The Medicare comparison is off base simply because of the difference in demographics. The number of people eligible for the public option (at least initially) is way way less then the number of people currently enrolled in Medicare. Secondly, Medicare is for old people who get sick a lot and are generally very expensive to insure.

The public option will be mostly for people like you and me, who are cheap to insure. The sort of people who insurance companies actually make money off of. I go to the doctor once a year for a physical and a blood test. The dentist maybe a couple times a year for cleanings. Outside of emergencies, that's about it. So arguing that this program will lose money because Medicare did makes no sense.

10/12/2009 11:39:10 AM

Quote :

"The public option will be mostly for people like you and me, who are cheap to insure."

Then why dont they just buy thier own insurance then?

10/12/2009 11:58:52 AM

Quote :

". One of the problems this bill aims to eliminate is people using the ER as their primary care provider."

So what are we doing nationally that will differentiate this from the mass. plan which gives mass the highest insured rate in the nation, and the number of people going to the ER for basic care is still going up?

10/12/2009 1:06:38 PM

Quote :

"The Medicare comparison is off base simply because of the difference in demographics. The number of people eligible for the public option (at least initially) is way way less then the number of people currently enrolled in Medicare."

Not really. The poor get sick at higher rates than equivalent age groups and the number eligible will inevitably be extended. Your assumption politicians aren't going to use a government program to aid in their reelection flies in the face of 200+ years of representative democracy.

Furthermore, I'm interested in how a plan, run by the least efficient sector of US society, intends to sustain itself on the payments of those least able to pay for a health plan. Economically, this makes no sense.

10/12/2009 4:55:06 PM

I want the number eligible for the public option to be increased! Why do only the poor get the option of a public plan? Employer sponsored health insurance is hardly insurance at all

http://baselinescenario.com/2009/08/05/you-do-not-have-health-insurance/

Why should I be denied the option b/c i'm a productive individual who also has an employer option?

10/12/2009 5:23:37 PM

Quote :

"Health insurance premiums for the typical American family would increase by another $4,000 by 2019 under a key Senate overhaul plan, according to an industry trade group analysis. The report raised new questions about the political viability of the 10-year, $829 billion compromise bill drafted under the guidance of Sen. Max Baucus, D-Montana, chairman of the Finance Senate Finance Committee. The Finance Committee is expected to vote on the plan Tuesday. The vote represents a potential turning point in the health care debate. Baucus' committee is the last of five congressional panels to consider health care legislation before debate begins in the full House of Representatives and Senate. The report from the group America's Health Insurance Plans concludes that, under the Baucus plan, the costs of private health insurance would rise by 111 percent over the next decade. Under the current system, costs would rise by 79 percent, the report said. Premiums for individuals could rise by an extra $1,500 if the Baucus plan is implemented, the report said. . . . The White House blasted the report Monday, calling it inaccurate and self-serving. "This is a self-serving analysis from the insurance industry, one of the major opponents of health insurance reform," White House spokesman Reid Cherlin said. "It comes on the eve of a vote that will reduce the industry's profits. It is hard to take it seriously. The analysis completely ignores critical policies [that] will lower costs for those that have insurance, expand coverage and provide affordable health insurance options to millions of Americans who are priced out of today's health insurance market or are locked out by unfair insurance company practices.""

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/12/health.care/

10/12/2009 5:35:51 PM

From the denver post article on the previous page:

Quote :

"Alex's pre-existing condition — "obesity" — makes him a financial risk. Health insurance reform measures are trying to do away with such denials that come from a process called "underwriting." "If health care reform occurs, underwriting will go away. We do it because everybody else in the industry does it," said Dr. Doug Speedie, medical director at Rocky Mountain Health Plans, the company that turned down Alex."

