PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Senate celebrates with lobbyists over defeating health care bill


banyon
02-08-2010, 08:03 PM
Well, you ultra-libertarians and partisan ideologues got what you wanted, the health care bill is dead. And the Democratic p****ies in charge won't bring it back in anything close to the current for because of the phantom "filibuster" threat (somehow Republicans managed to pass legislation for 6 years without a filibuster proof majority).

Guess who you guys helped with your unwitting corporate-enabling rhetoric?

Big Insurance companies. Who would've guessed they were against reform. And surely they have your best interests at heart. I think anyone who's dealth with them in difficult times can certainly vouch for that.

Well here they all are celebrating at the expense of the American people:

Lobbyists retreat but never surrender

Feb 8, 2010, 00:14

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_5550.shtml

George Washington’s birthday is approaching and with it will come the attendant mythology: hatchet and cherry tree, wooden teeth, throwing a silver dollar across the Potomac River -- or the Rappahannock.

Of course, as the old joke goes, a dollar went a lot further then. Today, if you tried to hurl a silver dollar across the Potomac, chances are some member of Congress would snatch it in flight like one of those nature film grizzly bears grabbing a salmon in mid-leap.

And the more likely person doing the throwing would be a lobbyist, tossing coins in the air to keep the playful legislator’s attention. The other day, the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics reported that more than 15,600 companies spent at least $3.2 billion on federal lobbying last year. Five hundred thirty-five members of the House and Senate, more than 13,000 registered lobbyists in DC -- you do the math.

This week, White House Special Counsel Norm Eisen blogged about President Obama’s plans to further crack down on lobbyists by updating the Lobbying Disclosure Act and getting Congress to mandate “low-dollar limits on the contributions lobbyists may bundle or make to candidates for federal office,” bundling being that insidious practice by which you raise a lot of money by hitting up a number of people for contributions and “bundling” their donations together.

Good luck with that, Norm. As we’ve seen, lobbyists are brilliantly devious at figuring out ways into the inner sanctums, and whoever’s behind the door tends to welcome them with open arms, as long as they’ve arrived with the secret password: “Cash.”

Example: last weekend, both Democratic and Republican members of Congress held retreats, ostensibly to go away some place and sagely contemplate their navels, discussing issues and plotting strategy. Guess who else was there?

The House Republican Caucus chose to stay near Washington at the Renaissance Baltimore Harborplace Hotel, all the easier for lobbyists to make a quick sprint up Interstate 95 and pitch woo. Among those addressing the Caucus were President Obama -- you’ve seen the video of his give-and-take with them last Friday -- and the ubiquitous former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, the GOP equivalent of a rash that won’t go away.

The meeting was organized by the Congressional Institute, which describes itself as “a not-for-profit corporation dedicated to helping Members of Congress better serve their constituents and helping their constituents better understand the operations of the national legislature.” It holds seminars for legislators and their staffs, publishes a handbook on floor procedure and sponsors the annual Congressional Art Competition.

The reality, as the Center for Media and Democracy’s SourceWatch Web site reports, is that the Congressional Institute is “funded by corporate contributions and run by top Republican lobbyists.” Twelve of its 14 board members are registered lobbyists, including its chair, Daniel Meyer of The Duberstein Group, a lobby firm founded by former Reagan chief of staff Ken Duberstein; vice chair Barbara Morris-Lent, who has been a consultant to Verizon and is the wife of former Republican Congressman Norman Lent; and its secretary Gary Andres, a columnist for Rupert Murdoch’s right-wing Weekly Standard and vice president of public policy and research for the lobby company Dutko Worldwide. Many of them are former Republican congressional staff members; two of them worked for ex-Speaker Gingrich.

A list of the Congressional Institute’s financial contributors reads like a Who’s Who of corporate America: among them have been General Motors, Lockheed Martin, Time Warner, UPS, Merck and tobacco giant Altria.

Lee Fang, a researcher for the progressive Center for American Progress Action Fund, paid a visit on the Republicans at their Baltimore hotel. In the time before Congressional Institute representatives told him to scram or face arrest, he found out quite a lot.

The aforementioned Dan Meyer was on his way to the retreat -- his Duberstein clients include Goldman Sachs, BP, HealthNet and AHIP, the health insurance industry trade group that fought tooth and nail against the public option in the health care fight.

Also in attendance, according to Fang, was Institute board member Michael Johnson. A lobbyist at the OB-C Group, Johnson “touts himself as a ‘Republican heavyweight’ whose firm represents the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, JPMorgan Chase, and the health insurance giant WellPoint.” And as he was pointed to the exit, Fang spotted John Sampson, chief lobbyist for Microsoft.

Meanwhile, Democrats chose to bask in sunnier climes, and some select lobbyists decided to grab their towels and Jamba Juice and enjoy the balmy weather with them. A dozen senators headlined the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee’s winter retreat at a Ritz Carlton resort in Miami Beach, a cozy little hideaway with 375 guest rooms, “sumptuous” marble baths, spa and a $2 million dollar art collection.

The senators included DSCC chair Robert Menendez, Carl Levin, Frank Lautenberg, Claire McCaskill and Bernie Sanders. Riding in the wake of their surf were 108 lobbyists -- special guests who shared meals, receptions and “informal conversations” with the legislators.

According to the Web site Politico.com, among those attending were “top lobbying officials for many of the industries Democrats regularly attack: Represented were the American Bankers Association, the tobacco company Altria, the oil company Marathon, several drug manufacturers, the defense contractor Lockheed, and most of the large independent lobbying firms.”

The price of admittance wasn’t released but the maximum contribution to the DSCC for similar events is $30,000 a head. Interesting when compared to recent remarks by Senator Menendez. Politico’s Ben Smith quoted a January 27 Menendez press release: “In the upcoming elections, voters will face a choice between Republicans who are standing with Wall Street fat cats, bankers and insurance companies -- or Democrats who are working hard to clean up the mess we inherited by putting the people’s interests ahead of the special interests.”

Hearing all this makes me think we should stage a national intervention and ship the entire 111th Congress off to a different kind of retreat, a sort of political rehab facility. They would be kept isolated from lobbyists and special interests for as many weeks as it takes for them to be weaned from money and pork and made to pay attention to the needs of their constituents -- and the nation.

There would be lectures, motivational speakers, readings from the Federalist Papers, and daily screenings of “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” And emblazoned across its entryway would be a denunciation of money and politics, Thomas Jefferson’s 1816 battle cry to “crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”

I know it’s just a fantasy, but I feel better already.

Please note that the views and opinions expressed by Michael Winship are not necessarily the views and opinions held by Bill Moyers or BILL MOYERS JOURNAL.

Michael Winship is senior writer of the weekly public affairs program, Bill Moyers Journal, which airs Friday night on PBS. Check local airtimes or comment at The Moyers Blog.

petegz28
02-08-2010, 08:04 PM
Yea, it's too bad the Democrats couldn't get it passed when they didn't need 1 Republican vote.

Do you ever get tired of blaming the Repubs for what is clearly the fault of the Dems?

wazu
02-08-2010, 08:08 PM
If big corporations are responsible for killing that abomination, then thank God for big corporations.

petegz28
02-08-2010, 08:10 PM
If big corporations are responsible for killing that abomination, then thank God for big corporations.

I'm not particularly thrilled with it but I will say that the big corporations were going to benefit one way or the other.

Chief Faithful
02-08-2010, 08:11 PM
You have convinced me, the Republicans are owned by the lobbyists. Good thing the Democrats have our best interests at heart or the lobbyists would own DC.:rolleyes:

BigRedChief
02-08-2010, 08:12 PM
If big corporations are responsible for killing that abomination, then thank God for big corporations.Big corporations deciding what is best for us is never going to end well. If you are okay with corporations hijacking our democracy,,,,well, you are entitled to your opinion.

petegz28
02-08-2010, 08:15 PM
Big corporations deciding what is best for us is never going to end well. If you are okay with corporations hijacking our democracy,,,,well, you are entitled to your opinion.

LMAO.....yes the Fed Gov is so much better for us

banyon
02-08-2010, 08:16 PM
Yea, it's too bad the Democrats couldn't get it passed when they didn't need 1 Republican vote.

Do you ever get tired of blaming the Repubs for what is clearly the fault of the Dems?

Er, what? :spock:

Did you read my post at all?

And the Democratic p****ies in charge won't bring it back in anything close to the current for because of the phantom "filibuster" threat (somehow Republicans managed to pass legislation for 6 years without a filibuster proof majority).

In fact, I didn't lay one word of blame at "Republicans".

banyon
02-08-2010, 08:17 PM
You have convinced me, the Republicans are owned by the lobbyists. Good thing the Democrats have our best interests at heart or the lobbyists would own DC.:rolleyes:

You people are clearly responding based on my name and not on actually reading the article (or my post). The article doesn't make any such partisan distinctions.

Maybe I should've just posted an opening post with ellipses ("...") and you guys could fill in what you wished I had posted from there.

banyon
02-08-2010, 08:19 PM
If big corporations are responsible for killing that abomination, then thank God for big corporations.

They truly do have our best interests at heart.

FTR, I didn't want the piece of s*** bill they had out there either, but it had already been watered down three times by the insurance companies before it got to the floor of the Senate.

fan4ever
02-08-2010, 08:19 PM
You people are clearly responding based on my name and not on actually reading the article (or my post). The article doesn't make any such partisan distinctions.

Maybe I should've just posted an opening post with ellipses ("...") and you guys could fill in what you wished I had posted from there.

The article was boring compared to your rant.

petegz28
02-08-2010, 08:21 PM
You people are clearly responding based on my name and not on actually reading the article (or my post). The article doesn't make any such partisan distinctions.

Maybe I should've just posted an opening post with ellipses ("...") and you guys could fill in what you wished I had posted from there.

Maybe so, but your tone seemed to come across that way. My bad.

wazu
02-08-2010, 08:34 PM
They truly do have our best interests at heart.

I work for a corporation, and in case you are curious I truly do have my customers' best interests at heart.

Dallas Chief
02-08-2010, 08:45 PM
You people are clearly responding based on my name and not on actually reading the article (or my post). The article doesn't make any such partisan distinctions.

Maybe I should've just posted an opening post with ellipses ("...") and you guys could fill in what you wished I had posted from there.

I'm with you on this banyon. It is a complete travesty what the legislative process has become in our country. From my perspective the only way to minimize this influence is to clean house of the vermin on both sides and keep doing so at least once every 10 years or so. Just my opinion, but something needs to be done...
Posted via Mobile Device

BigRedChief
02-08-2010, 08:48 PM
I work for a corporation, and in case you are curious I truly do have my customers' best interests at heart.that may be true for you and your company. But the vast majority of corporations are selfish business's out to maximize profit, Thats the nature of the beast.

BucEyedPea
02-08-2010, 09:00 PM
The article was boring compared to your rant.

LMAO

BucEyedPea
02-08-2010, 09:02 PM
that may be true for you and your company. But the vast majority of corporations are selfish business's out to maximize profit, Thats the nature of the beast.

Better making a profit serving customers who vote with their dollars than those feeding at the public trough for things we don't want while forcing us to pay for it.

banyon
02-08-2010, 09:05 PM
I work for a corporation, and in case you are curious I truly do have my customers' best interests at heart.

This retreat is an abomination to democracy. I'm glad you like your job, but it doesn't make this right.

banyon
02-08-2010, 09:06 PM
Better making a profit serving customers who vote with their dollars than those feeding at the public trough for things we don't want while forcing us to pay for it.

LOL, like insurance companies don't feed at the public trough.

stevieray
02-08-2010, 09:07 PM
that may be true for you and your company. But the vast majority of corporations are selfish business's out to maximize profit, Thats the nature of the beast.

do you have any extra money from your paycheck after you pay your bills?

selfish bastard.

BucEyedPea
02-08-2010, 09:07 PM
LOL, like insurance companies don't feed at the public trough.

Where have I ever backed the idea of any corp benefitting from govt gauranteed markets? Nowhere! That's what your program does. Think about it.

banyon
02-08-2010, 09:09 PM
Where have I ever backed the idea of any corp benefitting from govt gauranteed markets? Nowhere! That's what your program does. Think about it.

I didn't say you did, but your answer naively assumed the converse.

banyon
02-08-2010, 09:10 PM
do you have any extra money from your paycheck after you pay your bills?

selfish bastard.

Yeah, you're either J. P. Morgan or St. Francis of Assisi. There is nothing in between.

stevieray
02-08-2010, 09:23 PM
Yeah, you're either J. P. Morgan or St. Francis of Assisi. There is nothing in between.

it's not matter of in between..it's a matter of difference..and there is none.

BucEyedPea
02-08-2010, 09:29 PM
I didn't say you did, but your answer naively assumed the converse.

Converse? is that a proper use of that? Thought it was shoe manufacturer.

Nope sorry, if you're not familiar with my stands by now, then I don't know what to say. But you definitely extrapolated that on your own using B7W logic.

banyon
02-08-2010, 09:51 PM
Converse? is that a proper use of that? Thought it was shoe manufacturer.

Nope sorry, if you're not familiar with my stands by now, then I don't know what to say. But you definitely extrapolated that on your own using B7W logic.

I'm pretty familiar with "your stands", such as they are.

But you still missed my point entirely.

Donger
02-08-2010, 09:53 PM
Meh. As long as it's dead, I don't really care what killed it.

Donger
02-08-2010, 09:54 PM
Oh, that's right, Teddy killed it. Forgot for a little bit.

