PDA

View Full Version : Senate Passes "Historic" Health Care Bill...


SteelerEmpire
11-22-2009, 12:57 AM
The House, Senate, House and Senate, Obama...... Two hurdles down, two to go (Ok... one to go... we know what Obama will do) before we'll have a new health care system on the way. I think the Dems are just putting on a drama show to "feign" opposition to this bill.... they planned on passing it from the beginning.... Lawyers.....

LINK: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/21/politics/main5729219.shtml?tag=stack

MACH1
11-22-2009, 01:21 AM
It's as good as done. :mad:

Kiss the American way of life goodbye.

MasterOfPuppets
11-22-2009, 01:29 AM
wow what a shocker...every dem voted for it, and ever rep voted against it....:jawdrop: .... if thats not proof that the only thing these assclowns do is tow a party line then i don't know what is. i guess NOBODY we elect is incapable of an independant thought or stand up for what they REALLY believe.....:shake01:

Senate cloture vote
How did your senator vote? Click here
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34071223/ns/politics/

this pretty much sums up todays politicians...

Start with a cage containing five monkeys. Inside the cage, hang a banana on a string and place a set of stairs under it. Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs and start to climb towards the banana. As soon as he touches the stairs, spray all the other monkeys with cold water.

After a while, another monkey makes an attempt with the same result - all the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water. Pretty soon, when another monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other monkeys will try to prevent it.

Now, put away the cold water. Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one. The new monkey sees the banana and wants to climb the stairs. To his surprise and horror, all the other monkeys attack him. After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs, he will be assaulted.

Next, remove another of the original five monkeys and replace it with a new one. The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked. The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment with enthusiasm! Likewise, replace a third original monkey with a new one, then a fourth, then the fifth. Every time the newest monkey takes to the stairs, he is attacked. Most of the monkeys that are beating him have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs or why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey.

After replacing all the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys have ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approaches the stairs to try for the banana. Why not? Because as far as they know that's the way it's always been done around here.

augustashark
11-22-2009, 01:35 AM
No big deal here. This was just to move to debate. The real vote should come at the end of Nov or first part of Dec. I still think it will be voted down, but then again nothing would suprise me with this congress.

SteelerEmpire
11-22-2009, 09:47 AM
MasterOfPuppets
Re: Senate Passes "Historic" Health Care Bill...

Quote:
Start with a cage containing five monkeys. Inside the cage, hang a banana on a string and place a set of stairs under it. Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs and start to climb towards the banana. As soon as he touches the stairs, spray all the other monkeys with cold water.

After a while, another monkey makes an attempt with the same result - all the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water. Pretty soon, when another monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other monkeys will try to prevent it.

Now, put away the cold water. Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one. The new monkey sees the banana and wants to climb the stairs. To his surprise and horror, all the other monkeys attack him. After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs, he will be assaulted.

Next, remove another of the original five monkeys and replace it with a new one. The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked. The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment with enthusiasm! Likewise, replace a third original monkey with a new one, then a fourth, then the fifth. Every time the newest monkey takes to the stairs, he is attacked. Most of the monkeys that are beating him have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs or why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey.

After replacing all the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys have ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approaches the stairs to try for the banana. Why not? Because as far as they know that's the way it's always been done around here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

LOL.... I'll have to remember that one..... That works for people to you know.....lol....

HometownGal
11-22-2009, 10:57 AM
Get ready to bend over America. Be sure to stock up on K-Y now.

http://www.roadkilltshirts.com/images/products/NEW7/1BEND-OVER.gif

Texasteel
11-22-2009, 11:14 AM
No big deal here. This was just to move to debate. The real vote should come at the end of Nov or first part of Dec. I still think it will be voted down, but then again nothing would suprise me with this congress.

I kinda agree with you. I don't think it will pass as it stands right now, not with elections coming up so soon.

SteelerEmpire
11-22-2009, 11:38 AM
No big deal here. This was just to move to debate. The real vote should come at the end of Nov or first part of Dec. I still think it will be voted down, but then again nothing would suprise me with this congress.

I kinda agree with you. I don't think it will pass as it stands right now, not with elections coming up so soon.

Yea. But the vast majority of bills that has made it this far 'usually ' go all the way.....
It may really be a done deal....

GoSlash27
11-22-2009, 12:19 PM
I agree with Mach1; it's as good as done.

