Two Year Old Toddler DENIED healthcare for being too…..thin!
Good Lord, how many more examples do people need before they finally admit that MAJOR insurance reform is needed. First there was a baby that was too “fat” now we have a two year old that is too skinny and denied coverage by insurance. People should be able to buy, maintain, and expect affordable health-care!
When Aislin’s father, Rob, worked for another company, Aislin was covered under the company’s group health insurance plan.
Now that Rob is working on his own, he’s had to get new insurance. The company, UnitedHealthcare’s Golden Rule, sent the family a letter, which says in part, “We are unable to provide coverage for Aislin because her height and weight do not meet our company standards.”
“It took me by surprise,” said Rob Bates. “I didn’t think that her size was that abnormal and that it was something that you’d consider to be unhealthy.”
Mandating people be covered widens the risk pool, creating more funds for insurance companies, not just “sick” people, but healthy people too will be required to purchase coverage.
However, this pending legislation can’t just be a slam dunk for insurance companies, now reveling in all their new potential customers, there must be REAL competition and the public option infuses just that paradigm. Congress can legislate all the regulations they want, but until there is forced competition, health care costs will not substantially decrease.
The only thing is, no one has proven that all these people currently denied coverage won’t be forced into the public option (assuming it is included in the final bill) and that won’t cause its cost to mushroom. I’m not saying that it isn’t wrong these people can’t get coverage by the way. I’m just saying the math doesn’t seem to be working out the way it’s claimed – like the public option will be cheap, etc. Allegedly healthy people who currently don’t have coverage will be mandated to have coverage and that will force prices down – but I’m just not seeing it. I’m not sure there’s so many healthy uninsured people out there as they are claiming. However, I will say – the current version of the bill passed by the Senate Finance Committee did seem more fiscally responsibile than prior versions – so that’s a step in the right direction. However, given that – it seems many left wing Democrats object to it, because it still would leave some people uninsured.
Y’all sure it wasn’t because of the name? Aislin????
Elena, when it comes to health care reform I think there are a few things that are going to kill it, one of which is the fact that nobody really knows what is all in these bills. Now that are all having behind closed doors dealing trying to merge them which I thought wasn’t going to be the case. What all of the secrecy, wasn’t everything supposed to be live on CSPAN?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Api4fUziAnI
See, there you go, I just gave you an idea for your next topic on something stupid said by a politician…
The most dangerous phrase in the English language is: there ought to be a law.
No system run by human beings works perfectly. That includes government. If we put the government in charge of health care, all that is going to happen is that people will die waiting to be treated. Of course, no one will be denied coverage. They will just die waiting to get treatment.
You want to understand how rationing works? Then consider what happens to almost all of us on the Washington area’s wonderful expressways. Because the roadways are run by government, we sit and we sit and we sit in traffic. Only when we scream bloody murder do the politicians start to pay attention and actually do something. Then, when they start to do something, they immediately decide they need more money.
We are already paying oodles in taxes. We just hand our leaders our money without any strings attached. So the clowns diverted the money that was suppose to go into transportation improvements, and now they need more money. Surprise! Surprise! You understand the definition of insanity. If we give our glorious leaders more money, why should anyone believe that money will go where it is suppose to go?
And such glorious leaders are suppose to fix health care — cheaply? Roads are simpler, but politicians cannot make them work without robbing us and bankrupting us. You want them to fix our health care? Are you mad? Medicaid and Medicare are going broke, and you expect them to fix our health care? What is the basis for this confidence? We landed a man on the moon 40 years ago?
If we want decent roads, then we have to take responsibility.
We have to take control of our money. Why do we pay, for example, for a road we will never drive on? Let the people who use the roads they drive on pay for them. That way, instead of buying roads to nowhere in Alaska, our glorious leaders will have to build roads where at least somebody wants to go.
Similarly, if we want decent health care, we have to get control of our money. Currently, government spends huge amounts financing Medicare and Medicaid. That health care, because we spend so much, sort of works, but the money is inevitably running out. In addition, many of us get health care through our employers, but consider how silly that is. What do our employers know about health care? The only reason they ever got into the business is because of government busybodies.
