DailyKosTV: O'Reilly backs government health insurance option

[Baculus]

Lol, I know more about this particular subject than you probably realize.

If bureaucrats could simply go out and stop fraud, I assure you that they would.

Do you know how many claims are submitted to Medicare and Medicaid every year? Hint: there are 45 million elderly and disabled people in Medicare alone. They're the highest utilizers in the country. On average, they use about 7 drugs, which are reported seperately from medical claims.

Medicare alone has billions of claims to look at. Then, if it's true fraud, you need the DOJ to be able to build each individual case and prosecute. It takes resources and mandates to cut into the problem that people are articulating. It also takes political will. This aint about bureaucrats, it's about politicians.

It certainly is bureaucrats, and often bureaucrats in the private industry, which is responsible for most of this Medicare fraud.

[Baculus]

Ya leave off socialist for some reason Bac?

I do like Frances system somewhat.

You socialist!

[SkinsHokieFan]

The health exchange insurance is a good idea -- it's what's used in nations such as France or Switzerland -- but this is also why a public option is suggested as an alternative to corporate-based insurance.

From what I have read on liberal blogs and websites (and much of my criticism for this plan comes from liberal blogs and websites) is about 5 percent of the people will actually be eligible to use the public option

Again, mandatory insurance, huge fines, this is gonna be Romneycare like give away on steroids.

The health insurance industry couldn't be any more giddy

[Baculus]

I think that conversation you used is incomplete, or you missed the show entirely and relied on a far left website to provide the answers. O'Reilly does not back the health care plan as proposed in the house. He back the plan that I stated, where the government has true competition. That is what he has said the last few nights. B/c the plan proposed the CBO predicted that millions would be "forced" to adapt to the government plan. Not exactly the land of the free.

I also like the links you used

Huffington Post- Far left

MSNBC- Far Left

You have no idea what Far Left means. Neither of this organizations are "Far Left" and it is silly to suggest so. Also, please go ahead and post the entire transcript from his show, because, either way, it does not change what O'Reilly said, which I will repeat:

O'REILLY: But you know, I want that, Ms. Owcharenko. I want that. I want, not for personally for me, but for working Americans, to have a option, that if they don't like their health insurance, if it's too expensive, they can't afford it, if the government can cobble together a cheaper insurance policy that gives the same benefits, I see that as a plus for the folks."

After all, what else would a "government insurance policy" mean? Isn't this the SAME argument used by those who support a public option?

And just because he does not support H.R. 3200 doesn't mean a person does not support public health care. There are people who want a single-payer system who also do not support H.R. 3200.

As it is, this bill does not force people to adapt to the any particular system. The bill does nothing to remove the private insurance market. To suggest otherwise is fear mongering and inaccurate.

[SkinsHokieFan]

As it is, this bill does not force people to adapt to the any particular system. The bill does nothing to remove the private insurance market. To suggest otherwise is fear mongering and inaccurate.

It doesn't eliminate the private insurance market at all. It sells the farm to them in ways health care execs could have never imagined this time last year

[Midnight Judges]

This may be one of the largest corporate give aways ever

The more and more I read about insurance mandates, exchanges, fines, its pretty obvious whats going on here

That wouldn't be as much the case with a public option.

[Baculus]

From what I have read on liberal blogs and websites (and much of my criticism for this plan comes from liberal blogs and websites) is about 5 percent of the people will actually be eligible to use the public option

Again, mandatory insurance, huge fines, this is gonna be Romneycare like give away on steroids.

The health insurance industry couldn't be any more giddy

So, which is it -- socialism or a corporate give-away? As far as the public option is concerned, it depends on the design: if we do have such an option, you will be sure that the GOP will try to limit enrolling in such a program.

You see mandatory insurance in European programs. Here is the idea: The more people you get into a health care pool, the cheaper it will become (as least as designed in some nations). Thus, I see the reasoning for it, though I am not totally supportive of such coercion. That being said, if we can provide tax credit assistance for those who cannot afford it, then I see little reason why everyone shouldn't be insured in some fashion.

