I have to say, Olympia Snowe is a Republican with really good ideas.

[toomuchtime_]

Her latest idea of going against Grubby Harry's stupid "opt out" scam was a good one.

Gotta give credit where it's due.

It is a scam...the wording 'Opt Out" makes it sound a whole lot better than what it will be.
Can you imagine the criteria that it will take for a state to "Opt Out"? I really doubt when it is in writing that there will be any wiggle room for a state to be able to opt out of this bill.
Again....smoke and mirrors.

The way the process has been run, this whole health insurance overhaul has been a scam, but Harry had to make some sort of effort to put a public option in the Senate bill to try to placate the left wing of the Party, however, if Snowe and Lieberman stick to their guns and vote against cloture for any bill that includes a public option and the left wingers vote against any bill that does not include a public option, it is not clear the Senate will be able to pass any bill at all.

 

[Oddball]

We should all be so lucky.

 

[Vast LWC]

Better yet, why not allow private companies to pool together and form plans of their own? What good is served by making government an active partner?

I have asked this question numerous times and no one on the lib side has an answer. And for good reason.

I find it hard to believe that no Lib-type has answered that question. The answer is rather obvious.

Corporations are out to make a buck. That is not a criticism, it is a fact.

When it comes down to the bottom line, Insurance Corporations have no interest in trying to help people, their only interest is to make money for their shareholders.

Therefore, as Health Care is a necessity, not an option, Insurance Corporations will continue to engage in monopolistic practices and charge outurageous prices because they can.

There are two ways to stop this from occurring:

1. Regulate the hell out of the insurance business.

or

2. Provide a "Public Option" that controls costs through competition.

The level of regulation that would be necessary would be invasive, and would probably be unconstitutional in many ways. Said regulation would probably be eventually overturned for the most part, and the problem would simply continue.

Thus the need for option 2.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Better yet, why not allow private companies to pool together and form plans of their own? What good is served by making government an active partner?

I have asked this question numerous times and no one on the lib side has an answer. And for good reason.

I find it hard to believe that no Lib-type has answered that question. The answer is rather obvious.

Corporations are out to make a buck. That is not a criticism, it is a fact.

When it comes down to the bottom line, Insurance Corporations have no interest in trying to help people, their only interest is to make money for their shareholders.

Therefore, as Health Care is a necessity, not an option, Insurance Corporations will continue to engage in monopolistic practices and charge outurageous prices because they can.

There are two ways to stop this from occurring:

1. Regulate the hell out of the insurance business.

or

2. Provide a "Public Option" that controls costs through competition.

The level of regulation that would be necessary would be invasive, and would probably be unconstitutional in many ways. Said regulation would probably be eventually overturned for the most part, and the problem would simply continue.

Thus the need for option 2.

There is no reason to believe a public option will be able to offer lower rates than private insurers unless it is accompanied by coercive legislation that forces health care providers to accept lower reimbursements and prevents them from opting out of the system so that they can charge higher rates.

States that have experimented with public plans without such coercive legislation have found them to be disasters.

Reform measures in other states have proved to be expensive duds. Maine's 2003 reform plan, Dirigo Health, included a government insurance option resembling the public option included in the House health-care bill. This public plan, "DirigoChoice," was supposed to expand care to all 128,000 of Maine's uninsured by 2009. But according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the 2007 uninsured rate remained roughly 10%—essentially unchanged. DirigoChoice's individual insurance premiums increased by 74% over its first four years—to $499 a month from $287 a month—according to an analysis of Dirigo data by the Maine Heritage Policy Center. The cost of DirigoHealth to taxpayers so far has been $155 million.

Tennessee's plan for universal coverage, dubbed TennCare, fared even worse in the 1990s. The goal of the state-run public insurance plan was to expand coverage to the uninsured by reducing waste. But the costs of expanding coverage quickly ballooned. In 2005, facing bankruptcy, the state was forced to cut 170,000 individuals from its insurance rolls.

Peter Suderman: The Lesson of State Health-Care Reforms - WSJ.com

There is no reason to believe a national plan would be any more successful.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is no reason to believe the Public Option will not lower rates. The fact remains that industrialized nations across the world offer national health care of several varied options, their citizens are healthier and live longer than ours, and their plans cost much less.