Get government out of the way. All we ever needed government to do is keep everyone honest and let each us work out our own private deals. Then, after we see who cannot afford proper coverage, we can work through private charities to help our less fortunate neighbors. That is taking personal responsibility.
Slow, I thought the same thing re name. smack smack.
Did anyone notice that the words and lips were out of sync? Don’t ya hate when that happens?
This is another good example of why we need a public option in this country, since private insurers don’t want to insure babies.
Too thin, huh? Well, I’m sure the modeling agency will provide health insurance.
“Mandating people be covered widens the risk pool, creating more funds for insurance companies, not just “sick” people, but healthy people too will be required to purchase coverage.”
That’s the sticky wicket. How exactly are we going to mandate that people be covered?
a href=”#comment-64446″>@Citizen Tom
You know, Citizen Tom, I agreed with you… once. Your discussion of Free Market Economics misses the critical ethical element (i.e., its natural disposition to “do the right thing”) necessary for a successful free market economy . As you probably know, Adam Smith was a teacher of moral philosophy (no one was teaching “economics” at the time). His market exchange theory offered us a path out of feudalism; however, it was predicated on an ethical component.
As the free market evolved (IMHO), the ethical component (a businesses ethical obligation to society… particularly the least among us) has component slowly dissipated in favor of revenue maximization. Companies started focusing on the mantra of “increasing shareholder value”. All of those socially meaningless slogans (my personal favorite being “we bring good things to life”) were only ways to differentiate products and services to increase revenue.
I wish the free market reaching some stage of equilibrium where our ability to produce and consume created opportunities for jobs and entrepreneurship for all in society and companies fulfilled their ethical obligation to ensure that the least among us did not go without. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
The free market is a relatively new construct (supported by a defined process and Government). It is my opinion that it has evolved, it shed the ethical foundation that Adam Smith intended (assume you have read the Wealth of Nations). As with all new ideas and theories that become practice, unintended consequences (in this case, greed) have driven the outcome.
One definition of ethics is human conduct driven by moral principles. I propose that the ethical component of the free market has been compromised as companies have been driven to “increase shareholder value” by… well us (anyone who owns stock or mutual funds). That’s a pity. (IMHO) Government will have to step in until we decide “What’s next”. I believe that the free markets are yet another theory perhaps evolving or ripe for replacement.
I’m still a sponsor of the Cato Institute and a student of the Constitution and Free Markets; however, my perspective has evolved as I engage in my studies. Last year may be the last year I send them a check (since they do not recognize the evolution of the free market). I would suggest all who believe in free markets propose new constructs that recognize today’s realities if they are interested in perpetuating it.
There’s a potential for long discussions about executive reward systems, CEO strategies, shareholder values, (all of which I have benefitted from nicely), incentivizing bad behavior, etc. that (IMHO) driven markets to their current state; however, time does not permit opening them here.
@Opinion Thank you Opinion for your very eloquent and reasonable response to Citizen Tom. Without ethics there is no successfull “free market”. As we have ALLe experienced recently, when there are not ethics we all suffer, the “free” market as well.
Ethics, unfortunately, has been replaced by greed in our society. I wish I knew how to fix it. Intil then… Government has to step in (as evidenced by the Financial Sector, the Automobile Sector, etc, etc, etc,) …a pity.
Opinion – Let’s for a moment presume you are right — up to a point.
Don’t the same people who populate our free markets populate our government? So if morality of the people has failed us in the free market, what reason do we have to believe that the morality we find in government will be any better.
Politics is even more intensely competitive than the free market. The free market is based upon the “deal”. Profits we derive from voluntary exchanges. You agree to buy, and I agree to sell, or vice versa. Politics, on the other hand, is based upon the acquisition of raw power. Consider, for example, that we do not agree to pay taxes; we do it or else. Similarly, with every law comes enforcement. We obey, or else.
