DailyKosTV: O'Reilly backs government health insurance option

[SkinsHokieFan]

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.

Said it much more efficiently then I was saying

You are essentially forcing people with no money to buy health insurance, when they can't put food on the table.

You will try and subsidies them via tax credits, when they don't pay taxes.

You could subsidize the cost of the insurance, public option or not, and yet they still have to pay freakin money for it.

And if they still choose not to buy insurance, private or government, they get fined :hysterical:

[SkinsHokieFan]

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

So a 150 dollar plan now costs 75

And this helps the guy who makes 0 dollars a month how?

[SkinsHokieFan]

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/15/potter-baucus/

Health Insurance Insider Slams Baucus Bill: ‘An Absolute Gift To The Insurance Industry’

On the eve of the Senate Finance Committee’s release of its much anticipated health care plan, Wendell Potter — the insurance industry whistle blower and former communications director of health insurance giant Cigna — called the Baucus framework “an absolute gift to the industry.” “And if that is what we see in the legislation, [America’s Health Insurance Plans chief] Karen Ignagni will surely get a huge bonus,” Potter said at a briefing for reporters.

The bill establishes a new regulated health insurance exchange and compels every American to purchase qualified health insurance coverage by 2013. Americans with employer-sponsored insurance can stay in their existing plans, while the uninsured would have to enroll in an expanded Medicaid program, a new plan in the Exchange or the now-regulated individual health insurance market. According to a report released by the Congressional Budget Office, the bill would cover 94% of Americans and cost $880 billion over 10 years.

Potter argued that the lax employer requirements would shift the cost and risk of coverage onto the individual and maintained that the bill’s “network of cooperatives” would be unable to compete in today’s concentrated health insurance markets. “The co-ops won’t stand a chance,” he concluded.

Reform must also do more to regulate insurers, who have agreed to accept applicants with pre-existing conditions but are insisting on benefit and rate flexibility. Potter argued that the benefit package standards in the Exchange and the high deductible option for younger beneficiaries would allow insurers to design almost anything that they can sell in the health market place and push the country towards consumer driven health care.

Under the Baucus legislation, private insurers could also charge older individuals up to five times more for coverage. “You’re just using age as a proxy for health status,” Uwe Reinhardt, an economics professor at Princeton University told the New York Times. Reinhardt estimates that “Senator Baucus’s age-rating plan would allow insurers to cover roughly 70 percent of the additional risk they’d take on by being required to accept all comers, regardless of health.”

[Baculus]

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.

Those people who cannot afford it will receive a tax break.

[Baculus]

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.

I think the whole angle is "hypocrisy" -- that a man who decried the public option as socialism now has seemingly endorsed it.

Personally, if spite of my criticisms of him, I believe he is actually the more rational of the right-wing "traditionalists," as he calls himself.

And that says a lot.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Those people who cannot afford it will receive a tax break.

How much of a tax break does someone making 0 dollars get? :whoknows:

[Midnight Judges]

So a 150 dollar plan now costs 75

And this helps the guy who makes 0 dollars a month how?

uh, it costs half as much?

BTW, I have not seen this 50% threshold before. Where are you getting that?

[Baculus]

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.

There are rising costs in that program, but for a reason: People who suddenly did not have have such care. It's an issue with increased usage.

It demonstrates this nation's problem: millions of people who do not have health insurance.

Now, one can use this as an argument (like some folks here have) that this system will add further stress to the U.S. health care system, especially since we have a nurse and GP shortage. This probably points the desirability for training programs in the industry (the Stimulus bill invested $500 million into this) and programs such as the Maryland debt forgiveness program for physicians in certain regions.

[SkinsHokieFan]

uh, it costs half as much?

BTW, I have not seen this 50% threshold before. Where are you getting that?

Just pulling it out of my ass

Here is the point. Subsidies or tax credits won't matter for someone who makes 0.