I've seen this in a couple of stories recently. When did "underwriting" become the latest reform proponent's boogeyman? Underwriting is nothing more than determining what people an insurance company can afford to insure and at what premiums. It's not some magical evil arcane voodoo (at least in so far as insurance in general isn't voodoo) that is designed to keep the sick sick and the rich rich. Without underwriting guidelines, insurance companies wouldn't have a formula for insuring people. And insuring people without regard to underwriting guidelines means that one person has the potential to bankrupt your insurance. Sure, it makes us feel good to say that no insurance company will ever turn a person down and no one will pay a premium higher than $100, but all of that feel good goes out the window when a few people with multi million dollar bills means that little timmy can't get his flu shot because the insurance pool is all out of money.

I'm not saying that there isn't room for reform. I've expressed as much enough times in this thread, but as I said, I've seen the term underwriting tossed about more frequently in the past month or so, and always in scare quotes and prefaced with something like "a process called" or some other weasel phrase.

Incidentally, I'm curious as to how many people (if any) find the family's issues (increased premiums and another company won't take them) to be horrible and something we should fix, but are perfectly OK with the fat tax that NC will be imposing on their employees and why.

10/12/2009 8:17:36 PM

Quote :

"Underwriting is nothing more than determining what people an insurance company can afford to insure and at what premiums. It's not some magical evil arcane voodoo (at least in so far as insurance in general isn't voodoo) that is designed to keep the sick sick and the rich rich"

lol

10/12/2009 8:22:19 PM

Well yes, I suppose if your entire worldview is based on the idea that life is a zero sum game and companies and rich people are the devil whose sole purpose is to keep everyone else down then you might find that statement funny.

Now do you have anything useful to contribute, or are you aspiring to new levels of inanity?

10/12/2009 11:02:06 PM

How exactly do you think an insurance company makes money? (Hint: It's a hell of a lot like a casino.)

10/13/2009 12:20:41 AM

Well yes. The whole reason anyone offers insurance at all is because of the odds that you won't need to collect on it. And this is evil because....? If the odds were not in favor of the insurance company, you would never be able to trade $200 / month for $millions, because no one would take that risk.

10/13/2009 7:48:49 AM

Running a health insurance company isn't like a casino in the slightest. Once you're covering more than 10,000 people, then you're taking in more money in a month than what the highest probable liability for any one person is. And yes, the odds are stacked on the side of the premiums, and even if they're loosing too much money too fast, they can raise premiums.

Uncertainty is not the same as gambling people!

10/13/2009 8:52:18 AM

in before McDanger responds with his typical "i'm smarter than you" response.

10/13/2009 9:04:28 AM

^ LOL! 3. . .2. . .1. . .

10/13/2009 9:08:04 AM

mrfrog, that sounds exactly like how a casino operates. Running a casino is not really risky, they don't get unlucky and go bankrupt. They only go bankrupt if people stop playing. It is because, as you say, due to the law of large numbers the casino can play the odds and win a consistent profit every month. The same thing done by Insurance Companies. And, because such games work so well, both Casinos and Insurance earn small but consistent profits. Running a casino or health insurance company is no more like gambling than running Walt Disney World.

Now, if you want real gambling, look into the film industry. Those suckers lose real money, and because of it earn huge profits on average.

10/13/2009 10:12:39 AM

I have a new healthcare proposal, and it will only be one page long, not the thousand pages those liberals have come up with:


Ban health insurance.


Simple, isn't it? Now, instead of having to pay into privately run socialist health regimes, where your money pays for other sick people, you instead get to exercise your freedom to use your own money to pay for health costs. This will encourage personal responsibility, as people will be able to save up their own money to pay for any medical bills they might incur. Healthy? Then you have nothing to worry about and will have lots of money saved up! Sick? You better work hard!

10/13/2009 11:11:13 AM

Quote :

"Well yes. The whole reason anyone offers insurance at all is because of the odds that you won't need to collect on it. And this is evil because....? If the odds were not in favor of the insurance company, you would never be able to trade $200 / month for $millions, because no one would take that risk."

And maybe this is why ensuring people have health care shouldn't boil down to a craps game with rich motherfuckers who'd rather collect than pay.

[Edited on October 13, 2009 at 11:23 AM. Reason : .]