X-Terminator
11-22-2009, 12:24 PM
Well, we're boned. I know this is just a move to debate, but I have zero confidence that this won't pass.

I may as well start planning for my Mom's fight for her health care now, because if these bozos have their way, they're pretty much going to sentence her to death.

fansince'76
11-22-2009, 12:30 PM
I know two senators I will be voting against when they come up for reelection. :mad:

MACH1
11-22-2009, 12:35 PM
I agree with Mach1; it's as good as done.

Yep...99.9% of the time when the make it to the floor they're as good as done. All their doing is debating how hard their going to bone us or how to throw you in jail.

HometownGal
11-22-2009, 02:30 PM
I know two senators I will be voting against when they come up for reelection. :mad:

Specter is most likely going to lose in PA come election day because of his turncoat-ism, so I don't care about his YES vote. No surprise that douchenozzle Casey voted YES.

revefsreleets
11-22-2009, 02:56 PM
Voting to open debate does NOT mean this bill has passed...it simply means the bill is in play and open to debate.

There are at least 4 moderate Dem's who oppose the bill as it sits now, and Lieberman has already said he won't vote for it, so one I and 4 D's equals 55 votes total for the bill now...and there may be more who vote against it when it comes down to brass tacks...

There is also the possibility that some of the most liberal D's won't vote for the final draft if it's too watered down.

This thing is FAR from a done deal...the best thing that could happen is that this bill is 100% totally scrapped, and we have to start over with a bill that makes more sense. Healthcare is obviously a hotbutton issue now, and needs addressed, but there's nothing wrong with backing off and taking the time to craft the right bill...

GoSlash27
11-22-2009, 05:04 PM
Voting to open debate does NOT mean this bill has passed...it simply means the bill is in play and open to debate.
It's gonna pass. The vote to end debate allows political cover for the blue dogs to say they voted against it, but it will pass by a slim margin.
Now is a good time to invest in inflation hedges. These idiots are going to sink the economy.

Godfather
11-22-2009, 08:02 PM
Voting to open debate does NOT mean this bill has passed...it simply means the bill is in play and open to debate.

There are at least 4 moderate Dem's who oppose the bill as it sits now, and Lieberman has already said he won't vote for it, so one I and 4 D's equals 55 votes total for the bill now...and there may be more who vote against it when it comes down to brass tacks...

There is also the possibility that some of the most liberal D's won't vote for the final draft if it's too watered down.

This thing is FAR from a done deal...the best thing that could happen is that this bill is 100% totally scrapped, and we have to start over with a bill that makes more sense. Healthcare is obviously a hotbutton issue now, and needs addressed, but there's nothing wrong with backing off and taking the time to craft the right bill...

I hope you're right but I'm pessimistic.

The worst part is if it passes it'll be nearly impossible to repeal. The insurance lobby will never give up the individual mandate. And we know from the shameful mammogram fiasco how the public option will turn out if there is one.

The only thing we'll be able to do is publicize every horror story as much as possible, on the outside chance we get some decent politicians who will fix the mess. But it'll probably do nothing more than heap guilt on the people who supported this trash.

TroysBadDawg
11-22-2009, 09:54 PM
I still want to know where Congress gets the authority to make everybody buy insurance. Although I guess it is like the constitution says the government can not take over companies but did anyway. Socialism is here folks. All the majority of the people want is more free handouts and they will keep voting in these criminals.

MACH1
11-22-2009, 10:34 PM
They'll find out these so called free handouts aren't so free when they get tossed in jail for not buying "free" health care.

Godfather
11-22-2009, 10:58 PM
I still want to know where Congress gets the authority to make everybody buy insurance. Although I guess it is like the constitution says the government can not take over companies but did anyway. Socialism is here folks. All the majority of the people want is more free handouts and they will keep voting in these criminals.

Good to see you again!! Where you been?

Disagree that this is socialism--that would be if we went to single payer. This is a handout to corporate fat cats. Congress doesn't have the constitutional authority to make people buy insurance, but the Constitution also says the federal government has no right to be involved in criminal law enforcement (except in a few specific areas), or dictate to states how they regulate alcohol, or set national education standards, or impose unfunded mandates on states.

SCSTILLER
11-23-2009, 07:27 AM
WASHINGTON Suitably opaque, Section 2006 takes up only a few dozen lines in a sweeping health care bill that runs to 2,074 pages and mentions neither Sen. Mary Landrieu nor her state of Louisiana.