SNR
02-08-2010, 11:07 PM
The lobbyists won't touch this bill. There's no way the special interests are going to have their way with anything being legislated over health care. Obama even said so. He'll put a stop to this.

SNR
02-08-2010, 11:10 PM
Guess who you guys helped with your unwitting corporate-enabling rhetoric?

I love how you're laying the death of this bill at the feet of a few posters on a football forum.

Grow up.

Brock
02-08-2010, 11:10 PM
It's dead because the democrats don't have the balls to try and do it at the expense of their own jobs.

T-post Tom
02-08-2010, 11:20 PM
Yeah, you're either J. P. Morgan or St. Francis of Assisi. There is nothing in between.

ROFL

dirk digler
02-08-2010, 11:21 PM
It's dead because the democrats don't have the balls to try and do it at the expense of their own jobs.

Pretty much. I know people won't like what I say but instead of doing what is right they chose to do nothing.

T-post Tom
02-08-2010, 11:24 PM
$3.2 billion on federal lobbying last year

/

535 members of the House and Senate

=

JUST UNDER $6,000,000 PER MEMBER

That's one year. :(

Brock
02-08-2010, 11:29 PM
That's just change.

T-post Tom
02-08-2010, 11:46 PM
That's just change.


Yeah, for an uber rich international playboy like yourself. That's retirement for the rest of us average joes here at CP.

Saggysack
02-09-2010, 12:16 AM
I'm with you on this banyon. It is a complete travesty what the legislative process has become in our country. From my perspective the only way to minimize this influence is to clean house of the vermin on both sides and keep doing so at least once every 10 years or so. Just my opinion, but something needs to be done...
Posted via Mobile Device

The poison that is in all political circles is the lobbyist. You wan't to clean up politics. Make lobbying a crime. Lobbying is a legal form of political bribery.

I've come to the conclusion that term limits whether they be self-imposed or not, is not the real solution to clean up politics. Anyone that enters into national politics anymore has pretty much one goal in mind. Fill their pockets full of cash and screw the people that voted for them.

Shaid
02-09-2010, 12:39 AM
Everyone blames insurance companies because it's easy. Hardly anyone likes them because you only hear about the bad stuff and what wasn't covered. If you want to fix this you start at the source and work from there. Here's the order as I see it.

1. Malpractice Insurance/lawsuits
2. High cost of medical equipment, etc. - A nebulizer is a small underpowered air compressor. Should it really cost $200-$300?
3. Inappropriate billing practices - Noone should be able to bill thousands of dollars for a 15 minute procedure.
4. Ridiculously overpriced medication - all kinds of things we can talk about here.
5. Standardize and digitize medical records. This helps doctor, pharmacists, insurance companies, etc.
6. Insurance companies inappropriate practices.

I seriously beleive that if you fix the up-front cost issues you would be amazed at how easy it is for insurance companies to bring down premiums and limit their denials. You have to start where the high costs begin and work from there or you will never fix it.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-09-2010, 01:19 AM
If by Lobbyists you mean every normal American citizen who has 2 brain cells to rub together i guess you're correct, this bill was a piece of crap to begin with and Thank the Lord it's dead now. The term lobbyist includes your average everyday joe that wants to see change so i don't see the L word as taboo. The insurance companies lost when this bill got shot down, this would have hurt the poor/middle class the worst.

HonestChieffan
02-09-2010, 07:08 AM
The OP is such a twisted effort it is amazing.

"And the more likely person doing the throwing would be a lobbyist, tossing coins in the air to keep the playful legislator’s attention. The other day, the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics reported that more than 15,600 companies spent at least $3.2 billion on federal lobbying last year. Five hundred thirty-five members of the House and Senate, more than 13,000 registered lobbyists in DC -- you do the math."

How much was spent in total on lobbying? Was it $3.2 Billion? If it was, and we don't know that, then the assertion that this was spent by 15,600 companies is false. Are the Lawyers a "company"? Who donates more than the lawyers to political campaigns and lobby efforts? Are the Unions a "company"?

The simple truth is that for every dollar spent by one side on an issue, there is an equal dollar spent on the opposing side on the same issue. This constant bashing of business always is done on a veil of self serving goodness by the anti business folk.

If you want to bash lobbying the be at least honest enough to put all the rats in the bag including the Public employee Unions, the Lawyers, the NEA, and ACORN, Enviros and their fellows.

BigRedChief
02-09-2010, 08:06 AM
Everyone blames insurance companies because it's easy. Hardly anyone likes them because you only hear about the bad stuff and what wasn't covered. If you want to fix this you start at the source and work from there. Here's the order as I see it.

1. Malpractice Insurance/lawsuits
2. High cost of medical equipment, etc. - A nebulizer is a small underpowered air compressor. Should it really cost $200-$300?
3. Inappropriate billing practices - Noone should be able to bill thousands of dollars for a 15 minute procedure.
4. Ridiculously overpriced medication - all kinds of things we can talk about here.
5. Standardize and digitize medical records. This helps doctor, pharmacists, insurance companies, etc.
6. Insurance companies inappropriate practices.

I seriously beleive that if you fix the up-front cost issues you would be amazed at how easy it is for insurance companies to bring down premiums and limit their denials. You have to start where the high costs begin and work from there or you will never fix it.Didn't some company in California raise their rates 39% claming they had to because of increased costs but, they made $2 billion profit in the 4th quarter? Did I hear that right?

You think a nebulizer is a big cost savings? jeeezzz The big cost is end of life care and us spending almost 40% of every health care $ in the final 6 months of our lifes. Try saving money there....:rolleyes:

Royal Fanatic
02-09-2010, 08:15 AM
Didn't some company in California raise their rates 39% claming they had to because of increased costs but, they made $2 billion profit in the 4th quarter? Did I hear that right?

That was for individual policyholders who are free to drop that company and buy their insurance from a different insurance company.

That is a problem better addressed by free market competition than government regulation. If the government wants to pass legislation encouraging competition, I'm all for that.

patteeu
02-09-2010, 08:20 AM
If big corporations are responsible for killing that abomination, then thank God for big corporations.

+1

patteeu
02-09-2010, 08:23 AM
This retreat is an abomination to democracy.

What do you mean?

Do you have the impression that there were lobbyists on only one side of this issue?

patteeu
02-09-2010, 08:27 AM
The poison that is in all political circles is the lobbyist. You wan't to clean up politics. Make lobbying a crime. Lobbying is a legal form of political bribery.

Are there any other parts of the bill of rights that you'd do away with while you're at it?

talastan
02-09-2010, 11:59 AM
This thread = "Screw you guys, I'm taking my ball and going home!"

Come on Banyon, I know you strongly supported this but you had to see this coming. The only thing these baffoons in DC care about is power and money. The Dems had all the votes they needed to pass this thing and still couldn't muster the courage. The fact is the reason why this bill didn't pass didn't have anything to do with lobbyists, corporations, etc. It was because a majority of the American citizens were pissed as hell that these idiots were considering taking over a large fraction of our economy under government control. When the people spoke up the politicians who like to be employed listened.

patteeu
02-09-2010, 12:26 PM
This thread = "Screw you guys, I'm taking my ball and going home!"

Come on Banyon, I know you strongly supported this but you had to see this coming. The only thing these baffoons in DC care about is power and money. The Dems had all the votes they needed to pass this thing and still couldn't muster the courage. The fact is the reason why this bill didn't pass didn't have anything to do with lobbyists, corporations, etc. It was because a majority of the American citizens were pissed as hell that these idiots were considering taking over a large fraction of our economy under government control. When the people spoke up the politicians who like to be employed listened.

Two things.

1. IIRC, banyon has said that at the end of the day he was against the plan. He may have had high hopes for the prospects for a health care bill under Obama and his huge dem majorities, but he was disillusioned by their product. This makes it all the more hard to understand why he's so bent out of shape by the fact that it was blocked, IMO.

2. Even though it's true that it was citizen opposition that gang tackled health care short of the goal line here, to a large degree it's the funding and the strategy of special interests (imperfectly referred to as lobbyists) on both sides of the issue that lead to the PR that either succeeds or fails in mobilizing the citizens. My opinion is that a lot of the anger toward lobbyists is misplaced. And it's certainly far from true that lobbyists only play on one side of an issue.

Chief Henry
02-09-2010, 12:42 PM
Evidently banyon was fine with the IRS being MORE involved in our personal lives with this debackle of a health care bill. It needed to be killed. Will the next bill have the IRS so dramatically involved ? Lets hope not.

Evil corporations employee how many in this country ?????

irishjayhawk
02-09-2010, 03:01 PM
It's a pretty simple failure by Democrats: not knowing how to bargain.

Hardball single payer with your supermajority until they compromise with public option and sail it thru.

Brock
02-09-2010, 03:06 PM
They know how to do it, they're just unwilling to sacrifice their seats for it.

irishjayhawk
02-09-2010, 04:23 PM
They know how to do it, they're just unwilling to sacrifice their seats for it.

Funny thing is, they wouldn't sacrifice their seats. Everyone thinks their congressman is the best ever and its the rest that need changin.

Scott Brown isn't an counter-example, by the way.

Brock
02-09-2010, 04:26 PM
Funny thing is, they wouldn't sacrifice their seats. Everyone thinks their congressman is the best ever and its the rest that need changin.

Scott Brown isn't an counter-example, by the way.

They're scared (and bought out). It's just that simple.

Reaper16
02-09-2010, 04:30 PM
It died last March when it was first being reported that Obama was meeting with Insurance lobbyists and industry people with decided regularity.

irishjayhawk
02-09-2010, 04:55 PM
They're scared (and bought out). It's just that simple.

Well, no doubt. My point is they shouldn't be if they study Poly Sci 101 or Psyc 101.

BigRedChief
02-09-2010, 07:38 PM
Aetna raises premiums 40% after they made $3,000,000,000 in the 4th quater. Thats right they made $3 Billion in profit in only 25% of a calendar year and still raised premium 40% on people. Naked greed is obsene.

yeah we don't need health care reform....

RedNeckRaider
02-09-2010, 07:48 PM
Aetna raises premiums 40% after they made $3,000,000,000 in the 4th quater. Thats right they made $3 Billion in profit in only 25% of a calendar year and still raised premium 40% on people. Naked greed is obsene.

yeah we don't need health care reform....

Nobody and I mean nobody in their right mind believes that. The right is trying to take some sort of high ground on this and **** them. The right has never done a damn thing about the issues with healthcare. That said **** the left and the shameful crap they are trying to pull. What the left is attempting is naked stupidity~

HonestChieffan
02-09-2010, 07:49 PM
Aetna raises premiums 40% after they made $3,000,000,000 in the 4th quater. Thats right they made $3 Billion in profit in only 25% of a calendar year and still raised premium 40% on people. Naked greed is obsene.

yeah we don't need health care reform....

Every time someone goes off on this deal the numbers change.

Saul Good
02-09-2010, 07:54 PM
Oh, that's right, Teddy killed it. Forgot for a little bit.

Death by ten thousand Chivas.

RedNeckRaider
02-09-2010, 07:56 PM
Death by ten thousand Chivas.

Did Ted cut down his consumption in the final days?

Saul Good
02-09-2010, 08:01 PM
Did Ted cut down his consumption in the final days?

You'd have to ask his bartender. What I do know is that, if he had stepped down when he was no longer able to carry out his Senatorial duties, Brown wouldn't have had time to mount his amazing comeback, and this bill would have passed by now.

RedNeckRaider
02-09-2010, 08:04 PM
You'd have to ask his bartender. What I do know is that, if he had stepped down when he was no longer able to carry out his Senatorial duties, Brown wouldn't have had time to mount his amazing comeback, and this bill would have passed by now.
The greatest service Ted ever did for this country was die~

HonestChieffan
02-09-2010, 08:08 PM
Aetna raises premiums 40% after they made $3,000,000,000 in the 4th quater. Thats right they made $3 Billion in profit in only 25% of a calendar year and still raised premium 40% on people. Naked greed is obsene.

yeah we don't need health care reform....

If you care to read something factual...

http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20100205/NEWS01/100209946

penchief
02-09-2010, 08:09 PM
LMAO.....yes the Fed Gov is so much better for us

A federal government of the people, by the people, and for the people is always better than a federal government corrupted by powerful interests.

You must be forgetting that representative government is the basis of our democracy. The problem is not representative government. The problem is undue influence.

But you righties go ahead and keep on preaching that undue influence equates to individual liberty. You're getting what you want.

fan4ever
02-09-2010, 08:12 PM
They know how to do it, they're just unwilling to sacrifice their seats for it.

Well I think you have to give these people some credit...it could be more than just political survival; I mean if you gave a crap about the polls, and that a large portion of the electorate was against this bill, would you let your political career tank for a guy who's just concerned about his legacy and feeding his enormous ego???

Brock
02-09-2010, 08:13 PM
A federal government of the people, by the people, and for the people is always better than a federal government corrupted by powerful interests.

You must be forgetting that representative government is the basis of our democracy. The problem is not representative government. The problem is undue influence.

But you righties go ahead and keep on preaching that undue influence equates to individual liberty.

Idealistic nonsense. What you are mourning in that post never existed.

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-09-2010, 08:14 PM
I work for a corporation, and in case you are curious I truly do have my customers' best interests at heart.

If you honestly believe that the company you work for does, you are one dumb sonofabitch.

Corporations are required by law to be about one thing: making as much money for their shareholders as humanly possible.