Of course, I would still prefer a system such as the Canadian Medicare system.

[Baculus]

That wouldn't be as much the case with a public option.

Right. Each of those are separately described areas of H.R. 3200.

[sknsrbck26]

As it is, this bill does not force people to adapt to the any particular system. The bill does nothing to remove the private insurance market. To suggest otherwise is fear mongering and inaccurate.

C.B.O actually would disagree with you...in there estimations millions of individual people would be forced to adapt the government option.

Another point, if you are a business and don't offer government health care , you face heavy fines. Pay heavy fines or go the government route...I wonder which one they will choose?

Fear Mongering...or are you afraid the truth isn't on your side?

[Baculus]

It doesn't eliminate the private insurance market at all. It sells the farm to them in ways health care execs could have never imagined this time last year

Right, which is why I am totally befuddled by the claims of those on the Right. They really seem to have no idea what's contained in the bill.

The idea behind the exchange is to provide competition in the market, so hopefully it will restrain the growth of premiums. But yes, mandatory coverage will certainly be a boom to the health insurance industry, outside of a public option. That is why some support the idea of the non-private option and the expansion of Medicare and Medicaid.

This is the difficulty of health care reform.

[SkinsHokieFan]

That wouldn't be as much the case with a public option.

Have you seen how many people may actually be able to afford the public option?

Illegals won't have access to it (so they'll end up back in the ER as before)

If you are broke, well I dunno, I guess you scrape up money to buy into the PO or just pay the fine.

The so called public option is turning out to be a farce

So, which is it -- socialism or a corporate give-away? As far as the public option is concerned, it depends on the design: if we do have such an option, you will be sure that the GOP will try to limit enrolling in such a program. But guess what, you can't afford to get on any insurance plan, so you have no insurance. Here comes the FINE!

You see mandatory insurance in European programs. Here is the idea: The more people you get into a health care pool, the cheaper it will become (as least as designed in some nations). Thus, I see the reasoning for it, though I am not totally supportive of such coercion. That being said, if we can provide tax credit assistance for those who cannot afford it, then I see little reason why everyone shouldn't be insured in some fashion.

Of course, I would still prefer a system such as the Canadian Medicare system.

If you read my posts very carefully, you can see I have taken a very wait and see approach to this bill

I opposed the Medicare Part D expansion for same reasons I opposed the bailouts; I am not a fan of corporate giveaways nor corporate welfare whatsoever.

This bill, mandatory insurance OR fines (tough luck if you have no job, looks like those subsidies will help you get on to the PO right?) all put even more squeeze on the average middle class person

How much will premiums be for the public option? Will you have 20 percent copays like you do on Medicare Part B (thats a great scam, gotta buy Medigap insurance to fill that 20 percent).

I understand the in theory concept that you need lots of young healthy people who don't use health insurance (like this guy) to pay for everyone else. Thats how insurance works.

But lets give people the choice as to whether or not they want to be in the ponzi scheme giveaway to the health industry.

I am watching very closely how this goes and in particular what will happen to the stocks of WellPoint and BCBS

[SkinsHokieFan]

Right, which is why I am totally befuddled by the claims of those on the Right. They really seem to have no idea what's contained in the bill.

The idea behind the exchange is to provide competition in the market, so hopefully it will restrain the growth of premiums. But yes, mandatory coverage will certainly be a boom to the health insurance industry, outside of a public option. That is why some support the idea of the non-private option and the expansion of Medicare and Medicaid.

This is the difficulty of health care reform.

Along with that, big Pharma is about to start to pay up on its end of the bribe with President Obama

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/12/drug-makers-plan-to-back-baucus-plan-with-ad-dollars/

Drug Makers to Back Baucus Plan With Ad Dollars

By DUFF WILSON

The drug industry’s trade group plans to roll out a series of television advertisements in coming weeks specifically to support Senator Max Baucus’s health care overhaul proposal, according to an industry official involved in the planning.

