Republican Support for Health Care Reform

[Dan Conner]

Former Minnesota Senator, Dave Durenburger, wrote a column in yesterday's Star and Tribune supporting President Obama's and the Democrats' proposals for health care reform. He said the Republicans are being hypocritical about health care reform because Obama proposed basically the same health care changes the Republicans proposed in the 1993 fight of health care reform with the Clinton's. He also emphsized an unselfish view that reform is needed for people. Playing politics, in an effort to destroy the President, with our country hanging in the balance, is reckless and incredibly selfish...certainly not patriotic.

Today, 2/25/10, the Star and Tribune included an editorial commending Dave Durenburger for his honesty and recognizing the urgency to reform health care reform

Republican lies and fear tactics are slowly losing out, and the truth is beginning to shine through. Anyone who thinks insurance companies and Republicans care about the "man-on-the street" are dilusional. It is obvious they don't want change, so they can perpetuate their good helath care coverage AT THE EXPENSE of millions who have none. Guess what, REVERSE ROBINHOOD doesn't work any better today than it ever has.

[Matt Christianson]

Former Minnesota Senator, Dave Durenburger, wrote a column in yesterday's Star and Tribune supporting President Obama's and the Democrats' proposals for health care reform. He said the Republicans are being hypocritical about health care reform because Obama proposed basically the same health care changes the Republicans proposed in the 1993 fight of health care reform with the Clinton's. He also emphsized an unselfish view that reform is needed for people. Playing politics, in an effort to destroy the President, with our country hanging in the balance, is reckless and incredibly selfish...certainly not patriotic.

Today, 2/25/10, the Star and Tribune included an editorial commending Dave Durenburger for his honesty and recognizing the urgency to reform health care reform

Republican lies and fear tactics are slowly losing out, and the truth is beginning to shine through. Anyone who thinks insurance companies and Republicans care about the "man-on-the street" are dilusional. It is obvious they don't want change, so they can perpetuate their good helath care coverage AT THE EXPENSE of millions who have none. Guess what, REVERSE ROBINHOOD doesn't work any better today than it ever has.

I hope you have been keeping an eye on the 'summit' today. It's obvious all Republicans involved want extensive reform. They are just trying to hammer out the details at this point. Hopefully Obama is serious about trying to forge a bipartisan reform bill and we can actually have a bill that solves the fundamental probelm which we face.

[Dan Conner]

I hope you have been keeping an eye on the 'summit' today. It's obvious all Republicans involved want extensive reform. They are just trying to hammer out the details at this point. Hopefully Obama is serious about trying to forge a bipartisan reform bill and we can actually have a bill that solves the fundamental probelm which we face.Overall, I agree with you Matt, or at least that's what the Republicans said, but I really think they don't want any change. As Durenburger said in his column, the Democrats pretty much duplicated the 1993 Republican requirements for health care reform. Now they reject it? I illustrate my point in a recent bill sponsored by Republicans just a few days ago. Anyway, they sponsored it and brought it to the Senate floor, and then they (even the ones proposing the legislation) voted against it. Sometimes I think they want to sound like they care, but really don't. The talk is there, but not the actions. The Democrats didn't alter the legislation at all.

[Bob Jentges]

The silence between Dan and Matt in this thread since yesterday afternoon is deafning, so I will interject a few opinions since the "Summit" yesterday.

The CBO has scored the present Democrat Senate and House proposals to indicate that if either were to pass as is, health care costs over time would continue to increase at about the same rate they are increasing now. The way I see it, if neither of the present Democrat proposals will lower the cost of health care over time the main purpose of reform (at least from my perspective) will not be achieved. I think almost everyone agrees we can not afford to allow the cost of health care to continue to increase at it's present rate.:( So I think it either boils down to a compromise or nothing.

From what I have heard and read in the MSM it seems as though both parties are holding to the same positions they held before the "Summit", which the way I see it is too bad.