RedNeckRaider
02-09-2010, 08:16 PM
A federal government of the people, by the people, and for the people is always better than a federal government corrupted by powerful interests.

You must be forgetting that representative government is the basis of our democracy. The problem is not representative government. The problem is undue influence.

But you righties go ahead and keep on preaching that undue influence equates to individual liberty. You're getting what you want.

That went away years and years ago. It sounds cool and is repeated with great pride but sadly like everything else that comes out of DC it is nothing more than hollow words~

fan4ever
02-09-2010, 08:21 PM
A federal government of the people, by the people, and for the people is always better than a federal government corrupted by powerful interests.

You must be forgetting that representative government is the basis of our democracy. The problem is not representative government. The problem is undue influence.

But you righties go ahead and keep on preaching that undue influence equates to individual liberty. You're getting what you want.

I sure am glad the Democrats are immune to any "undue influence" ...:rolleyes:

penchief
02-09-2010, 08:21 PM
Idealistic nonsense. What you are mourning in that post never existed.

It exists in degrees. There were times in our history that we were closer to that ideal than we are now. There were times when we were trending that way instead of the corrupt direction we've been trending for the past thirty plus years.

Just because the ideal has never been completely realized doesn't mean that we should not strive for that which is proper. You would rather give in to corporate interests and allow corporations to dictate the conditions under which our society functions?

When good public policy takes a back seat to corporate greed then you might as well kiss the ideal of representative government goodbye. I'm glad that you're on board with American citizens becoming the subjects of a corporate dictatorship.

penchief
02-09-2010, 08:22 PM
I sure am glad the Democrats are immune to any "undue influence" ...:rolleyes:

Never said they were dumbass.

Norman Einstein
02-09-2010, 08:23 PM
Maybe now, with the abortion of a government run health system defeated, we can get a true bill written with reform as it's base rather than the bag of worms that was originally submitted.

We need reform, we need people that truly need help taken care of. I hope that when the bill is passed it contains verbage that will make those that do not have insurance but are capable of paying for it don't live off of the taxpayers.

I doubt the parties will actually work together, but that would be the best bet in my opinion.

KCTitus
02-09-2010, 08:24 PM
When good public policy takes a back seat to corporate greed then you might as well kiss the ideal of representative government goodbye. I'm glad that you're on board with American citizens becoming the subjects of a corporate dictatorship.

Only problem is this was not 'good' public policy. Frankly, there is no such thing.

HonestChieffan
02-09-2010, 08:25 PM
If you honestly believe that the company you work for does, you are one dumb sonofabitch.

Corporations are required by law to be about one thing: making as much money for their shareholders as humanly possible.

That may be true for some, certainly not all, and there are many dedicated people who believe and work hard to serve customers. Im with Adam on this one. You cannot be successful in any business without a balance of comapny and customer.

penchief
02-09-2010, 08:27 PM
That went away years and years ago. It sounds cool and is repeated with great pride but sadly like everything else that comes out of DC it is nothing more than hollow words~

Because too many people who call themselves patriots and call themselves conservatives buy into the right wing corporate talking points instead of staying true to the ideals this country was founded upon. It's only hollow because people like yourselves are willing to participate in partisan politics which are designed to divide and conquer, and thereby, undermine representative government.

RINGLEADER
02-09-2010, 08:31 PM
If big corporations are responsible for killing that abomination, then thank God for big corporations.

I still can't understand why the Dems and Obama think that calling the GOP the "party of no" in regards to health care is going to work when the vast majority of the public -- most notably independents -- WANT the GOP to say no.

And, for the record, it was Obama/Dem hubris that sunk this deal.

BTW, is Pelosi scaling the fence or parachutting over the wall at the moment?

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-09-2010, 08:33 PM
That may be true for some, certainly not all, and there are many dedicated people who believe and work hard to serve customers. Im with Adam on this one. You cannot be successful in any business without a balance of comapny and customer.

You are conflating individuals with the corporation.

The fact of the matter is that if CEOs don't deliver ever increasing profits for their shareholders, they will be out on their ass, and that is often inimical to thinking both long term and for the best interests of their customers.

Of course, it's not like there's really an example of this, like say the financial industry from 1999-2008.

RedNeckRaider
02-09-2010, 08:33 PM
Because too many people who call themselves patriots and call themselves conservatives buy into the right wing corporate talking points instead of staying true to the ideals this country was founded upon. It's only hollow because people like yourselves are willing to participate in partisan politics which are designed to divide and conquer, and thereby, undermine representative government.

Piss off you arrogant fuck like your leftwing bat shit is the answer. People like yourselves play the same fucking game for the left as those on the right. I am a shit load closer to the middle than your leftwing ass~

petegz28
02-09-2010, 08:36 PM
A federal government of the people, by the people, and for the people is always better than a federal government corrupted by powerful interests.

You must be forgetting that representative government is the basis of our democracy. The problem is not representative government. The problem is undue influence.

But you righties go ahead and keep on preaching that undue influence equates to individual liberty. You're getting what you want.

LMAO, you said this with a straight face too, didn't you?

BigRedChief
02-09-2010, 08:36 PM
That may be true for some, certainly not all, and there are many dedicated people who believe and work hard to serve customers. Im with Adam on this one. You cannot be successful in any business without a balance of comapny and customer.So Aetna making $3 billion in profit in a single Q and raising their insurance premiumns 40% is good for the cutomer. okay, got it.

penchief
02-09-2010, 08:37 PM
Only problem is this was not 'good' public policy. Frankly, there is no such thing.

Absolutely there is such a thing. Disease prevention is good public policy. Clean air, water, and soil is good public policy. Law and order is good public policy.

The reason good public health care policy is nearly impossible is because from the get go corporate interests have tried to corrupt it into something that ultimately becomes another corporate windfall, ala Medicare, which is now a corporate welfare program.

I don't understand why so many people are opposed to returning the people's power to the people and limiting the influence that corporate money has on good public policy such as health care and environmental preservation.

HonestChieffan
02-09-2010, 08:39 PM
So Aetna making $3 billion in profit in a single Q and raising their insurance premiumns 40% is good for the cutomer. okay, got it.

They didnt. But you go on as you were.

BigRedChief
02-09-2010, 08:41 PM
A federal government of the people, by the people, and for the people is always better than a federal government corrupted by powerful interests.

You must be forgetting that representative government is the basis of our democracy. The problem is not representative government. The problem is undue influence.

But you righties go ahead and keep on preaching that undue influence equates to individual liberty. You're getting what you want.Thats one thing about the righties that I don't understand. They yell and scream loudly for personal liberty, and a government of the people, a limited government but then they applaud corporations buying politicians. Applaud corporate greed, Greed is not good,

petegz28
02-09-2010, 08:43 PM
Thats one thing about the righties that I don't understand. They yell and scream loudly for personal liberty, and a government of the people, a limited government but then they applaud corporations buying politicians. Applaud corporate greed, Greed is not good,

Yea, cause no one on the Left has ever been bought by a corporation. This is just pure partisan BS you are spewing.

fan4ever
02-09-2010, 08:43 PM
Never said they were dumbass.

No? "Righties" means democrats and lefties too? And try to be civil; just because your arguments are ignorant you don't have to let your personality follow.

penchief
02-09-2010, 08:46 PM
Piss off you arrogant **** like your leftwing bat shit is the answer. People like yourselves play the same ****ing game for the left as those on the right. I am a shit load closer to the middle than your leftwing ass~

I disagree with your assessment. In the mind of today's rightie anything not in line with their extreme views is considered far leftwing or communist. Hell, just look at how many righties actually think that Fox is unbiased and anything remotely objective is far leftwing or communist.

I consider myself more conservative on a lot of issues than many people who call themselves conservative. Right wing extremism is not at all conservative. In my opinion, traditional conservatives are closer to traditonal liberals than they are the right wing reactionaries that dominate the political right today.

penchief
02-09-2010, 08:49 PM
No? "Righties" means democrats and lefties too? And try to be civil; just because your arguments are ignorant you don't have to let your personality follow.

Oh, I'll just roll my eyes next time to show my disdain. Both parties are corrupted by corporate influence but it's pretty clear which party is completely bought and paid for.

As far as left and right go, I don't necessarily consider conservatives as righties. I respect true conservatives. The problem with the republican party these days is that it is dominated by right wing reactionary rhetoric.

HonestChieffan
02-09-2010, 08:50 PM
Thats one thing about the righties that I don't understand. They yell and scream loudly for personal liberty, and a government of the people, a limited government but then they applaud corporations buying politicians. Applaud corporate greed, Greed is not good,

Well you can always make up some more numbers to illustrate that Im sure. Smaller government requires less buying of politicians. Thats good isnt it?

penchief
02-09-2010, 08:51 PM
Thats one thing about the righties that I don't understand. They yell and scream loudly for personal liberty, and a government of the people, a limited government but then they applaud corporations buying politicians. Applaud corporate greed, Greed is not good,

Undue influence = freedom of speech

Corporate dictates = individual liberty

BigRedChief
02-09-2010, 08:51 PM
Yea, cause no one on the Left has ever been bought by a corporation. This is just pure partisan BS you are spewing.BS, I was talking about the hypocrisy of the Repblicans saying personal liberty is all important and then cheer when their liberty is stolen and bought by corporations.

Of course Dems take the corporate money as much as Republicans do. Thats the system. And its broke.

petegz28
02-09-2010, 08:52 PM
So Aetna making $3 billion in profit in a single Q and raising their insurance premiumns 40% is good for the cutomer. okay, got it.

Ummm....Aetna:

Net Profit Margin: 3.67%
Revenues: $34,764 bil

Some basic math

3.67% of $34.764 bil = roughly $1.276 bil

That's their Trailing Twelve Months (TTM) numbers

HonestChieffan
02-09-2010, 08:54 PM
http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20100205/NEWS01/100209946

BRC is having a flashback I think...

RedNeckRaider
02-09-2010, 08:54 PM
I disagree with your assessment. In the mind of today's rightie anything not in line with their extreme views is considered far leftwing or communist. Hell, just look at how many righties actually think that Fox is unbiased and anything remotely objective is far leftwing or communist.

I consider myself more conservative on a lot of issues than many people who call themselves conservative. Right wing extremism is not at all conservative. In my opinion, traditional conservatives are closer to traditonal liberals than they are the right wing reactionaries that dominate the political right today.

I owe you an apology I took offense to your post and responded with poor form. You remained civil and for that I tip my hat~

fan4ever
02-09-2010, 08:56 PM
Oh, I'll just roll my eyes next time to show my disdain. Both parties are corrupted by corporate influence but it's pretty clear which party is completely bought and paid for.

As far as left and right go, I don't necessarily consider conservatives as righties. I respect true conservatives. The problem with the republican party these days is that it is dominated by right wing reactionary rhetoric.

IMO the Republican Party has more moderates, like the Democrats, than I think most people realize...it's the "lefties" and "righties" that get all the headlines and attention...that's why when people from either party campaign, they both hide their far right/far left leanings...but I do appreciate you keeping your points on an adult level.

petegz28
02-09-2010, 08:58 PM
More on Aetna and the exposure of your bullshit...

For the nine months ended Spet. 30, 2009, Aetna's revenues inreased 12% to $26.01B. Net income DECREASED 7% to $1.11B.

Hardly even close to the $3 bil you claim they profited in 1 quarter.

petegz28
02-09-2010, 09:00 PM
BS, I was talking about the hypocrisy of the Repblicans saying personal liberty is all important and then cheer when their liberty is stolen and bought by corporations.

Of course Dems take the corporate money as much as Republicans do. Thats the system. And its broke.

Yea, cause there are no hyporcitial Dems though, heh??? The hypocricy lies strictly on the Right. LMAO

fan4ever
02-09-2010, 09:01 PM
Oh, I'll just roll my eyes next time to show my disdain. Both parties are corrupted by corporate influence but it's pretty clear which party is completely bought and paid for.

As far as left and right go, I don't necessarily consider conservatives as righties. I respect true conservatives. The problem with the republican party these days is that it is dominated by right wing reactionary rhetoric.

...and if you think one party is bought and paid for and the other isn't I don't think you're looking at the world in an unbiased way...both are steeped in corruption...

You say you are a conservative, but I don't know...if it walks like a duck...

BigRedChief
02-09-2010, 09:01 PM
Ummm....Aetna:

Net Profit Margin: 3.67%
Revenues: $34,764 bil

Some basic math

3.67% of $34.764 bil = roughly $1.276 bil

That's their Trailing Twelve Months (TTM) numbersokay so I had some bogus #'s from somewhere. Lets take your #'s.

A health care company in this economy makes a $1 billion profit doesnt need to raise premiums above the rate of inflation unless they are greedy. A Billion is a nice profit.

dirk digler
02-09-2010, 09:02 PM
So Aetna making $3 billion in profit in a single Q and raising their insurance premiumns 40% is good for the cutomer. okay, got it.

It wasn't Aetna it was Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield. They made $2.7 billion in 4th quarter profit and now are raising their rates 39%.

petegz28
02-09-2010, 09:04 PM
okay so I had some bogus #'s from somewhere. Lets take your #'s.

A health care company in this economy makes a $1 billion profit doesnt need to raise premiums above the rate of inflation unless they are greedy. A Billion is a nice profit.

Do you not pay attention? Their revenues INCREASED 12%. Their net income DECREASED 7%.

And AGAIN, their Net Profit Marginis 3.67%. GDP was just reported at 5% and 3.5% in the quarter before that.

