Insurance remarks by Senator Tom Harkins illogical and inaccurate at Obama's 'Health Care Summit'

Examiner.com ^ | Feb. 27, 2010 | Réne Girard

[RGirard]

Obama's 'Health Care Summit' took place Thursday and shortly after the lunch break, Democratic Senator Tom Harkin from Iowa made a few remarks that were both illogical and inaccurate in regard to insurance premiums.

Senator Harkin read a letter from an Iowa farmer whose Blue Cross insurance premiums are going up 14.6%. The farmer is already paying very high premiums for his family of four. The farmer also has unspecified health conditions that prevent him from simply switching companies because other insurance companies will turn him down based upon his pre-existing conditions...

Although it may appear to be a bad situation for the farmer, he never mentioned how much money the insurance company paid on his behalf ... is it wrong for them to raise rates in order to recoup those expenses? ...

After reading the farmer's letter, Senator Harkin proceeded to address "incremental assistance" which he says will not work. He believes the entire health bill needs to pass at once because "it's like someone who is drowning 50 feet from shore and you throw him a life preserver with a 10 ft rope. That doesn't work so you throw him a 20 ft rope." etc. Harkin compared the drowing man to the farmer who will drown if all measures are not put into place right away.

That analogy is illogical because a 10 ft rope will of course not reach a man 50 feet away, but putting a law into place that will affect the farmer's premiums or level of insurability can have an effect without passing all of the other laws congress wants ...

Harkin also said: "When I hear 'pool' I think segregation." Segregation is a dirty word when it comes to race relations; however, is segregation a bad thing when it comes to insurance? ...

[RGirard]

[SkyDancer]

The Dem's are using the part of the Constitution where it says something about "Congress is granted authority under Article I, section 8 of the Constitution to “pay the debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” The meaning of this Taxing and Spending Clause provoked controversy as early as 1792. One interpretation is that it gives Congress broad power to legislate in the public interest. Such a view is inconsistent with the concept of a limited constitution, however. A second view, promoted by Alexander Hamilton, suggested that Congress's power to tax and spend for the general welfare was additional to its other powers. A third view, represented by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, argued that the phrase was simply a summary or general description of the specific powers and that it gave Congress no additional power.8"

They're using this to push this healthcare garbage as being Constitutional.

[Carley]

This man has inhaled too much dung.

[Trajan88]

Ladies and gentlemen... I present to you THE commie-loving P.O.S.:

[ntmxx]

“…much money…paid… wrong for them to raise rates”

And you don’t think the government will means test, deny or raise rates arbitrarily and capriciously; suiting their needs. Nothing gets the political-class more excited and wet than free money.

[Dawebman]

“Tom Harkin is the biggest load in the Senate.”

— Rush Limbsaugh

[REPANDPROUDOFIT]

When my husband was laid off/retired, we took out Cobra - expensive, but do-able. It was good for 18 months and we were very aware that we could not let it lapse. Going without coverage for a specific amount of time would nullify the requirement that our new policy had to cover our pre-existing conditions. If we let it lapse, the new policy could and would exclude coverage of anything that happened prior. By maintaining constant coverage, we were able to get a new policy that covered all of our conditions.

It isn't fair to simply say, insurance companies won't cover people with pre-existing conditions or that they won't cover those particular conditions. Many times, it is simply up to the individual to do the responsible thing and keep coverage current.

Why don't we hear the insurance companies defend these positions? Where have they been throughout this whole debate?

[REPANDPROUDOFIT]

When my husband was laid off/retired, we took out Cobra - expensive, but do-able. It was good for 18 months and we were very aware that we could not let it lapse. Going without coverage for a specific amount of time would nullify the requirement that our new policy had to cover our pre-existing conditions. If we let it lapse, the new policy could and would exclude coverage of anything that happened prior. By maintaining constant coverage, we were able to get a new policy that covered all of our conditions.

It isn't fair to simply say, insurance companies won't cover people with pre-existing conditions or that they won't cover those particular conditions. Many times, it is simply up to the individual to do the responsible thing and keep coverage current.