Nonetheless some advertise socialism as more ethical than free enterprise. Why? They see the sharing of ownership, but they ignore the coercion involved. Yet an increasing need for coercion is the inevitable byproduct of increasing government ownership and/or control. With socialism comes the power to redistribute wealth. This power virtually gives our government control our livelihood. The more government dominates our economy the more we become a society that relies upon coercion. So if socialism is path to an ethical society, I fail to understand how.
If you don’t like the ethical decisions made by people in the business sector, that is your right, and maybe your judgment is correct. However, you may wish to continue your search for a solution. Please begin by asking yourself a question: what gives you the right to use government to force others to bend to your will?
What is the solution? I don’t have one. Instead, I think we must look to God for such answers. To improve the material quality of our lives, it can be helpful if we can make our government work better. So there politics can sometimes offer an answer. Politics, however, offers no solution which we can us use to improve the hearts of our fellow human beings. What people put into their hearts is a religious issue, and long experience has shown us repeatedly that government has no business establishing a religion.
Note: The corporation is a government fiction. Corporations exist only because governments charter corporations. Thus to a large extent when corporations behave inappropriately it is because of the incentives government has given them. For example, have you considered why a corporation would pursue short term gains even though it sacrifices the greater potential for long term profit.
How about going to the free clinic? Why isn’t this option on the table?
I’ll be damned if I should have to pay for people who smoke and contracted cancer or emphysema sp? How about people that get diabetes or heart disease because they are fat? How about the alcoholics with cirrhosis of the liver? I could go on and on. These are ALL lifestyle CHOICES that lead to health problems. So what’s next? Outlawing alcohol tobacco, fatty foods?
As for the kid’s? SCHIPS will pay for them! So don’t mess with my health insurance! I have worked too long and hard to get where I am. There are programs out there for people to utilize when they are down on their luck.
@Not SPLC But you DO pay for them anyway, especially if they don’t have insurance coverage. Have your premiums not been rising along with the rest of us? Paying more getting less? I know my family pays more and more every year and we get less and less coverage.
This is not just about people “down on their luck”. This family, willing to pay, was denied coverage for their daughter.
Have you ever looked into getting coverage privately? I have. It was cost prohibitive, 500 dollars a month and that was twelve years ago, I can’t imagine what it would cost today. I have a chronic health condition, a “pre-existing”, should I be denied coverage? Aren’t I exactly the person who NEEDS health care coverage?
OFL,
G-d is not going to enforce ethics. Many a religious person has behaved unethically.
Obviously you have never had to utilize one of them NOT SPLC. It is easier said than done. Do you think all the unemployeed folks just call up their local office and ’sign up?’ Of course not. People have to meet standards. Kids have to be uninsured for a year before they go into the schips program.
You sound awfully self righteous. What about Christopher Reeves’ wife who never smoked a cigarette in her life? She died of lung cancer. How about those who have a family history of heart disease? Skinny as a rail. You are paying for everyone’s life style now. What’s going to be different?
Elena, good grief, I often think some of them are the worst!
Group health care paid out of pocket is $500 per person now. Back to the future!
@Opinion
Business entities have no ethical obligation to society. That’s where charity comes into play.
Back to the future? Whose future?
Elena – Actually, God does enforce ethics. When we use government to enslave others to our will, that is unethical, and the are predictable. That is why socialism has such a lousy record.
Look carefully at the record of USSR, Red China, Nazi Germany and modern day socialist Europe. Socialism or communism — whatever you want to call it — stifles productivity and, carried far enough, leads to violence.
Just because you want only mild socialism, a little evil to get the good you desire, does not mean the guy in charge will not overdo it. Because power corrupts, that is why the Founders went to such lengths to shackle government power.
Nonetheless, I suppose you will think you are reasonable and your opponents selfish, greedy, ungrateful, misguided, hypocrites. Yet all most of us want is to be left out of such Utopian nonsense, but socialists don’t allow that option. True choice is not part of the agenda. No, choice is reserved for killing babies.
@Mando
Mando, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Ironically, you just gave the classic argument for Government regulation. Under your scenario, a company would be free to dump toxic waste in your front yard (probably at night), bottle or package whatever they want and sell it to you as food, medicine, or whatever, and continue to make exploding cars like Ford Pintos. I won’t even get into abuse and unfair treatment to employees. Fortunately, that part of the free market that works thanks to regulation (ironic, isn’t it) which protects us from these things.