If their is no new bill or at least significant revisions to the present Democrat Senate and House proposals nothing will pass even with an attempt by the Democrats to pass the Senate proposal through Reconcilliation. My reason is that, as I understand it, in order for the Senate to be able to vote on Reconcilliation the House would need to pass the Senate bill as is. The vote counters seem to think their are not sufficient Democrat votes in the House to accomplish that. In fact, I heard Tim Walz say on Tim Penny's "Making Sense" radio program this morning that if there were not changes he would not vote for it. To repeat myself, if there are changes Reconcilliation is not an option.

This is certainly serious business, but I think there is always room for some levity. When I heard Representive Louise Slaughter (D NY) tell the story about the woman that was wearing her deceased sister's false teeth because she did not have insurance and could not afford to purchase her own dentures I was stunned!

Before she gave that ridiculous example Ms. Slaughter should have considered that if the unfortunate woman had been paying to include dental coverage in health coverage she might have had the cost of that dental coverage over the time, before she needed false teeth of her own, would have most likely exceeded the cost of new dentures when she needed them?

Many people that do have health insurance do not pay extra for dental coverage for that very reason. There is such a thing as personal risk management!

The way I see it, unless you have a large family (lot's of dependent children), dental coverage is not a wise purchase. Insurance is not designed to be a savings account or to cover day to day maintance. If you could, would you purchase insurance to cover oil changes in your vehicle, or coverage to replace the furnace in your home when it just plain wore out from use? Of course not---it would be cost prohibitive!

PS---A friend just sent me a copy of Representative Paul Ryans (R WI) presentation. I read it. I think it should be required reading! If you are interested you can read it at Powerline under Ryan Takes Obama To School--2-25-2010 @ 7:49 PM http://www.powerlindblog.com/

[Matt Christianson]

I happened to catch Ms. Slaughter"s example as well. I was not aware that dental was covered in the reform bill. Very odd example. Although that probably will be the next thing...dental reform.
Quoting Bob..."The CBO has scored the present Democrat Senate and House proposals to indicate that if either were to pass as is, health care costs over time would continue to increase at about the same rate they are increasing now. " This is key. If this is true than why would we want to require coverage? This will be an onerous burden on the poor because the cost of insurance will certainly rise along with the healthcare costs. And in terms of those who cannot afford covereage and will be subsidized by the Fed...this will increase the costs of this program dramatically!

[Bob Jentges]

Silence tells me either Mr. Conner was not too pleased with the Democrats performance at the health Care Summit last Wednesday, or he is keeping his powder dry for further instructions.

I think the "further instructions" were printed in Ron Yezzi's Your View in the print edition of this mornings The Free Press i.e. "DEMOCRATS NEED TO BETTER EXPLAIN THEIR PROGRAMS".

My response to those "further instructions" is: Seems to me the Democrats, Obama, and Walz have been out selling their programs ad nauseam. The people are not buying. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear!

To demonstrate the peoples opinion of the Democrat proposals here are a few of the most recent poll results:
---Rasmussen Reports 41% favor 56% against
---Newsweek 40% favor 49% against
---Pew Research 38% favor 50% against
---ABC/ Wash Post 46% favor 49% against
---Quinnipiac 35% favor 54% against
---IPSOS/WSJ 31% favor 46% against
---CNN/Opinion Research 38% favor 58% against
---NPR/GQR 39% favor 55% against
---USA Today/ Gallup 39% favor 55% against

But from what I have heard and read recently President Obama might be giving-up on their sales ability and are preparing the old Chicago approach which I have heard goes something like---We're selling;forget about the cost; you buy or else!

[Dan Conner]

Silence tells me either Mr. Conner was not too pleased with the Democrats performance at the health Care Summit last Wednesday, or he is keeping his powder dry for further instructions.

I think the "further instructions" were printed in Ron Yezzi's Your View in the print edition of this mornings The Free Press i.e. "DEMOCRATS NEED TO BETTER EXPLAIN THEIR PROGRAMS".

My response to those "further instructions" is: Seems to me the Democrats, Obama, and Walz have been out selling their programs ad nauseam. The people are not buying. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear!

