Obama's Rule: Turn in Thy Neighbor

G8RKyle · Post by **G8RKyle** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 8:24 am

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

Discuss.

MinGator · Post by **MinGator** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 8:35 am

Time to squash the rebellion by squashing freedom of speech.

Personally this bothers me.

a1bion · Post by **a1bion** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 8:35 am

yawners.

a1bion · Post by **a1bion** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 8:38 am

Time to squash the rebellion by squashing freedom of speech.

Personally this bothers me.

So pointing out that someone sent you a stupid fucking fact bereft conspiracy theory email is squashing freedom of speech? When did conservatives become such whiny ass titty babies?

G8rMom7 · Post by **G8rMom7** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 9:46 am

This doesn't really bother me all that much...and I am one of those "conservatives". I'd like to see what the White House spin would be on all this stuff. Personally, all I listen to are people from Europe and Canada give their experiences with their health care...some are good, most are bad...but at least I'm getting myself prepared for what is to come. My biggest concern is that what good there is about their health systems is all due to the fact that US is there to pay for all the research and development of meds and new treatments. If the US goes on their system, I'm not sure what the world will look like in regards to medicine.

My hope is that the free market system we have (and hopefully continue to have) will kick in and if there is a need for something and someone can make a profit off it, then it will get done. Pie in the sky I guess.

G8rMom7 · Post by **G8rMom7** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 9:49 am

a1...by the way...I'm really happy to see you on this forum as you are really the one left-leaning voice since slider has been gone. Plus, you have a more business oriented background and I value your opinion.

What is your defense of health care reform? I'd really like to hear what your thoughts are as it seems no matter what I think, the stars are not "aligned" in my favor. I'd like to be prepared though. Thanks in advance.

a1bion · Post by **a1bion** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 10:03 am

a1...by the way...I'm really happy to see you on this forum as you are really the one left-leaning voice since slider has been gone. Plus, you have a more business oriented background and I value your opinion.

What is your defense of health care reform? I'd really like to hear what your thoughts are as it seems no matter what I think, the stars are not "aligned" in my favor. I'd like to be prepared though. Thanks in advance.

My defense of health care reform is that the insurance companies are more concerned, by and large, with what their shareholders have to say than with providing quality coverage to the people who need coverage. There was an article in Bloomberg Markets (not exactly a lefty mag) awhile back about the tactics the insurance companies have started employing to rip people off over the past several years. In that case, it was property insurance, but you see the same tactics. Look into the issue of coverage rescission for a good example (actually, I'll post about that later). As Bloomberg termed it, it's a "hoax" perpetuated by the industry and it should be fixed.

Add to that the fact that many insurers have established local near-monopolies in the states that they serve--that's not a free market by any stretch of the imagination. And they're able to do this because insurance in regulated on a state by state basis, so in a lot of places, they buy off the officials in charge of regulating them for the state and establish revolving doors between the regulatory offices and the insurance company.

a1bion · Post by **a1bion** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 10:17 am

From the Bloomberg piece on property insurers (same principals apply)

Tunnell joined thousands of people in the U.S. who already knew a secret about the insurance industry: When there's a disaster, the companies homeowners count on to protect them from financial ruin routinely pay less than what policies promise. Insurers often pay 30-60 percent of the cost of rebuilding a damaged home--even when carriers assure homeowners they're fully covered, thousands of complaints with state insurance departments and civil court cases show.

Paying out less to victims of catastrophes has helped produce record profits. In the past 12 years, insurance company net income has soared--even in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the worst natural disaster in U.S. history. Property- casualty insurers, which cover damage to homes and cars, reported their highest- ever profit of $73 billion last year, up 49 percent from $49 billion in 2005, according to Highline Data LLC, a Cambridge, Massachusetts-based firm that compiles insurance industry data.