10/13/2009 11:22:49 AM

Any ideas that don't involve lining the pockets of politicians?

[Edited on October 13, 2009 at 1:47 PM. Reason : zxcv]

10/13/2009 1:46:47 PM

Quote :

"Any ideas that don't involve lining the pockets of politicians?"

If you're suggesting that government programs can become corrupt and run wild then I agree. The best example is our military.

I'd rather get people help and worry about how to straighten out the corruption later. That seems like a separate issue.

10/13/2009 1:49:17 PM

^^ Yes, see my suggestion above.

10/13/2009 1:54:06 PM

14-9 Senate Finance vote passes, Snowe votes with the democrats

10/13/2009 2:55:48 PM

^^^ Not can, will.

And corruption is hardly a separate issue. Corruption is one of the reasons why health care is so expensive in the first place. If you don't address corruption, you can't adequately provide care.

^^ Sorry, I didn't realize the mindless drivel you leak in this thread was something you considered a valid idea

10/13/2009 7:50:21 PM

and with Snowe, Obama now has his "bipartisan support."

Quote :

"Every single version of the public option is paid for by premiums of the people who enroll in it."

If you'll buy that, then I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you. Think about this for a second. In order to get the bill to be "revenue neutral," they collected taxes for 10 years, but only made payments for 5 years. If it takes twice the number of years of inlays to cover outlays, then it's not really revenue neutral.

Quote :

"The Medicare comparison is off base simply because of the difference in demographics. The number of people eligible for the public option (at least initially) is way way less then the number of people currently enrolled in Medicare. Secondly, Medicare is for old people who get sick a lot and are generally very expensive to insure."

And what you don't get is that Medicare takes money from people it currently doesn't insure. Thus, even with young people paying in and receiving nothing, it is incapable of being fiscally solvent. Think about that. There's a whole group of people paying in and receiving nothing, which practically never happens in the real insurance world. And it still can't stay above water.

10/13/2009 7:55:48 PM

So let me get this straight, the Baucus bill will start confiscating income upon being passed, but not take full effect until 2015, meaning we're healthcare costs will go up (on account of the increased taxes) before the bill even takes place. I can't imagine that politicians won't spin this and blame it on those evil health insurance companies and push for more aggressive control over the health care industry.



Also, someone please tell me how this is remotely constitutional.

10/13/2009 8:09:21 PM

what is this "Constitution" of which you speak?

10/13/2009 8:18:49 PM

There's no way the Baucus bill would pass by itself. The Democrats wouldn't allow it. The health + finance combined bill will include a public option, no doubt about that.

[Edited on October 13, 2009 at 9:36 PM. Reason : .]

10/13/2009 9:35:49 PM

Well, it might pass the senate, then be merged with the house bill which contains a public option, so that the final, merged bill contains one. But yeah, whatever hits BO's desk will have a public option of some sort.

10/13/2009 11:45:08 PM

Quote :

"what is this "Constitution" of which you speak?"

heh

see: Bush Administration policies

see: aaronburru posts from 2001-2008

10/14/2009 9:58:37 AM

^^Yeah, that's pretty much been the idea since day one. Let Congress do their thing until the bill gets to the Senate/House conference committee and then put the screws in to make sure the final bill has a public option as well everything else the White House wanted.

10/14/2009 10:02:00 AM

^^ you have this mistaken notion that I somehow supported most of Bush's policies. That couldn't be further from the truth

10/14/2009 8:10:18 PM

I'm pretty interested in the PriceWaterhouseCooper study. It focuses on what actually affects me: a middle-class privately insured worker. And as far as I can tell, I'm gonna be paying more under this bill in order for the government to provide subsidies to those who can afford health care, but choose not to.

I like the idea of health care reform, but this bastardized bill that came out of the senate finance committee doesn't look too promising.

10/14/2009 9:52:30 PM

Some commentary about the study:

10/15/2009 12:40:22 AM

Thank you for that youtube link to a liberal douchebag internet talk show. Complete with bonus footage from thinkprogress.

