Universal Health Coverage

[Shapley]

So far, most of the debate I see happening here (or in congress) is with regard to Insurance and "coverage" issues...not the actual cost of the health care itself. I still don't see what's being done to address the actual cost of the care we get (most of the focus has been on the cost of the insurance that provides a partial source of funds to pay for the health service we get). Certainly MUCH can and should be done to ensure that this (insurance) part of the equasion is as economical as possible and does not add to the cost. However, we still need to address the base cost of medical care as well.

I believe I made that same argument about a dozen pages ago. Punishing insurance for providing a service in making health care more affordable seems counterproductive. It is not insurance that is running up the costs - they actually have no bearing on that (except in cases where they own the health-care providers, which happens, but not that often).

GCR similarly asked how insurance was responsible for the cost of the products they insure. I don't think I've seen an answer yet, although I may have overlooked it.

[OperaTenor]

You're using Principal as an example of a health insurance company?! Good one. Show me where on that site they offer individual life or health policies.

Principal Group Health

For Businesses: Group Life & Health

Over 125 years in the insurance business. Nearly 70 years as a leader in employee benefits. More than 75,000 employers with 5.2 million group insurance members. That’s Principal Life Insurance Company, a member of the Principal Financial Group® (The Principal®).

All you had to do was click on the "Insurance" tab on their website.

Unbelievable. Definitely a reading comprehension problem.

[OperaTenor]

What other type of service would fit that category?? Just curious.

Nothing, as I said above.

Why does it have to conform to anything else?

Because there'd be a precedent?

So what? If nothing else fits the category, as I said previously, even as a matter of interpretation, then precedence is essentially moot.

[OperaTenor]

And this bloviate has to do *what* with health insurance being a financial service, as you contend?

Again with the "bloviate" label. You said that noone but I considered health insurance to be a financial service rather than a part of health care. I posted the Wikipedia definition of 'Financial Services' which, you will note, includes "insurance". I then posted the definition of 'insurnce' to show that it includes 'health insurane', thus putting 'health insurance' in the realm of 'financial services'.

I also posted the definition of "health care" which, you will note, does not encompass 'health insurance'.

Ergo, someone besides me considers 'health insurance' to be a financial services industry rather than a health care industry.

Insurance has always been designated a "Financial Service". I work for an insurance company. However, I am not sure that this designation really bears on the discussion here.

There are two elements to Health Care....one is the actual care that you receive from hospitals, doctors, clinics etc. It has a cost. Many (probably most) of these health care providing institutions are "for profit" enterprises...not all. Then there are insurers who have developed coverages to assist individuals and companies with paying for access to the helath facilities. There are two different roles here. So far, most of the debate I see happening here (or in congress) is with regard to Insurance and "coverage" issues...not the actual cost of the health care itself. I still don't see what's being done to address the actual cost of the care we get (most of the focus has been on the cost of the insurance that provides a partial source of funds to pay for the health service we get). Certainly MUCH can and should be done to ensure that this (insurance) part of the equasion is as economical as possible and does not add to the cost. However, we still need to address the base cost of medical care as well.

What kind of insurance does your company sell, Jamie?

The focus has been on insurance because it's an unnecessary *profit* center in the chain of delivery, or so a majority of Americans believe. It has also been demonstrated that insurance adds a significant cost to health care itself. that one;s been beaten to death here previously, so I'm not going any further on that.

[OperaTenor]

And this bloviate has to do *what* with health insurance being a financial service, as you contend?

Again with the "bloviate" label. You said that no one but I considered health insurance to be a financial service rather than a part of health care. I posted the Wikipedia definition of 'Financial Services' which, you will note, includes "insurance". I then posted the definition of 'insurnce' to show that it includes 'health insurane', thus putting 'health insurance' in the realm of 'financial services'.

I also posted the definition of "health care" which, you will note, does not encompass 'health insurance'.

Ergo, someone besides me considers 'health insurance' to be a financial services industry rather than a health care industry.

Because if it walks like bloviate and it quacks like bloviate, it's bloviate.

You're painting with a broad brush, and your conflation is tenuous.

[Shapley]

You're painting with a broad brush, and your conflation is tenuous.

Enough. Now we're only talking about "individual health insurance". When did that come about? We were talking about insurance, but you've unilaterally moved that to 'individual' insurance. What rot. I've had enough. You hate insurance companies, and your position is driven by your emotions, not by logic.

[jamiebk]

What kind of insurance does your company sell, Jamie?

It's a very large and international company (that I will not name). We sell every type of insurance you can think of including many that you can't. I don't do insurance though...my line of work is "Surety" which is a type of financial or performance guarantee. The company provides health, life, auto, liability, personal lines, commerical lines, financial services, to all levels of companies and individuals.

[OperaTenor]

You're painting with a broad brush, and your conflation is tenuous.

Enough. Now we're only talking about "individual health insurance". When did that come about? We were talking about insurance, but you've unilaterally moved that to 'individual' insurance. What rot. I've had enough. You hate insurance companies, and your position is driven by your emotions, not by logic.

My point is I contend a company that only sells group insurance isn't really representative of the insurance industry.

[OperaTenor]

What kind of insurance does your company sell, Jamie?

It's a very large and international company (that I will not name). We sell every type of insurance you can think of including many that you can't. I don't do insurance though...my line of work is "Surety" which is a type of financial or performance guarantee. The company provides health, life, auto, liability, personal lines, commerical lines, financial services, to all levels of companies and individuals.