The 60 million U.S. homeowners who pay more than $50 billion a year in insurance premiums are often disappointed when they discover insurers won't pay the full cost of rebuilding their damaged or destroyed homes. Property insurers systematically deny and reduce their policyholders' claims, according to court records in California, Florida, Illinois, Mississippi, New Hampshire and Tennessee. The insurance companies routinely refuse to pay market prices for homes and replacement contents, they use computer programs to cut payouts, they change policy coverage with no clear explanation, they ignore or alter engineering reports, and they sometimes ask their adjusters to lie to customers, court records and interviews with former employees and state regulators show. As Mississippi Republican U.S. Senator Trent Lott and thousands of other homeowners have found, insurers make low offers--or refuse to pay at all--and then dare people to fight back.

"It's despicable not to make good-faith offers to everybody," says Robert Hunter, who was Texas insurance commissioner from 1993 to '95 and is now insurance director at the Washington-based Consumer Federation of America. "Money managers have taken over this whole industry. Their eyes are not on people who are hurt but on the bottom line for the next quarter."

The industry's drive for profit has overwhelmed its obligation to policyholders, says California Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi, a Democrat. As California's insurance commissioner from 2002 to '06, Garamendi imposed $18.4 million in fines against carriers for mistreating customers. "There's a fundamental economic conflict between the customer and the company," he says. "That is, the company doesn't want to pay. The first commandment of insurance is, 'Thou shalt pay as little and as late as possible.'"

Although the tension between insurers and their customers has long existed, it was in the 1990s that the industry began systematically looking for ways to increase profits by streamlining claims handling. Hurricane Hugo was a major catalyst. The 1989 storm, which battered North and South Carolina, left the industry reeling from $4.2 billion in claims. In September 1992, Allstate Corp., the second-largest U.S. home insurer, sought advice on improved efficiency from McKinsey & Co., a New York-based consulting firm that has advised many of the world's biggest corporations, according to records in at least six civil court cases.

State Farm, based in Bloomington, Illinois, and Los Angeles-based Farmers Group Inc., the third-largest home insurer in the U.S., also hired McKinsey as a consultant, court records show.

McKinsey produced about 13,000 pages of documents, including PowerPoint slides, in the 1990s, for Northbrook, Illinois-based Allstate. The consulting firm developed methods for the company to become more profitable by paying out less in claims, according to videotaped evidence presented in Fayette Circuit Court in Lexington, Kentucky, in a civil case involving a 1997 car accident.

One slide McKinsey prepared for Allstate was entitled "Good Hands or Boxing Gloves," the tape of the Kentucky court hearing shows. For 57 years, Allstate has advertised its employees as the "Good Hands People," telling customers they will be well cared for in times of need. The McKinsey slides had a new twist on that slogan. When a policyholder files a claim, first make a low offer, McKinsey advised Allstate. If a client accepts the low amount, Allstate should treat the person with good hands, McKinsey said. If the customer protests or hires a lawyer, Allstate should fight back.

"If you don't take the pittance they offer, they're going to put on the boxing gloves and they're going to batter injured victims," plaintiffs attorney J. Dale Golden told Judge Thomas Clark at the May 12, 2005, hearing in which the lawyer introduced the McKinsey slides.

One McKinsey slide displayed at the Kentucky hearing featured an alligator with the caption "Sit and Wait." The slide says Allstate can discourage claimants by delaying settlements and stalling court proceedings. By postponing payments, insurance companies can hold money longer and make more on their investments-- and often wear down clients to the point of dropping a challenge. "An alligator sits and waits," Golden told the judge, as they looked at the slide describing a reptile.