Now lets talk about the reform bill without using talking points and links to partisan blogs / radio shows, shall we?

The reform package tries to extend coverage to an extra 29 million people, while being revenue neutral. Or it'll actually reduce the deficit, if you believe the CBO. Now how does it do that? Primarily by providing subsidies to those who cannot afford coverage, and penalties to those who can afford it but choose not to get it. There are cuts to Medicare, and a lot of fees in there for the insurers, drug makers and hospitals. But the end result is that a lot of these costs will be passed right on to the consumers. There are not many cost controls in this bill. Instead, it'll be more expensive for insurers to provide coverage, and there will be more subsidies for the poor. Who foots the bill? Well, you and I and those already with insurance. There won't be any new direct taxes, but these fees and medicare cuts will likely cause the insurers to shift a greater burden of the costs to those who are already paying for health care. And that's what I'm worried about.

10/15/2009 3:09:36 AM

and why the hell is there a cap on how much of my own money I can dedicate to a medical savings account?

10/15/2009 6:29:22 AM

^^ I dunno about you, man, but it looks like that "liberal douchebag" footage was from C-SPAN. Does C-SPAN have a liberal bias? Oh god, the liberals have their tentacles everywhere!

10/15/2009 8:36:24 AM

Labor unions turn against parts of health bill
Updated 8h 22m ago

Quote :

"WASHINGTON — A coalition of labor unions is emerging as a leading critic of an $829 billion health care bill heading toward a Senate vote, complicating debate among Democrats over how to pay for the measure. Unions had largely supported President Obama's effort to revamp the nation's $2.6 trillion health care system, but 27 labor groups have launched a campaign against key provisions in the bill passed this week by the Senate Finance Committee."

Quote :

"Unions spent $75 million on contributions to federal candidates in 2008, 92% of which went to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. 'This push is really a reflection of the struggle that's going to take place in the Democratic Party in how you move forward,' said Jacob Hacker, a political scientist at Yale University."

Quote :

"[Gerald] McEntee [head of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees] said union workers have often chosen to accept lower wages in exchange for better and more costly health insurance. He said union members, who frequently organize get-out-the-vote efforts for Democrats, won't be afraid to remind politicians of that in next year's election. 'We worked for all these people. We worked for Obama,' he said. 'What do we get for it? We not only don't get anything for it, we get a slap in the face.'"

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-10-14-union_N.htm

10/15/2009 11:06:15 AM

Europe is failing. Their recent elections have shown a backlash against socialism and their inefficiencies.

10/15/2009 1:39:30 PM

Quote :

"Instead, it'll be more expensive for insurers to provide coverage, and there will be more subsidies for the poor. Who foots the bill? Well, you and I and those already with insurance. There won't be any new direct taxes, but these fees and medicare cuts will likely cause the insurers to shift a greater burden of the costs to those who are already paying for health care. And that's what I'm worried about."

Don't you think that that is exactly what some liberals want? To increase the prices on every one else to serve as further "proof" that the system is fundamentally broken, and thus we need to move to full-fledged .govcare?

10/15/2009 8:29:17 PM

^^^Shocking news! Corporations are allied with republicans, labor unions are allied with democrats.

10/15/2009 11:54:45 PM

Looks like some people are misinformed regarding healthcare-- they support the individual components being pushed through, but have less support for these components when you call them "the proposed changes to the healthcare system."



Overall, it's pretty clear that Americans want the bill. With a public option.

10/20/2009 12:13:42 PM

Im sure the majority of americans want free cars too. How long can we afford this is a better question.

I actually agreed with this from the NY Times.

"But any lawmakers voting “yes” should have no illusions about what they’re voting for. This version of reform probably won’t make health care more affordable for most Americans, or place the system on firmer footing for the long run. Despite all the talk about a once-in-a-generation opportunity, our political class will have barely finished congratulating itself before rising costs will force everyone back to the negotiating table to consider more radical approaches."



http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/19/opinion/19douthat.html?_r=1

[Edited on October 20, 2009 at 12:17 PM. Reason : .]