To demonstrate the peoples opinion of the Democrat proposals here are a few of the most recent poll results:
---Rasmussen Reports 41% favor 56% against
---Newsweek 40% favor 49% against
---Pew Research 38% favor 50% against
---ABC/ Wash Post 46% favor 49% against
---Quinnipiac 35% favor 54% against
---IPSOS/WSJ 31% favor 46% against
---CNN/Opinion Research 38% favor 58% against
---NPR/GQR 39% favor 55% against
---USA Today/ Gallup 39% favor 55% against

But from what I have heard and read recently President Obama might be giving-up on their sales ability and are preparing the old Chicago approach which I have heard goes something like---We're selling;forget about the cost; you buy or else!

Bob, I don't have to say anything. It looks like health care reform is on its way. Get ready Bob. It's time for reconciliation! I think Democrats are going to be voting for what they feel is right, not your silly rationalizations.

By the way, the President killed the Republicans in the summit. Republicans spent all their time reacting (like in reationaries) to the impending health care changes, instead of positively contributing to a change.

So, you go ahead. I'll just wait for the change while you wait for Sarah Palin. Also, about those "sow's ears? I think you need to look in a mirror. You're probably wearing them. So, sooee, sooee, sooee...t. Hopefully, you will learn not to be so pigish in the future. If not, I will probably tell by the swill you generate.

[Bob Jentges]

You did not respond to my post #4, wherin I explained why I do not think Reconcilliation will come to pass on the present Democrat health care reform proposals.. and what the Democrats Plan C appears to be i.e. a new/revised proposal the President plans to try to push through the House and Senate. That reasoning has been all over the news (maybe even the news you read/watch) since my post!

The final Paragraph in your post #7 was filled with logic (sic)! Apparrantly you did not like my "sows ear" example. I will offer another, but revise the last two words for your tender ears. "You can't make chicken salad out of chicken feathers"!

[Dan Conner]

You did not respond to my post #4, wherin I explained why I do not think Reconcilliation will come to pass on the present Democrat health care reform proposals.. and what the Democrats Plan C appears to be i.e. a new/revised proposal the President plans to try to push through the House and Senate. That reasoning has been all over the news (maybe even the news you read/watch) since my post!

The final Paragraph in your post #7 was filled with logic (sic)! Apparrantly you did not like my "sows ear" example. I will offer another, but revise the last two words for your tender ears. "You can't make chicken salad out of chicken feathers"!Bob, there you go, into details again and losing the "big picture." I think it will be as the President and Dems have said. We will see Health Care Reform enacted soon. Reconciliation or otherwise. I think enough time has been wasted with Republicans.

[Bob Jentges]

Bob, there you go, into details again and losing the "big picture."... I think enough time has been wasted with Republicans.

I explained the relationship between the "details" and the "big picture" in a different thread in a different post. Since you apparrantly did not get it then, I will not waste my time explaining it again.

For most of the past year the Democrats have held the Presidency, a 60/40 majority in the Senate, and a 40 vote majority in the House. They still have not been able to pass their health care reform proposals. How that is the Republicans fault is beyond me. I would call that Democrat incompetence!

[Dan Conner]

I explained the relationship between the "details" and the "big picture" in a different thread in a different post. Since you apparrantly did not get it then, I will not waste my time explaining it again.

For most of the past year the Democrats have held the Presidency, a 60/40 majority in the Senate, and a 40 vote majority in the House. They still have not been able to pass their health care reform proposals. How that is the Republicans fault is beyond me. I would call that Democrat incompetence!Bob, I read your many flawed statements. You write and write about things that you are unable to follow or adhere to. I think that is a problem with deep rooted prejudice. You might state and explain something, but then you turn around andf ignore it. I think you need to "walk the talk (or writing in your case.)".

As far as health insurance is concerned, just wait...it is a comin. Democrats will use the process so much more used by Republicans...reconciliation. I suggest you just patiently wait. I wouldn't use incompetence in describing Democrats, especially coming from a supporter of the treasoness Republican party. Destroy a President so they can win an election? Hardly patriotic.

The bottom line in this is going to be health care reform. You can name call and whine all you want. I'm waiting for the result. Helping people is what it's about, not selfishly hoarding your money.

[Bob Jentges]

I hope their is health care reform--I have never said I was against that.