But the section's purpose is indisputable: to deliver $100 million or more in federal funds to the state. And in the process clear the way for one of three moderate Democratic fence-sitters Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas are the others to help propel the legislation past its initial hurdle in a crucial Saturday vote.

Nelson, Landrieu and Lincoln emerged several days ago as the last public holdouts among 58 Democrats and two independents whose votes Majority Leader Harry Reid and the White House must have to overcome the Republicans' attempt to strangle the bill before serious debate can begin.

Each has moved carefully with an eye on home-state voters. And inside the Senate, each has taken advantage of the political leverage newly available.

Alone among the three, Nelson issued a statement Friday ending any lingering public suspense about his intentions. "The Senate should start trying to fix a health care system that costs too much and delivers too little for Nebraskans," he said, adding his decision should not be seen as an indication of how he will vote on the legislation itself.

Nelson had been publicly signaling his intentions for more than a week, and his words presumably came as no surprise to Reid or the White House, which issued a statement Friday saying the bill "provides the necessary health reforms that the administration seeks."

This sort of political minuet can be delicate, as shown when the Senate's second-ranking Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois, said earlier on Friday that Lincoln had already confided to Reid how she planned to vote.

Republicans, eager to scuttle the bill and defeat Lincoln in 2010 instantly accused the two-term senator of telling Democratic party leaders before informing her own constituents in Arkansas.

"No other senator speaks for Senator Lincoln. She is still reviewing the bill," declared the senator's spokeswoman, Leah Vest DiPietro, adding her boss had not yet made up her mind. For his part, Durbin sought to quickly close the loop with a statement saying he had been unclear and misinterpreted.

As for Nelson, several officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said he had insisted Reid omit from the bill any change in the insurance industry's protection from federal antitrust law. The House version of the legislation would expose the industry to scrutiny by both the Justice Department's antitrust lawyers and the Federal Trade Commission.

Reid, who spoke out strongly in favor of the change in antitrust treatment earlier in the fall, left it out of the bill he drafted over several weeks and unveiled on Wednesday.

Lincoln has been the most close-mouthed about her intention. As a committee chairman, she is the most powerful of the group. As the only one of the three seeking re-election next year, she is also the most politically vulnerable.

In public, she has asked that the bill be available for 72 hours before the vote occurs. In private, her demands have been more substantive, according to officials who did not describe them.

She is virtually certain to be criticized no matter what her vote. After the House cleared its version of the legislation this month, a conservative group began airing commercials criticizing Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Ark., for voting in its favor. At the same time, MoveOn.org, a liberal organization, slammed another one of the state's lawmakers, Rep. Mike Ross, for opposing it.

A hint: At home, Lincoln has suggested her vote will be influenced by former President Bill Clinton, who was Arkansas governor for 12 years before winning the White House.

Clinton recently met privately with Senate Democrats, telling them that passing an imperfect bill was better than nothing. "We don't ever go to Washington with the idea that we're going to create a work of art," Lincoln said afterward. "It's got to be a work in progress."

She and the other moderates face pressure from business groups opposed to the legislation. In a statement Friday the Business Roundtable, which represents big company CEOs, said the Senate bill "will not effect the needed changes to measurably improve the American health care system." Democrats and the White House had seized on a report by the same group last week concluding that some of the provisions under consideration by Congress had the potential to tame runaway medical inflation.

Of the three centrists, Landrieu has been the clearest about her intentions, and her interests ranged beyond health insurance to the oysters for which Louisiana is famous. When the Food and Drug Administration proposed banning sales of raw oysters from the Gulf of Mexico during warm weather months, Landrieu and others objected.

A week ago, the agency thought better of the idea and shelved the plan in favor of further study. "I'm really thankful that they listened," said Landrieu, who had met with FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg to discuss the issue.

Over recent weeks, Landrieu has issued a string of statements outlining the areas she wanted addressed for the benefit of her constituents issues that could be dealt with only after health legislation made it to the Senate floor.

After meeting with Reid almost a month ago, she mentioned the "unique challenges Louisiana is facing in terms of Medicaid."

In a Senate speech and statement, she noted that Louisiana has the highest breast cancer death rate in the country and the lowest female life expectancy of any state. And she said, "Unless something is done, annual health care costs for small firms over the next 10 years are expected to more than double to reach $339 billion in 2018."

