Obama Bypassing Elizabeth Warren for Consumer Protection Bureau

[c1ue]

Re: Obama Bypassing Elizabeth Warren for Consumer Protection Bureau

Now I'm really confused. Outlawing a pre-existing condition clause but not doing anything else to reduce rates would only increase insurance rates for everybody. That's just a plain actuarial truth. Yet you claim that it would be "political suicide" to oppose a bill that would dramatically increase insurance costs?

Take a breath and re-read what was actually written in my previous post.

Insurance companies do not charge everyone the same fees; not even those with identical health situations/age/family sizes.

There is nothing within the existing system which requires this, nor is there anything which says a health insurance company must 'free ride' a new prospective customer on all existing ones. The abuse of pre-existing conditions has primarily to do with the fundamental loss making nature - or at least far less profitable nature - of those who actually consume health care as opposed to be insured for it.

Note this is different than outlawing the booting of existing customers who develop a 'pre-existing' condition; that practice is just plain corrupt.

As for controlling health care costs, the reason health care is unaffordable in this country isn't the point here; I've posted at great length on this subject.

The point was that there is a powerful political wedge which Obama could have employed for Warren but which he chose not to use, much as in health care there were (and are) powerful wedges which Obama used for corrupt purposes.

[goodrich4bk]

Re: Obama Bypassing Elizabeth Warren for Consumer Protection Bureau

In other words, you believe that your solution ---- just outlaw exclusions for pre-existing conditions --- would not raise rates for anybody but those with pre-existing conditions.

You must either work for the government (which I doubt) or a large enough employer to qualify for group coverage --- or maybe you're on Medicare. Because I guarantee that when the premium on your private plan comes up for renewal under your idea of reform, your rates would skyrocket precisely because you would now be in a group of people who could have a pre-existing condition, particularly if your private plan was so skimpy that you did not previously seek treatment for that bothersome mole that is now cancer. This is how insurance works and no amount of spin is going to change that.

As for the original issue concerning Warren, you may have seen the suggestion today that she may run for the Mass Senate seat. If she did, and she is as popular as you claim, she may be able to do more as a Senator than a bureacrat. And if that is what Obama knows, I don't see his action is any sign of corruption.

[c1ue]

Re: Obama Bypassing Elizabeth Warren for Consumer Protection Bureau

In other words, you believe that your solution ---- just outlaw exclusions for pre-existing conditions --- would not raise rates for anybody but those with pre-existing conditions.

Sorry, I did not say any such thing.

What I said was, there is no automatic reason why such a law would automatically raise rates for anybody or everybody.

You should surely know by now that even were da gubmint to do nothing, rates would still go up.

Therefore your spurious attempt to paint me into a corner is simply doomed to failure.

As for the original issue concerning Warren, you may have seen the suggestion today that she may run for the Mass Senate seat. If she did, and she is as popular as you claim, she may be able to do more as a Senator than a bureacrat. And if that is what Obama knows, I don't see his action is any sign of corruption.

I fail to see how anyone, even a Senator, can have as much regulatory influence as being the actual head of an actual regulatory agency.

And as for what Obama knows, it is what it is.

All we can talk about is what opportunities he had and whether he took them.

I would think it is quite obvious now that he did have an opportunity and he did not take it.

You must either work for the government (which I doubt) or a large enough employer to qualify for group coverage --- or maybe you're on Medicare. Because I guarantee that when the premium on your private plan comes up for renewal under your idea of reform, your rates would skyrocket precisely because you would now be in a group of people who could have a pre-existing condition, particularly if your private plan was so skimpy that you did not previously seek treatment for that bothersome mole that is now cancer. This is how insurance works and no amount of spin is going to change that.

Sorry, your example is just plain wrong.

Why? Because the reality again is that any given pool of people pay according to their actuarial costs. Someone in your plan who is 25 years old should be paying less than someone who is 40 years old and has a wife+3 kids.

The law in question doesn't change anything within this pool, nor does it mandate any type of recalculation.

A person with a pre-existing condition who wishes to join this pool should pay far more than the same person without said pre-existing condition. Therefore while said person would draw more benefits, they in turn pay more: in fact exactly what their actuarial share should be.

Under your theory, the insurance agency should also exclude anyone over the average age of the pool because under your your theory, that oldster is raising your rates.

We should also include some racial slurs: certain ethnicities have higher incidences of heart problems than the 'average'.

blah blah blah.

However, every single one of these incorrect views arises from the same cause: that somehow the 'over' average person somehow free rides upon the 'good' average person.

Strictly speaking this should not occur - that is the point of actuarial averages and of insurance regulation.

It is supposed to be pay your share.