Republicans have had reform programs on the table almost from the onset eg. Paul Ryan; Tom Coburn; and there was a bipartisan proposal Bennett/Wyden out there for a long time too. I most likely could have supported any of them, or maybe even a reasonable compromise with the Democrat proposals with critical areas of the Republican and bipartisan proposals included.

But the Democrats have insisted it's their way or the highway. No deal!

[Dan Conner]

I hope their is health care reform--I have never said I was against that.

Republicans have had reform programs on the table almost from the onset eg. Paul Ryan; Tom Coburn; and there was a bipartisan proposal Bennett/Wyden out there for a long time too. I most likely could have supported any of them, or maybe even a reasonable compromise with the Democrat proposals with critical areas of the Republican and bipartisan proposals included.

But the Democrats have insisted it's their way or the highway. No deal!Bob, you probably are for health care reform. You probably want more health care at the expense of many peoploe for whom you say it is not a right. I say we need health care for ALL, even if it costs you, and me, something. Your approach to health care can always be framed in a very selfish and self-serving manner. While you complain about medical care for you family, you want to see that others continue to be deprived of it. That's pretty bad and pretty selfish.

You are comical to mention that Republicans have had health care reform on the table? Get out of here! Even in the conference they brought up almost no ideas, other than to criticize the Democratic plan. Also, if Republicans care so much about it, why didn't they do anything during the 8 years Bush had the While House and Republicans controlled Congress.

I say the time for compromise if over. The Democratic bill has already incorporated virtually all the Republican ideas. It's now time for majority rules. Didn't you watch the last summit? Were you missing? The President asked for ideas. The only idea came from McCain, which the President is adopting. All the rest of the summit was bankrupt of Republican ideas. Yeah, the party of Sarah Palin.

[Dan Conner]

Here's a brand new article interviewing Warren Buffett and about what he thinks of the current health care system. Now, he didn't call it the gest health care system in the worrld, hemisphere, or even continent. He called it the "tapeworm" of the country. VBery interesting indictment of the health care system in our country. Bob, try reading it. Your capitalist hereo says the system is sucking the lifeblood out of our economy:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/01/warren-buffett-on-cnbc-he_n_480399.html

You wil probably not want to read this.

I also thought it was reading today's paper about someone who was billed over $1200 for a simple doctor consultation? If it involved a swimpley talk with a doctor or talk among doctors, it appears this was exorbitantly high.

[Bob Jentges]

Folks, Dan has finally gone off the deep end!

[Dan Conner]

While I don't quite understande the preceding post, I don't think Mr. Jentges contributed anything relevant or germain to the debate.

I noticed, in particular, that he ws unable to illustrate any Republican support for health care reform. Frankly, I don't believe they want any reform. Why would Republicans want to reform a system that has made many many health care corporations richer beyond the wildest dream. Heaven knows, Repoublican coffers do very well from health care corporate donations. It's just too bad that this significant part of the business world and the Republican party benefit so handsomely off the death and suffering of millions of policy holders. Policy holders that are bureaucratically denied for contrived "pre-existing conditions" because they are costing to much, because life saving treatments are defined as experimental, or because they have dug deep into the history of a policy hoilder and found the most trivail inconsistency and call it lying on their application. The insurance industry has long demonstrated a practice of putting profits over peoples' lives. I guess the above writer sees nothing wrong with that.,, of course, unless it's him.

[Bob Jentges]

I don't think Mr. Jentges contributed anything relevant or germain to the debate....or because they have dug deep into the history of a policy hoilder and found the most trivail inconsistency and call it lying on their application.

Well let me try again now.

I know something about recission. It takes more than "the most trivial inconsistency" in order for most insurance companies to even consider attempting recission. In order to be successful in recission what was attested to by the polyholder must be a intentional material missreprentation that is made by the applicant at the time of application. As you can immagine that is very difficult to establish as fact---intent never is easy to prove. Additionally, the intentional material misreprentation must be directly related to the claim for coverage being made. Simply put, if the claim was for treatment for cancer and the intention material misreprentation was related to a heart condition, recission would and should fail.