You
you're barking up the wrong tree, son.

dirk digler
02-09-2010, 09:05 PM
The Obama administration and state insurance officials pressured Anthem Blue Cross on Monday to justify its decision to raise rates by as much as 39 percent for thousands of outraged and frustrated California customers.U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius asked Anthem to explain its "extraordinary" premium increases for its individual policyholders.

Meanwhile, the state Department of Insurance demanded that Anthem delay its rate increases until May 1 to give the state time to investigate. Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner said last week that he plans to hire an outside actuarial firm to make sure Anthem is spending at least 70 cents of each premium dollar on benefits.

The Obama administration and Poizner's office were prompted to act after Anthem members with individual policies - those who are not covered through employer-sponsored or group plans - were told last week that they would have to pay premiums up to 39 percent higher than their current rates. The Woodland Hills (Los Angeles County) company would not say how many people will be affected, but Anthem has as many as 800,000 individual policyholders - more than any other for-profit insurer - in the state.

Obama reacts

President Obama appears to be using Anthem's decision to increase rates to bolster efforts to revive the stalled health overhaul effort in Congress. In a CBS interview with Katie Couric on Sunday, Obama referred to Anthem's hikes as a reason why reform is needed.

On Monday, Sebelius told the health insurer's president, Leslie Margolin, that Anthem has a responsibility to explain the increases, especially at a time when its parent company, WellPoint Inc., is earning strong profits.

"These extraordinary increases are up to 15 times faster than inflation and threaten to make health care unaffordable for hundreds of thousands of Californians, many of whom are already struggling to make ends meet in a difficult economy," Sebelius wrote, adding that WellPoint earned $2.7 billion in the last quarter of 2009 alone.

Anthem officials have blamed the increases on rising medical costs. They said they received the state insurance commissioner's request to delay the hikes, but had not yet prepared a response.

Consumers grappling with the new rates welcomed the attention given to the issue by Washington and Sacramento.
Charlie Lichtman, 60, of San Francisco was shocked when he learned Anthem planned to raise his rates from $534 a month to $736 a month on March 1, a nearly 38 percent increase. But because Lichtman has HIV, he knows there is nothing he can do.

"Because of my lovely pre-existing condition, I can't go shopping around. I'm basically trapped with them until I hit 65 and get to go on Medicare," said Lichtman, a self-employed computer and telephone wiring consultant who maintains his health with a cocktail of drugs.

Lichtman is considering raising his deductible from $5,000 to $7,500 a year to make his coverage more affordable. "It feels like extortion. There's no negotiating," he said. "You pay more ... or you don't have health insurance."

Tom Stillman, a part-time mathematics instructor at the University of San Francisco, called the increases "immoral" and has already fired off letters to state congressional leaders.

Stillman, 50, said his monthly premiums have gone from $318 in February 2009 to $679 in March - a 113.5 percent increase in just over a year.

Insurer explains hikes

Health insurers in California can raise rates for policyholders as much as they want and whenever they want. State regulators can oversee the increases to make sure they are handled correctly under the law, but have no power to control the rates.

Anthem, for its part, said higher medical costs as well as a smaller pool of members to absorb the risk made raising rates necessary.
"Unfortunately, in the weak economy many people who do not have health conditions are forgoing buying insurance," the company wrote in a statement Monday responding to Sebelius' letter. "This leaves fewer people, often with significantly greater medical needs, in the insured pool. We regret the impact this has on our members."

That provided little comfort to Marilee Brooks of San Mateo, a widow with three children 10 years and under who was hit with a 39 percent increase for the family.

"I just wish the politicians in Washington would truly look at this problem and say we need to find a solution for the American people," she said. "I feel as a consumer I'm completely powerless."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/08/BACL1BUD95.DTL#ixzz0f6Azi0pl

petegz28
02-09-2010, 09:06 PM
It wasn't Aetna it was Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield. They made $2.7 billion in 4th quarter profit and now are raising their rates 39%.

They aren't a publicly traded company so I will have to take your word on it.

penchief
02-09-2010, 09:07 PM
Yea, cause no one on the Left has ever been bought by a corporation. This is just pure partisan BS you are spewing.

Both parties are corrupted by corporate influence. But there is no denying that it has been republicans that have been obstructing health care reform.

Health care is not the only issue in which republicans have done the bidding of corporate interests. Republicans have traditionally taken their cue from the corporate establishment. Whether you want to talk about deregulation, environmental protections, CAFE standards, etc. etc. etc. Doesn't matter what the policy has been. For the past three decades they have pretty much always taken the side of corporations over policies designed to promote the general welfare.

It started in earnest with the Reagan Revolution (the original neocons) and is still going strong. Hell, even after the debacle resulting from the deregulation of banks and Wall Street, Mitt Romney was telling the world at the republican convention how John McCain was going to continue "taking a weed wacker to regulations."

It is true that democrats are just as vulnerable to corporate corruption but it is equally true that republicans completely sold out a long time ago. Both truths point to exactly why we need to prevent corporations from dictating public policy. And the only way to do that is to get rid of lobbying. It's time to return the people's representative government to the people.

petegz28
02-09-2010, 09:08 PM
The Obama administration and state insurance officials pressured Anthem Blue Cross on Monday to justify its decision to raise rates by as much as 39 percent for thousands of outraged and frustrated California customers.U.S. Health and Human ShamWow!s Secretary Kathleen Sebelius asked Anthem to explain its "extraordinary" premium increases for its individual policyholders.

Meanwhile, the state Department of Insurance demanded that Anthem delay its rate increases until May 1 to give the state time to investigate. Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner said last week that he plans to hire an outside actuarial firm to make sure Anthem is spending at least 70 cents of each premium dollar on benefits.

The Obama administration and Poizner's office were prompted to act after Anthem members with individual policies - those who are not covered through employer-sponsored or group plans - were told last week that they would have to pay premiums up to 39 percent higher than their current rates. The Woodland Hills (Los Angeles County) company would not say how many people will be affected, but Anthem has as many as 800,000 individual policyholders - more than any other for-profit insurer - in the state.

Obama reacts

President Obama appears to be using Anthem's decision to increase rates to bolster efforts to revive the stalled health overhaul effort in Congress. In a CBS interview with Katie Couric on Sunday, Obama referred to Anthem's hikes as a reason why reform is needed.

On Monday, Sebelius told the health insurer's president, Leslie Margolin, that Anthem has a responsibility to explain the increases, especially at a time when its parent company, WellPoint Inc., is earning strong profits.

"These extraordinary increases are up to 15 times faster than inflation and threaten to make health care unaffordable for hundreds of thousands of Californians, many of whom are already struggling to make ends meet in a difficult economy," Sebelius wrote, adding that WellPoint earned $2.7 billion in the last quarter of 2009 alone.

Anthem officials have blamed the increases on rising medical costs. They said they received the state insurance commissioner's request to delay the hikes, but had not yet prepared a response.

Consumers grappling with the new rates welcomed the attention given to the issue by Washington and Sacramento.
Charlie Lichtman, 60, of San Francisco was shocked when he learned Anthem planned to raise his rates from $534 a month to $736 a month on March 1, a nearly 38 percent increase. But because Lichtman has HIV, he knows there is nothing he can do.

"Because of my lovely pre-existing condition, I can't go shopping around. I'm basically trapped with them until I hit 65 and get to go on Medicare," said Lichtman, a self-employed hungry, hungry hippo and telephone wiring consultant who maintains his health with a cocktail of drugs.

Lichtman is considering raising his deductible from $5,000 to $7,500 a year to make his coverage more affordable. "It feels like extortion. There's no negotiating," he said. "You pay more ... or you don't have health insurance."

Tom Stillman, a part-time mathematics instructor at the University of San Francisco, called the increases "immoral" and has already fired off letters to state congressional leaders.

Stillman, 50, said his monthly premiums have gone from $318 in February 2009 to $679 in March - a 113.5 percent increase in just over a year.

Insurer explains hikes

Health insurers in California can raise rates for policyholders as much as they want and whenever they want. State regulators can oversee the increases to make sure they are handled correctly under the law, but have no power to control the rates.

Anthem, for its part, said higher medical costs as well as a smaller pool of members to absorb the risk made raising rates necessary.
"Unfortunately, in the weak economy many people who do not have health conditions are forgoing buying insurance," the company wrote in a statement Monday responding to Sebelius' letter. "This leaves fewer people, often with significantly greater medical needs, in the insured pool. We regret the impact this has on our members."

That provided little comfort to Marilee Brooks of San Mateo, a widow with three children 10 years and under who was hit with a 39 percent increase for the family.

"I just wish the politicians in Washington would truly look at this problem and say we need to find a solution for the American people," she said. "I feel as a consumer I'm completely powerless."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/08/BACL1BUD95.DTL#ixzz0f6Azi0pl


This is why you allow pre-existing conditions and get rid of the State line crap. Then these people could give this company the finger and go elsewhere.

BTW, did I notice they are a CA company?

dirk digler
02-09-2010, 09:08 PM
They aren't a publicly traded company so I will have to take your word on it.

I posted the story above. It seems obscene.

petegz28
02-09-2010, 09:09 PM
Both parties are corrupted by corporate influence. But there is no denying that it has been republicans that have been obstructing health care reform.

Health care is not the only issue in which republicans have done the bidding of corporate interests. Republicans have traditionally taken their cue from the corporate establishment. Whether you want to talk about deregulation, environmental protections, CAFE standards, etc. etc. etc. Doesn't matter what the policy has been. They have always taken the side of corporations over policies designed to promote the general welfare.

It started in earnest with the Reagan Revolution (the original neocons) and is still going strong. Hell, even after the debacle resulting from the deregulation of banks and Wall Street, Mitt Romney was telling the world at the republican convention how John McCain was going to continue "taking a weed wacker to regulations."

It is true that democrats are just as vulnerable to corporate corruption but it is equally true that republicans completely sold out a long time ago. Both truths point to exactly why we need to prevent corporations from dictating public policy. And the only way to do that is to get rid of lobbying. It's time to return the people's representative government to the people.

Son, get this through your partisan head once and for all. The Dems need 0 votes from Repubs. 0, NONE, NADA, ZILCH even. So to say the Repubs obstructed all this crap is one big fat ****ing lie.

dirk digler
02-09-2010, 09:10 PM
This is why you allow pre-existing conditions and get rid of the State line crap. Then these people could give this company the finger and go elsewhere.

BTW, did I notice they are a CA company?

Yep they are from CA which maybe part of the problem. Still 39% is pretty outrageous.

The scary thing is things start in CA and tend to move across the country. I think we are going to see more of this not less.

petegz28
02-09-2010, 09:12 PM
Yep they are from CA which maybe part of the problem. Still 39% is pretty outrageous.

The scary thing is things start in CA and tend to move across the country. I think we are going to see more of this not less.

I am curious how much Sens. Feinstean, Boxer and Rep. Pelosi receive from them in way of contributions and support?

BigRedChief
02-09-2010, 09:12 PM
Do you not pay attention? Their revenues INCREASED 12%. Their net income DECREASED 7%.

And AGAIN, their Net Profit Marginis 3.67%. GDP was just reported at 5% and 3.5% in the quarter before that.

You
you're barking up the wrong tree, son.Sorry, Dirk cleared it up. It was Anthem, My point is valid. I just had the wrong company.

penchief
02-09-2010, 09:12 PM
I owe you an apology I took offense to your post and responded with poor form. You remained civil and for that I tip my hat~

No problem. I'm used to it when I wade into these waters. No offense was taken. But I appreciate the apology anyway.

petegz28
02-09-2010, 09:15 PM
Sorry, Dirk cleared it up. It was Anthem, My point is valid. I just had the wrong company.

And the CA State legislature has done nothing to change the laws. How ironic.

dirk digler
02-09-2010, 09:16 PM
And the CA State legislature has done nothing to change the laws. How ironic.

What laws could they change to prevent this?

RedNeckRaider
02-09-2010, 09:19 PM
No problem. I'm used to it when I wade into these waters. No offense was taken. But I appreciate the apology anyway.

I enjoy a spirited debate but sometimes I let my emotions get the best of me. There are some here who bring out the worst in me and I aviod responding to them because of it~

Brock
02-09-2010, 09:19 PM
Oh, I'll just roll my eyes next time to show my disdain. Both parties are corrupted by corporate influence but it's pretty clear which party is completely bought and paid for.

Right, it's the one that has all the power right now and for some strange reason is doing nothing with it.

dirk digler
02-09-2010, 09:22 PM
You know what is interesting about Anthem, their parent company is actually WellPoint which is based in Indiana. The same Wellpoint that cut their own employees health insurance and had them lobby Congress to block health care reform and spent millions lobbying Congress to block health care reform.

penchief
02-09-2010, 09:24 PM
...and if you think one party is bought and paid for and the other isn't I don't think you're looking at the world in an unbiased way...both are steeped in corruption...

You say you are a conservative, but I don't know...if it walks like a duck...

Let's be clear. I'm a liberal. But that entails being conservative in a lot of ways. More conservative, IMO, than many positions taken by the reactioinary right wing which too often cloaks itself in the virtues of conservatism.

Yes, democrats are just as vulnerable to corruption as republicans. However, when it comes to placing corporate interests above the interests of the general public, the republican party's record speaks for itself. It's not even close. The republican party has been the vehicle by which the corporate establishment has advanced it's agenda and cemented its supremacy over American society. Followed only by the propoganda of the corporate media.

petegz28
02-09-2010, 09:27 PM
What laws could they change to prevent this?

