Obama's Speech Surprised Me

[longfisher]

As an independent insurance agent who deals with health insurance issues every day of the week, I was suprised by what I heard in Obama's speech last night. Actually, I was very surprised.

Now, I'm an agent. But I'm no apologist for any insurance company in particular or the industry as a whole. It's an industry that in the last few decades became captive to Wall Street's incessant pressure for profits above all else and, as a consequence, the industry has become expert at either discovering or fabricating bottlenecks in the healthcare delivery process and turning those bottlenecks into profit opportunities.

It's a pity. Some of those companies, particularly Blue Cross Blue Shield, have their roots in community service. There was a time their patient orientation didn't require strict regulations. They just did it because it was the right thing to do.

But no more. They're now decidedly in the hands of the most greedy and heartless people on earth, Wall Street which as we've seen recently is not the most socially responsible industry in America.

So, what was my surprise at Obama. Many of you know how to play poker, right? If you do you probably know what "going all in" means. I was suprised at how Obama "went all in".

The speech advocated a COMPLETE laundry list of all the things the progressives wanted to see in the bill. But for his newfound willingness to consider much needed malpractice reform, it was all one sided. And, he made no bones about throwing down the gauntlet to the Republicans.

As such, it was a tremendous departure from what he's done in the past where he at least sought (or gave lip service to) bipartisanship. I think he's joined the fight in a big way. Accordingly, I also think it's going to get much nastier?

But I'm still going to stick to my prediction that I've been making to my many health insurance customers now for almost two years. There will be insurance reform and it will consist of the following six elements at a minimum:

1) Individual and Business Mandates for Coverage - but for the smallest of businesses and the most impoverished of individuals. Everyone must join. The insurers will love that part.

2) Insurers can no longer decline coverage or cancel coverage. The willingness of the insurers to accept this requirement will depend on the success of #1 above. You might ask, well, how could they refuse to do this even if #1 was unsuccessful? Please remember, insurance companies are private interprises and they can withdraw their products from any market at any time they choose. That's what's caused such problems in MA.

3) There will be more uniformity in plans available throughout the U.S. and the ease with which the individual and business consumer can purchase a good plan will increase. This will be done through some form of "national exchange". I don't think it will differ much from sites like e-surance.com. This will be bad for agents.

This will prove to be a further erosion of the rights of states to regulate their own insurance industries as established in the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945. But both FISA, ERISA and, most importantly HIPAA have long since eroded substantial states rights on health care regulation already.

4) Yearly and lifetime caps on benefits will go away. Some of the insurance companies out there who offer "guaranteed-issue, indemnity-based, limited-benefit plans" (think MegaLife, AMLI, etc.) will go out of business, as a result. They're bottom feeders anyway and are the principle source of ill will towards insurers.

5) Out of pocket costs will be controled, unlike now where even with good insurance you can still go bankrupt.

6) Recissions will be a thing of the past.

But what Obama will absolutely not get is the Public Option. There's just too few votes in the Senate for that to pass, no matter what Pelosi wants to see done. As a consequence, about 5 - 10% of Americans won't get coverage or will do so through what you guys hate most...some form of welfare or stipend that comes out of your pockets.

On the one hand bemoaning taxes to support the heatlh care of the near-poor and on the other hand rejecting the public option makes for a self-fulfilling prophecy if your prophecy is that the government will spent your tax dollars for the poor. At least, that will give you something to complain about, even if the GOP was the one that made it all but certain.

LongFisher

[mvsusaf]

Well said. A reasonable opinion expressed without vitriol. I believe that Longfisher has set a standard that all of us could well emulate on other subjects as well.

Martin V

[longfisher]

Thanks for the kind words, Martin.

But when pressed I can be as vitriolic as anyone.

LongFisher

[Big Fish Billy]

I have to look that one up.......

[eppefour]

Good post and well thought out.

I'm sure the public option won't pass but people seem to forget that the government is one of the largest insurers already thru Medicare and Medicaid.
In medicare you are better off with the government plan than a privately insured Medicare advantage plan. They tend to be very restrictive and often make people jump through hoops to get care that is mandated by the government. One benefit in NJ that many seniors with diabetis have problems with is Blood glucose testing supplies. Horizon BC makes it hard for patients to get them even though Medicare mandates that all plans must cover them.
Medigaps are more expensive than Advantage plans but the coverage is much better.

Meanwhile we all pay for the uninsured, because they use the emergency room as a primary doctor and those costs are passed on to us through our insurance premiums and state taxes.