McKinsey's advice helped spark a turnaround in Allstate's finances. The company's profit rose 140 percent to $4.99 billion in 2006, up from $2.08 billion in 1996. Allstate lifted its income partly by paying less to its policyholders. Allstate spent 58 percent of its premium income in 2006 for claim payouts and the costs of the process compared with 79 percent in 1996, according to filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The payout expense, called a loss ratio, changes each year based on events such as natural disasters; overall, it's been decreasing since Allstate hired McKinsey.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/marketsmag/mm_0907_story1.html

a1bion · Post by **a1bion** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 10:19 am

And a good analysis of policy rescission by the insurance companies (read the whole thing if you get a chance):

Half of the insured population uses virtually no health care at all. The 80th percentile uses only $3,000 (2002 dollars, adjust a bit up for today). You have to hit the 95th percentile to get anywhere interesting, and even there you have only $11,487 in costs. It’s the 99th percentile, the people with over $35,000 of medical costs, who represent fully 22% of the entire nation’s medical costs. These people have chronic, expensive conditions. They are, to use a technical term, sick.

An individual adult insurance plan is roughly $7,000 (varies dramatically by age and somewhat by sex and location).

It should be fairly clear that the people who do not file insurance claims do not face rescission. The insurance companies will happily deposit their checks. Indeed, even for someone in the 95th percentile, it doesn’t make a lot of sense for the insurance company to take the nuclear option of blowing up the policy. $11,487 in claims is less than two years’ premium; less than one if the individual has family coverage in the $12,000 price range. But that top one percent, the folks responsible for more than $35,000 of costs – sometimes far, far more – well there, ladies and gentlemen, is where the money comes in. Once an insurance company knows that Sally has breast cancer, it has already seen the goat; it knows it wants nothing to do with Sally.

If the top 5% is the absolute largest population for whom rescission would make sense, the probability of having your policy cancelled given that you have filed a claim is fully 10% (0.5% rescission/5.0% of the population). If you take the LA Times estimate that $300mm was saved by abrogating 20,000 policies in California ($15,000/policy), you are somewhere in the 15% zone, depending on the convexity of the top section of population. If, as I suspect, rescission is targeted toward the truly bankrupting cases – the top 1%, the folks with over $35,000 of annual claims who could never be profitable for the carrier – then the probability of having your policy torn up given a massively expensive condition is pushing 50%. One in two. You have three times better odds playing Russian Roulette.

http://tauntermedia.com/2009/07/28/unconscionable-math/

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 10:25 am

Typical liberal mindset: since the government has done such a shitty job at regulating the system, they need more money and more power to finally get it right.

I don't doubt that we need reform. But why does reform need to be in the form of socialized medicine? Didn't the biggest problems with the health care system pop up since the government got involved in it in a big way?

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 10:26 am

So pointing out that someone sent you a stupid fucking fact bereft conspiracy theory email is squashing freedom of speech? When did conservatives become such whiny ass titty babies?

I think it happened about the time Obama's regime decided they own our lives and that we exist to serve them.

G8rMom7 · Post by **G8rMom7** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 10:45 am

Thanks a1...while I agree that there are insurance companies that are less than "ethical" when it comes to serving their customers, I don't understand how that translates into "well, let the gov't take it over and it will be so much better". The property insurance issue is a big deal and I get how insurance companies need to be held accountable for covering people, etc.

But my health insurance in particular is overly helpful when it comes to "extras" I get such as a personal health coach, a 24 hour a day nurse line where you can call and get info if you're not sure what to do...and I have never once been turned down in covering any test or treatment submitted by my doctors. And I know the admin keeps saying if you like your insurance you'll be able to keep it. But if the long term goal is to get to a single-payer system and this is really just a bridge to get there, then I'm not all that relieved.

Again, I posted an article that spells out in pretty simple language the myths that are out there about the health care system..