They could give the State insurance board more power to control rate hikes and the such. In other words, they could give them the power to sue the company for price gouging much how we like to do with gas stations.

petegz28
02-09-2010, 09:31 PM
You know what is interesting about Anthem, their parent company is actually WellPoint which is based in Indiana. The same Wellpoint that cut their own employees health insurance and had them lobby Congress to block health care reform and spent millions lobbying Congress to block health care reform.

Yea, see now this is something worth bitching about here.

For the fical year ended Dec. 21, 2009 WellPoint Inc's revenues increased 6% to $65.03b. Net income increased 91% to $4.75B. Their Ne tProfit Margin is 7.3%. Double what Aetna's is.

penchief
02-09-2010, 09:32 PM
Right, it's the one that has all the power right now and for some strange reason is doing nothing with it.

Something we agree on. Democrats are pussies. And for that reason I can't stand the party. They have the power to do the people's will and yet they cower to a republican minorty that somehow rams it's agenda down our throats with far less power than the democrats currently have. Don't even get me started about the democratic congress.

But that still doesn't excuse republicans for obstructing any and all forms of health care reform out of knee-jerk ideological reaction and corporate advocacy. It would have taken only one republican.

fan4ever
02-09-2010, 09:33 PM
Let's be clear. I'm a liberal. But that entails being conservative in a lot of ways. More conservative, IMO, than many positions taken by the reactioinary right wing which too often cloaks itself in the virtues of conservatism.

Yes, democrats are just as vulnerable to corruption as republicans. However, when it comes to placing corporate interests above the interests of the general public, the republican party's record speaks for itself. It's not even close. The republican party has been the vehicle by which the corporate establishment has advanced it's agenda and cemented its supremacy over American society. Followed only by the propoganda of the corporate media.

I don't agree; not sure we can come to any common ground but I'm sure curious as the some of the issues you consider yourself conservative on.

Brock
02-09-2010, 09:33 PM
Something we agree on. Democrats are pussies. And for that reason I can't stand the party. They have the power to do the people's will and yet they cower to a republican minorty that somehow rams it's agenda down our throats with far less power than the democrats currently have. Don't even get me started about the democratic congress.

But that still doesn't excuse republicans for obstructing any and all forms of health care reform out of knee-jerk ideological reaction and corporate advocacy. It would have taken only one republican.

They're on the same lap the republicans are sitting on. I've told you this before, take the goddamn blinders off.

petegz28
02-09-2010, 09:35 PM
WellPoint's EPS was up over 100%+ in 2009 compared to 2008. And up over 300% in the 4thQ compared the 3rdQ

penchief
02-09-2010, 09:35 PM
Son, get this through your partisan head once and for all. The Dems need 0 votes from Repubs. 0, NONE, NADA, ZILCH even. So to say the Repubs obstructed all this crap is one big fat ****ing lie.

They needed zero until Massachusettes, correct? Now they need one. Otherwise the republicans can invoke cloture, correct?

petegz28
02-09-2010, 09:36 PM
Something we agree on. Democrats are pussies. And for that reason I can't stand the party. They have the power to do the people's will and yet they cower to a republican minorty that somehow rams it's agenda down our throats with far less power than the democrats currently have. Don't even get me started about the democratic congress.

But that still doesn't excuse republicans for obstructing any and all forms of health care reform out of knee-jerk ideological reaction and corporate advocacy. It would have taken only one republican.

What did they obstruct? Not 1 Repub vote was needed for anything so HTF could they obstruct anything?

petegz28
02-09-2010, 09:36 PM
They needed zero until Massachusettes, correct? Now they need one. Otherwise the republicans can invoke cloture, correct?

So up until 2 weeks ago...WOW. Your accusation said the Repubs obstructed this. And that is bullshit and you know it. The Dems have well over a year to pass this without 1 Repub vote.

fan4ever
02-09-2010, 09:38 PM
They're on the same lap the republicans are sitting on. I've told you this before, take the goddamn blinders off.

Whether you are bought off by corporations or special interest groups and unions, I'm not sure I see a superior brand of corruption...

dirk digler
02-09-2010, 09:40 PM
Yea, see now this is something worth bitching about here.

For the fical year ended Dec. 21, 2009 WellPoint Inc's revenues increased 6% to $65.03b. Net income increased 91% to $4.75B. Their Ne tProfit Margin is 7.3%. Double what Aetna's is.

Yep. They cut their own workers health insurance but spent $4.7 million lobbying Congress to kill health care reform.

And people wonder why alot of people hate health insurance companies.

BigRedChief
02-09-2010, 09:41 PM
Yep. They cut their own workers health insurance but spent $4.7 million lobbying Congress to kill health care reform.

And people wonder why alot of people hate health insurance companies.yeah, we don't need any stinking health care reform.

BucEyedPea
02-09-2010, 09:42 PM
Yep. They cut their own workers health insurance but spent $4.7 million lobbying Congress to kill health care reform.

And people wonder why alot of people hate health insurance companies.

They wouldn't have had to spend it if no one made that horrific attempt at fake reform. Blame that one on the Obama Administration, Pelosi and Reid. Govt involvement in this stuff leads to higher prices.

petegz28
02-09-2010, 09:44 PM
Yep. They cut their own workers health insurance but spent $4.7 million lobbying Congress to kill health care reform.

And people wonder why alot of people hate health insurance companies.

Which is why I woud like to know how much Sens. Boxer, Feinstein, Byhe and Rep. Pelosi get from these people???

BigRedChief
02-09-2010, 09:45 PM
Which is why I woud like to know how much Sens. Boxer, Feinstein, Byhe and Rep. Pelosi get from these people???I'm sure the record will show a boatload of money.

dirk digler
02-09-2010, 09:45 PM
They wouldn't have had to spend it if no one made that horrific attempt at fake reform. Blame that one on the Obama Administration, Pelosi and Reid. Govt involvement in this stuff leads to higher prices.

BS BEP. This company made almost $3 billion in profits but they cut their own workers health benefits . You can't blame that on anybody but themselves.

petegz28
02-09-2010, 09:47 PM
BS BEP. This company made almost $3 billion in profits but they cut their own workers health benefits . You can't blame that on anybody but themselves.

BEP supports the Wal-Mart business model. You have to remember that.

dirk digler
02-09-2010, 09:49 PM
Which is why I woud like to know how much Sens. Boxer, Feinstein, Byhe and Rep. Pelosi get from these people???

Here you go

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00197228&cycle=2010

petegz28
02-09-2010, 09:50 PM
WellPoint's year includes the following:

Presence of gain on sale of business (fair enough)
increased net investment income (fair enough)
presence of net realized gain vs. loss on investments (fair enough)
lower selling expense (how did they lower it?)
decreased costs of drugs (how did they decrease the costs?)
lower benefit expense (how did this lower? I think we know)

BigRedChief
02-09-2010, 09:50 PM
BS BEP. This company made almost $3 billion in profits but they cut their own workers health benefits . You can't blame that on anybody but themselves.corporate greed is Obamas fault?

dirk digler
02-09-2010, 09:51 PM
I didn't know Wellpoint ran BCBS here in MO. Fuck me running.

Ironically, WellPoint is one of a handful of insurance companies that have a virtual iron grip on the insurance market in almost every state. The American Medical Association reports that 94 percent of insurance markets in more than 300 metropolitan areas are now highly concentrated. WellPoint runs Blue Cross-Blue Shield plans in 14 states. In Maine, for example, WellPoint controls 78% of the health insurance market. It dominates the market in Missouri, with 68% of the business, as well as in its home state of Indiana (60%), Georgia (61%), New Hampshire (51%), Kentucky (59%), Connecticut (55%), Virginia (50%), Ohio (41%, with the next largest company garnering only 17% of the market), and Colorado (with 29%, larger than runner-up United Health Group, with 24% of market share). In New York and California, WellPoint ranks second, with 21% and 20% of the health insurance market, respectively, in those two huge states.

BigRedChief
02-09-2010, 09:52 PM
WellPoint's year includes the following:
lower benefit expense (how did this lower? I think we know)And the moral reason we need health care reform.

petegz28
02-09-2010, 09:52 PM
Here you go

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00197228&cycle=2010

Surprrisingly Feinstein is the only one of note.

penchief
02-09-2010, 09:52 PM
I don't agree; not sure we can come to any common ground but I'm sure curious as the some of the issues you consider yourself conservative on.

The enviromnent. Unjustified military invasions of sovereign nations. Corporate welfare programs. Although I am a fiscal conservative I do believe that if we are going to spend money it should be on our own infrastructure, our own schools, and our own health care delivery system.

The areas I believe that traditional conservatives and traditional liberals are close cousins are individual liberty and privacy issues. There may be a slight difference in the ideal of expanding freedoms (such as gay rights) but I believe it is literally conservative to respect the rights of others. I also believe it is a conservative ideal to protect the privacy rights of citizens. I think that much of what is called liberal such as human rights, civil rights, privacy rights, legal protections, etc are literally conservative ideals.

On the other hand some of the things that the right wing has come to embrace in this country such as aggressive war, torture, human rights violations, domestic wiretapping, suspension of legal rights, erosion of civil liberties, deregulating envrironmental protections, corporate welfare, etc. are not only antithetical to the liberal tradition but also defy conservative sensibilities.

petegz28
02-09-2010, 09:53 PM
And the moral reason we need health care reform.

No one argues that, BRC. Like the Repubs said several times, and I support, knock down the State Line restrictions and pre-existing conditions and companies like this can't monopolize a State the way they are.

BigRedChief
02-09-2010, 10:01 PM
No one argues that, BRC. Like the Repubs said several times, and I support, knock down the State Line restrictions and pre-existing conditions and companies like this can't monopolize a State the way they are.Add in they can't drop coverage when you get sick. Raise rates 40% at a time. and I can get behind that.

dirk digler
02-09-2010, 10:06 PM
This company is a bunch of assholes

Netting $2.5 billion in profits last year wasn't enough for WellPoint, the nation's largest insurance company.

Now, WellPoint's affiliate, Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, is suing the state of Maine for refusing to guarantee it a profit margin in the midst of a painful recession.

As if Mainers didn't have enough to worry about just struggling to put food on the table, WellPoint is intent on forcing them to cough up 18.5% higher premiums on their insurance policies.

penchief
02-09-2010, 10:08 PM
They're on the same lap the republicans are sitting on. I've told you this before, take the goddamn blinders off.

Then who are the ones that wanted a public option? I don't deny that there are democrats playing the game, too. But why are you denying that it would only take a couple republicans to get something done for the people? There are some democrats wanting to take that step. There are no republicans.

And it's the same story over and over again. Whether we are discussing deregulation, CAFE standards, energy policy, etc. There is obviously some disagreement in congress otherwise there wouldn't be so much animosity and watering down of proposals.

I'm not denying that the problem exists throughout both parties. Why are you denying that the problem even exists? If we can agree that both parties are at fault why can't we agree on getting rid of the root problem, corporate influence?

It's funny that we can argue about who in congress believes what or who is bought and paid for. But one thing we can't argue about is who on this board seems willing to defend corporate corruption of congress and who is calling to do something about it.

Regardless of what anyone claims about democrats in congress its clear that the liberals on this board want to do something about undue corporate influence while "conservatives" seem to be okay with the corruption, content to point the finger at both parties and move on as though nothing need be done. Same thing with health care. Republicans are the ones who appear to be content with the status quo.

BigRedChief
02-09-2010, 10:08 PM
This company is a bunch of assholesI thought Blue Cross and Blue Shied was a non-profit?

patteeu
02-09-2010, 10:08 PM
If you care to read something factual...

http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20100205/NEWS01/100209946

Wow. Owned.

petegz28
02-09-2010, 10:08 PM
Add in they can't drop coverage when you get sick. Raise rates 40% at a time. and I can get behind that.

Not 40% at a time but if you get sick and start eating up benefits you should be expected to pay more.

petegz28
02-09-2010, 10:09 PM
Wow. Owned.

He already said he mispoke about Aetna and meant Anthem.

dirk digler
02-09-2010, 10:12 PM
I thought Blue Cross and Blue Shied was a non-profit?

Their parent company, Wellpoint, isn't.

BigRedChief
02-09-2010, 10:14 PM
Wow. Owned.no, I got aetna and anthem confused.
An insurance company did make $3 billion profit in 1Q and then raise premiums 40%.

petegz28
02-09-2010, 10:15 PM
Their parent company, Wellpoint, isn't.

They should either be forced to spin-off BCBS or lose it's non-profit status.

BigRedChief
02-09-2010, 10:15 PM
Their parent company, Wellpoint, isn't.How is that possible? A profit company owning a non-profit? Thats not right.

fan4ever
02-09-2010, 10:17 PM
The enviromnent. Unjustified military invasions of sovereign nations. Corporate welfare programs. Although I am a fiscal conservative I do believe that if we are going to spend money it should be on our own infrastructure, our own schools, and our own health care delivery system.

The areas I believe that traditional conservatives and traditional liberals are close cousins are individual liberty and privacy issues. There may be a slight difference in the ideal of expanding freedoms (such as gay rights) but I believe it is literally conservative to respect the rights of others. I also believe it is a conservative ideal to protect the privacy rights of citizens. I think that much of what is called liberal such as human rights, civil rights, privacy rights, legal protections, etc are literally conservative ideals.

