There was truth in your criticism. I was not as clear as I should have. The old Forest from the trees. I took for granted that when I said Mr. Petersen, who Mr. Potter accused of being a shill, was a colleague, that was enough. I should have said more even though I was not anonymous. I have provided much great detail in my reply.
I hope you will take a second look and address the points regarding the unbalanced and disassociated assumptions Mr. Potter made that I outlined in my original post and reply to Mr. Galligan.
If you read my blog, also disclosed in my post, bloghealthinsurance.com, you would see that I completely agree that major reform is needed. MAJOR! I agree with our President that the path we are on is not sustainable. The solutions we completely disagree with. I wouldn't outlaw lawsuits either even though that would save 10-15%. I wouldn't mandate that providers are employees of the government even though that would save money. I wouldn't support paying medical for illegals, even though that would save 1%. Problems, we agree with. Solutions, we don't.
I do think that the really good thing about this hammer is that it is promoting democratic talk on the issues. Mr. Potter did not in his testimony or in his other blogs respected the opinions of others. On that, I am sickened and still believe that his tactics are McCarthy-like.
To all: I absolutely should have been more clear about who I am. I had a couple of drafts of my reply and should have been more explicit. In that I listed my homepage, my full name, and my blog www.bloghealthinsurance.com in the site, I hope that you will give me some benefit of the doubt on the lack of clear disclosure. I also stated that Mr. Petersen was a colleague.
I do want to correct that I am an insurance agent. Not president of an insurance company. Insurance companies would love to do away with us if they could. Most big insurers do compete against us selling the product without a broker, so I do want that clarification noted. Mr. Petersen is an independent representative, general agent, and would fall under the same category. Additionally, never do I claim that the new plans would exclude representatives explaining the products to people. Medicare Supplements , CHIP plans and Medicare Advantage plans, also have agents, like myself.
So now that this is out on the table, lets identify what I specifically called out and I look forward to your take.
1) Did Mr Potter accuse Mr. Petersen of being a shill?
2) Is having a crowd of single payer fans AND Public option fans a broad based and diverse crowd?
3) In his Senate Testimony Mr. Potter said that carriers "look carefully to see if a sick policyholder ommitted a minor illness ...and then use that as justification to cancel the policy". That is an outright lie.
4) He also said "they dump small businesses whose ...claims exceed what was expected... then hike the next year premium so high that the employer has to cut benefits". Also 100% false. Each state, limits what a carrier can do in any given year. In most states it takes more than 5 years of high claims to move a small group (under 50 lives) from a preferred rate tier to a high risk rate tier.
5) Did he claim that PriceWaterhouse delivered a "for the audience" report? Although the December 2008 CBO report actually showed that insurers paid out more than PriceWaterhouse showed.
5) Did he or did he not imply that the theorectical girl who died of a drug overdose was because of insurance? Come on ...
6) Did he say that anyone against the public option would " ensure that horrific future is a reality for millions of Americans, including their loved ones".
The tone of the article was not advocating a position. He only focused on unsubstantiated accusation and discrediting of anyone against the plan. It was the social equivalent of Pro-Lifer's marching with placards of dead fetuses. From a crackpot is one thing, from a Journalist, is another.
I 100% agree with you that my angle should have been more clear, but as I outlined, I did not go anonymous, posted my blog address, and made specific reference to colleagues. I took issue with what he actually said as the primary focus as opposed to his self-admitted history of questionable business ethics.
I 100% agree with the President that the course we are on is not sustainable. The observation of the problems that exist is spot on. I am 100% against the public option without addressing the hydraulic funding option.
I hope that you are satisfied with my additional full disclosure and welcome your criticism here or on my blog at BlogHealthInsurance.com .
That is quite a powerful speech and surely serves to motivate those that might be undecided on the issue of whether or not they support health care reform. The unfortunate part is that there are many who only see dollars out of their own pockets or disruption for themselves by the information that has been disseminated so far. Some of the more extreme have concocted a vision of health care as a destroyer of freedom.
These people do not see the benefit to the country as a whole by protecting the vulnerable and do not see the potential for savings if health care can be made more efficient while still providing great value as in other first world countries. As a result, the next approach required is to provide calm for those who are against the plan now, but may buy into health reform with an argument that aligns with their sensibilities. Appealing to compassion and justice has served its purpose as it only resonates with some of the population. The type of appeal must now evolve.
Abortion is covered in Obama’s health care plan. I don’t want one dime of my tax dollars Going for abortions. I also feel the government is worse than the insurance industry.
Insurance companies are parasite ,paper puppet agencies , that squander our money ,give us nothing but poor service, and could care less about our health.
What I’d like to see is a direct pay to the provider plan. A plan where the community supports the Doctors , health clinics, and hospitals in a given area.
As for our government - I think it’s high time to change - “Government for the few, by the few” And return to a “ Government for the people by the people”.
Pages