[Raz]

Re: Obama Bypassing Elizabeth Warren for Consumer Protection Bureau

Originally Posted by santafe2
You bore me. I always feel less smart when you respond than I did before I read your response. "Evil"...really? I say she's unlikely to be confirmed and you take away that I'm damning Republicans as "Evil". The utter stupidity of your agenda creeps me out. Please aim your life at something of value and try to earn some friendship. If iTulipers don't respond to you, you don't exist. You have no values. As you know, I disrespect you and to some extent, iTulip for letting you post without a leash. Try to stay on topic.



What a load of hogwash.

On the one hand, you whine and say that the Republicans matter - so poor Obama must pick someone more 'confirmable'.

Yet Obama has managed to pass a health care bill which was in every way opposed by the Republicans.

Has managed to get Supreme Court justices confirmed.

Has managed to get a bank bailout and a stimulus passed.

Yet somehow getting the popular and largely politics neutral Elizabeth Warren confirmed as the head of the CPFA - something which Obama could crucify opponents for blocking a la "So you don't care about the American people" - is the fault of the other side of the Kabuki.

As for your opinions of me - frankly I could care less.

I see that santafe2 has lost none of his charm. Since he's on my ignore list I observed his graciousness from your quote.

You might want to try that particular feature; it just might improve your digestion.

[goodrich4bk]

Re: Obama Bypassing Elizabeth Warren for Consumer Protection Bureau

"A person with a pre-existing condition who wishes to join this pool should pay far more than the same person without said pre-existing condition. Therefore while said person would draw more benefits, they in turn pay more: in fact exactly what their actuarial share should be."

The last time I checked, a 55 year old with Stage 3 cancer has an "actuarial share" that "should be" a premium of about $500k a year. Because that is what his pre-existing cancer treatments will costs over the years he has remaining. So telling me that Obama should have passed a law requiring that he be given the opportunity to buy this policy is not a particularly persuasive argument.

You're confusing an insurance program with prepaid medical care. Your "solution" is no solution at all to the person with the pre-existing condition. You claim to want a law that prohibits cancellation for pre-existing conditions but only if the policy is priced so that the insurance company makes a profit of those pre-existing conditions. That's like forcing insurance companies to insure burning houses only if they are allowed to set the annual premium at the value of the entire house. It's a non sequitur because you've turned insurance into a prepaid expense plan based upon the policy holder's actual expenses, not the projected expenses of a particular class to which he belongs.

Don't get me wrong. I have no particular affinity for health or life. I'm 55 years old and thankful to have been born in the 20th century. Sure, I would probably live longer were I Danish or Swedish and received the benefit of their social welfare programs, but a long life is not everything. I'd rather live free for a short time than among people who are afraid to take risks because they may die. We all die, but few of us live truly free.

That said, the American fear of socialized medicine is irrational. Without question, the greatest good (as measured by average longevity) at the least cost (as measured by the percentage of GDP spent on healthcare) would be furthered by socialized medicine in this country. This is simply not debatable until somebody shows me an example of a private medical system whose patients live as long as all of the socialized medical systems in the world.

But to suggest that Obama could have accomplished something more real or effective than Obamacare --- and that the only reason he didn't is because he is corrupted by the insurance industry ---- is truly magical thinking. Either that or I was hallucinating during the Harry and Louise campaign against HillaryCare and Bachman's cries of "death panels" in 2008.

[c1ue]

Re: Obama Bypassing Elizabeth Warren for Consumer Protection Bureau

The last time I checked, a 55 year old with Stage 3 cancer has an "actuarial share" that "should be" a premium of about $500k a year. Because that is what his pre-existing cancer treatments will costs over the years he has remaining. So telling me that Obama should have passed a law requiring that he be given the opportunity to buy this policy is not a particularly persuasive argument.

And how do you know that isn't what his actuarial share is?

Secondly you're also ignoring all of the past payments into insurance said 55 year old may or may not have paid. If in fact this person was insured until 55 and then was 'retired' from his job, and hence had to find new insurance, clearly there is something inherently wrong with categorical denial.

You're confusing an insurance program with prepaid medical care. Your "solution" is no solution at all to the person with the pre-existing condition. You claim to want a law that prohibits cancellation for pre-existing conditions but only if the policy is priced so that the insurance company makes a profit of those pre-existing conditions. That's like forcing insurance companies to insure burning houses only if they are allowed to set the annual premium at the value of the entire house. It's a non sequitur because you've turned insurance into a prepaid expense plan based upon the policy holder's actual expenses, not the projected expenses of a particular class to which he belongs.

Uh, no. If I were to take your statement at face value, then the amount a person pays for health insurance should stay exactly equal throughout their life after adjusting for inflation.

This is clearly untrue even if marriage/kids were not in the equation.

You are clearly projecting something onto me which doesn't exist.

That said, the American fear of socialized medicine is irrational. Without question, the greatest good (as measured by average longevity) at the least cost (as measured by the percentage of GDP spent on healthcare) would be furthered by socialized medicine in this country. This is simply not debatable until somebody shows me an example of a private medical system whose patients live as long as all of the socialized medical systems in the world.

