Franken: Pawlenty ‘misrepresents what the health reform bill is’

The CBO estimate is not all we have to go off of. We can also draw conclusions from the fact that the CBO constantly underestimates program costs. They overestimated the savings of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (another medical reform bill) by a full 100%.
Just sayin’ we can go off that too.

Les Wes is being reasonable to say the CBO estimate could be wrong, but that begs the question of what else to use. It seems health care reform opponents usually just go of their gut feeling reform will cost money. Given how the current system is bleeding us, it’s a long-term drag on the economy and reform is vital.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DDJ8Y226W4&feature=related

“And the whole point of health care reform was to address the unsustainability of increasing health care costs.”

Well then, just shoot all sick people in the head. Idiot. Franken’s wet dream “reform” will do what all leftist nonsense does: reduce quality, bankrupt the system. Idiot.

Cogent thinking and idiocy are not antonymous. Besides, Franken wrote the book on name calling. Idiot.

Hi Eric,

I’ll refrain from commenting on generalizations about reform opponents and rather just explain my thoughts about opposing this legislation.
This is Health Care Insurance Reform, not health care reform. In light of that, I can’t see why or how this bill would be better than the following simple changes:
Let individuals buy insurance across state lines.
Extend employer HC tax benefits to individuals.
End Health coverage mandates.

The first ends monopolies, the second decouples jobs and insurance, and the third just trims the fat. (Why should I have pregnancy coverage when I’m single, substance abuse coverage when I don’t drink?).

I’d like to see the Fed disentangle the issues they already have in HCR before they start adding new unknown factors.

Obviously to really help the needy get health care, charity plays the biggest role, and IMHO this is a cultural value not a federal mandate.

It’s a waste of time trying to reason with leftists. They aren’t the least bit interested in lowering the cost or increasing the quality of healthcare. They are only interested in taking stuff that doesn’t belong to them. Period.

Wrong wrong wrong, Jimmy.

Letting insurance companies sell across state lines will just enable the big insurance companies to get bigger, it will eliminate competition.

This is how it works: For any particular hospital, the insurance company that has the most patients has the most leverage when negotiating fees. They get the best deal, getting procedures even below cost. The insurance companies that are fourth or fifth make up the losses, as well as patients who don’t have insurance.

What will happen if you sell across state lines? There will be focused attack to eliminate competition region by region. As there are fewer and fewer insurance companies, hospitals won’t be able to make up the difference from other companies. They will either have to go out of business or hold the line. Assuming they don’t go out of business, insurance costs will go through the roof.

How is that going to be better for consumers? How does that constrain costs?

Have you ever changed health insurance companies? it’s a pain in the butt. You often have to get a physical, you get your blood drawn, you have to recite your entire history complete with dates of treatments. If you make mistakes, you could be excluded later. You wait in limbo for weeks, and you could be excluded for whatever reason they wish. You make it sound as simple as changing your socks. It’s not.

Extending employer health care tax benefits to individuals will make it easier for employers to dump health care benefits onto the employee. Negative feedback from large corproate employers one of the few braking forces acting on insurance premiums, eliminate that brake and you will see costs soar.

Big groups have leverage, individuals have none.

Collective bargaining gives individuals power, that’s the route to go. I’d rather not see it on the employer, because it give the employer leverage on the employee. But throwing individuals to the wolves is not the answer.

Health coverage mandates are a concession to the insurance companies. They want it mandated. That was the theme seen with privatizing Social Security. The brokers were champing at the bit at the prospect of all those new investors. Brokers stood to gain tremendously from that mandate, promoted by Republicans. The general public saw how dangerous it is to privatize what is only a safety net and not a retirement fund.

Single payer is the best, most cost effective option. Run it like medicare or like the VA system, simple enough. Won’t ever happen, too many big lobbyists involved.

Conservatives hate seeing tax dollars spend on services that they don’t directly benefit from, though they benefit indirectly.

Hi Lou,

With regards to your statelines post: Who makes it so difficult to change HC providers? Why wouldn’t new, more progressive insurance companies rise up with simple application processes? There a lot of incumbent protection in HC company regulation. http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/should-we-be-able-to-buy-health-insurance-across-state-lines/
With regards to EployerTax Post: “make it easier for employers to dump health care benefits onto the employee”, “I’d rather not see it on the employer”. Incongruous statements. It’s just easier for HC Insurance companies to amass the most patients when the can buy them in per/employer chunks. The same system would stay in place if they were selling to individuals, the difference would be they would have to market to individuals too.
With regards to Mandates Post: All I saw was a bunch of ad hominem comments. . . Medicare and VA are examples of a working system?