The move would be a follow-up to the deal that drug makers struck in June with Mr. Baucus and the White House. Under that pact, the industry agreed to various givebacks and discounts meant to reduce the nation’s pharmaceutical spending by $80 billion over 10 years.

Shortly after striking that agreement, the trade group — the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA — also set aside $150 million for advertising to support health care legislation.

President Obama has cited the deal with the group as signifying a new era of cooperation. But some critics say the advertising fund could be wielded against alternative approaches to health care legislation. Some House Democrats, including Henry A. Waxman of California, are seeking drug industry givebacks not covered in the deal with Mr. Baucus and the White House.

Up to now, the trade group, led by former Representative Billy Tauzin, a Republican from Louisiana, has contributed $12 million toward an advertising campaign coordinated by a coalition called Americans for Stable Quality Care. Early advertisements focused on general subjects like “Eight Ways Reform Matters to You.”

Read rest at link

[Wrong Direction]

Right, which is why I am totally befuddled by the claims of those on the Right. They really seem to have no idea what's contained in the bill.

The idea behind the exchange is to provide competition in the market, so hopefully it will restrain the growth of premiums. But yes, mandatory coverage will certainly be a boom to the health insurance industry, outside of a public option. That is why some support the idea of the non-private option and the expansion of Medicare and Medicaid.

This is the difficulty of health care reform.

Republicans support health insurance exchanges or alternatives such as association health plans and/or regional (multi-state) purchasing pools.

They just don't trust the federal government to run it all. They think that federal oversight will create an overly mandated system with increments always trending in the more costly range. They can point to Part D for examples.

This debate is philosophical as much as it's about details.

BTW, what positive comes from a public option?

[Baculus]

C.B.O actually would disagree with you...in there estimations millions of individual people would be forced to adapt the government option.

Another point, if you are a business and don't offer government health care , you face heavy fines. Pay heavy fines or go the government route...I wonder which one they will choose?

First, provide your sources so I can see what the C.B.O. said and how they claim to their conclusion. Second, the mandatory coverage means ANY sort of coverage -- not just "public plan" coverage (which you just inaccurately described). Again, businesses would receive tax credits, as the below .PDF describes:

"Small businesses that choose to offer health coverage are eligible to receive a credit against their income tax liability for up to 50 percent of their cost of providing such coverage."

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwaysandmeans.house.gov%2Fmedia%2Fpdf%2F111%2FSmallBiz7-28.pdf&ei=if2ySv-CCoyxtgf5jfShDg&usg=AFQjCNG_Gxc__b-9mFeOm97kYfQqs1o6QA&sig2=oxSI8aRFQci6-cVe6U_VrQ

Notice the area which says, "With an Exchange, competitive private plans and a robust public health insurance option will increase the number of affordable choices for small businesses and their workers and promote competition that holds private insurers accountable."

As it is, this does not exist at this time, and there are many small businesses who cannot afford such coverage. And if they can afford it, the rising costs have premiums have resulted in fewer raises and pay increases, which is one reason why real wages have flat-lined over this decade.

We cannot do nothing, because it will only grow worse.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Link to article here

Mandated Health Insurance Squeezes Those in the Middle

By VANESSA FUHRMANS

BOSTON -- President Barack Obama and his congressional allies have made insuring nearly all Americans a major goal of overhauling the nation's health-care system. One of their toughest challenges will be trying to cover people like Ron Norton of Worcester, Mass.

Mr. Norton, 49 years old, is an adjunct professor at a local community college who earns about $40,000 a year. He's also one of roughly 200,000 Massachusetts residents who remain uninsured despite a state law requiring residents to have health insurance.