Given that I don't oppose socialized medicine, but would prefer instead a step where there is a non-profit motivated alternative made available as exists in every other 1st and 2nd world nation (with the exception of Canada), I'm not sure who this diatribe is pointed at.

But to suggest that Obama could have accomplished something more real or effective than Obamacare --- and that the only reason he didn't is because he is corrupted by the insurance industry ---- is truly magical thinking. Either that or I was hallucinating during the Harry and Louise campaign against HillaryCare and Bachman's cries of "death panels" in 2008.

For someone who likes socialized medicine, don't you think it is odd that Obama unilaterally took the public option off the table?

I for one cannot understand why your view is that nothing more could have been accomplished when there wasn't even a modicum of a fight over the public option. If in fact there had been a foofaraw and months of bitter acrimonious debate, that would be one thing.

There was none of that for the public option.

[c1ue]

Re: Obama Bypassing Elizabeth Warren for Consumer Protection Bureau

Evidence in support of my thesis outlined above: opposing CFPA is political suicide.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/mone...t-in-poll.html

Democrats and Republicans in Washington remain sharply split on the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. But a new poll from Consumers Union shows that about three-quarters of the public supports it.

A day before the new agency formally opens for business, Consumer Reports released results of a telephone survey of 1,012 people that found 74% said they strongly or somewhat supported it. Nineteen percent of respondents said they strongly or somewhat opposed the agency.


"Americans clearly feel that the CFPB is needed to keep big banks and lenders in check,” said Pamela Banks, senior policy counsel for Consumers Union, which publishes Consumer Reports magazine.


Still, the poll found low public awareness of the agency, which has been the focus of partisan battles for about two years. Before they were asked about what the bureau might do, just 32% of respondents said they were aware the federal government had formed the agency.


Asked what the bureau's priorities should be, 88% said it should hold financial companies accountable if they break the law. That was followed by strengthening and enforcing rules against deceptive and unfair practices by banks, credit card companies and other lenders (86%), requiring that mortgage and other documents for financial products be easier for consumers to understand (85%) and resolving complaints from consumers who have problems with financial firms (79%).


The poll, which has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, found that about a third of consumers had applied for or received a mortgage, car loan, credit card or other type of loan in the past year. About 36% of them said the disclosure documents that came with those products were not clear and easy to understand.

Openly fighting something with a 3 to 1 approval rating is not something any politician will do.

[Slimprofits]

Re: Obama Bypassing Elizabeth Warren for Consumer Protection Bureau

Warren is running for Senate in Mass....

[mmr]

Re: Obama Bypassing Elizabeth Warren for Consumer Protection Bureau

Democrat Warren to announce Senate candidacy targeting Scott Brown

After weeks of testing the political waters, Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard Law School professor and Wall Street critic, will officially announce her run for the US Senate tomorrow morning against Republican incumbent Scott Brown.

A senior campaign adviser has confirmed to the Globe that Warren will launch her candidacy by greeting voters across the state, beginning with a morning visit to a Boston MBTA station. She will then head to New Bedford, Framingham, Worcester, and Springfield, making similar appearances shaking hands and greeting voters.

Warren will not make any formal statements or speeches, but her aides will put a video on her campaign website featuring the candidate talking about the major themes she will strike as a candidate.

“The pressures on middle class families are worse than ever, but it is the big corporations that get their way in Washington,” Warren says in the video, according to a partial script given to the Globe. “I want to change that. I will work my heart out to earn the trust of the people of Massachusetts.”

[lektrode]

Re: Obama Bypassing Elizabeth Warren for Consumer Protection Bureau

oh baybee... now _this_ is gonna get good...

[cmalbatros]

Re: Obama Bypassing Elizabeth Warren for Consumer Protection Bureau

"Openly fighting something with a 3 to 1 approval rating is not something any politician will do."

Tarp was opposed by the public, through phone calls , email, & letters by over 300 to 1 , & yet it was still passed.

[c1ue]

Re: Obama Bypassing Elizabeth Warren for Consumer Protection Bureau

Tarp was opposed by the public, through phone calls , email, & letters by over 300 to 1 , & yet it was still passed.

Link please.

I do know TARP was unpopular, but I never saw anything showing a poll rating of 300 to 1 against.

The polls I have seen show a general outcry against bank bailouts, but a slight positive in favor of TARP:

http://www.zogby.com/news/2010/05/20...rnment-interv/

[Slimprofits]

Re: Obama Bypassing Elizabeth Warren for Consumer Protection Bureau

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113047/am...l-bailout.aspx

December 9, 2008

Since October, Americans have flipped from being more positive than negative on the Wall Street bailout, 50% to 41%, to being slightly more negative than positive, 47% to 46%.