Deal with it, far right cons, you have lost this battle in the last election, and you will get your heads handed to you in the next one if you keep fighting against it.

 

[Vast LWC]

There is no reason to believe a public option will be able to offer lower rates than private insurers unless it is accompanied by coercive legislation that forces health care providers to accept lower reimbursements and prevents them from opting out of the system so that they can charge higher rates.

Medicare is 15% less expensive per patient than private health insurance. (Source: Department of Health and Human Services).

America averages 2x as much in costs per person as any other modern industrialized western nation. (Source: World Health Organization)

Thus there is EVERY reason to believe a public option will be able to offer lower rates.

States that have experimented with public plans without such coercive legislation have found them to be disasters.

Reform measures in other states have proved to be expensive duds. Maine's 2003 reform plan, Dirigo Health, included a government insurance option resembling the public option included in the House health-care bill. This public plan, "DirigoChoice," was supposed to expand care to all 128,000 of Maine's uninsured by 2009. But according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the 2007 uninsured rate remained roughly 10%—essentially unchanged. DirigoChoice's individual insurance premiums increased by 74% over its first four years—to $499 a month from $287 a month—according to an analysis of Dirigo data by the Maine Heritage Policy Center. The cost of DirigoHealth to taxpayers so far has been $155 million.

This does not offer any comparison at all to cost per person at private insurance companies, nor does it mention how much, in total, is paid out to private companies in order to make a comparison with the $155 Million figure.

Simply stating total costs is meaningless without a basis for comparison.

Tennessee's plan for universal coverage, dubbed TennCare, fared even worse in the 1990s. The goal of the state-run public insurance plan was to expand coverage to the uninsured by reducing waste. But the costs of expanding coverage quickly ballooned. In 2005, facing bankruptcy, the state was forced to cut 170,000 individuals from its insurance rolls.

TennCare is a Medicaid program, not a "Public Option". There's quite a large difference between the two.

One is an entitlement program that provides free medical care for poor people, just like the current national medicaid program.

A "Public Option" is an insurance plan, provided by the government, that people can buy.

Comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges.

 

[toomuchtime_]

There is no reason to believe the Public Option will not lower rates. The fact remains that industrialized nations across the world offer national health care of several varied options, their citizens are healthier and live longer than ours, and their plans cost much less.

Deal with it, far right cons, you have lost this battle in the last election, and you will get your heads handed to you in the next one if you keep fighting against it.

Again, there is no reason to believe a public option that does not also include coercive legislation to force health care providers to accept lower reimbursements and prevent them from opting out of the plan to charge more will lower insurance premiums. This was a lesson Canada learned in its experiment with national health insurance.

By 1971, all Canadians were guaranteed access to essential medical services, regardless of employment, income, or health (Kraker, 2002). Amid rising costs for health care, accompanied by low fees to doctors (which caused most to simply increase their daily caseload), many doctors opted out of the system and billed patients themselves. By the late 1970s and early 1980s there were calls to ban such extra billing and user fees – some Canadians could hardly find “opted-in” providers.

Health Care Without Hindrance

The Canadian Health Act of 1984, which was drafted in response to these protests, denies federal support to provinces that allow extra-billing within their insurance schemes and effectively forbids private or opted-out practitioners from billing beyond provincially man-dated fee schedules.

http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/Canada.pdf

The idea that a public plan would be able to lower premiums or compete successfully against private plans without such coercive legislation is without basis in fact or logic.

 

[Oddball]

There is no reason to believe the Public Option will not lower rates.

Actually, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of them.

Feel free to name the federal handout program that has ended up costing less than projected.

 

[The Rabbi]

Better yet, why not allow private companies to pool together and form plans of their own? What good is served by making government an active partner?

I have asked this question numerous times and no one on the lib side has an answer. And for good reason.

I find it hard to believe that no Lib-type has answered that question. The answer is rather obvious.

Corporations are out to make a buck. That is not a criticism, it is a fact.

When it comes down to the bottom line, Insurance Corporations have no interest in trying to help people, their only interest is to make money for their shareholders.