Landrieu can point to provisions in the legislation that are designed to attack all three problems.

They include Section 2006.

Reading it is of little assistance. "Special adjustment to FMAP Determination for Certain States recovering from a Major Disaster" is the title, and about two pages of similarly indecipherable legalese follows.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, it will send an additional $100 million to Louisiana to help it cover costs for Medicaid, the federal-state health care program for the poor.

Should Landrieu decide to side with Republicans this weekend, she would also be voting to deny her state those funds.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091120/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul

It looks like the Louisiana Senator was bought off

revefsreleets
11-23-2009, 09:00 AM
Yes, LA's vote was for sale, and it was purchased.

Here's the thing. This is a BAD bill. The CBO just released a cost analysis that showed this current bill will cost the middle class a TON of money. Remember, healthcare will be REQUIRED...the option to not buy healthcare will be removed, so a basic freedom will be stripped. But there's more. The CBO's analysis found that the average single person will be paying $5200 a year. That's $433 a MONTH!

The average family? $14,400 a year. That's $1200 a month!

Remember the thread a while back where the hypothetical was about a family making 60k and they couldn't afford health insurance? Well, this is WORSE! Now they not only lose the luxury of not being able to afford insurance, which kicks in the option of saving the monthly premium at least, now they will have MORE EXPENSIVE policies thrust down their throats! $1200 a month! And these numbers are straight from the Congressional Budget Office, in other words, Congress' own accountants...

Now, some of these families will have subsidies, but those subsidies are nothing more than passing the bill on to other taxpayers. And none of the other numbers match up. The government says this will cost a trillion? Does anyone actually BELIEVE that? Does anyone actually believe they will have the political will to reduce medicare subsidies (which is where this is all ultimately supposed to be paid for from)?

I cannot believe that the Senate will pass this bill in it's present form. It was a terrible bill, it is a terrible bill, and unless it is sent back into committee and re-tooled, or better yet, scrapped completely, it will remain a terrible bill. The ONLY thing it will accomplish is allowing the US government to say that they forced 30 million Americans to buy coverage...that's it.

SteelerEmpire
11-23-2009, 10:20 AM
It was a terrible bill, it is a terrible bill, and unless it is sent back into committee and re-tooled, or better yet, scrapped completely, it will remain a terrible bill.

The folks pushing this bill through would rather sell their children into slavery before they throw it out..... Once its passed, it will be easier to jump into your car and 'drive' to the planet Pluto than to get something changed in it. I HOPE they get it right (as possible) before its finalized.... if not.... they will sure know about it. The killer is.... we won't "really " know whats up with it, from patient examples, until 'after' the 2012 elections as it does not go into effect until 4 or 5 years from now.

Godfather
11-23-2009, 10:27 AM
Remember the thread a while back where the hypothetical was about a family making 60k and they couldn't afford health insurance? Well, this is WORSE! Now they not only lose the luxury of not being able to afford insurance, which kicks in the option of saving the monthly premium at least, now they will have MORE EXPENSIVE policies thrust down their throats! $1200 a month! And these numbers are straight from the Congressional Budget Office, in other words, Congress' own accountants...

Now, some of these families will have subsidies, but those subsidies are nothing more than passing the bill on to other taxpayers.

It's even worse than that. One version of the reform only allows help for families making three times the poverty line or less. That $60K family qualifies for ZERO assistance.

theplatypus
11-23-2009, 10:44 AM
The average family? $14,400 a year. That's $1200 a month!

Not trying to nitpick here but that cost is what most families here pay as it stands. Literally everyone I know with a family and private insurance pays at least that much in monthly premiums. My boss pays $4800 a month for himself,wife, daughter, and both of his parents.

MACH1
11-23-2009, 11:13 AM
Not trying to nitpick here but that cost is what most families here pay as it stands. Literally everyone I know with a family and private insurance pays at least that much in monthly premiums. My boss pays $4800 a month for himself,wife, daughter, and both of his parents.

The only way to drop those prices is to open the doors for competition between insurance companies. That would be the right thing to do.

theplatypus
11-23-2009, 11:22 AM
The only way to drop those prices is to open the doors for competition between insurance companies. That would be the right thing to do.


