Nah. The insurance companies know things have to change, but they're hoping they can keep it to a minimum. With continued policies of the right, they know there will be a backlash that will come back to hurt them.

There was a lot of talk yesterday about Limbaugh's effort to get Republicans to vote for Hillary. But I thought the Catholic Church recently decided to make it official that Limbaugh doesn't exist?

I read through Ezra's piece, and I wasn't impressed with it as much as you. Ezra's claims that the insurance execs didn't like Camp's speech were based on inference and not on objective facts. I think it's more likely the execs knew the Democrats control both houses of Congress and likely to control the White House next year. Because of that, they thought it would be more productive to listen to a Democrat talk rather than a Republican so that they can plan their next move.

It's easy for the pro government controlled health care forces to think the execs will give in to the demands of Democrats, but that won't happen. Like the fox and the hen, the execs are playing it sly so that government controlled insurance won't pass.

Perhaps all of the insurance execs are happiest with the Democratic plan of forcing everyone to buy insurance from them.

I know if people HAD to buy my product, I'd be happy.

Get rid of the insurance companies and costs would drop by 40%.

Ah, "ex-liberal" hasn't treated us to this much insultingly bad faith bullshit in a single post in a while.

I read through Ezra's piece, and I wasn't impressed with it as much as you.

Isn't it amazing how "ex-liberal" still pretends to have some credibility? What perennially dishonest neocon propagandist "ex-liberal" claims to be "impressed with" isn't worth a bucket of piss.

Ezra's claims that the insurance execs didn't like Camp's speech were based on inference and not on objective facts.

Except for the objective fact of the executives' response. Which "ex-liberal" will concede in his second paragraph.

I think it's more likely the execs knew the Democrats control both houses of Congress and likely to control the White House next year.

It's nearly certain they knew that, yes.

Because of that, they thought it would be more productive to listen to a Democrat talk rather than a Republican so that they can plan their next move.

Now "ex-liberal" is simply lying. They listened to both. They responded favorably to the more liberal approach. Of course, "ex-liberal" always needs to pretend that his side isn't on its way to the dungheap of history, despite the fact that his constant stream of dishonesty concedes the point.

It's easy for the pro government controlled health care forces to think the execs will give in to the demands of Democrats, but that won't happen. Like the fox and the hen, the execs are playing it sly so that government controlled insurance won't pass.

Notice how "ex-liberal" now concedes that the executives did give the response that Klein claims, and only substitutes his own subjective interpretation -- in addition to using the wingnut buzzwords "government controlled," as opposed to the more accurate "government funded.

As a demonstration of "ex-liberal"'s usual psychodrama of posting insultingly transparent bad-faith arguments, this was a typical post. As for being convincing, well, that isn't "ex-liberal"'s intent. Why the moderator(s) continue to tolerate "ex-liberal" pissing on the floor in here is a mystery.

Gregor - I would far rather read through comments by "ex-liberal" and then peruse your deconstruction of them, than have his relatively innocuous 'pissing' banned. The dialogue is far more engaging and informative than any silencing could be, and having your (or anyone's) takedown of "ex-liberal"-esque bullshit as a touchpoint for dealing with that kind of crap is extremely valuable. Just my opinion.

CG, having you call "ex-liberal"'s brand of disingenuous neocon propaganda "engaging and informative" dialogue must sting him much more than my takedowns.

The insurance companies know that the time for stonewalling has passed. So now they want Change They Can Profit From (TM). That's why BOTH Obama's and Clinton's "plans" are sad jokes. Nothing will work that doesn't put these jackals out of business for good.

I'm with Neal. I haven't heard either Hillary or Barack say anything that would be bad for the health insurance industry. It sure doesn't hurt the car insurance industry that everyone has to buy their product.

True reform, aimed at the obscene profits the health insurers make off other people's misery, would get them riled so far up their heads would explode.

Here's my guess on the coming health insurance "reform." Everyone's required to buy health insurance. Those that have pre-existing decisions are offered some thing like Medicare but with big, big premiums and annual coverage limits. That's what's available in California under its Major Risk Medical Insurance Program (called "Mr. Mip" in the business). The only difference will be that you'll be REQUIRED to purchase Mr. Mip insurance. (Or, if you prefer, MANDATED to buy it.)

Its perhaps worth noting that mandatory and/or subsidized private-purchase insurance programs of the type embraced by both Obama and Clinton (and, for that matter, Edwards) weren't on the map until a number of insurance executives started promoting them in response to universal healthcare drives nationally and in many states.

Now that the standard position of "liberal" politicians has become exactly what the insurance industry has promoted as the best way to secure their profits, of course they are more receptive to those positions than those that would oppose them.

I'm really looking forward to the pitchforks and torches.

They're less popular than hemorrhoids. Hemorrhoids eventually go away.

Inaurance companies are basically casinos. They are betting they will make money on the chance that you will not become to ill. And like a casino you can win [ill] some, but if you win [ill] too much, you will get booted out.

Its a scam. They dont CARE.

I have been to the doctor/dentist and having no insurance, I asked, can I get a discount for having no insurance and you will not have to do any paperwork? [which requires doctors to hire people just for that purpose]

The answer, so far, in every case was, "no discount"

People without insurance are having to pay the costs of the mounds of paperwork they create for the doctor.

Its like having a robber baron for a doctor. They dont care about you, just your billfold.

"I would like to challenge you –in a context where all Americans would have coverage—to move away from some of the old practices of denying coverage and spending buckets of time scouring people’s health history, Certainly this can’t be the most rewarding part of your job and I am certain you will go home at the end of the day happier if you spend more of your time managing care and promoting prevention.�-Senator Wyden

It wouldn't surprise me that the private health insurers would be perfectly happy just to contract with the government to manage claims for a single payer system (if and until the government expands their own bureaucracy to do the same) and provide gap and top-up plans for the upper middle-class and the wealthy. What's not to like? They've probably crunched all the numbers and figured that a public plan will eventually be competing with them anyhow, with stiff regulation to boot, so why throw down roadblocks? It isn't going to be cost effective for them to do so.

...their choice is either to work with him and stay in business or to keep fighting and eventually face pitchforks and torches in the streets.

Just as it was for the railroads, the meat-packers, the mines, and so on.

Some say the pitchforks & torches would've accomplished more.

I don't think conservative congress critters understand insurance markets at all. What insurance company executives know is that enrollment in private group insurance has been declining because of cost for at least three years. If trends keep up, the group insurance market will start to reflect problems in the individual insurance market. And the problems will surface first with small groups (really, they already have in many places). Without suggesting that insurers have good answers on universal access, it it almost certainly the case that they realize that regulatory reform is necessary and inevitable. Most private insurers, for instance, do not oppose expansion of SCHIP and other similar programs because they understand that the alternative is not usually the purchase of private insurance, but a trip to the emergency room that increases the level of uncompensated care that is ultimately shifted to private payers.

Hello everyone. All things are difficult before they are easy. Help me! Please help find sites for: Countach lamborghini replica sale. I found only this - replica closeout. Replica, i am well prior outdoor whether i am underestimating or cleaning, whether i have concentrated my advice or took it. What helps patterns key is decorating how to release in services of gerA§ekten, replica. Thanks for the help :confused:, Tiernan from Mauritania.