You subsidize a 100 dollar a month plan to 25 dollars a month (just an example I am making up)

Unless the government is planning on subsidizing up to 100 percent of premiums, you still have people up the creek who can't afford to meet the mandates the government has set for them

Now they are getting fined

[chipwhich]

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

Yeah so if you have 2 people making 30K a year, one can't afford health care because they have credit card debt and cars they can't afford, the other takes care of their responsibilities and don't have debt...who gets subsidized.

Thats the crux of the problem everyone ignores.

[Baculus]

How much of a tax break does someone making 0 dollars get? :whoknows:

That person would probably quality for Medicaid.

As far as the tax break is concerned, I do not have figures in front of me, but it must be noted that tax breaks is an element of both Democrat and GOP plans.

I think the tax breaks may still need to be finalized at this point.

[Wrong Direction]

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."

Go on...it's a bill that's blowing Mass's budget out of the water. Either way, R's aren't calling the exchange idea socialism. They're calling the idea that the federal government is consolidating oversight of all health plans under one system, which doesn't allow widely for alternative models (like HSAs) a one size fits all system. Just because private insurance plans play, doesn't mean that the government oversight won't create a system where all plans look almost identical. This will limit real market choice, without a doubt.

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

No it's not. States currently have oversight of health plans. Under the new bill, the oversight would go to the feds. Congress would have the ability to stick their toes into everything from rural access standards to provider pricing. They would surely create system wide mandates beyond what's proposed in current law.

Part D is a Medicare-private hybrid.

I know. I also know that Congress passed into law mandates to cover all drugs in certain drug classes (after the original bill). I also know that there was one strong attempt already to end the non-interference clause (a clause in Part D that specifically prohibits government from interfering in contracts between private plans and their pharmacies/other contractors like PBMs). Note, this clause doesn't exist in any proposed health reform legislation right now. It's glaring in it's absence.

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

To the contrary. What's missing is anything resembling a free market, where people can pool together to purchase insurance, can purchase insurance out of state and have tax parity. This is all prohibited by law. Note, if you did allow larger purchasing pools/tax parity among non-employer entities, you could require them to cover people with prior conditions, or separately subsidize those folks through any number of mechanisms.

This is what's frustrating to me. I genuinely believe that health reform is badly needed, but it seems like the Democrat leadership is blind to any idea that attempts to accomplish their goals through non-federal means.

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?

This isn't up for debate. Medicare alone is projected to have a $35 trillion deficit over the next 50 years (or whatever the years). We've already promised more than we can pay for despite original claims that costs would be nowhere near where they are now. What makes you think today's politicians are any more trustworthy than yesterday's?

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.

If you create state/regional exchanges, you'd have insurance options everywhere, with or without a public option.

[SkinsHokieFan]

That person would probably quality for Medicaid.

As far as the tax break is concerned, I do not have figures in front of me, but it must be noted that tax breaks is an element of both Democrat and GOP plans.

I think the tax breaks may still need to be finalized at this point.

Now now Bac, part of the savings will come from cuts in Medicare and Medicaid.

Medicaid and Medicare, which are already public options (one for the poor, one for the old) are badly broken themselves.

So, reform now becomes "just push them back to the other system which isn't working, and which we are squeezing even more now" :hysterical:

The point is, mandates, fines "tax breaks" (which will really be meaningless for people making less then 55k per year) or what have you, pinch the middle class more and more.

If a young person, my age, wants to opt out of this ponzi scheme, he should have the choice to. Don't force me to spend money so that an insurance company CEO can get 2% more on his quarterly bonus

President Obama and the Dems, as they have done this entire year, are taking the worst possible Republican plans (in this case Romneycare in Mass) and putting it on steroids and doubling down on it.

[Baculus]

Yeah so if you have 2 people making 30K a year, one can't afford health care because they have credit card debt and cars they can't afford, the other takes care of their responsibilities and don't have debt...who gets subsidized.

Thats the crux of the problem everyone ignores.

Actually, for some of us, these people should be eligible for the national health care plan. Since that is opposed as "evil socialism" at this point, we have to look at the current alternatives.