"I can't use up all of my savings just to buy mandatory insurance," Mr. Norton says. It's like penalizing "the homeless for refusing to buy a mansion."

As lawmakers hammer out legislation aiming to extend coverage to the country's 46 million uninsured, one of the most sweeping proposals has so far stoked relatively little debate: a requirement that nearly all Americans carry health insurance, much like drivers are required to have car insurance.

All of the major health bills winding through Congress feature a so-called individual mandate similar to the one in Massachusetts. Mr. Obama supported the idea in his speech to Congress last week. Such a mandate, proponents argue, is necessary to keep premiums affordable: The healthy, who are relatively cheap to cover, help pay for the sick.

Subsidies for premiums would help low-income families gain coverage, while the prospect of fines would prod others to buy insurance.

But people like Mr. Norton show how difficult it could be to bring into the insurance pool the millions of consumers who make too much money to qualify for assistance, yet not enough to bear the full cost of new policies on their own.

Three years after Massachusetts's ambitious universal-coverage law went into effect, two-thirds of its previously 600,000 uninsured residents have coverage, according to state data. It has the lowest rate of uninsured in the country -- about 3% according to a state survey, compared with 15% nationwide. But the remainder -- many younger, male and fairly healthy -- has proved tougher to cover.

Click link for rest

[Wrong Direction]

First, provide your sources so I can see what the C.B.O. said and how they claim to their conclusion. Second, the mandatory coverage means ANY sort of coverage -- not just "public plan" coverage (which you just inaccurately described). Again, businesses would receive tax credits, as the below .PDF describes:

"Small businesses that choose to offer health coverage are eligible to receive a credit against their income tax liability for up to 50 percent of their cost of providing such coverage."

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwaysandmeans.house.gov%2Fmedia%2Fpdf%2F111%2FSmallBiz7-28.pdf&ei=if2ySv-CCoyxtgf5jfShDg&usg=AFQjCNG_Gxc__b-9mFeOm97kYfQqs1o6QA&sig2=oxSI8aRFQci6-cVe6U_VrQ

Notice the area which says, "With an Exchange, competitive private plans and a robust public health insurance option will increase the number of affordable choices for small businesses and their workers and promote competition that holds private insurers accountable."

As it is, this does not exist at this time, and there are many small businesses who cannot afford such coverage. And if they can afford it, the rising costs have premiums have resulted in fewer raises and pay increases, which is one reason why real wages have flat-lined over this decade.

We cannot do nothing, because it will only grow worse.

The proposed bills will result in a major shift from employer insurance to insurance offered through health insurance exchanges. In a nutshell, why would a private insurer go through the cost and trouble of negotiating and maintaining their own plan when they know people can buy into exchange insurance options? Many credible sources have estimated the number of people who would move. I happen to think employer based insurance is a bad thing, but the country isn't too keen on the idea that most people would leave their current insurance to go to options with federal oversight.

It will also result in worse insurance for people with "cadillac" plans, because they'll be taxed, and the incentive to provide that extra coverage will be lost.

[Baculus]

Republicans support health insurance exchanges or alternatives such as association health plans and/or regional (multi-state) purchasing pools.

That is the irony -- one alternative bill, the America's Affordable Health Choice Act of 2009, a GOP sponsored bill, creates an exchange. Mitt Romney, a Republican, signed into law a health care bill which created both an exchange and a public option.

And yet, this exchange has been decried as "socialism."

They just don't trust the federal government to run it all.

H.R. 3200 does not create a system that "runs it all." To make this suggestion is to distort the content of the bill.

They think that federal oversight will create an overly mandated system with increments always trending in the more costly range. They can point to Part D for examples.

Part D is a Medicare-private hybrid.

And we already have some oversight -- after all, isn't this what's missing? Oversight in the industry?

This debate is philosophical as much as it's about details.

BTW, what positive comes from a public option?