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/23/health_care_mythology_97552.html

In the case of health care, the fact that we spend so much more on it now is largely a positive. The negative part is if some, or a lot, of that spending is wasteful. Of course, that is mostly the government's fault and is not what advocates of government control want you to focus upon. We spend so much more on health care, even relative to other advances, mostly because it is worth so much more to us. Similarly, we spend so much more on computers, compact discs, HDTV, and those wonderful one shot espresso makers that make it like having a barista in your own home. Interestingly, we also spend a ton more on these other items now than we did in 1950 because none of these existed in 1950 (well, you could have hired a skilled Italian man to live with you and make you coffee twice a day, so I guess that existed and the price has in fact come down; my bad, analogy shot). OK, you get the point. Health care today is a combination of stuff that has existed for a while and a set of entirely new things that look like (and really are) miracles from the lens of even a few years ago. We spend more on health care because it's better. Say it with me again, slowly - this is a good thing, not a bad thing.

a1bion · Post by **a1bion** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 10:48 am

Nobody's saying let the government take over. That's a red herring.

And Cliff Asness, no offense, is an assclown who has gotten louder and more clownish the more money he's lost for his hedge fund clients. Just sayin'. The guy isn't exactly a health care wonk.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 10:53 am

Nobody's saying let the government take over. That's a red herring.

And Cliff Asness, no offense, is an assclown who has gotten louder and more clownish the more money he's lost for his hedge fund clients. Just sayin'. The guy isn't exactly a health care wonk.

I must not understand the plan, then. What's Obama's proposal all about? I thought it was about providing public health insurance?

a1bion · Post by **a1bion** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 10:54 am

So pointing out that someone sent you a stupid fucking fact bereft conspiracy theory email is squashing freedom of speech? When did conservatives become such whiny ass titty babies?
I think it happened about the time Obama's regime decided they own our lives and that we exist to serve them.

It's funny when you clutch your pearls. "Oh my! The vapors!"

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 11:09 am

I'm not sure what you mean. It's clear the government thinks they own us and that we exist to serve them. It didn't start with Obama but he's clearly continuing down that path.

G8rMom7 · Post by **G8rMom7** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 11:17 am

Come on a1...as usual, unless information comes from an "approved source" it's discounted. I don't do that with any one with an opposing viewpoint other than Keith Olberman because i just don't like him. But I welcome the opinions of anyone that can give me a well thought out opposing viewpoint...I really do want to understand.

So a gov't run health care plan is a red herring? How so? That isn't whatt this admin and the majority in congress ultimately want? Forgive me if I'm not believing that...listen to Obama and his own words in 07, 03, as well as his pals making the same kind of commitment to Universal Health care...he admits that we couldn't do it right away...so where is the red herring? (At least you can't say this is coming from some conservative or nefarious source...it's from BHO himself).

a1bion · Post by **a1bion** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 11:25 am

It's certainly a highly edited video of different appearances Obama has made, I'll give you that. But certainly you haven't provided proof to your claim that anyone is saying government should take over all of your health care. Obama has offered an option of single payer so that people who choose to utilize that option are able to do so, rather than being stuck with just private insurace, which is often a monopoly in many states.

Do you think we should end Medicare? That's a government run health insurance option. How about the VA hospitals? Should we shut those down? Or even Shands, which is run by the state through UF?

G8rMom7 · Post by **G8rMom7** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 11:36 am

No, but I think we should reform Medicare because it doesn't work as well as private insurance IMO...my parents have to wait months to get appointments with specialists and this is only likely to get worse.

I sincerely hope that this public option remains an "option" but I don't believe that will be enough. Sorry, but even though it's edited...he did not studder...he and Barney and that other lady all admit that they hope to eventually get to a gov't run single payer system. They didn't edit those words together...he said them and explained how he realized it couldn't happen right away. Find me some footage where he takes back what he said there in 07.

And if it were the kind of thing that we could take back if it didn't work, I'd be a little more open to it. But once that door is open, there is no going back...and for that you CAN look to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. If we had kept our freedom to save on our own and learned more personal responsibility we wouldn't need all those monsters. But it's too late now...we're all just a bunch of drones now that don't know how to plan for the future or take care of ourselves for that matter...we need the gov't to do that for us.