Dan makes it sound like the insurance company is the only party to the contract that has anything to say in the case of recission. Obviously not so. If the insurer invokes recission and the policyholder disagrees the dispute can proceed to a court of law for a decision.

Since Dan usually seems to operate on about 99% emotion and 1% logic, this gives me oppurtunity to link todays NY Times editorial by David Brooks titled: The Emotion of Reform". Brooks is not one of my favorite "conservative" writers, but I think he sums-up the entire situation to date verry well in the following: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/opinion/09brooks.html

[Dan Conner]

Well let me try again now.

I know something about recission. It takes more than "the most trivial inconsistency" in order for most insurance companies to even consider attempting recission. In order to be successful in recission what was attested to by the polyholder must be a intentional material missreprentation that is made by the applicant at the time of application. As you can immagine that is very difficult to establish as fact---intent never is easy to prove. Additionally, the intentional material misreprentation must be directly related to the claim for coverage being made. Simply put, if the claim was for treatment for cancer and the intention material misreprentation was related to a heart condition, recission would and should fail.

Dan makes it sound like the insurance company is the only party to the contract that has anything to say in the case of recission. Obviously not so. If the insurer invokes recission and the policyholder disagrees the dispute can proceed to a court of law for a decision.

Since Dan usually seems to operate on about 99% emotion and 1% logic, this gives me oppurtunity to link todays NY Times editorial by David Brooks titled: The Emotion of Reform". Brooks is not one of my favorite "conservative" writers, but I think he sums-up the entire situation to date verry well in the following: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/opinion/09brooks.htmlThis reader is domonstrating more disconnect from the real world. Insurance companies have denied thousands of medical claims because of "lying" on applications, even though there were no lies. In many cases, applicants made only typo's, or used slightly different dates for past treatments.

The writers lack of a "big picture" view omits the fact that there is no appeal for policy holders, other that a court of law. Insurnace companies are well aware of the coercive affect of court/legal costs for plaintiffs that allow insurnace companies to make these incorrect rulings with impunity. Many of the same people that can not afford the medical treatment, also can not afford the legal fees.

The above writer only speaks of cases that go to court, not the ones that never make it there. Again, his bias/ and prejudice shows through. He loves insurance companies, but hates organizations benefiting people, like labor unions. I don't know if the writer is auditioning to be a health insurance corporate shill, but if he is, he is doing about as much as he can. The next thing he'll do is try to persuade us that insurnace companies all love us?

The writer needs to get with the real world.

[Bob Jentges]

Insurance companies have denied thousands of medical claims because of "lying" on applications, even though there were no lies. In many cases, applicants made only typo's, or used slightly different dates for past treatments.

The writers lack of a "big picture" view omits the fact that there is no appeal for policy holders, other that a court of law....Many of the same people that can not afford the medical treatment, also can not afford the legal fees.

Despite my brief but clear explaination of recission you obviously do not understand.

Can you name a health insurance company policy that does not have a provision for "appeal"? Even if you can, what better place for equity in our society is there than a court of law?

To the best of my knowledge there are very few plaintiff law firms that charge a client "legal fees" if they do not prevail in the case. If you have experienced otherwise I would be interested in hearing about it.

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so." (Ronald Reagan)

[Dan Conner]

Despite my brief but clear explaination of recission you obviously do not understand.

Can you name a health insurance company policy that does not have a provision for "appeal"? Even if you can, what better place for equity in our society is there than a court of law?

To the best of my knowledge there are very few plaintiff law firms that charge a client "legal fees" if they do not prevail in the case. If you have experienced otherwise I would be interested in hearing about it.

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so." (Ronald Reagan)I doubt it would do any good to explain the law to the above writer. I am so very much surprised he knows so little about a profession where he worked.

Plaintiff attorneys will work for contingency fees, if the suit would allow for separate payment of attorney fees, or where the settlement would be large enough to allow a reasonable fee for the attorney. However, if the plaintiff will only be able to recoup medical expenses, but legal fees are deducted, it still leaves the plaintiff little alternative. Also, even in contingency cases, the plaintiff is liable so attorney costs for such things as depositions, etc., which are above and beyond the contingency fees, and paid whether the attorney wins or loses. This cost can be enormous. For these reasons, a very large percentage of potential plaintiffs never file suits.

