Maggie's Farm

We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Much Sorry with Delays
Birth, Death and All That Stuff in Between
How to Honor Labor Day, Every Day
My Yom Kippur Miracle (Repost from 2010)
Good intro to fly casting
Peach update, with pie
NYC update
Easy for you to say: To the elites on mass immigration
For NYC on 9/11, Sailors' Snug Harbor
Pickled Peaches
Water Shoes
Labor Costs in U.S.
Your "identity"
Good news about The Great Courses
Uses of Hot Pepper Jelly/Sauce, Chutneys, and Jams
A Saturday Drive to Litchfield County, CT
How to Pick a Kayak
Civilized: Fruit forks and knives
Loads of kayaking on Cape Cod
Psychology Experiments' Questionable Results

Categories


All categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Add to Google

Subscribe with Bloglines

Thursday, July 16. 2009

Suckers: Pharma gets played

From Big Pharma gets Played in the WSJ:



Democrats remember the failure of HillaryCare, and they blame industry ads that alerted the public to the rationing and loss of choice that will accompany government health care. Their negotiations this time around are intended to buy business silence, at least long enough for Democrats to spring legislation into law before the companies have enough time to educate the public and defeat it.


Big Pharma and others have been played for suckers. We'd say these companies deserve what they get, except that the real victims of government health care will be American patients.



Related at IBD: Reading the fine print:



It didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.



That is what it is all about: everybody on the plantation. That makes it illegal for me to go out and buy my own medical insurance. How come nobody is mentioning that?

Posted by The Barrister in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects, Our Essays at 07:20 | Comments (17) | Trackback (1)

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

PingBack
Weblog: www.firstthings.com
Tracked: Jul 16, 12:49
Good To Know
Good To Know It's nice to get definitive proof that some bloggers really don't bother to do basic research before posting something, and we got some today. Here's a scary article from Investment Business Daily: "It didn't take long to...
Weblog: Political Animal
Tracked: Jul 17, 00:09

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Waaaah... Too much health care junk. Can we at least have a contest to name it?

:)
#1 Meta on 2009-07-16 09:58 (Reply)
'Bama's Bend-Over-This-Won't-Hurt-A-Bit Health Care
#2 Meta on 2009-07-16 10:00 (Reply)
This makes me completely insane. A big part of the problem in the last decades has been the overwhelming reliance on employer-provided group healthcare. It meant that people lost sight of the true price of insurance. It meant that people lost their insurance just when they were most financial vulnerable -- upon losing their jobs -- and were constantly exposed to the danger of pre-existing conditions when they had to switch to new coverage with a new employer. It meant that the tax law was skewed against people who resisted these problems by buying their own private insurance.

Any health policy that even discourages private insurance is a horrible idea. The idea that insurers would actually be forbidden to issue new private policies leaves me in an implacable fury.
#3 Texan99 on 2009-07-16 10:21 (Reply)
"It didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal"

if you value your life and that of your dear ones contact your reps now
http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml
#4 Mongol on 2009-07-16 10:30 (Reply)
Is Betsy McCaughey on the case? Her report nearly single handedly torpedoed HillaryCare along with those great attack ads. Time to roll up the big guns and fire away with everything you've got today, tomorrow will be too late.
#5 greenmtnpunter on 2009-07-16 14:55 (Reply)
The House bill does not make private health insurance illegal.

The bill does add various legal requirements for health insurance, for example, that they not withhold coverage from individuals with pre-existing conditions. Instead of simply immediately requiring that all insurers change their structures and conditions, the bill allows existing coverage schemes to be grandfathered in.

Thus, if you already have an individual plan that excludes people with pre-existing conditions, you can keep that plan. But new enrollees cannot choose that plan. New enrollees can enroll in individual plans, but they will have to meet the new requirements.

In short, the editorial is, at best, extremely misleading.

Whatever you do, don't bother to let the facts get in the way of a good fear-mongering rumor!
#6 Pither on 2009-07-16 16:06 (Reply)
not rumor-mongering. it's from IBD. sounds like they read it
#6.1 Bird Dog on 2009-07-16 16:34 (Reply)
It is rumor-mongering plain and simple. If you would take the time to read the one page before and one page after that quote, you'd see it is talking about the grandfathered plans only, not all private plans. Read my comment again, read the actual text of the bill. To claim that this bill outlaws private medical insurance is wrong. And it fooled you hook, line and sinker.
#6.1.1 Pither on 2009-07-16 16:48 (Reply)
The provision contains an "except as provided below" statement that refers to a requirement that all new policies be issued under a new public "Exchange" subject to a host of new requirements concerning terms. So the ability to write new policies won't be immediate or complete. It will take a while for the new "Exchange" to choke them out by preventing them from making a profit. That's the only way the new public option can be competitive.
#7 Texan99 on 2009-07-16 18:22 (Reply)
And it will be fully subsidized by the taxpayer (i.e. that is the minority who actually pay income taxes).

Unlike private enterprise that has to be profitable to attract capital to fund itself, the public option will ring up losses of an astounding amount in relatively short order. Once the private insurance industry is decimated, it will make going back exceedingly impossible.

Pither, you are both full of crap and illiterate. I've read enough to know that the IBD article is spot on. Why don't you read some more and think about what you are reading. What is your vision of society? It is certainly not on founded on the principles of our Constitution. Go to France, the UK or some other socialist country if you want this model.