On the other hand some of the things that the right wing has come to embrace in this country such as aggressive war, torture, human rights violations, domestic wiretapping, suspension of legal rights, erosion of civil liberties, deregulating envrironmental protections, corporate welfare, etc. are not only antithetical to the liberal tradition but also defy conservative sensibilities.

You're an interesting "hybrid" and I don't strongly disagree with much of what you listed. To pick just one topic, what about the environment do you take a conservative stance upon?

fan4ever
02-09-2010, 10:23 PM
The enviromnent. Unjustified military invasions of sovereign nations. Corporate welfare programs. Although I am a fiscal conservative I do believe that if we are going to spend money it should be on our own infrastructure, our own schools, and our own health care delivery system.

The areas I believe that traditional conservatives and traditional liberals are close cousins are individual liberty and privacy issues. There may be a slight difference in the ideal of expanding freedoms (such as gay rights) but I believe it is literally conservative to respect the rights of others. I also believe it is a conservative ideal to protect the privacy rights of citizens. I think that much of what is called liberal such as human rights, civil rights, privacy rights, legal protections, etc are literally conservative ideals.

On the other hand some of the things that the right wing has come to embrace in this country such as aggressive war, torture, human rights violations, domestic wiretapping, suspension of legal rights, erosion of civil liberties, deregulating envrironmental protections, corporate welfare, etc. are not only antithetical to the liberal tradition but also defy conservative sensibilities.

...and just to clarify a bit, no one is in support of "unjustified invasion of sovereign nations"...it depends on what your definition of "unjustified" is where the details matter...like many of the topics you covered.

patteeu
02-09-2010, 10:28 PM
okay so I had some bogus #'s from somewhere. Lets take your #'s.

A health care company in this economy makes a $1 billion profit doesnt need to raise premiums above the rate of inflation unless they are greedy. A Billion is a nice profit.

For heaven's sake BRC, you should stop while you're behind. His numbers indicated a mere 3.67% profit margin. Big companies are going to make high dollar profits and high dollar losses, but their profit margins tell the real story and 3.67% isn't at all excessive. Check the profit margin of a brewery for comparison (AB Inbev had a 3rd qtr adjusted profit margin of 36.4% (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/anheuser-busch-inbev-q3-net-doubled-2009-11-12) last year). If Aetna were made up of 10 equal sized companies instead of one big one, each company would have only made $100 mil profit. Would that have helped you feel better even though it's the exact same result per investment dollar?

petegz28
02-09-2010, 10:29 PM
For heaven's sake BRC, you should stop while you're behind. His numbers indicated a mere 3.67% profit margin. Big companies are going to make high dollar profits and high dollar losses, but their profit margins tell the real story and 3.67% isn't at all excessive. Check the profit margin of a brewery for comparison (AB Inbev had a 3rd qtr adjusted profit margin of 36.4% (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/anheuser-busch-inbev-q3-net-doubled-2009-11-12) last year). If Aetna were made up of 10 equal sized companies instead of one big one, each company would have only made $100 mil profit. Would that have helped you feel better even though it's the exact same result per investment dollar?

patteeu, he was talking about Anthem, not Aetna. He was confused and has admitted so.

Taco John
02-09-2010, 10:30 PM
[COLOR="Blue"]Well, you ultra-libertarians and partisan ideologues got what you wanted, the health care bill is dead.



I just wanted to repeat this for its sheer awesomeness.

Power to the people. Live your life folks, as best you can. Advance your own self interests, while observing the rights of others to advance theirs. And give a hand up when you see someone you can help who is ready to seize the day.

dirk digler
02-09-2010, 10:31 PM
patteeu, he was talking about Anthem, not Aetna. He was confused and has admitted so.

LMAO

Pat's dialup must be on turtle speed.

penchief
02-09-2010, 10:37 PM
You're an interesting "hybrid" and I don't strongly disagree with much of what you listed. To pick just one topic, what about the environment do you take a conservative stance upon?

It is not conservative to enhance corporate profits at the expense of environmental degradation when safeguards and limits can prevent the degradation at the expense of some of the profit. That would be reckless and irresponsible. To me, conservative means to be pragmatic and practical. There is nothing pragmatic or practical about placing temporary profits above the quality of human existance or the long term survival of the human race.

When it comes to the environment (our natural habitat) it is conservative to proceed cautiously and with science rather than commerce as our guide. If there is any doubt that we are doing irreversable harm we should hold back until we know for sure or until safegaurds are developed. To not treat our natural habitat with the utmost respect it deserves is reckless, not conservative.

fan4ever
02-09-2010, 10:44 PM
It is not conservative to enhance corporate profits at the expense of environmental degradation when safeguards and limits can prevent the degradation at the expense of some of the profit. That would be reckless and irresponsible. To me, conservative means to be pragmatic and practical. There is nothing pragmatic or practical about placing temporary profits above the quality of human existance or the long term survival of the human race.

When it comes to the environment (our natural habitat) it is conservative to proceed cautiously and with science rather than commerce as our guide. If there is any doubt that we are doing irreversable harm we should hold back until we know for sure or until safegaurds are developed. To not treat our natural habitat with the utmost respect it deserves is reckless, not conservative.

So where does that place you on Global Warming/Cap and Trade?

penchief
02-09-2010, 10:44 PM
...and just to clarify a bit, no one is in support of "unjustified invasion of sovereign nations"...it depends on what your definition of "unjustified" is where the details matter...like many of the topics you covered.

Afghanistan was justified in order to strike at those who attacked us on 9/11. Iraq was an unjustified invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation. Iraq was the product of a neocon agenda.

patteeu
02-09-2010, 10:45 PM
You're an interesting "hybrid" and I don't strongly disagree with much of what you listed. To pick just one topic, what about the environment do you take a conservative stance upon?

Not really that interesting. penchief likes to use a lot of fluffy words that sound really good but don't really have much meaning. In the rare event when you can decipher what he's really talking about you'll find that he's a run-of-the-mill liberal extremist. Don't let him pull your leg about being more conservative than conservatives or about being pragmatic.

patteeu
02-09-2010, 10:46 PM
...and just to clarify a bit, no one is in support of "unjustified invasion of sovereign nations"...it depends on what your definition of "unjustified" is where the details matter...like many of the topics you covered.

Oh, you're catching onto pen's game quickly. :thumb:

RJ
02-09-2010, 10:49 PM
[QUOTE=banyon;6517320Maybe I should've just posted an opening post with ellipses ("...") and you guys could fill in what you wished I had posted from there.[/QUOTE]


That's a cool idea, you should try it.

patteeu
02-09-2010, 10:55 PM
He already said he mispoke about Aetna and meant Anthem.

He and dirk are wrong about Anthem too (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/28/business/la-fi-wellpoint28-2010jan28). Anthem didn't make $3 bil profit or even $2.7 bil profit. It was Anthem's parent company that made that profit. And 80% of that profit comes from a one time sale of a their NextRx pharmacy benefit management subsidiaries. Anthem accounts for only a fraction of the remaining profit. It's completely disingenuous to associate Wellpoint's non-Anthem profits with Anthem's business decision to increase premiums driven by the declining risk pool coupled with an increased risk.

BRC and dirk bled all over this issue.

dirk digler
02-09-2010, 11:11 PM
He and dirk are wrong about Anthem too (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/28/business/la-fi-wellpoint28-2010jan28). Anthem didn't make $3 bil profit or even $2.7 bil profit. It was Anthem's parent company that made that profit. And 80% of that profit comes from a one time sale of a their NextRx pharmacy benefit management subsidiaries. Anthem accounts for only a fraction of the remaining profit. It's completely disingenuous to associate Wellpoint's non-Anthem profits with Anthem's business decision to increase premiums driven by the declining risk pool coupled with an increased risk.

BRC and dirk bled all over this issue.

Well duh we have been talking about Wellpoint for 2 hours now. You need to pedal harder.

Anyway Wellpoint made a profit of $2.5 billion in 2008 as well.

And yet they spent $4.7 million this past year in lobbying to kill health care reform and cut their own employees heath care benefits. They are a wonderful model of a company.

penchief
02-09-2010, 11:20 PM
So where does that place you on Global Warming/Cap and Trade?

To me it has become so convoluted with politics and special interests that cap and trade literally means nothing to me. Just like the health care debate, it has become such a cluster**** that no matter what the result it is it is bound to be bad and corrupt policy. But that is the problem. The partisan political environment that we live in does not even allow for practical solutions to be discussed without heated rhetoric or distortions designed to torpedo that which one side deems undesirable. The truth means nothing.

When it comes to protecting the environment I'm perfectly fine with common sense regulatons that safeguard the environment until we have the facts or until we develop solutions that allow us to move forward safely. But even that is unacceptable to the right if it interferes with corporate profits. As for global warming, I think there is enough data to be concerned and to proceed with caution. It is impossible for any of us to know what the world will be like in the future. But if we have enough reason to be concerned we probably ought to be concerned.

I'm not going to say that those who believe that global warming is a hoax are idiots because nobody knows. But that is the point. Those who claim it is a hoax don't know either. We have been learning about the effects of greenhouse gases since I was an elementary school lad. It's not like Al Gore started a rumor 40 years ago just so he could win a Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. Yet that is what some on the right would want you to believe.

I just don't understand how anyone can be so sure it is a hoax. And I think it is silly to act as if the evidence we've been presented doesn't support the notion that global warming quite possibly exists. Consdering some of the data and considering some of the trends that have been attributed to global warming, I think it is irresponsible not to take the threat seriously and not to proceed with caution.

Unfortunately, the political sideshow has only undermined the process by injecting emotion and partisanship into that which should be dealt with rationally and with measured steps forward. And the entire ****ing political circus has left me totally disillusioned.

patteeu
02-10-2010, 06:44 AM
Well duh we have been talking about Wellpoint for 2 hours now. You need to pedal harder.

Anyway Wellpoint made a profit of $2.5 billion in 2008 as well.

And yet they spent $4.7 million this past year in lobbying to kill health care reform and cut their own employees heath care benefits. They are a wonderful model of a company.

Duh, that's why I pointed out that you were wrong about Anthem and Wellpoint all this time. You've been talking about them, but you've had it wildly wrong.

Wellpoint didn't make a profit "as well". They made the profit and Anthem DIDN'T. It's a joke to equate the two, especially when you look into how Wellpoint made that profit. Talk about peddling harder, everything you and BRC have said about insurance company profits in this thread has been ridiculously off base.

Thank goodness for outfits like Wellpoint that helped fight against the health care bill.

BigRedChief
02-10-2010, 07:22 AM
Thank goodness for outfits like Wellpoint that helped fight against the health care bill.So you are okay with corporations fighting your battles for you? You don't see a possible conflict of interest here? Maybe next time they oppose something you favor. Giving up our liberty to corporations is never going to end well for us or our liberty.

BucEyedPea
02-10-2010, 08:18 AM
BEP supports the Wal-Mart business model. You have to remember that.

No I don't support any business model. I support freedom, limited govt under our Constitution which allows any business model to exist so long as it doesn't infringe fundamental inalienable rights—not the fake entitlment rights the left keeps promoting ( healthcare, a job, that one's business has a right to exist despite competition). It worked before, it can work again.

BucEyedPea
02-10-2010, 08:22 AM
BS BEP. This company made almost $3 billion in profits but they cut their own workers health benefits . You can't blame that on anybody but themselves.

It's not BS at all! Not when you look at what you posted. You complained they spent all that money on lobbying. You act like it's yours to spend. It isn't.

They were lobbying to protect their enterprise. As I've said many times before, if we just follow the Constitution, them most lobbying wouldn't need to be done. When Washington DC keeps insisting on it's right to intervene for egalitarian purposes and entitlements it sets up a vicious circle with each persons hand in the other person's pocket.

BIG govt doesn't work. It generates all kinds of unintended consequences.

wild1
02-10-2010, 08:24 AM
Well, you ultra-libertarians and partisan ideologues got what you wanted, the health care bill is dead. And the Democratic p****ies in charge won't bring it back in anything close to the current for because of the phantom "filibuster" threat (somehow Republicans managed to pass legislation for 6 years without a filibuster proof majority).

Well, why do you think they are unwilling to vote for their own proposals?

They know the public does not want the government in charge of this aspect of their lives. They want a government takeover from an ideological standpoint, but they aren't willing to give up their own power to make it happen.

It's demonstrative of how trustworthy the Dems in Congress are: not.

patteeu
02-10-2010, 08:52 AM
So you are okay with corporations fighting your battles for you? You don't see a possible conflict of interest here? Maybe next time they oppose something you favor. Giving up our liberty to corporations is never going to end well for us or our liberty.

Conflict of interest? Loss of liberty? WTF are you talking about? There is neither a conflict of interest nor a loss of liberty here.

There are special interests on both sides of nearly every issue. I don't have a problem with that in a general sense, but of course I oppose those special interests that fight against me and applaud those that fight with me.

petegz28
02-10-2010, 09:16 AM
He and dirk are wrong about Anthem too (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/28/business/la-fi-wellpoint28-2010jan28). Anthem didn't make $3 bil profit or even $2.7 bil profit. It was Anthem's parent company that made that profit. And 80% of that profit comes from a one time sale of a their NextRx pharmacy benefit management subsidiaries. Anthem accounts for only a fraction of the remaining profit. It's completely disingenuous to associate Wellpoint's non-Anthem profits with Anthem's business decision to increase premiums driven by the declining risk pool coupled with an increased risk.