@Od Fashion Liberal
The difference is we don’t get to vote for business leadership. We do get to vote for Government leadership. The results of the last election are proof that we will only put up with so much.
As Winston Churchill said, “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” I agree, accept its flaws, and work to make it “a more perfect union”.
We almost lost the Republic last year because of an unregulated free market. I think a bit of regulation is in order. The fact that we were pulled back from the brink of financial meltdown and extinction last year about this time proves my point to my satisfaction.
@Opinion
Well yeah. That’s where regulation comes into play. I’ve never suggested there should not be some form of regulation. Emphasis on the some.
“The difference is we don’t get to vote for business leadership.”
You certainly do. Directly as a shareholder or indirectly as a consumer.
“The fact that we were pulled back from the brink of financial meltdown and extinction last year about this time proves my point to my satisfaction.”
You’ve been hoodwinked.
Opinion – You have evidence that our business leaders are any less moral than our political leadership?
You are familiar with the familiar with the notion of a “Living Constitution.” Imagine signing a business contract. Then the guy you have signed this contract with tells you it is a “living contract.” How seriously would take this guy intentions to abide by the terms of the contract?
Well, businessmen don’t consider their contracts living documents, but many of our elected officials espouse a Living Constitution. Moreover, these ladies and gentlemen take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, which they then see fit to interpret as they wish.
No Mando, you’ve been hoodwinked. We saw what happened when government did nothing in the face of economic meltdown, it was called the Depression. Even many “conservative” economists supported the bail out.
OFL,
If you truly believe in a stagnant constitution, slavery would still be legal. We are thinking progressive human beings, life’s circumstances evolve, society evolves, we must evolve with it.
@Elena
…ergo,Article V, the amendment process.
“No Mando, you’ve been hoodwinked. We saw what happened when government did nothing in the face of economic meltdown, it was called the Depression.”
That’s kinda funny. If the govt. actually did nothing, we would have never had this recent crisis in the first place. Economists had been warning the them for years that they were facing a sever housing implosion if they continued mucking around with interest rates and sound lending practices.
Open your eyes and you’ll see they’re trying it again as we type.
Elena – We evolve? Are you trying to say words change their meaning to suit what we want to believe? I think that is called lying.
Have you ever heard of the Dred Scott Decision? Southern judges evolved too. Southern slaveholders used their idea of Living Constitution to advocate the spread of slavery and to defend slavery. Amendments to the Constitution — and a war to stop an unconstitutional effort to secede from the union — not a Living Constitution, ended slavery.
Mando, are you totally exonerating the lending institutions and the real estate market?
I see them far more culpable than the govt.
Old Fashioned, there will be those who will argue with you about how unconstitutional seceding from the union was. It will take more than a war to settle that one.
@Old Fashion Liberal
Actually, OFL, I’m not a fan of the living Constitution as espoused by progressives. I believe in the enumerated rights concept. As I did mention earlier, we have Article V, the amendment process. The founding fathers were smart enough to realize that the document they created so hastily perhaps missed a thing or two.
I will admit that political philosophy and Supreme Court selections often drives how the Constitution is interpreted and applied; however, I won’t repeat the Churchill Quote (earlier post) again that sums up my opinion on the matter.
@Mando
Thanks again for verifying the need for regulation. Since you believe that “Business entities have no ethical obligation to society”; you have no problem in Government oversight in a number of areas to keep business “honest”. The question that Liberals and Conservatives argue over (quite legitimately) is what defines “some”? This has evolved over time (no pun intended).
I might note that I disagree with your premise. I’ve been a business man for a long time (Executive with three Fortune 500 companies including Fortune 1 – at the time of my employment – and CEO of my own company). I believe (as do most business men and women) that we do have an ethical obligation to society. We (the ethical business community) generally regard unethical members of our profession (such ad Madoff, et.al.) “Criminals”. I’m guessing (I don’t intend to be offensive) that you aren’t really part of the “serious” business community in a management or ownership role? If you were, you wouldn’t have made such a statement.