I don't know the right answer but I know something has to change.

[hubris 1]

Its a nice experiment in human behavior. With a calm voice, you can get most people to think you speak the truth. You my fine sir should be a senator. We wont hear from you again until you blirt out...............@#$%%^%#DXDAETGGV%^))_)(_+P)

[JD5652]

All I want is for Congress to have to sign up for whatever public, government run, government mandated or whatever other name you put on it "plan" that is passed.....

[eppefour]

I agree. Congress and government employees should have to live under the same conditions we live under. Most of the government plans will pay for a brand name drug when a generic is available. Very few of our plans will allow that. It is a huge waste of taxpayer money

[nautiduck]

I agree lets have all the insurance agents, senators congressmen, and the president and his cabinet all sign that they will be bound by this same plan for life as well. No more special treatment no more special plans, after their term (limited to two for everyone) is up they fall under the same terms as everyone else. I can see an all out save them at all costs for the P and VP while they are in office only. I think when they are held to the same programs then and only then will we have a plan produced that will work. Longfisher by the way I like how you started with a one or two fishing posts then ramped up to your agenda of pushing the health care plan for the liberals, very well played, obvious but well played.

[longfisher]

ND, this thread begins forthrightly with a discussion of the topic of the thread, Obama's speech.

I don't see any reference to fishing in this thread but for your post. You brought up fishing. There are no posts herein referring to fishing by others except you and now this post. Not only are there none from me, there's none period from anyone but you.

What the devil are you talking about, AGAIN? It's hard for me to square your false assertion that I lured folks to this thread with talk of fishing only to switch subjects. It just didn't happen that way and there's a written record above to prove it.

Oh, and perhaps, AGAIN, I need to remind you to read for comprehension TO CONVINCE YOURSELF I'M NOT ADVOCATING THE LIBERAL AGENDA. In the initial post in this thread I say Obama's speech surprised me. The reason it surprised me is that his speech advocated virtually all of the measures favored by the progressives and that this was going to cause a bitter fight from here on out. The only progressive measure he left out was Single Payor and I left it out of my summary for that reason, he left it out.

I then detailed what I have been telling my customers for years and what I still believe will be the ultimate outcome of the debate. And, that outcome DOES NOT INCLUDE EITHER SINGLE PAYOR OR PUBLIC OPTION WHICH ARE THE PET OBJECTIVES OF MOST OF THOSE FURTHEST LEFT IN THE COUNTRY.

If I were trying to foist off on someone my "liberal" agenda don't you think I'd advocate for the two most liberal (and unworkable) ideas the progressives have? You make less and less sense with every post.

ND, your mind seems to be in a state of constipation. Why are you so unclear about what people say here. Heck, it's all in writing so it's available to you for review as often as you like so as to get it right.

You also seem hidebound about the labels you use on others who may not think like you. You seem to see liberals where they don't exist. Do you still worry about the "Red Scare" of McCarthy's times or the potential of Canada or Mexico to reclaim by force of arms Texas or the Northeast, respectively? Do you see agents of those "powers" everywhere, even under your bed? Those concerns would be just as logical as you calling me a liberal.

I think it's probable that if you like the Mako line of boats and someone else voiced an adverse opinion of that line you'd call them a socialist, anti-American or, your favorite, a liberal. That's how illogical you've become.

Here, let me say this once again, I'm a disaffected Republican who left the Republican party along with legions of others when George Bush revoked all then known conservative principles and became a revolutionary monarch as if he were a hereditary king and then acted far outside both the law and conservative priciples and ran the country into the ground, caused us to lose (yes, we will lose) two wars and sullied the great name of the U.S. such that it is now equated worldwide with the excesses of the old Soviet Union. He didn't deserve my followership or that of many others who left and he didn't get it.

I'm an independent and have been for about 7.5 years now when it became clear that our national foreign policy was built principly on one thing, blood lust, and when all reason went out the window. Bush concerned me far more than an bunch of ragheads who had to try three times to knock over some buildings.

But perhaps I understand why you can't accept what I say I am and just debate on those terms. It's much like when a Jew, American or otherwise, decides his conscience can no longer allow him to tolerate Israeli aparthied and speaks out about it. The Israeli right reserves for those people a specially designated and huge vat of venom and attacks them ceaslessly and mercilessly. They view them as rejectionists at a minimum and ideological traitors at the most extreme.

Is that it, ND? Do you think there's only one way to think in America and that it's your way, freedoms be damned?

Well, my fine friend, you're just plain wrong if you do.

LongFisher