BRC and dirk bled all over this issue.

Let's see the numbers on Anthem, please.

mlyonsd
02-10-2010, 09:17 AM
So lobbyists that work with republicans are bad, lobbyists that work with Obama's administration are good? Is that the jist of this thread?

BucEyedPea
02-10-2010, 09:22 AM
So lobbyists that work with republicans are bad, lobbyists that work with Obama's administration are good? Is that the jist of this thread?

Essentially

BigRedChief
02-10-2010, 09:22 AM
Conflict of interest? Loss of liberty? WTF are you talking about? There is neither a conflict of interest nor a loss of liberty here.

There are special interests on both sides of nearly every issue. I don't have a problem with that in a general sense, but of course I oppose those special interests that fight against me and applaud those that fight with me.you make my point. The corporations are the ones with the money. You think your congressman is going to listen to to you or the corporation that gave him $100K for his campaign? Maybe that corporation is on your side, maybe they arn't.

patteeu
02-10-2010, 09:28 AM
Let's see the numbers on Anthem, please.

I don't have the numbers for Anthem, but if they're identical to the parent company's I'll eat my mouse. No one else in this thread has had the numbers for Anthem either, which is the point. They're misquoting numbers for Anthem that really belong to the parent company and completely ignoring that a huge chunk of that number comes from a one time subsidiary sale that had nothing to do with Anthem operations.

patteeu
02-10-2010, 09:30 AM
you make my point. The corporations are the ones with the money. You think your congressman is going to listen to to you or the corporation that gave him $100K for his campaign? Maybe that corporation is on your side, maybe they arn't.

I don't make your point if your point had anything to do with conflicts of interest or loss of freedom. No corporation gives a candidate $100K for his campaign. That's against the law (although IMO it shouldn't be).

KC native
02-10-2010, 10:04 AM
I don't have the numbers for Anthem, but if they're identical to the parent company's I'll eat my mouse. No one else in this thread has had the numbers for Anthem either, which is the point. They're misquoting numbers for Anthem that really belong to the parent company and completely ignoring that a huge chunk of that number comes from a one time subsidiary sale that had nothing to do with Anthem operations.

Hey patty, since you want to play financial analyst now...How about you delve into the amount of premium increases that can be attributed to insurance companies investment losses? You are aware that they were heavily into derivatives and what was thought to be AAA paper right? How about we delve into their corporate real estate holdings or look at how they tried to reach for yield and got burned on it?

Do you think it's fair that policy holders get raked over the coals with premium increases because these companies are yet another cog in what's wrong with the financial world?

patteeu
02-10-2010, 10:20 AM
Hey patty, since you want to play financial analyst now...How about you delve into the amount of premium increases that can be attributed to insurance companies investment losses? You are aware that they were heavily into derivatives and what was thought to be AAA paper right? How about we delve into their corporate real estate holdings or look at how they tried to reach for yield and got burned on it?

Do you think it's fair that policy holders get raked over the coals with premium increases because these companies are yet another cog in what's wrong with the financial world?

I think it's fair for insurance companies, who make it possible for so many people to get expensive health care treatment that they otherwise wouldn't be able to afford, to make a profit off of their customers. Don't you?

KC native
02-10-2010, 10:21 AM
I think it's fair for insurance companies, who make it possible for so many people to get expensive health care treatment that they otherwise wouldn't be able to afford, to make a profit off of their customers. Don't you?

Nice sidestep there pat. Please answer the question.

patteeu
02-10-2010, 10:25 AM
Nice sidestep there pat. Please answer the question.

I don't accept the premise of the question. I don't consider a voluntary relationship between a customer and a vendor to be a case of being "raked over the coals".

KC native
02-10-2010, 10:30 AM
I don't accept the premise of the question. I don't consider a voluntary relationship between a customer and a vendor to be a case of being "raked over the coals".

Nice sidestep again there. I wouldn't characterize health insurance as a voluntary relationship in a country that lacks a single payor option. I know you're going to because you attempt to frame and twist everything to fit your dead ender world view but going without health insurance in our country isn't a viable option for almost everyone.

Framing the issue how you want to avoid my question doesn't change the fact that policy holders don't make the investment decisions for insurance companies and that policy holders are facing rising premiums due to the insurance companies poor decisions.

So, do you feel it's right for insurance companies to charge their policy holders who had no role in their investment decisions more because of the insurance companies' losses?

patteeu
02-10-2010, 10:39 AM
Nice sidestep again there. I wouldn't characterize health insurance as a voluntary relationship in a country that lacks a single payor option. I know you're going to because you attempt to frame and twist everything to fit your dead ender world view but going without health insurance in our country isn't a viable option for almost everyone.

It's always voluntary as long as people have the right to refuse it. How many of Anthem's customers are compelled to buy their product? The answer is none. Not only that, but they also have other options albeit not as many as they'd have if the market weren't so heavily mis-regulated. No, it's definitely voluntary.

Framing the issue how you want to avoid my question doesn't change the fact that policy holders don't make the investment decisions for insurance companies and that policy holders are facing rising premiums due to the insurance companies poor decisions.

So, do you feel it's right for insurance companies to charge their policy holders who had no role in their investment decisions more because of the insurance companies' losses?

I've already answered this question. I think a company has a right to make a profit off of it's customers, even if that means it's making up for poor business decisions by increasing it's prices. At the same time, customers have the right to refuse to buy a company's product if they don't believe they're getting their money's worth.

KC native
02-10-2010, 11:09 AM
It's always voluntary as long as people have the right to refuse it. How many of Anthem's customers are compelled to buy their product? The answer is none. Not only that, but they also have other options albeit not as many as they'd have if the market weren't so heavily mis-regulated. No, it's definitely voluntary.



I've already answered this question. I think a company has a right to make a profit off of it's customers, even if that means it's making up for poor business decisions by increasing it's prices. At the same time, customers have the right to refuse to buy a company's product if they don't believe they're getting their money's worth.

Nice fantasy land there. Do you have rainbows there everyday too?

BigRedChief
02-10-2010, 11:11 AM
It's always voluntary as long as people have the right to refuse it. How many of Anthem's customers are compelled to buy their product? The answer is none. Not only that, but they also have other options albeit not as many as they'd have if the market weren't so heavily mis-regulated. No, it's definitely voluntary.If you have Anthem insurance through your work, you wouldn't have a choice. And to try to buy health insurance as an individual is cost prohibitive.

more and more companies are going to a single insurance company. They are getting "deals" to stay with them only that are too hard to turn down.

patteeu
02-10-2010, 11:12 AM
Nice fantasy land there. Do you have rainbows there everyday too?

Again, I have a problem with the premise of your question.

patteeu
02-10-2010, 11:14 AM
If you have Anthem insurance through your work, you wouldn't have a choice. And to try to buy health insurance as an individual is cost prohibitive.

more and more companies are going to a single insurance company. They are getting "deals" to stay with them only that are too hard to turn down.

Of course you do. You have the choice of going without coverage or getting your own.

Perhaps more importantly, your company has the choice of choosing a different vendor if the current vendor is actually screwing it's customers the way you, dirk, and naive are trying to say they are. BTW, if the "deals" they're getting are too hard to turn down, then the insurance companies aren't really screwing their customers.

KC native
02-10-2010, 11:15 AM
Again, I have a problem with the premise of your question because it doesn't fit how I want to frame the argument.

FYP

BigRedChief
02-10-2010, 11:15 AM
Of course you do. You have the choice of going without coverage or getting your own.

Perhaps more importantly, your company has the choice of choosing a different vendor if the current vendor is actually screwing it's customers the way you, dirk, and naive are trying to say they are.
So you have a choice to take what the insurance compnay gives you at work or go broke buying insurance on the open market? Thats the plan?

petegz28
02-10-2010, 11:17 AM
Of course you do. You have the choice of going without coverage or getting your own.

Perhaps more importantly, your company has the choice of choosing a different vendor if the current vendor is actually screwing it's customers the way you, dirk, and naive are trying to say they are. BTW, if the "deals" they're getting are too hard to turn down, then the insurance companies aren't really screwing their customers.

I have to side with the other side on this to a point. People need access to affordable coverage. That does not mean they have to be mandated. That does not mean they shouldn't pay more if they have a pre-existing condition or suck up benefits. That being said, I don't approve of a gas station price gouging and I have to question a 39% increase in premiums. If the State isn't going to put in controls to be able to get a handle on such gouging then they invite things in like the recently proposed HC bill.

petegz28
02-10-2010, 11:20 AM
So you have a choice to take what the insurance compnay gives you at work or go broke buying insurance on the open market? Thats the plan?

Unfortunately that is the plan as of now. This is why I am opposed to employer provided health care. It should be done at the individual level the same as Home, Auto and Life. Throw in the removal of the State line issues, pre-existing conditions, inability to cancel insurance if someone gets sick and TORT reform and things get a lot better.

BucEyedPea
02-10-2010, 11:26 AM
I wouldn't disallow people to become members of groups for better insurance coverage including those being a place of employment. I just wouldn't provide a tax benefit for corps to write it off discriminating against individuals and the self-employed. Disallowing such is fascism too.

patteeu
02-10-2010, 11:30 AM
So you have a choice to take what the insurance compnay gives you at work or go broke buying insurance on the open market? Thats the plan?

Yes. Of course you have other options as well. You can lobby your employer to change vendors. If enough people agree with you that the current vendor is screwing it's customers, then there will be a strong reason for your employer to look for an alternative.

patteeu
02-10-2010, 11:33 AM
I have to side with the other side on this to a point. People need access to affordable coverage. That does not mean they have to be mandated. That does not mean they shouldn't pay more if they have a pre-existing condition or suck up benefits. That being said, I don't approve of a gas station price gouging and I have to question a 39% increase in premiums. If the State isn't going to put in controls to be able to get a handle on such gouging then they invite things in like the recently proposed HC bill.

39% increases are what you get when the risk pool is drying up and the remaining participants are sicker on average. That's what's going on in California as the more healthy individuals are dropping coverage because of the hard economic times. This is a lesson about how insurance works and what will happen if it's too easy for the healthy to do without coverage and for the sick to pick it up.

This isn't price gouging, it's just actuarial reality. You're on the wrong side on this one.

petegz28
02-10-2010, 11:38 AM
39% increases are what you get when the risk pool is drying up and the remaining participants are sicker on average. That's what's going on in California as the more healthy individuals are dropping coverage because of the hard economic times. This is a lesson about how insurance works and what will happen if it's too easy for the healthy to do without coverage and for the sick to pick it up.

This isn't price gouging, it's just actuarial reality. You're on the wrong side on this one.

Sorry, I am not buying that.

BigRedChief
02-10-2010, 11:44 AM
Unfortunately that is the plan as of now. This is why I am opposed to employer provided health care. It should be done at the individual level the same as Home, Auto and Life. Throw in the removal of the State line issues, pre-existing conditions, inability to cancel insurance if someone gets sick and TORT reform and things get a lot better.I'm okay with removing employer provided health care as long as we had guaranteed access to those same rates as individuals. Maybe set up some kind of exchange where all insurance companies compete for your business?

patteeu
02-10-2010, 11:50 AM
Sorry, I am not buying that.

OK, let's just be clear that this is your emotion talking, not any analysis that you can point to (other than the self-serving, demagogic comments of the WH). This 39% number that dirk was slinging doesn't apply to a single group policy holder and it only applies to a fraction of the individual policy holders in CA.

petegz28
02-10-2010, 11:59 AM
OK, let's just be clear that this is your emotion talking, not any analysis that you can point to (other than the self-serving, demagogic comments of the WH). This 39% number that dirk was slinging doesn't apply to a single group policy holder and it only applies to a fraction of the individual policy holders in CA.

A 39% increase in premiums is always subject to scutiny.

petegz28
02-10-2010, 12:01 PM
I'm okay with removing employer provided health care as long as we had guaranteed access to those same rates as individuals. Maybe set up some kind of exchange where all insurance companies compete for your business?

Why do we need an exchange? Does Farmer's, State Farm, Allstate, etc, etc not compete for business as it is? We don't need an exchange. We just need people to be able to shop around for their insurance then go in and buy it.

patteeu
02-10-2010, 12:08 PM
A 39% increase in premiums is always subject to scutiny.

Fine. Scrutinize and let me know when you actually come up with something untoward.

petegz28
02-10-2010, 12:11 PM
Fine. Scrutinize and let me know when you actually come up with something untoward.

Well, to be fair, what have you come up with besides the BS from the company?

dirk digler
02-10-2010, 12:28 PM
Duh, that's why I pointed out that you were wrong about Anthem and Wellpoint all this time. You've been talking about them, but you've had it wildly wrong.

Wellpoint didn't make a profit "as well". They made the profit and Anthem DIDN'T. It's a joke to equate the two, especially when you look into how Wellpoint made that profit. Talk about peddling harder, everything you and BRC have said about insurance company profits in this thread has been ridiculously off base.

Thank goodness for outfits like Wellpoint that helped fight against the health care bill.

My as-well comment was in reference to show that in 2008 they made almost the same profit. You made it sound like it was a one-time special deal.

You are correct that we don't know what Anthem made profit wise because they are a non-for profit corporation if that is correct. They do have 800,000 customers so I am sure they aren't hurting to justify raising their premiums 39%.

dirk digler
02-10-2010, 12:31 PM
Anyone that defends Anthem or Wellpoint need to stick a gun in their mouth and do us all a favor.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/11/business/fi-bluecross11

February 11, 2009|Lisa Girion

<!-- Module ends: article-byline--><!-- Module starts: a-body-first-para (ArticleText) -->Anthem Blue Cross, the state's largest for-profit health insurer, has agreed to pay a $1-million fine and offer new coverage -- no questions asked -- to 2,330 people it dropped after they submitted bills for expensive medical care.