That is one thing that HAS to happen.
Another anecdote

I've got a friend that lives in rural Illinois, I'm in Georgia. We are the same age. He's a heavy smoker(3 packs a day) and has already had a mild stroke. His insurance is significantly less than mine as a non-smoker with no health problems. Call me crazy, but something is seriously wrong there.

revefsreleets
11-23-2009, 11:27 AM
If that's what is costs now, then why enact this law? It will cost trillions...and we can make people buy health insurance that's already available. What is the practical upshot of increased government involvement? I thought this was supposed to fix a problem?

Also, I'm 40...I can get pretty decent coverage for about $120 a month. That is significantly less than $433 (and $433 is an AVERAGE). In fact, I can't even locate an insurance package available to me that would cost more the $290 a month. I'm not buying that these costs are commensurate with what people are already paying.

Bad bill. Needs dumped.

theplatypus
11-23-2009, 11:33 AM
If that's what is costs now, then why enact this law? It will cost trillions...and we can make people buy health insurance that's already available. What is the practical upshot of increased government involvement? I thought this was supposed to fix a problem?

Also, I'm 40...I can get pretty decent coverage for about $120 a month. That is significantly less than $433 (and $433 is an AVERAGE). In fact, I can't even locate an insurance package available to me that would cost more the $290 a month. I'm not buying that these costs are commensurate with what people are already paying.

Bad bill. Needs dumped.

I'm 40 and my premium is more than 2x that w/ a $5,000 deductible. It's not a whole lot more than 2x, but more none the less.

revefsreleets
11-23-2009, 11:36 AM
The very most expensive package I have EVER located for myself, one with practically NOTHING out of pocket, is $290 a month.

And the AVERAGE government mandated insurance premium for a single person will be $433.

The bill is garbage...absolute pure garbage...and it will probably cause more problems than it fixes, cost triple what the estimates are now, and make a mess into a bigger mess...

RunWillieRun
11-23-2009, 01:03 PM
This Bill along with the House Bill look and smell like shit. You have to call a turd, a turd, and flush them both down the crapper.



Although 4000+ pages down the drain would probably cause a huge backup.

Godfather
11-23-2009, 05:54 PM
Also, I'm 40...I can get pretty decent coverage for about $120 a month.

Actually, it's that cheap because you're a MAN and you're 40.

GoSlash27
11-23-2009, 10:40 PM
I misunderstood the nature of the vote. This wasn't for cloture, but simply to bring it out of committee.
The cloture vote will be the real hurdle, and I don't think the Dems have 60 for it.

Godfather
11-23-2009, 10:52 PM
I misunderstood the nature of the vote. This wasn't for cloture, but simply to bring it out of committee.
The cloture vote will be the real hurdle, and I don't think the Dems have 60 for it.

I think I saw on another site that this bill didnt come from a committee. A committee bill only needs 50 votes to come to the floor, but Reid merged the two committee bills into a third bill. Since it wasn't a committee bill it needed 60 votes.

I hope you're right that they won't get cloture. If Nelson, Bayh, Lieberman, Lincoln, Landrieu, etc. filibuster anything with a public option and Sanders, Boxer, etc. filibuster anything without, we can run out the clock and put the brakes on the D's in November 2010.

revefsreleets
11-24-2009, 09:59 AM
OK, I'm a man and I'm 40....so if I was a woman my premium should jump $143 a month? And remember, that's just an average, meaning many policies will be MUCH more expensive. Also to bear in mind, the $290 was a "Cadillac policy", basically zero out of pocket, no deductibles, zero co-pays...that's NOT the type of policy most people actually carry. Start adding in even small deductibles and co-pays and the price drops like a rock...

My overriding point is simply this: There is no way government involvement is going to in any way simplify the already over-complex web of healthcare, nor will it in anyway decrease prices. In fact, I would think if they simply mandates that EVERYONE carry health insurance (and I mean, that's the entire bill: "You must carry health insurance"), premiums should DROP because we'd have a much larger pool of people paying in....

Here are even more fundamental problems with this shitty bill...

http://www.ohio.com/editorial/commentary/72246102.html

Health-care 'reform' that burdens our young people

By Robert J. Samuelson
Washington Post

Published on Tuesday, Nov 24, 2009

WASHINGTON: One of our long-running political stories is the economic assault on the young by the old. We have become a society that invests in its past and disfavors the future. This makes no sense for the nation, but as politics, it makes complete sense. The elderly and near elderly are better organized, focus obsessively on their government benefits, and seem deserving. Grandmas and Grandpas command sympathy.