MinGator · Post by **MinGator** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:05 pm

Time to squash the rebellion by squashing freedom of speech.

Personally this bothers me.
So pointing out that someone sent you a stupid fucking fact bereft conspiracy theory email is squashing freedom of speech? When did conservatives become such whiny ass titty babies?

Thanks for the name calling, that advances the discussion.

We don't even really know what is in the final bill, so who is to say what is true and what isn't? Are you so confident that our Gov't wouldn't then use a forwarded email that didn't agree with their agenda, true or not, to determine where it came from and try to squash the source? To me it has the look of a slippery slope of trying to sensor debate on the issue.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:26 pm

It's certainly a highly edited video of different appearances Obama has made, I'll give you that. But certainly you haven't provided proof to your claim that anyone is saying government should take over all of your health care. Obama has offered an option of single payer so that people who choose to utilize that option are able to do so, rather than being stuck with just private insurace, which is often a monopoly in many states.

Do you think we should end Medicare? That's a government run health insurance option. How about the VA hospitals? Should we shut those down? Or even Shands, which is run by the state through UF?

Yes. End medicare and shut down the VA hospitals. Get rid of government funding for Shands. Now we're talking about real solutions. No joke--I'm all about it.

a1bion · Post by **a1bion** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:29 pm

It's certainly a highly edited video of different appearances Obama has made, I'll give you that. But certainly you haven't provided proof to your claim that anyone is saying government should take over all of your health care. Obama has offered an option of single payer so that people who choose to utilize that option are able to do so, rather than being stuck with just private insurace, which is often a monopoly in many states.

Do you think we should end Medicare? That's a government run health insurance option. How about the VA hospitals? Should we shut those down? Or even Shands, which is run by the state through UF?
Yes. End medicare and shut down the VA hospitals. Get rid of government funding for Shands. Now we're talking about real solutions. No joke--I'm all about it.

Remind me, where did you get your degree from again?

a1bion · Post by **a1bion** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:31 pm

No, but I think we should reform Medicare because it doesn't work as well as private insurance IMO...my parents have to wait months to get appointments with specialists and this is only likely to get worse.

I sincerely hope that this public option remains an "option" but I don't believe that will be enough. Sorry, but even though it's edited...he did not studder...he and Barney and that other lady all admit that they hope to eventually get to a gov't run single payer system. They didn't edit those words together...he said them and explained how he realized it couldn't happen right away. Find me some footage where he takes back what he said there in 07.

And if it were the kind of thing that we could take back if it didn't work, I'd be a little more open to it. But once that door is open, there is no going back...and for that you CAN look to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. If we had kept our freedom to save on our own and learned more personal responsibility we wouldn't need all those monsters. But it's too late now...we're all just a bunch of drones now that don't know how to plan for the future or take care of ourselves for that matter...we need the gov't to do that for us.

So he's refined his views over a two year period, point taken. Should I invoke the John McCain rule about taking what was said in the past at face value?

And the rest--I don't even know where to begin, you guys are so over the top with the rhetoric.

a1bion · Post by **a1bion** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 pm

Time to squash the rebellion by squashing freedom of speech.

Personally this bothers me.
So pointing out that someone sent you a stupid fucking fact bereft conspiracy theory email is squashing freedom of speech? When did conservatives become such whiny ass titty babies?
Thanks for the name calling, that advances the discussion.

We don't even really know what is in the final bill, so who is to say what is true and what isn't? Are you so confident that our Gov't wouldn't then use a forwarded email that didn't agree with their agenda, true or not, to determine where it came from and try to squash the source? To me it has the look of a slippery slope of trying to sensor debate on the issue.

Ah, where was this sort of worry for the past eight years? Really, the paranoia is over the top.

If you'll excuse me now, I have to go steamroll over some Dixie Chicks cds and demand that they leave the country.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:33 pm

Remind me, where did you get your degree from again?

That's degrees. And it doesn't change my position at all.