I would be interested in opinions from other members of the business community about your premise (Business entities have no ethical obligation to society). Anyone out there?
Opinion actually makes my point quite well. Each amendment has changed the original consitution in some way. Ergo, the constitution HAS evolved over time.
@Elena
Thank you, Elena… the founding fathers were a pretty bright bunch of guys to anticipate changes to the Consitution as the Country they created evolved.
@Elena
Elena — I don’t think you understand the concept. When a politician advocates a Living Constitution, he does not think his precious revisions require formal amendments. All he thinks is needed is a Supreme Court willing to say the Constitution means whatever he wants it to mean.
This is the sort of understanding FDR most obviously evidence. When the Supreme Court declared some of his New Deal policies and legislation unconstitutional, he threaten to pack the court. Eventually, FDR appointed enough judges to get what he wanted.
Consider that we now have a Constitutional amendment limiting the number terms of a president can serve. FDR is the reason for that. Nonetheless, the Democrats saw fit to honor this man with a monument. For the time being, Big Government and the Living Constitution is back in fashion.
Why not honor FDR? Why not build a monument to him? Many people idealized him. I wasn’t related to any of those who idealized him but so what. The man brought us through the Depression and all but the tail end of WWII.
CT, just because she doesn’t agree with you doesn’t mean Elena doesn’t ‘understand the concept.’ How freaking arrogant!
I still contend ‘activist judge’ means some conservative who doesn’t like the ruling.
Next to banks, the insurance industry is the most heavily regulated industry in the US. There’s a difference between efficient regulation and over-regulation. What do you mean by “honest”?
Moonhowler – The mere fact that some people idealized FDR is not by itself relevant. Many people have idealized some of the worse tyrants in human history.
What is relevant is why anyone idealizes FDR — what FDR actually stood for, and what he accomplished. Since FDR helped to lengthen the Great Depression, failed to stave off WWII, and undermined the Constitution, I don’t see any good reason to build a monument to him. Perhaps some people thought letting the USSR take over Eastern Europe was a worthy accomplishment. I don’t know. About the best I can say for FDR is the USA came out of that period far better than most. Whether he deserves any of the credit, however, is debatable.
It had not occurred to me that Elena did not understand the concept of a “Living Constitution, but I must admit Citizen Tom has a point. It is certain nicer that believing Elena approves of lying.
I think Citizen Tom refers to this comment.
Since the concept of a “Living Constitution” involves amending the Constitution without formal amendments, Elena’s statement is nonsense. Ergo, she does not understand the concept, and I must apologize for thinking she approves of lying politicians and judges. I am not certain yet that she does.
I hereby apologize.
You’re confusing fraudulent activity with ethical responsibility. Regulation is in place to ensure business does not act fraudulently or commit illegal acts.
Acting with an ethical obligation to society is a personal (and commendable) choice, but not a professional one. Acting with a an ethical obligation to your employer’s stakeholders is a professional choice. There’s a difference.
Generally speaking Tom, I find you extremely condescending, clearly not a compliment. The Bill of Rights is the best example I can attribute to nullify this premise that the Constitution is somehow black and white. The Bill of Rights has been interepreted to mean many things. State law has been challenged and brought all the way to the Supreme Court…Board v Brown, Roe V Wade, etc etc. To suggest that somehow, the Constitution is holds some magical words that only “conservatives” understand is ridiculous.
Old FL,
You show me how the constititution is black and white, where meaning/intent is excluded from be debate. Yes, there are some provisions, clearly laid out, that are black and white, but not ALL in this document is defined in such a concrete format. Just as an example, the following Amendment has been discussed and used in many a court case before the Supreme Court. Who is the “activist” judge, the judge that goes against YOUR interpretation?
Amendment IV
Search and arrest
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
What I am really wondering, is why it appears to be so difficult to discuss the thread topic. So many people suffering while big insurance execs are sitting fat and happy of people’s misery. Blah blah blah is how I feel right now about this “intellectual” debate. Maybe its because “some people” are just too uncomfortable talking about the plight of real people. I guess as long as some people here have insurance coverage for themselves and their loved ones, who give a crap about all those other poor schmucks that are suffering.