Depends on the public option, but as a taxpayer, I would love to receive health benefits for all the money I have paid. Wouldn't you? If we can spend a trillion dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan, why cannot we do it here?

As far as the H.R. 3200 public option, the idea is to create a competition in areas that lack competition. After all, half of the markets in the U.S. are only served by a couple of insurance providers.

[Midnight Judges]

Have you seen how many people may actually be able to afford the public option?

Illegals won't have access to it (so they'll end up back in the ER as before)

If you are broke, well I dunno, I guess you scrape up money to buy into the PO or just pay the fine.

The so called public option is turning out to be a farce

Not that many people would use the public option. The CBO estimated a pretty low number-something like 10 million IIRC.

Affording it would be much of a problem because it would be competetive and also largely subsidized.

Besides, I thought the big criticism was that the public option would put too many companies out of business. Now that that's not the case you call it a farce? It's another option. Nothing more.

[Wrong Direction]

Link to article here

This article touches briefly, but not substantively enough (IMO) on how much more than expected the Mass plan is costing.

This unknown raises deficit fears among many Americans, and rightfully so.

[McD5]

Everyone craves O'Reilly's approval. He is extremely intelligent.

From DailyKos, to the OP, who posted this thread.

Everyone wants O'Reilly on their side.

[chipwhich]

Affording it would be much of a problem because it would be competetive and also largely subsidized.

Yeah because people who are broke with no insurance can afford $50, $100, $200, whatever a month in added expenses. You people are a trip.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Not that many people would use the public option. The CBO estimated a pretty low number-something like 10 million IIRC.

Affording it would be much of a problem because it would be competetive and also largely subsidized.

Besides, I thought the big criticism was that the public option would put too many companies out of business. Now that that's not the case you call it a farce? It's another option. Nothing more.

Again, you are projecting the criticisms of the cretins on my own personal criticisms. By this point, you should be able to draw a difference between my own personal opinion and the opinion of "the right" but I suppose you forget in order to make any type of case against my arguments

I am one of the few who doesn't give a damn about the insurance companies, so personally I could care less what happens to them

What I don't want is our tax payer dollars flowing right over to them (or in many cases our income in general due to mandates) which is what the Baucus bill does, and which is really the direction the President is going in.

He, and Senator Bacus, have to pay off their financiers. Republicans are just going along with the show for their constituents consumption

[Midnight Judges]

Link to article here

So her point is that they could only help out 400,000 people in 3 years? LOL!

Three years after Massachusetts's ambitious universal-coverage law went into effect, two-thirds of its previously 600,000 uninsured residents have coverage, according to state data. It has the lowest rate of uninsured in the country -- about 3% according to a state survey, compared with 15% nationwide. But the remainder -- many younger, male and fairly healthy -- has proved tougher to cover.

[Midnight Judges]

Yeah because people who are broke with no insurance can afford $50, $100, $200, whatever a month in added expenses. You people are a trip.

Do you know the meaning of the word "subsidize?"

[Baculus]

The proposed bills will result in a major shift from employer insurance to insurance offered through health insurance exchanges.

I don't think you understand the health insurance exchange mechanism. It creates a market for different private (and public, if that option is created) for employers or employees to choose.

In a nutshell, why would a private insurer go through the cost and trouble of negotiating and maintaining their own plan when they know people can buy into exchange insurance options?

Well, yeah -- why would they? Isn't that a good thing for the employer?

Many credible sources have estimated the number of people who would move. I happen to think employer based insurance is a bad thing, but the country isn't too keen on the idea that most people would leave their current insurance to go to options with federal oversight.

I fail to see why you oppose this if you "think employer based insurance is a bad thing." Also, the level of "federal oversight" is debatable.

It will also result in worse insurance for people with "cadillac" plans, because they'll be taxed, and the incentive to provide that extra coverage will be lost.

This is not necessarily true -- this is one area of the Sen. Baucus plan which has been criticized by both sides of the aisle.