Not all insurance companies act as economists might theorize, conduits between providers and consumers.

See this article

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinio...&st=Search

But, according to Zack, the company said the policy allowed it to cut Jan off because she suffered from a “chronic condition.” [cancer]

Then Ms. Walker gave me the company’s definition of “chronic” (you couldn’t make this up):

“Chronic means a medical condition which has at least one of the following characteristics: has no known cure; is likely to recur; requires palliative treatment; needs prolonged monitoring/ treatment; is permanent; requires specialist training/rehabilitation; is caused by changes to the body that cannot be reversed.”

I asked InterGlobal if this was an accurate translation. I noted that by its definition, cancer, heart disease, strokes, diabetes, tennis elbow and even athlete’s foot seemed to be “chronic.” I also asked InterGlobal to name any serious disease that it did not consider “chronic.”

The next e-mail message came back from the company’s chief executive, Stephen Hartigan, who sent his “kind regards” but added that because he was “disappointed” at the tone of my inquiries, the company would have no further comment.

(03-24-2010 10:46 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Because the way they did it has truly pissed off the average American voter...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/...able_N.htm

(03-24-2010 10:46 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  I guess if you know that you are Toast in the November elections, you might as well try to pass as much of Obama's Leftist Agenda...

http://www.frumforum.com/defending-romneycare

(03-24-2010 10:46 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Talk about ignoring the will of the People...

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/n...?year=2008

(Question: Do those 69,499,428 people not count? Maybe they each only count 3/5 of a vote or something.)

(03-24-2010 10:46 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  The next Congress will spend the first 6 months repealing all the garbage legislation Pelosi, Reid, Obama, and their evil minions have shoved down our throats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veto

(Question: Was your original post some sort of parody? It reads like it.)

It is my understanding that opposition to the Obama plan (prior to its passage) was not only from conservatives who were against it in principle, but also from a fair number of liberals who thought it did not go far enough (public option, for example). So I'm not sure it's absolutely correct to say that most Americans believe that the bill's passage was an assault on their liberties and now favor its repeal.

(03-25-2010 11:32 AM)Barrett Wrote:  It is my understanding that opposition to the Obama plan (prior to its passage) was not only from conservatives who were against it in principle, but also from a fair number of liberals who thought it did not go far enough (public option, for example). So I'm not sure it's absolutely correct to say that most Americans believe that the bill's passage was an assault on their liberties and now favor its repeal.

Barrett knows his stuff! In a recent CNN poll, 39% favored the health care bill in Congress, 43% opposed it as too liberal, and 13% opposed it as not liberal enough. So, 52 percent of Americans favored the bill or wanted a bill that was even stronger.

Hmmm... This is tough one to square with the meme that "Americans hate this piece of garbage AAAARRRRGGGHHHHHH!!!!"

Oh, yeah, and then there's those 69,499,428 people. We count for something, don't we?

(03-25-2010 11:32 AM)Barrett Wrote:  It is my understanding that opposition to the Obama plan (prior to its passage) was not only from conservatives who were against it in principle, but also from a fair number of liberals who thought it did not go far enough (public option, for example). So I'm not sure it's absolutely correct to say that most Americans believe that the bill's passage was an assault on their liberties and now favor its repeal.

Yes, I think that explains the instant leap in support shown in the USA Today poll. (Of course it's only one poll, we'll need more to see if it's an outlier.)

Also, polls have shown pretty consistently that while more may oppose "the Obama bill" than supported it, majorities supported many of the individual provisions.

(There's plenty of research showing that Americans tend to self-describe more conservatively than their actual issue positions indicate. I.e. if you classified people based on a set of issue positions, a fair number of self-described conservatives would map as moderates or even liberals.)

Regarding WMD's comments:

I'm skeptical how much "process" issues help in elections. They fire up the base, which is important in mid-term elections. But I'm not sure a swing voter in November is going to care if modifications to the main HCR bill were passed through reconciliation.

Speaking of firing up the base, that's what these morons sending faxes of nooses to Dem reps, sending death threats, throwing bricks through windows, and cutting the gas line at the house of a Dem reps brother, etc. are doing to the Dem base.

I would expect opinion to come back up for health care in the short term. Given all that it's been advertised as doing (increase coverage, maintain quality and timeliness of health care, cut costs) it's hard to see how people could oppose it. I'd favor a plan that I thought would actually deliver that.