Elena – It is nice of you to care. However, your sympathy and concern for the welfare of others does not give you the right to redistribute the wealth. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives you that right. Even if you are in the majority, you still do not have that right. Even when the government does it, robbing Peter to pay Paul is still robbery.
Imagine two farmers. One has a successful harvest. The other does not. If the first farmer is a nice person, he may decide to help his neighbor, the second farmer. Then again, for reasons of his own, he may not.
Do you as a kind and caring person have the right to force the first farmer to help the second farmer? And if the first farmer refuses, are you prepared to throw him in jail and confiscate his harvest?
If you the think the second farmer needs help, would it not be simpler if you just reached into your own pocket and provided the help yourself? You cannot force other people to be kind and decent and loving, but you can set an example.
OLF,
Do you believe you are exempt from the failure of our insurance system simply because YOU have coverage? We are ALL suffering from exponentially rising health care costs, it is not just altruism that drives my belief health care should be available for all, it also stems from self presvervation.
My ER copay increased by 100% for our 2010 coverage, our deductibles have increased and yet I can guarantee you, I will be fighting with the insurance company, as I have the last 15 years, to get the coverage they are legally and morally obligated to cover.
@Mando
I think we disagree on terms. I believe that fraudulent activity and ethical responsibility are tightly ocupled. The latter precludes the former.
Elena – For sake of argument, let’s just concede I am a selfish person and that I don’t care about anyone else. Let’s just concede that I earn my keep, and I can afford pay my bills. What gives you the right to rob me, take my property, and give it to the poor?
Has it occurred to you that a hysterical solution that depends on creating villains does not solve any problems? Such solutions just give you an excuse for your own villainy, which, instead of fixing the problems, compounds them.
We will all die. Eventually, no matter how much any of us earns, we will not be able to afford the cost of staying alive. Then we will face judgment. Then we will regret if what we did in this life was merely that which at the time seemed most expedient.
Exactly WHY you should support insurance reform. The entire system is broken, not just how insurance is “delivered” to people. Greed is a villian in my mind, it was partially responsible for the economic meltdown the world experienced, everyone wanted to make a quick buck, from the investors to the little guy, buying more than they could afford. There is enough “blame” to go around for our insurance dilema also.
Having said that, to allow people to die, when there is care that will help deal with their illness is simply barbaric. If you really want to get to the haves and have nots, I would argue that is not a civilized society. Are you a proponent of the laissez-fair model? Should someone who cannot afford health care because they have lost their job die of cancer when there is life saving treatment? Would you allow your wife, husband, parent, child to die? Is THAT the model of civilized society? Even though I don’t know your family, I truly do believe in the golden rule, not as a religious prinicpal, but as human principal. I would not want your child to suffer and more than I would want my own to suffer.
Elena – I too believe in the Golden Rule. I want government to let me and my family make our own health care decisions.
The entire system is broken? Why are most people happy with it?
Where do you get your news from? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government sponsored agencies. Before the meltdown, government had already acquired a huge interest in the mortgage lending industry. Because government will not keep its nose out of it, we still have cheap credit and people getting loans they have no business getting.
Government created the economic meltdown that resulted from bad loans. Because we elected the same fools that created the problem, they are doing it again. So this recession will be deepened and lengthened.
I do not oppose health care reform. I oppose the continuing government takeover of private industry. What is being proposed as a “solution” by the Democrats is not a solution; it is power grab.
What do we get out of government ownership or extreme government regulation of health care? Nothing. We just give up control of our health care decisions over to government officials. When only about 12 million people cannot get health care coverage, why does government need to take over everything?
The whole idea is stupid. Government is not efficient. So our money will be wasted. And the notion that folks in private industry are any more larcenous than government officials simply does not jive with history or current events. When government officials cannot even be trusted to obey their oath of office, why should we trust them with any more than we absolutely have to trust them with?