As far as your case is concerned, I don't think the first example you provided would necessarily be true, though 30K a year may be the ceiling for any such tax credits for coverage. (I am not totally sure of that -- I am a little iffy in the numbers involved.)

[McD5]

I think the whole angle is "hypocrisy" -- that a man who decried the public option as socialism now has seemingly endorsed it.

Personally, if spite of my criticisms of him, I believe he is actually the more rational of the right-wing "traditionalists," as he calls himself.

And that says a lot.

I wish he would run for President.

[chipwhich]

So, reform now becomes "just push them back to the other system which isn't working, and which we are squeezing even more now" :hysterical:

Don't try and talk sense with Bac. This new proposal is free and so clear that it fixes everything that Bac is dumbfounded why everyone doesn't get it. :hysterical:

[chipwhich]

I am a little iffy in the numbers involved.

You are correct there. What is the magic cutoff. Do fiscally responsible people get punished while irresponsible people get a free ride?

[Baculus]

Now now Bac, part of the savings will come from cuts in Medicare and Medicaid.

Medicaid and Medicare, which are already public options (one for the poor, one for the old) are badly broken themselves.

So, reform now becomes "just push them back to the other system which isn't working, and which we are squeezing even more now" :hysterical:

Medicare D may be cut, but I don't think Medicaid is being cut.

We've already had Medicaid cuts during the Bush administration. We've also had a number of states cutting their Medicaid budgets, which has resulted in more uninsured poor. It will worsen if some of these state laws being pushed by reactionaries to block federal relief funds are passed.

Medicare and Medicare work pretty well compared to the rising costs of the private programs. People consider them to be "broken" because they have increased enrollment (due to increases in both the elderly population and the poor), so we have rising costs. Otherwise, both programs provide support for people who normally would not have insurance.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Medicare and Medicare work pretty well compared to the rising costs of the private programs. People consider them to be "broken" because they have increased enrollment (due to increases in both the elderly population and the poor), so we have rising costs. Otherwise, both programs provide support for people who normally would not have insurance.

You must not see all of the gaps in the programs then?

Medicaid is riddled with pot holes.

Medicare Part B, you have your trusty 20 percent premium to go see a doctor or go on dialysis. So what do you do to fill that 20 percent premium

Purchase some Medigap private insurance plan to fill it of course.

Oh, but you are old, disabled or have bad kidneys. Odds are you are on SSI, or SSDI.

You are screwed and will be calling some patient assistance hotline for help in purchasing your anti rejection drugs

This "health care" reform is riddled with an absurd amount of pot holes, its actually laughable how quickly one can point them out and poke holes in it. In the Baucus plan, or in whatever other plan is starting to emerge (odds are, the Baucus plan is the only one with any chance to get out of the Senate)

[Baculus]

Don't try and talk sense with Bac. This new proposal is free and so clear that it fixes everything that Bac is dumbfounded why everyone doesn't get it. :hysterical:

I never said that. But I hear a lot of rubbish being thrown about by people who haven't read much of the bill, or they are relying upon other people who have not read the bill. As it is, this thread has had a number of misconceptions that are repeated ad infinitum by people.

Yes, I don't get why people do not conduct basic research. I don't get why they do not read H.R. 3200. And I don't get why, even when they are informed of the actual details of the program, they act as if "knowledge" bounces off of them like a rubber ball.

Yes, I am befuddled by willful ignorance, but hey, that's just me!

[Wrong Direction]

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.

No, I get it like Ron Jeremy gets filmed. :cool2:

The criticism I'm articulating here is that a change from employer run private plans to federal government exchange participating private plans is a change in insurance. Over 100 million people would be changing insurance plans. One of the big areas of debate before the election was the idea that "people could keep their insurance." This simply won't be true.

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

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.

First, removing insurance from employers would be a good thing for some, a bad thing for many others. Many companies can survive today because they don't offer health insurance, whereas their competitors do. If their competitor's costs go down, their actual business competition will put a lot of smaller types out of business. Add to that a new tax on businesses that aren't offering insurance, and you're actually costing many small businesses money.