I have been insured by NYL for ~25 years, and worked for them as an aspiring agent for a little over a year, and got my CA state life/health certification, as well as long-term care certification. In all that time, I never once heard insurance referred to as a financial service. Asset protection, sure, but never financial service.

It sounds like your area is in the realm of "variable" financial performance instruments, no?

[Haggis@wk]

Two offhand remarks by the winning and losing candidates in last night’s New Jersey election reflect increasingly polarized attitudes toward the elderly and “end of life” issues.

In making his concession speech, Democratic governor Jon Corzine was consoling his followers when he said,

“My mother is probably the only one that’s happy tonight. She’s a Republican. She’s 93 years old so, we’re not going to worry too much about that.”

The line got a big laugh.

When victorious Republican Chris Christie made his victory speech, he told the story of an elderly constituent he met on the campaign trail. “He said to me, ‘

I’m 90 years old, and I’m going to vote for you. But you better do what you promise. Because if you don’t, I’m going to vote against you in another four years.’

” The line also got a big laugh, but it sounded more joyous, less sneering, and less subtly derisive.

Just a straw in the wind, but the Corzine remark mirrors callousness, a coarse attitude about the “dispensability” of the aged that one sees in the debate over health-care reform.

[dai bread]

I have been insured by NYL for ~25 years, and worked for them as an aspiring agent for a little over a year, and got my CA state life/health certification, as well as long-term care certification. In all that time, I never once heard insurance referred to as a financial service. Asset protection, sure, but never financial service.

Insurance companies here have always been considered part of the finance industry, even when they were just collecting premiums and lending on policies. Their policies were considered to be investments by the policyholder. Over time, the range of products grew, and there is now no question that insurance companies are in the finance industry. I would be amazed if the same wasn't true in the U.S.

[Shapley]

New York Life seems to think they're in the financial services field.

[OperaTenor]

New York Life seems to think they're in the financial services field.

Gee Shap, what site posted that listing? Was it NYL? Kinda funny, when I went to their site, they called it a New York Life Sales Agent.

And when the describe their products, they say, "With the variety of insurance and financial products offered by New York Life and its subsidiaries, you'll be able to help your clients meet any number of insurance and financial goals."

I suggest you contact them and correct their redundancy for them.

[Shapley]

I suggest you contact them and correct their redundancy for them.

I might do that, since other sites refer to 'insurance and other financial services'. However, since they don't seem to call it 'heath care' it really isn't germaine to our discussion.

[Haggis@wk]

Pelosi Breaks Pledge to Put Final Health Care Bill Online for 72 Hours Before Vote

Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office tells THE WEEKLY STANDARD that the speaker will not allow the final language of the health care to be posted online for 72 hours before bringing the bill to a vote on the House floor, despite her September 24 statement that she was "absolutely" committed to doing so.

House members are still negotiating important issues in the bill--whether it will provide taxpayer-funding for abortions, for example. Pelosi is pushing for a Saturday House vote, and a number of big changes will be introduced, likely less than 24 hours before the vote takes place (if in fact it does). The Rules Committee hasn't yet released its resolution, or rule, that must be passed before the bill can move from committee to the floor. The rule will set the terms of debate and determine what amendments are in order.

It seems likely that the rule will allow very few, if any, up-or-down votes on amendments on the House floor. Rather, the rule will include a series of amendments that will all be adopted at once if the rule passes.
On September 24, Speaker Nancy Pelosi told THE WEEKLY STANDARD that she was "absolutely" committed to putting the text of the final House bill online for 72 hours before the House votes:
TWS: Madam Speaker, do you support the measure to put the final House bill online for 72 hours before it's voted on at the very end?
PELOSI: Absolutely. Without question.

But tonight, when asked if Speaker Pelosi will leave the bill online for 72 hours after we see what's in the rule, Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly replied in an email: "No; [the] pledge was to have manager’s amendment online for 72 hours, and we will do that."

Apparently Pelosi's agreement to leave the "final" bill online "at the very end" of the process wasn't such a straightforward pledge.

If she doesn't get it done by tomorrow she probably won't get it done at all. Despite posts to the contrary this is not popular with the American people.

[OperaTenor]

In the Weekly Standard We Trust.

[Haggis@wk]

In the Weekly Standard We Trust.

You believe they made up her quote to them?

PELOSI: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail

“H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.” [page 1]

- - - - - - - - - -
“If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…” [page 2]

- - - - - - - - - -

“Criminal penalties
Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:
• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” [page 3]

I'm still discussing this with the MRHYN but I'm looking at how I can refuse to pay without it causing problems for her. I suspect that we can just file separate tax returns. I might have to consult with a lawyer but either way I'm very determined that I won't pay. And that refusal will indeed be "felony willful evasion "

[dai bread]

You could always emigrate, Haggis.

[OperaTenor]

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they creatively edited it, a la Faux News.

It doesn't really matter. It's the same way you'd feel if I quoted something from Kos or MoveOn as factual information.......not that I read what they have to say...

[Haggis@wk]

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they creatively edited it, a la Faux News.

It doesn't really matter. It's the same way you'd feel if I quoted something from Kos or MoveOn as factual information.......not that I read what they have to say...

Only if the quoted story was questionable. Here they quoted what she had said in an intrview. It was easily researched. Generally when a news outlet misquotes someone, or even makes it up it doesn't take long for that person to correct the record.