The Democrats are offering us Utopia, but when has socialism ever worked? Why do we have to be forced to accept it? Why can’t you justify this use of force? (Suggesting that I am a bad person just because I do not agree is not a respectable argument.)
Instead of suggesting your opponents are barbarians, why don’t you consider the possibility that there are alternative solutions? Instead of trying to force everyone to do it your way, why don’t you let everyone else find their own solution? This sort of thing goes by the names of freedom and liberty.
You assume that just because the Federal Government does not do something — anything — nothing good will happen. That is utter nonsense.
Not sure what you mean, when you say we elected the same people who got us in this mess. We have a new president, first time in 8 years. Maybe you think it was simply an accident, freak of nature, that Bush, left us in this mess. Recessions are cyclical, no question there, but near depressions are not. Insurance reform is not being offered as utopia and it sure aint socialism! We are all still paying for our health coverage, no one is HANDING out anything. Really, you are happy with your health care coverage? I guess me and ALL the people I know that complain about premiums going up and coverage going down must be the anomolies. I guess the reason for ALL our premiums increasing is because of a broken health care delivery system but YOU think its just fine?
From the CBO website:
The results of CBO’s projections suggest that in the absence of changes in federal law:
■ Total spending on health care would rise from 16 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2007 to 25 percent in 2025, 37 percent in 2050, and 49 percent in 2082.
■ Federal spending on Medicare (net of beneficiaries’ premiums) and Medicaid would rise from 4 percent of GDP in 2007 to 7 percent in 2025, 12 percent in 2050, and 19 percent in 2082.
Those results show significantly higher federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid under current law than other official projections do, which typically assume that spending on those programs grows much more slowly in the future than it has in the past. For example, although the projections by CBO and by the trustees of the Medicare program (under their intermediate assumptions) track each other relatively closely for the next two or three decades, by the end of 75 years, Medicare spending under CBO’s projections is about 50 percent higher.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/87xx/doc8758/MainText.3.1.shtml
Then your contention is that were it not for Freddie and Fannie, we would not have experienced this economic meltdown?
WASHINGTON — As the economy worsens and Election Day approaches, a conservative campaign that blames the global financial crisis on a government push to make housing more affordable to lower-class Americans has taken off on talk radio and e-mail.
Commentators say that’s what triggered the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit. They’ve specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie’s and Freddie’s financial problems.
Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren’t true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.
Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.
Federal Reserve Board data show that:
•More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
•Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
•Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that’s being lambasted by conservative critics.
The “turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007,” the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets reported Friday.
Conservative critics claim that the Clinton administration pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make home ownership more available to riskier borrowers with little concern for their ability to pay the mortgages.
“I don’t remember a clarion call that said Fannie and Freddie are a disaster. Loaning to minorities and risky folks is a disaster,” said Neil Cavuto of Fox News.
Fannie, the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., don’t lend money, to minorities or anyone else, however. They purchase loans from the private lenders who actually underwrite the loans.
It’s a process called securitization, and by passing on the loans, banks have more capital on hand so they can lend even more.
This much is true. In an effort to promote affordable home ownership for minorities and rural whites, the Department of Housing and Urban Development set targets for Fannie and Freddie in 1992 to purchase low-income loans for sale into the secondary market that eventually reached this number: 52 percent of loans given to low-to moderate-income families.
To be sure, encouraging lower-income Americans to become homeowners gave unsophisticated borrowers and unscrupulous lenders and mortgage brokers more chances to turn dreams of homeownership in nightmares.
But these loans, and those to low- and moderate-income families represent a small portion of overall lending. And at the height of the housing boom in 2005 and 2006, Republicans and their party’s standard bearer, President Bush, didn’t criticize any sort of lending, frequently boasting that they were presiding over the highest-ever rates of U.S. homeownership.
Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.
During those same explosive three years, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data.
In 1999, the year many critics charge that the Clinton administration pressured Fannie and Freddie, the private sector sold into the secondary market just 18 percent of all mortgages.
Fueled by low interest rates and cheap credit, home prices between 2001 and 2007 galloped beyond anything ever seen, and that fueled demand for mortgage-backed securities, the technical term for mortgages that are sold to a company, usually an investment bank, which then pools and sells them into the secondary mortgage market.