But I oppose this one, because I simply do not think it will work, that it even can work. The caveats about costs that CBO put in their reports suggest to me that it's very likely we could look at a $2-3 trillion budget hit from this. I expect the response will be draconian cuts in reimbursement rates, leading to shortages of providers, meaning quotas and queues. Why do I expect that? Because that's what happened everywhere else that went down the road we are embarking on. When those things happen, the numbers will crash dive. Of course, Obama has set it up so that his last election campaign comes before most of the provisions of this bill kick in.

I might actually belong in that group that wants something more liberal than this, because my own preference would be French health care plus Swedish malpractice. Those systems work. I guess I'm pretty much a pragmatist here.

November (probably 2010 and 2012, too) will come down to the economy. It's always "the economy, stupid." If we are coming back by then, dems will do just fine, probably have smaller than normal losses. If the anticipated costs of Obamacare and the rest of the democrats' agenda start causing businesses to lay people off (my expectation), then it could be a major bloodbath for democrats. I know this, if I were running a multi-national today, I'd be doing everything I could to get as much of my operation as possible moved overseas, and I'd have my best people looking into reorganizing as an overseas parent with a US sub that would include only domestic operations. If I'm thinking that, I'm guessing others are doing the same, and if many of them pull the trigger on those plans, it will not be pretty.

I wish I thought the republicans had a better answer. As far as I can tell, they have none.

So it's a choice between bad ideas and no ideas. Wonderful.

(03-25-2010 12:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I know this, if I were running a multi-national today, I'd be doing everything I could to get as much of my operation as possible moved overseas, and I'd have my best people looking into reorganizing as an overseas parent with a US sub that would include only domestic operations. If I'm thinking that, I'm guessing others are doing the same, and if many of them pull the trigger on those plans, it will not be pretty.

I think this has already happened, years ago, for the multinationals.

I agree the economy will determine the election this fall.

(03-25-2010 11:43 AM)Boston Owl Wrote:  

(03-25-2010 11:32 AM)Barrett Wrote:  It is my understanding that opposition to the Obama plan (prior to its passage) was not only from conservatives who were against it in principle, but also from a fair number of liberals who thought it did not go far enough (public option, for example). So I'm not sure it's absolutely correct to say that most Americans believe that the bill's passage was an assault on their liberties and now favor its repeal.

Barrett knows his stuff! In a recent CNN poll, 39% favored the health care bill in Congress, 43% opposed it as too liberal, and 13% opposed it as not liberal enough. So, 52 percent of Americans favored the bill or wanted a bill that was even stronger.

Hmmm... This is tough one to square with the meme that "Americans hate this piece of garbage AAAARRRRGGGHHHHHH!!!!"

Oh, yeah, and then there's those 69,499,428 people. We count for something, don't we?

Up until these VERY recent polls, it wasn't tough to square at all, was it? Obama has expended a significant amount of capital and time "selling" his plan... and what most people are "voting" for here is what they've been sold by either side... which has little to do with reality. I know a number of moderates who have recently acquiesced to the "well, at least its a start" mentality... bought into the idea that it is better to do ANYTHING than nothing. I disagree with that sentiment... but it has ben sold pretty hard./

(03-25-2010 10:53 AM)Boston Owl Wrote:  

(03-24-2010 10:46 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Talk about ignoring the will of the People...

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/n...?year=2008

(Question: Do those 69,499,428 people not count? Maybe they each only count 3/5 of a vote or something.)

Boston - not interested in defending other's posts . . . . but

1. If you believe the election was won on the healthcare issue, or if that's your point, I think, at least on that one point, you are delusional. There are a lot of factors that led to Obama's win, and a huge chunk of that was Obama himself. Young, intelligent, charismatic candidate -check, check and check. I'd guess that actual knowledge of the Democratic platform plank on healthcare was not on the radar except for maybe 10% of the Democratic Party radar (i.e. it was not a Top 5 reason for the vast, vast majority of the voters).

If the election were a referendum on issues, than Howard Dean could be president. That's not the case.

And that is intended as a compliment to Obama, and anything but a knock on him.

2. There's no reason to bring the 3/5 vote comment on to this board. You're accusing people of being racist and that seems to me to be over the line. You ought to apologize or explain why you think WMD deserves that kind or response. Maybe you think we were all too stupid to get what you were saying, which I seriously doubt.

(03-25-2010 11:43 AM)Boston Owl Wrote:  Oh, yeah, and then there's those 69,499,428 people. We count for something, don't we?

Again, it was a presidential election, not a referendum on health care.

It would be absurd to say that Germans who voted for Hitler were casting ballots on a referendum on all of the policies he subsequently enacted.

I make that point not to say Obama is Hitler, as he clearly is not, but to illustrate the fallacy of the point being made.