Second, I don't oppose a health insurance exchange plan. I'm strongly in favor of it, as I see the employer system as part of the problem.

The nuance here is I advocate a federal law allowing the same type of exchanges W/O putting the US Congress in charge of the program over the long run.

States would create most mandates/rules. By allowing multi-state options, we'd be creating a system that doesn't subject the residents of one state to the whims of their politicians. Indeed, by keeping this out of federal hands, we'd not be subjecting the entire country to the political whims of members of congress that are lobbied by people representing a 2 trillion dollar/year enterprise. That's the point. At least if it's in state hands, you're multiplying by 50 the number of people that have to be lobbied by the same amount of dollars.

[Baculus]

You are correct there. What is the magic cutoff. Do fiscally responsible people get punished while irresponsible people get a free ride?

They are called "INDIVIDUAL AFFORDABILITY CREDITS" in the bill, and it is based on a sliding scale. I doubt if a person's background is checked for such credits -- after all, wouldn't that be "government intervention"?

There are too many individual cases to argue that this is merely about "rewarding irresponsibility." There are plenty of folks who cannot afford insurance or medical treatment even if they played the game by paying their taxes, mortgage, etc. I am sure we have a few cases on this board which would demonstrate this.

[Wrong Direction]

Medicare D may be cut, but I don't think Medicaid is being cut.

We've already had Medicaid cuts during the Bush administration. We've also had a number of states cutting their Medicaid budgets, which has resulted in more uninsured poor. It will worsen if some of these state laws being pushed by reactionaries to block federal relief funds are passed.

Medicare and Medicare work pretty well compared to the rising costs of the private programs. People consider them to be "broken" because they have increased enrollment (due to increases in both the elderly population and the poor), so we have rising costs. Otherwise, both programs provide support for people who normally would not have insurance.

Actually, it's Part C that will get the most direct cuts. Projections are that anywhere from 1/2 to 2/3 of Part C members will end up switching to traditional FFS medicare. That's about 6-8 million people.

These cuts will substantially end Part C as we know it. In other words, the Dems are proposing cutting for profit options in favor of the government single payer option. The result, if it's anything like what Clinton did in the 90's, is a huge decrease in private insurance options.

Hmmm...where could we see that in the future if Obama's bills get through?

[chipwhich]

Yes, I am befuddled by willful ignorance, but hey, that's just me!

Because everyone like yourself oversimplifies the problem.

Do you realize YOUR doctor doesn't accept EVERY insurance plan out there? He/she participates in a plan.

Not only does your doctor not participate in every insurance plan, but using Blue Cross/Blue Shield, they don't even accept ALL BC/BS plans.

Do you then also realize most people are covered under "localized" plans BC/BS, Aetna, whatever....

Now lets pretend you start a "competitive" health network....that "saves" people money and is "subsidized". Odds are YOUR doctor wont participate in it. They limit what they participate in to avoid extra paperwork....and they want to get paid.

What will happen is a cheap network of insurance, those that already afford insurance won't participate in the new plan....because their doctors wont participate.

Those that "can" afford it based on some government calculation will get some plan with doctors nobody wants.

Those who "can't" afford it based on some stupid calculation will get free care from doctors nobody wants.

It's so complicated, I can't even type it on this board. :cool2:

[chipwhich]

They are called "INDIVIDUAL AFFORDABILITY CREDITS" in the bill, and it is based on a sliding scale. I doubt if a person's background is checked for such credits -- after all, wouldn't that be "government intervention"?

There are too many individual cases to argue that this is merely about "rewarding irresponsibility." There are plenty of folks who cannot afford insurance or medical treatment even if they played the game by paying their taxes, mortgage, etc. I am sure we have a few cases on this board which would demonstrate this.

Simple question.

Do you truly believe the majority of uninsured don't have insurance primarily because of cost???????