Everyone knows that the resulting ''entitlements'' dominate government spending and squeeze education, research, defense and almost everything else. In fiscal 2008 — the last ''normal'' year before the economic crisis — Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (programs wholly or primarily dedicated to the elderly) totaled $1.3 trillion, 43 percent of federal spending and more than twice military spending. Because workers, not retirees, are the primary taxpayers, this spending involves huge transfers to the old.

Comes now the House-passed health care ''reform'' bill that, amazingly, would extract more subsidies from the young. It mandates that health insurance premiums for older Americans be no more than twice the level of younger Americans. That's much less than the actual health spending gap between young and old. Spending for those aged 60-64 is four to five times greater than those 18-24. So, the young would overpay for insurance which — under the House bill — people must buy: 20- and 30-somethings would subsidize premiums for 50- and 60-somethings. (Those 65 and over receive Medicare.)

Not surprisingly, the 40-million member AARP, the major lobby for Americans over 50, was a big force behind this provision. AARP's cynicism is breathtaking. On the one hand, it sponsors a high-minded campaign called ''Divided We Fail'' and runs sentimental TV ads featuring children pleading for a better tomorrow. ''Join us in championing your future and the future of every generation,'' ended one AARP ad.

Meanwhile, AARP lobbyists scramble to shift their members' costs onto younger generations. For example, the House health legislation improves Medicare's drug benefit. That would help the half of AARP members who are over 65. The other half, those between 50 and 64, could benefit from the skewed insurance premiums.

Although premium changes would apply mainly to people using insurance ''exchanges,'' the differences would be substantial. A single person 55-64 might save $3,490, estimates an Urban Institute study. By contrast, single people in their 20s and early 30s might pay from about $600 to $1,100 more. For the young, the extra cost might be larger, says economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Hudson Institute, because the House bill would require them to purchase fairly generous insurance plans rather than cheaper catastrophic coverage that might better suit their needs.

Whatever the added burden, it would darken the young's already poor economic prospects. Unemployment among 16- to 24-year-olds is 19 percent. Peter Orszag, director of the Office of Management and Budget, notes on his blog that high joblessness depresses young workers' wages and that the adverse effect — though diminishing — ''is still statistically significant 15 years later.'' Lost wages over 20 years could total $100,000. Orszag doesn't mention that health-care ''reform'' might compound the loss.

AARP justifies the cost-shifting as preventing age discrimination. Premiums based on age should be no more acceptable than premiums based on medical expenses reflecting race, gender or pre-existing health conditions, it says. The House legislation bans those, so it should also ban age-based rates. AARP dislikes even the 2-1 limit. It thinks premiums for someone 22 and someone 62 should be identical. (In insurance jargon, that would be full ''community rating.'')

This is unconvincing. All insurance aims to protect against risk — but within groups facing similar risks. Put differently, most insurance is risk-adjusted. Auto insurance premiums vary by age; younger drivers pay higher rates because they have more accidents. Homeowners' policies for similar houses cost more in high-crime areas. This is not ''discrimination''; it's a reflection of risk and cost differences. Insurers that ignored these differences would soon vanish, because they'd suffer heavy losses and lose customers.

On health insurance, we may choose to override some risk adjustments (say, for pre-existing medical conditions) for public policy reasons. But the case for making age one of these exceptions is weak. Working Americans — the young and middle-aged — already pay a huge part of the health costs of the elderly through Medicare and Medicaid. These will grow with an aging population and surging health spending. Either taxes will rise or other public services will fall. Already, all governments spend 2.4 times as much per capita on the elderly as on children, reports Julia Isaacs of the Brookings Institution. Why increase the imbalance?

It's true that premiums for older people would be higher. But this might have a silver lining: Facing their true health costs, older Americans might become more eager to control spending.
Samuelson is a Washington Post columnist.

SteelerEmpire
11-24-2009, 10:08 AM
EUREKA !!!!! I figured out the BEST way to insure your health...... just don't get sick..... :thumbsup:

Godfather
11-24-2009, 10:21 AM
OK, I'm a man and I'm 40....so if I was a woman my premium should jump $143 a month?

No, it shouldn't but it probably would.

I was just going for the Gundy reference.