?

@ NFP:

Hey, the US pushed as hard for NATO as anyone else - you know, the whole “superpower” thing during the Cold War? Plus, if anyone really benefited from it, it was the continental Europeans - Germans, the Benelux states, most likely the Greeks and Turks as well.. The Canucks won’t get invaded unless someone a) wants to invade North America or b) it’s the US that does the invading. The Brits, well, they haven’t been invaded all that often anyway. Might be that pond of theirs.

As for funding… you do know that in the majority of the post-WWII period, European countries (and others)have been funding the US deficit, not the other way around? What you say makes no sense.

@4uk

The problem in not that the mandates are without value it is that each one brings with it an added monthly premium. We complain that so many Americans can’t afford the insurance and then burden an individual with added costs. It is like the man up for murdering his parents and he pleas for mercy because he is now an orphan.

The universal side effect of cancer chemotherapy is hair loss.

A republican Pinnochio.

They don’t want to kill old people, just let them die as quickly as possible.

puppy, stop quoting yourself ….

there you go again, quoting yourself puppy !