10/20/2009 12:14:59 PM

^^ those are pretty strange results indeed. i wonder if that's because people are misinformed though, or if it's because they think congress is writing the plan for the insurance companies and not the people?

[Edited on October 20, 2009 at 12:22 PM. Reason : ]

10/20/2009 12:21:09 PM

Quote :

"Overall, it's pretty clear that Americans want the bill. With a public option."

They might want it, but that doesn't make it feasible. How hard is it to understanding that we're out of money? You're not going to lower prices, in the longrun, by increasing debt. We spent too much, now fewer people are going to have access to healthcare...period. You can keep living in Keynesian fairyland, but that isn't reality. They can force this bill through, and a myriad of other bills, but in 5 years, we'll be screwed either way. Action isn't always better than inaction.

10/20/2009 12:23:50 PM

The bill, along with the taxes it calls for, will save money, so says the CBO

10/20/2009 1:46:10 PM

Just like TARP and the stimulus saved money, I'm sure.

10/20/2009 1:48:37 PM

^^ the bill will be revenue positive, mostly by instituting annual fees on insurers, practitioners and hospitals, as well as cutting back on Medicare spending.

Health care spending will undoubtedly rise, however. That means higher premiums and co-pays. This bill does a lot of things, but there aren't many cost-cutting measures in it. It is more aimed at extending coverage to the uninsured via subsidies, and regulating the industry so that they can't reject applicants based on pre-existing conditions. The elephant in the room is the cost of coverage, which will continue to escalate under this reform package.

[Edited on October 20, 2009 at 3:21 PM. Reason : 2]

10/20/2009 3:18:45 PM

Quote :

"The bill, along with the taxes it calls for, will save money, so says the CBO"

Is this the same CBO that massively underestimated the bill that Medicare would leave us for 1990 when it was being considered in the 60s? Come on.

Besides, how can you say that with a straight face when it turns out that, over the ten years, payments are only made for 5 years, while taxes are taken out for ten years? Really?
And NOW they are talking about a SEPARATE BILL which will add back in funding for medicare which was cut in this bill in order to make it "revenue neutral." Come on, man

[Edited on October 20, 2009 at 9:03 PM. Reason : ]

10/20/2009 9:00:37 PM

It's the same CBO that republicans refer to when it suits their interests.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/10/cbo_medical_malpractice_reform.html?wprss=capitol-briefing

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/10/the_ten_republican_members_of.html

Face it, you guys are screwed on this one. Public Option, here we come.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/pelosi-prepares-to-move-ahead-with-robust-public-option.php?ref=dcblt

Quote :

"The analysis finds the reconstituted House proposal to be deficit neutral, and require less than $900 billion (reportedly around $870 billion) in new spending, over ten years. The bill remains nominally more expensive than the Senate Finance Committee proposal, but would cover 96 percent of all Americans, providing greater bang for each federal dollar spent. And, aides note, the bill that comes to the floor of the Senate will be a hybrid of the Finance and more expensive HELP Committee bills, so the price is expected to rise. "

[Edited on October 21, 2009 at 9:51 AM. Reason : .]

10/21/2009 9:50:11 AM

Quote :

"Face it, you guys we are all are screwed on this one. Public Option, here we come."

Nothing will be fixed. Costs will continue to go up. More and more debt will be piled on the tax payer.

10/21/2009 10:06:05 AM

Quote :

"Face it, you guys are screwed on this one. Public Option, here we come."

I'm not sure that the Public Option is an inevitability, as you would suggest. And really, if there is a "Public Option," it won't just be Republicans that are screwed, it'll be all Americans for years to come. It'll be another failure of a government program that can't pay for itself and contributes to our decline. Even if it were implemented, I don't see it lasting for long. I don't see Medicare and Social Security lasting for too terribly long, either. There's no way these programs can continue to be funded. Where's the money coming from?

10/21/2009 10:21:12 AM