As part of a deal that the California Department of Insurance is set to announce today, Anthem also will offer to reimburse those people for medical expenses that they paid out of pocket after they were dropped. The company, a subsidiary of Indianapolis-based WellPoint Inc., estimated that those reimbursements could reach $14 million.
http://articles.latimes.com/images/pixel.gif
<!-- Module starts: ctr-in-top (AdCpc) --><script type="text/javascript"> //<![CDATA[ var loc = window.location.href+""; var float = ""; google_ad_client = "pub-0227802054925200"; google_ad_output = "js"; google_ad_channel = "5212128158,5511501598,9908299744"; google_ad_type = "text"; google_image_size = "300x250"; google_safe = "high"; google_feedback = "on"; google_max_num_ads = "2"; google_skip = "" + adSkipCounter + ""; google_hints = "anthem blue anthem blue cross individual insurance health net blue cross"; google_adtest = "off"; google_page_url = document.URL; function google_ad_request_done(ads) { /* * If no ads are returned then dont build the ad block */ if (ads.length == 0) { return; } var borderColor = ""; var border = ""; var textAlign = ""; var extraClass = ""; var header = "true"; if (ads[0].type == "text") { extraClass = "yss"+ads.length+" "; } else { borderColor = "FFFFFF"; border = ""; textAlign = "center"; extraClass = "yss_google_img"; } if (header != "") { document.write("<a style=\"color: #545454; \"; \" href=\"" + google_info.feedback_url + "\">Ads by Google
"); } var mainDiv = ""; document.write("" + mainDiv + ""); var i = 0; if (ads[0].type == "image") { var destUrl = new String(ads[i].url); document.write("<a href=\"" + destUrl + "\" target=\"_blank\" onclick=\"params='s=g&n=n&k=&rd=www.google.com&ci=4813060&iv=0&pi=34&sessid=83d8c68c0037d70c346736decd6f122a7830277e&uuid=83d8c68c0037d70c346736decd6f122a7830277e&prt=1265826564&pgtp=article&t_v=v&u_ip=63.173.11.146&tv=ap-LAI-G02&h_d=articles.latimes.com&cat=finance+%26+insurance&pe_id=4813060&rna=pub-0227802054925200&rn=g&rnp=c&rt=cpc&rnrci=5212128158&rnrcn=CMI-A-002&rncci=5511501598&rnccn=CMI-A-010&rnpci=&rnpcn=&rntci=&rntcn=&rnlci=9908299744&rnlcn=9908299744&pe=a8381546442c75b8397ec38a1c339b6757cf2b9d&paidClick=1&placement_id=ctr-in-top&pos=1';tracker();params='';\">"); document.write("<img border=\"0\" src=\"" + ads[0].image_url + "\" width=\"" + ads[0].image_width + "\" height=\"" + ads[0].image_height + "\">"); document.write(""); i++; } else if (ads[0].type == "html" || (ads[0].type == "flash" && ads[0].snippet)) { document.write(""+ads[0].snippet); } else if (ads[0].type == "flash") { document.write("<object classid=\"clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000\"" + " codebase=\"http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,0,0\" WIDTH=\"" + ads[0].image_width + "\" HEIGHT=\"" + ads[0].image_height + "\">
" + "
" + "
" + "<EMBED src=\"" + ads[0].image_url + "\" WIDTH=\"" + ads[0].image_width + "\" HEIGHT=\"" + ads[0].image_height + "\" TYPE=\"application/x-shockwave-flash\"" + " AllowScriptAccess=\"never\" " + " PLUGINSPAGE=\"http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer\"></EMBED></OBJECT>"); } else { document.write("

"); for (; i < ads.length; i++) { var ad = ads[i]; var adline1 = new String(ad.line1); var destUrl = new String(ad.url); document.write("
"); document.write("<a href=\"" + destUrl + "\" target=\"_blank\" onclick=\"params='s=g&n=n&k=&rd=www.google.com&ci=4813060&iv=0&pi=34&sessid=83d8c68c0037d70c346736decd6f122a7830277e&uuid=83d8c68c0037d70c346736decd6f122a7830277e&prt=1265826564&pgtp=article&t_v=v&u_ip=63.173.11.146&tv=ap-LAI-G02&h_d=articles.latimes.com&cat=finance+%26+insurance&pe_id=4813060&rna=pub-0227802054925200&rn=g&rnp=c&rt=cpc&rnrci=5212128158&rnrcn=CMI-A-002&rncci=5511501598&rnccn=CMI-A-010&rnpci=&rnpcn=&rntci=&rntcn=&rnlci=9908299744&rnlcn=9908299744&pe=a8381546442c75b8397ec38a1c339b6757cf2b9d&paidClick=1&placement_id=ctr-in-top&pos=" + (i+1) + "';tracker();params='';\">"); var titleDisplayLine = "" + adline1+ ""; document.write("" + titleDisplayLine + ""); document.write(""); var text = ""; for (var n = 2; ad["line" + n]; n++) text += ad["line" + n] + " "; var adtext = new String(text); var bodyDisplayLine = "" + adtext + ""; document.write("" + bodyDisplayLine + ""); var dispurl = new String(ad.visible_url); document.write("<a href=\"" + destUrl + "\" target=\"_blank\" onclick=\"params='s=g&n=n&k=&rd=www.google.com&ci=4813060&iv=0&pi=34&sessid=83d8c68c0037d70c346736decd6f122a7830277e&uuid=83d8c68c0037d70c346736decd6f122a7830277e&prt=1265826564&pgtp=article&t_v=v&u_ip=63.173.11.146&tv=ap-LAI-G02&h_d=articles.latimes.com&cat=finance+%26+insurance&pe_id=4813060&rna=pub-0227802054925200&rn=g&rnp=c&rt=cpc&rnrci=5212128158&rnrcn=CMI-A-002&rncci=5511501598&rnccn=CMI-A-010&rnpci=&rnpcn=&rntci=&rntcn=&rnlci=9908299744&rnlcn=9908299744&pe=a8381546442c75b8397ec38a1c339b6757cf2b9d&paidClick=1&placement_id=ctr-in-top&pos=" + (i+1) + "';tracker();params='';\">"); var urlDisplayLine = "" + dispurl + ""; document.write("" + urlDisplayLine + ""); document.write(""); document.write(""); document.write(""); } document.write("

"); }document.write("
"); if (ads[0].bidtype == "CPC") { adSkipCounter += i; } } //]]></script>
http://articles.latimes.com/images/pixel.gif
<!-- Module starts: a-body-after-first-para (ArticleText) -->In exchange, the state agreed to drop its prosecution of its accusation that the company broke state laws in the way it rescinded members in preferred provider organization (PPO) policies between 2004 and 2008.

The settlement follows Anthem's agreement last year to pay a $10-million fine to settle similar charges involving 1,770 members in HMO-type policies overseen by the Department of Managed Health Care, another state regulator.

In both cases, Anthem agreed to make substantial changes in the way it sells and manages individual insurance coverage in California. Those changes, which include simplifying coverage applications, are expected to reduce the number of people who lose coverage through rescission.

The Anthem deal is the latest in a two-year effort by regulators to crack down on health insurers for dropping sick members on dubious grounds. It brings the last state rescission investigation to a close.

But insurers Anthem, Blue Shield of California and Health Net Inc. all remain targets of individual and class-action lawsuits alleging that they gamed insurance laws to dump sick people and avoid the costs of their care.

The only case to go to trial so far involved Health Net's rescission of a woman suffering from breast cancer. In that case, an arbitration judge awarded $9 million to Patsy Bates, a Gardena hair salon owner, after hearing her recount the fear she felt when she lost insurance and had to stop chemotherapy treatments.

"I am pleased that through this settlement, we have guaranteed reimbursement and restoration of coverage for the more than 2,300 people whose healthcare insurance was terminated without their consent," state Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner said about the Anthem deal. "The settlement is a significant step towards ending rescission practices that can devastate consumers already weakened in their battle against illness."

KC native
02-10-2010, 12:35 PM
Anyone that defends Anthem or Wellpoint need to stick a gun in their mouth and do us all a favor.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/11/business/fi-bluecross11

February 11, 2009|Lisa Girion


That's only a myth/Velvet and patty

wild1
02-10-2010, 12:37 PM
Anyone that defends Anthem or Wellpoint need to stick a gun in their mouth and do us all a favor.


This from the guy who negative rep'd me for political discourse he considered to be below board.

patteeu
02-10-2010, 12:40 PM
Well, to be fair, what have you come up with besides the BS from the company?

I've come up with an explanation for 80% of dirk's profit number that has nothing to do with Anthem at all.

patteeu
02-10-2010, 12:48 PM
My as-well comment was in reference to show that in 2008 they made almost the same profit. You made it sound like it was a one-time special deal.

You are correct that we don't know what Anthem made profit wise because they are a non-for profit corporation if that is correct. They do have 800,000 customers so I am sure they aren't hurting to justify raising their premiums 39%.

I think you should stop using numbers now because you almost always end up being wrong. Anthem has way more than 800,000 customers. 800,000 is the number of individual (as opposed to group) customers (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/04/business/la-fi-insure-anthem5-2010feb05) they have.

Even if Wellpoint made $2.7 billion every year, it wouldn't bother me. It's a large company and the profit margin that petegz28 came up with (something in the area of 7% IIRC) doesn't sound at all out of line. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, some breweries are running with profit margins in excess of 30%. But the fact is that most of that profit came from a one time sale (http://www.startribune.com/business/82776192.html), regardless of the performance of the company in past years.

The Indianapolis insurer earned $2.74 billion, or $5.95 per share, in the three months that ended Dec. 31. That's up from $331.4 million, or 65 cents per share, in the same period of 2008. The sale of NextRx to Express Scripts Inc. added $4.79 to the results. Without that, adjusted earnings were $1.16 per share.

dirk digler
02-10-2010, 12:54 PM
I think you should stop using numbers now because you almost always end up being wrong. Anthem has way more than 800,000 customers. 800,000 is the number of individual (as opposed to group) customers (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/04/business/la-fi-insure-anthem5-2010feb05) they have.

Even if Wellpoint made $2.7 billion every year, it wouldn't bother me. It's a large company and the profit margin that petegz28 came up with (something in the area of 7% IIRC) doesn't sound at all out of line. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, some breweries are running with profit margins in excess of 30%. But the fact is that most of that profit came from a one time sale (http://www.startribune.com/business/82776192.html), regardless of the performance of the company in past years.

I am sorry that I have to keep repeating myself to you. That was in the article I posted 3 pages back yesterday. You need to get off dial up so you can keep up.

This latest exploit by Anthem is get rid of members since they got busted last year dropping them for no reason.

patteeu
02-10-2010, 12:56 PM
I am sorry that I have to keep repeating myself to you. That was in the article I posted 3 pages back yesterday. You need to get off dial up so you can keep up.

If you posted it, why do you keep making the same mistakes? Seriously.

dirk digler
02-10-2010, 01:12 PM
If you posted it, why do you keep making the same mistakes? Seriously.

I am sorry that I am not being more specific.

I guess I don't understand the dispute here. Anthem got busted last year dropping members without warning and now they are going to raise individual rates by up to 39%. Doesn't this smell fishy to you? I almost bet they are raising the rates on an individual basis to the members that have cost them the most money so in hoping that they drop and go somewhere else or not have insurance.

patteeu
02-10-2010, 02:04 PM
I am sorry that I am not being more specific.

I guess I don't understand the dispute here. Anthem got busted last year dropping members without warning and now they are going to raise individual rates by up to 39%. Doesn't this smell fishy to you? I almost bet they are raising the rates on an individual basis to the members that have cost them the most money so in hoping that they drop and go somewhere else or not have insurance.

No, it doesn't smell fishy to me, but that's kind of irrelevant. Maybe there is wrongdoing and maybe there isn't. These companies are highly regulated and I'm sure that if they're doing something egregious that someone will actually come up with some evidence instead of a hunch based upon their olfactory sense.

It wouldn't make any sense at all to raise rates on the categories of people who are costing them the least now, would it? What an epiphany.

petegz28
02-10-2010, 04:54 PM
No, it doesn't smell fishy to me, but that's kind of irrelevant. Maybe there is wrongdoing and maybe there isn't. These companies are highly regulated and I'm sure that if they're doing something egregious that someone will actually come up with some evidence instead of a hunch based upon their olfactory sense.

It wouldn't make any sense at all to raise rates on the categories of people who are costing them the least now, would it? What an epiphany.

No it wouldn't make sense. But if they can, why wouldn't they? Who is going to stop them?

patteeu
02-10-2010, 05:50 PM
No it wouldn't make sense. But if they can, why wouldn't they? Who is going to stop them?

Other insurance companies who will take their customers away. That's the way it's supposed to work. Of course, the health care market is heavily regulated already so there are certainly concerns over unintended consequences screwing up the corrective market forces.

petegz28
02-10-2010, 06:03 PM
Other insurance companies who will take their customers away. That's the way it's supposed to work. Of course, the health care market is heavily regulated already so there are certainly concerns over unintended consequences screwing up the corrective market forces.

Thus the need to knock down State line barriers and such.