Why don't we hear the insurance companies defend these positions? Where have they been throughout this whole debate?

[DPMD]

democrats have a fondness for their “invisible” friends; Gephardt had his billionaire friend who loved taxes; Reid his young friend - kind of creepy when you think about an old perv and his “young” friend - in Lighthouse, NV; Gore his aluminum can collecting retired Teamster friend; now Harkin and his farmer friend.

It’s all, of course, very credible.

[ntmxx]

“…Why don’t we hear the insurance companies defend these positions…”

They’ve been demonized and are in a no win position; besides when/if this Marxist-care program goes into effect they will position themselves as a value-added system, cherry picking what the government does not cover. Which will not be too difficult, as I pointed out the government can only means test, restrict/deny while taxing arbitrarily in the name of fairness for the masses. Somehow I don’t really believe the government can manage or handle medical coverage, look how social security and medicare are run to start with, they make dictates and have the rest of the medical system cover the business.

[GailA]

OBAMANOMICS—TRICKLE DOWN DESTRUCTION of the economy

SET THEIR LOCAL AND DC LINES ON FIRE!

Bambi doesn’t keep his promises...so buyer beware!
Sen Scott Brown’s number is 202-224-4543

Capitol Hill switchboard is 202-224-3121

Lots of local demwit phone numbers on this thread

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2408217/posts

Rename, repackage, rewrite it a tad smaller, and sell another pig in a poke. NO COLAs for granny, retired Military or retired fed employees. BIG NEW fees for Tricare for Life retired over 65 Military’s secondary health ins.
(DOD bill already passed, delayed but goes into effect 2011 NEEDS TO BE REPEALED!

OBAMA’s WAR ON SENIORS http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2433867/posts/

New Dem mantra: Woof, woof eat dog food granny....ala let them eat cake. http://www.lifenews.com/bio3058.html
Friday, February 19, 2010

Obama says slight fix will extend Social Security
http://townhall.com/news/us/2010/02/19/obama_says_slight_fix_will_extend_social_security

Health Care Rationing for Seniors Another Problem in New Obama Plan http://www.lifenews.com/bio3058.html

SOCIALIZED MED THREAD http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2460358/posts

TRI CARE FOR LIFE This from a google search:

http://economicspolitics.blogspot.com/2009/05/tricare-for-life-is-obama-trying-to.html

This option would help reduce the costs of TFL, as well as costs for Medicare, by introducing minimum out-of pocket requirements for beneficiaries. Under this option, TFL would not cover any of the first $525 of an enrollee’s cost-sharing liabilities for calendar year 2011 and would limit coverage to 50 percent of the next $4,725 in Medicare cost sharing that the beneficiary incurred. (Because all further cost sharing would be covered by TFL, enrollees could not pay more than $2,888 in cost sharing in that year.) http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9925/12-18-HealthOptions.pdf

http://www.vawatchdog.org/09/hcva09/hcva110609-1.htm
Bill Would Restrict Veterans’ Health Care Options 11/06/09
Buyer and McKeon Offer Amendments to Protect Veterans and TRICARE Beneficiaries

Congress plans to block Tricare fee increases
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/10/military_tricarefees_blocked_100709w

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/10/military_tricarefees_blocked_100709w/

By Rick Maze - Staff writer, Oct 7, 2009

Tricare fee increases imposed last week by the Defense Department will be repealed by a provision of the compromise 2010 defense authorization bill unveiled Wednesday by House and Senate negotiators.
Snip The fee increases were announced on Sept. 30 and took effect on Oct. 1, but the defense bill, HR 2647, includes a provision barring any fee increases until the start of fiscal 2011.

Snip

Retired Army Maj. Gen. Bill Matz, president of the National Association for Uniformed Services, said the announcement of fee increases was shocking considering that the Obama administration promised earlier this year to hold off on any new fee Tricare fee increases until fiscal 2011.

“President Obama and DoD assured NAUS and the entire military family earlier this year that there would rightly be no increases in any Tricare fees” in fiscal 2010, Matz said. “We took them at their word, and I can’t believe that a co-pay increase like this was allowed to go forward,” he added.