About 70 percent of all U.S. mortgages are in this secondary mortgage market, according to the Federal Reserve.
Conservative critics also blame the subprime lending mess on the Community Reinvestment Act, a 31-year-old law aimed at freeing credit for underserved neighborhoods.
Congress created the CRA in 1977 to reverse years of redlining and other restrictive banking practices that locked the poor, and especially minorities, out of homeownership and the tax breaks and wealth creation it affords. The CRA requires federally regulated and insured financial institutions to show that they’re lending and investing in their communities.
Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote recently that while the goal of the CRA was admirable, “it led to tremendous pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — who in turn pressured banks and other lenders — to extend mortgages to people who were borrowing over their heads. That’s called subprime lending. It lies at the root of our current calamity.”
Fannie and Freddie, however, didn’t pressure lenders to sell them more loans; they struggled to keep pace with their private sector competitors. In fact, their regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, imposed new restrictions in 2006 that led to Fannie and Freddie losing even more market share in the booming subprime market.
Elena – I suppose you do not think Medicare and Medicaid are manifestations of socialism. What do you think people are talking about when they talk about the public option?
If our elected officials wanted to decrease the cost of our health care, they would encourage increased competition and reform tort law. What they are doing is telling the insurance industry how do operate.
To have socialism, government does not have to “own” everything; the government just has to have control of everything, and that is the direction the legislation is going.
Bush was only the president, not a dictator. Who knows where Obama is going, but there is still a great deal the president cannot control.
The takeover of the mortgage lending industry took more years than Bush was in office. The takeover also required the passage of legislation passed by a Democratic Party controlled Congress. What Bush is guilty of is not doing enough to stop two things: (1) the increase in lending by government sponsored agencies and (2)the implied government backing of such loans. You really ought to investigate the matter.
OFL,
I just shared, from the CBO, why major reform is needed. Adding a public option MAKES the competition work. Maybe you could address the rising health care costs from the CBO if the Federal Govt does nothing. Have you read the arguments against simply relying on opening up state to state insurance purchase? What I have found is that it will not address the underlying problem, insuring those that don’t have the perfect health record. Maybe you are lucky, and have no chronic health issues, that is wonderful, but for many people who do suffer from chronic health conditions, not dealing with “cherry” picking who will insure becomes a crisis.
■ Total spending on health care would rise from 16 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2007 to 25 percent in 2025, 37 percent in 2050, and 49 percent in 2082
I found alot of interesting policy papers from this group.
http://www.newamerica.net/publications/policy_papers
http://www.newamerica.net/publications/policy/across_state_lines_explained
@Elena
Adding a public option makes competition work? I guess that why the government took over GM. I suppose we need a government home builder, a government farm, a government lawn mower maker, a government ice cream maker, and so forth. Nothing those area of the private economy are perfect either, but with Obama, perfection is only a public option away.
Yes, I have scraggly grass; I sure could use a cheap public option lawn mower.
Stop trying to justify the means with the end. It is dishonest and invitation for corruption.
Did you happen to read the any of the links I suggested? Have you listened to Wendell Potter on the need for a public option or non profit option, however you want to name it? I find him extremely credible. When a public option only will serve approximately 6 million people, what are you concerns?
How did you make the eyes roll, that is pretty cool even if it is meant as an insult
There has to be something that keeps the 45 million out of the emergency room. I haven’t heard any answers, just opinions, which is fine but OFL, you seem to think if you belittle Elena, that makes you more right. Tell me I am wrong and I misread that.
O.K., share the secret M.H., how do you do the “talking” face?!
I think that OFL must have the only insurance plan that has premiums decreasing every year instead of rising. Wish I could sign up for THAT plan!
OFL,
Are you pro-choice?
I will have to tell the code rather than write it out.
colonrollcolon
use the symbols where you see the word colon. Put the word roll between them.
Whoo Hoo, I did it!
@Elena
You will probably find this interesting.
http://codex.wordpress.org/Using_Smilies