I could go on and on on that one.

(03-25-2010 12:00 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  [Speaking of firing up the base, that's what these morons sending faxes of nooses to Dem reps, sending death threats, throwing bricks through windows, and cutting the gas line at the house of a Dem reps brother, etc. are doing to the Dem base.

On that you're absolutely correct. Folks need to be arrested and dealt with.

Still the media will portray a statistically insignificant number of actions to the maximum degree to tar and feather everyone who is opposed to the legislation. The actions of a dozen people can label millions.

Godwin's Law.

Hitler, really?

I took Boston's post as meeting absurd rhetoric with other rhetoric, nothing more.

ETA: Is this any different than saying "You lost, get over it", which I recall hearing a lot a few years ago.

Of course, Obama made insuring every American a cornerstone of his campaign. Hitler and killing every Jew in Europe, not so much.

I make that point not to say that Obama is not Hitler, but to illustrate the fallacy of the point being made.

(03-25-2010 02:31 PM)texd Wrote:  I make that point not to say that Obama is not Hitler, but to illustrate the fallacy of the point being made.

(03-25-2010 02:28 PM)Owl75 Wrote:  Godwin's Law.

Hitler, really?

I took Boston's post as meeting absurd rhetoric with other rhetoric, nothing more.

ETA: Is this any different than saying "You lost, get over it", which I recall hearing a lot a few years ago.

Sorry, if he meant it as absurd rhetoric, I missed it.

At least when I use hyperbole, I make the effort to explain it as such so I don't get absurd responses like "you think Obama is Hitler".

So Boston doesn't really feel the 2008 election was a mini-referendum on health care. got it. He just made the inference twice without explanation. Once in a post with otherwise rationale attempts to dispute points made by WMD.

The point is that presidential elections are not necessarily won based on single issue policies, and that the majority of voters don't see them as a referendum on any single issue.

Even if you asked voters back in 2008 to describe what the vote represented, the top 5 list might include one or two items that could be described as a referendum, but health care would not be one of them. I think the economy might have been one, the war in Iraq as another, or prosecution of the war (Gitmo, etc, as opposed to the war itself) yet another.

(03-25-2010 02:31 PM)texd Wrote:  Of course, Obama made insuring every American a cornerstone of his campaign. Hitler and killing every Jew in Europe, not so much.

I make that point not to say that Obama is not Hitler, but to illustrate the fallacy of the point being made.

Amusing response.

But are you saying you believe the 2008 election WAS a referendum on health care?

If not, what was the fallacy?

Because my point was that it was not.

You guys won.
That gives you, at least in your minds, license to screw it up.
Just don't screw it up so badly that we can't come back in and save it at some point.
That's all I ask.
Unfortunately, that's better than my best case scenario.

(03-25-2010 02:27 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(03-25-2010 12:00 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  [Speaking of firing up the base, that's what these morons sending faxes of nooses to Dem reps, sending death threats, throwing bricks through windows, and cutting the gas line at the house of a Dem reps brother, etc. are doing to the Dem base.

On that you're absolutely correct. Folks need to be arrested and dealt with.

Still the media will portray a statistically insignificant number of actions to the maximum degree to tar and feather everyone who is opposed to the legislation. The actions of a dozen people can label millions.

As opposed to the bullet put through the window for Rep. Eric Cantor's campaign office in Richmond? All of this violence is stupid, and the leaders on both sides "demanding" the other side apologize for inflaming things or using code words is just absurd. Infantile is the word that comes to mind, when talking about our purported leaders. I'm in agreement that all of those acting out need to be found and prosecuted to the extent of the law.

The anti-incumbent wave is going to be very interesting. I'm starting to get a feeling that the voting is not going to be about one party getting punished, but quite possibly both of them.

The 2008 election was about George W Bush being too far outside the mainstream of American political thinking, and Barack Obama convincing people that (1) John McCain was George W Bush, and (2) Barack Obama wasn't. Problem is that Obama is too far outside that mainstream in a different direction (not totally opposite, both like big government and budget deficits, but still very different).

Obama won by telling centrists that he was a centrist at the same time he was telling left-wing radicals that he was a left-wing radical, and getting both to believe him. Since taking office, the left-wing radical part has been far more true, and a lot of those centrists are starting to have second thoughts as a result. The problem is that the only alternative is the republicans, and after the way they screwed the pooch the last time they were in power, that's not an appealing prospect either.

As a supplement to our mind-reading, here's an exit poll with some questions about health care that offers some insight into how big of an issue it was to voters in 2008, and how they ended up voting.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results...al=USP00p1