I am not one who will trade freedom for bread or health care or anything else. All of these policies are designed to create dependency on government. It's not about your health. If you want to see the gruel you will be fed, start looking at Canada and the UK.
#7.1 Barrett on 2009-07-16 18:54 (Reply)
Like the IBD report this is based on, this post and most of the comments are just straight up lies, not even distortions or half truths, and since articles and responses here correct the facts, it's not just "intellectually" dishonest, as though a matter of interpretation is being taken in an extreme way, it is just flat out a pack of lies. This is bad faith, rank dishonesty. You and your supporters deserve exactly what you perpetrate, dishonesty, posturing demagoguery.
#8 skeptical on 2009-07-16 20:37 (Reply)
"You and your supporters deserve exactly what you perpetrate, dishonesty, posturing demagoguery."

I read the passage on page 16. I understand it is defining what will be grandfathered. I also understand the tactics of the Democrats and the end game, which is a single-payer government system. It is the Democrats and the Left that are dishonest. You know it too because you are as dishonest. They know this will not pass if there is not sleight of hand involved.

Furthermore, look at other nationalized systems where it is illegal to see doctors in private practice or have private insurance. Canada comes to mind. The heavy hand of government is used to keep the people in line.

RJ is spot on. The government has help to create the tangled web that is today's health care system. Yes, it has problems. Now, the government comes along after being a major factor in screwing things up and claims that only it can fix the problems. No thanks. Fix Medicare first and then come talk to me.
#8.1 Barrett on 2009-07-17 10:07 (Reply)
Hey, here's an idea for Congress & Obama. How about a law that lets me buy insurance from any insurance company in the country, and not just the ones who have licensed in my state? How about a law that allows me to easily get together with a few million of my closest friends (or barring that, strangers with common health care interests) to negotiate a group policy that would easily beat anything a fortune 500 company could obtain? Hmm, while we're at it, how about allowing small to medium businesses to do the same thing with thousands of other small to medium businesses? Hey, you think we might be able to shrink that uninsured number down just a little bit by trying these simple ideas out?

Naw, we'll just hand it all over to the government instead. They do such a great job at running everything else. Right?
#9 RJ on 2009-07-16 22:48 (Reply)
Here is the actual Bill
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/AAHCA09001xml.pdf

Shall we look at a bit closer folks? Page in question falls under

Page 14 Title I "I—PROTECTIONS AND STANDARDS FOR QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLANS Subtitle A—General Standards"

SEC. 101. REQUIREMENTS REFORMING HEALTH INSURANCE MARKETPLACE.

defines the following criteria for acceptable plans:
Subtitle B (relating to affordable coverage).
Subtitle C (relating to essential benefits).
Subtitle D (relating to consumer protection).

SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.

DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable cov6
erage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.

What does that mean? That means that effective immediately upon passage, the individual insurance plans offered before the passage of this law are not to be allowed anymore. What kind of individual insurance plans? SINCE IT DOES NOT SPECIFY BEFORE OR AFTER IF IT APPLIES ONLY TO THE QUALIFIED PLANS (meeting requirements of the bill) OR TO ALL INDIVIDUAL PLANS . One may only try to read the context. So let's look at page 19

(1) IN GENERAL.—Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan.

which means that they have to be in accordance with 3 requirements above and approved by the Commissioner.

Just so that you folks understand, the requirements and the role of the Commissioner with the Exchange are similar to the role of Fennie and Freddie and the government board that oversaw them, but with more government. And the insurance companies are like banks and financial institutions who will be forced to make "sub-prime" insurances. Say hello to COMPLETE nationalization in a short time, because they insurance companies will "inexplicably" begin to fail and go bankrupt
#10 Mongol on 2009-07-17 14:23 (Reply)
"[T]he requirements and the role of the Commissioner with the Exchange are similar to the role of Fennie (sic) and Freddie and the government board that oversaw them, but with more government. And the insurance companies are like banks and financial institutions who will be forced to make "sub-prime" insurances. Say hello to COMPLETE nationalization in a short time, because they (sic) insurance companies will "inexplicably" begin to fail and go bankrupt."

You are on the right track. It is impossible to compete with government enterprises because government can fund its losses with taxpayer funds versus private enterprise that must ultimately compete for capital.

The proposed structure will strangle the insurance companies so that the default mechanism will be government. Private firms will abandon health care as a benefit, driving more people into the government plan. I could go on and on.

The bottom line is that this is a government takeover of 17% of our national economy.

Not only that, the bureaucrats are exempting themselves from having to live with the coverage you are expected to take. It tells you something is rotten.

Why so many can't seem to see this is astounding to me.
#10.1 Barrett on 2009-07-17 14:43 (Reply)
"Why so many can't seem to see this is astounding to me."


"...[The goal was] to change the perception of reality of every American to such an extent that despite of the abundance of information no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interests of defending themselves, their families, their communities and their country..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTmbcyeZ9ic&feature=channel

1) Demoralization
2) Destabilization
3) Crisis
4) Normalization

We are in the middle of #2
#10.1.1 Mongol on 2009-07-17 15:09 (Reply)
Did somebody call for a troublemaker?

One school of conservative thought (the efficiency school) claims the government is orders of magnitude less efficient than private enterprise, but another (the power and control paranoid school) claims they’re gonna put insurance companies out of business. Which is it? Are Dems gonna make fools out of themselves with a humongous boondoggle or is this a crafty power grab?
Even in a worst case scenario... Personally, I get most of my mail order stuff by Fed Ex and I saw one hell of a massive distribution facility when I flew into Memphis.
#11 commander clopfelter on 2009-07-18 02:49 (Reply)

Add Comment
(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)

By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email
addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications.

Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u],
[url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here.

Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

BBCode format allowed
 
 
A Chris Southern Consulting website.