As far as insurance company appeals...most of the time it is farcical. The appeal is made with the insurnace company, which made the original decision. It is not probable the insurnace company overturns its original decision, expecially when the decision was made for bottom-line cost considerations anyway.

I think you are foolish to argue for corporations that are in business to make profits, not see that peoples' health care needs are being met. Also, your buddy Ronald Regan was wrong about many things. I was surprised he woke up long enough to make such a quote. Your hero, tripled the national debt with the largest deficits run in the history of our country at that time. He was wrong with that quote, as he was in the 105 times he said he could not remember during the Iran-Contra hearings. You might as well quote Elmer Fudd. They were equally adept at running our country.

[Bob Jentges]

Plaintiff attorneys will work for contingency fees...even in contingency cases, the plaintiff is liable so attorney costs for such things as depositions, etc., which are above and beyond the contingency fees, and paid whether the attorney wins or loses....The appeal is made with the insurnace company, which made the original decision. It is not probable the insurnace company overturns its original decision....

I understand how contingency fees work, and I also understand who is generally responsible for costs and disbursements.

If you are trying to tell me most attorneys are not principled people and not concerned about people they think have been treated unjustly by their insurance company, I do not buy it!

My experience tells me the overwhelming reason most attorney's will not accept a case is because they do not think they could negociate a settlement, even if only for costs and disbursements, or that they could not prevail at trial. In fact, most reputable lawfirms will insist members of the firm handle a certain number of meritorious low value cases where the client has little money on a Pro Bono basis each year.

If you are trying to tell me insurance companies arbitrarily deny justified claims because they think the insured does not have the funds to retain legal counsel, I do not buy that either! Moerover, if you think an insurance company would not overrule their origional denial if evidence was presented on appeal that establishes the origional denial was in error, I do not buy that either! That would not be a sound business practice, and could also draw serious sanctions form the State Department of Commerce i.e. Insurance Commissioner.

In my opinion you are a twisted, cynical man!

[Dan Conner]

I understand how contingency fees work, and I also understand who is generally responsible for costs and disbursements.

If you are trying to tell me most attorneys are not principled people and not concerned about people they think have been treated unjustly by their insurance company, I do not buy it!

My experience tells me the overwhelming reason most attorney's will not accept a case is because they do not think they could negociate a settlement, even if only for costs and disbursements, or that they could not prevail at trial. In fact, most reputable lawfirms will insist members of the firm handle a certain number of meritorious low value cases where the client has little money on a Pro Bono basis each year.

If you are trying to tell me insurance companies arbitrarily deny justified claims because they think the insured does not have the funds to retain legal counsel, I do not buy that either! Moerover, if you think an insurance company would not overrule their origional denial if evidence was presented on appeal that establishes the origional denial was in error, I do not buy that either! That would not be a sound business practice, and could also draw serious sanctions form the State Department of Commerce i.e. Insurance Commissioner.

In my opinion you are a twisted, cynical man!Talk about twisted...I'm saying that most people do not litigate health care issues because there is a significant financial cost, win or lose. Even if the attorney accept payment contingent on winning, the plaintiff is liable for significant legal costs, if they lose. Many many people cannot afford these costs and therefore do not sue.

The above is the only alternative to the insurance self-review of a claim denial. So, the process isn't as available to the public as you say. There is a significant obstacle for a person improperly denied, who might consider a suit.

Again, you are worng about insurnace company self-reviews and sanctions by the insurance commissioner. Thousands of improper denials are made every year, without any justification and no sanctions have been levied.

[Bob Jentges]

Again, you are worng about insurnace company self-reviews and sanctions by the insurance commissioner. Thousands of improper denials are made every year, without any justification and no sanctions have been levied.

The opinions stated in my post #21, with the exception of the final sentence, are based on 32+ years in the insurance claims business and I stand by every word. The opinion in that final sentence is based on month's of reading your posts in this Forum, and I stand by every word in that sentence as well!

With respect to the final paragraph in your post quoted above, show me some proof.