Therefore, as Health Care is a necessity, not an option, Insurance Corporations will continue to engage in monopolistic practices and charge outurageous prices because they can.

There are two ways to stop this from occurring:

1. Regulate the hell out of the insurance business.

or

2. Provide a "Public Option" that controls costs through competition.

The level of regulation that would be necessary would be invasive, and would probably be unconstitutional in many ways. Said regulation would probably be eventually overturned for the most part, and the problem would simply continue.

Thus the need for option 2.

Profit margins for insurance companies are about 3-6%. So any gov't non-profit program has that as the maximum they can lower rates. Since there is no profit motive, there is no incentive to keep costs down, and they will rapidly eat up this savings. Look at existing agencies and see how much efficiency is rewarded. It isn't.
Since there is already a high level of competition in the business (notice those banner ads at the top of your screen), adding new players will not lower costs.
Insurance already has the hell regulated out of it. This is why you don't see more providers in any given market. And it served to raise costs, not lower them.
Finally there already exist non-profit co-ops for insurance. They have never been shown to lower premium costs. Why someone thinks the gov't is going to do it is beyond me. They will not. They will demand tax subsidies to maintain "affordable" rates. And once that happens we will be in single payer mode.
Which is probably the plan all along.

 

[The Rabbi]

And BTW, if you think government is about "helping people" you are sadly deluded. Corporations are far more apt to help people in the normal course of business (much less grants and donations) than government is.

 

[Vast LWC]

Again, there is no reason to believe a public option that does not also include coercive legislation to force health care providers to accept lower reimbursements and prevent them from opting out of the plan to charge more will lower insurance premiums. This was a lesson Canada learned in its experiment with national health insurance.

Health care providers being large public Hospitals, health care consortiums, and pharmacuetical corporations that are charging ridiculous amounts of money for treatment?

Heaven forbid.

I do however very much support the Republican initiatives for medial malpractice tort reform. Perhaps if the Republicans showed any willingness at all to come to any sort of agreement with the Democrats, they could negotiate for this to happen, which would save doctors and insurance companies a ell of a lot of money.

By 1971, all Canadians were guaranteed access to essential medical services, regardless of employment, income, or health (Kraker, 2002). Amid rising costs for health care, accompanied by low fees to doctors (which caused most to simply increase their daily caseload), many doctors opted out of the system and billed patients themselves. By the late 1970s and early 1980s there were calls to ban such extra billing and user fees – some Canadians could hardly find “opted-in” providers.

Health Care Without Hindrance

The Canadian Health Act of 1984, which was drafted in response to these protests, denies federal support to provinces that allow extra-billing within their insurance schemes and effectively forbids private or opted-out practitioners from billing beyond provincially man-dated fee schedules.
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/Canada.pdf

The idea that a public plan would be able to lower premiums or compete successfully against private plans without such coercive legislation is without basis in fact or logic.

And provisions have already been put into the legislation to stop this from happening. The Public Option will have the same restrictions, costs and abilities as private plans.

 

[toomuchtime_]

There is no reason to believe a public option will be able to offer lower rates than private insurers unless it is accompanied by coercive legislation that forces health care providers to accept lower reimbursements and prevents them from opting out of the system so that they can charge higher rates.

Medicare is 15% less expensive per patient than private health insurance. (Source: Department of Health and Human Services).

America averages 2x as much in costs per person as any other modern industrialized western nation. (Source: World Health Organization)

Thus there is EVERY reason to believe a public option will be able to offer lower rates.

States that have experimented with public plans without such coercive legislation have found them to be disasters.

Reform measures in other states have proved to be expensive duds. Maine's 2003 reform plan, Dirigo Health, included a government insurance option resembling the public option included in the House health-care bill. This public plan, "DirigoChoice," was supposed to expand care to all 128,000 of Maine's uninsured by 2009. But according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the 2007 uninsured rate remained roughly 10%—essentially unchanged. DirigoChoice's individual insurance premiums increased by 74% over its first four years—to $499 a month from $287 a month—according to an analysis of Dirigo data by the Maine Heritage Policy Center. The cost of DirigoHealth to taxpayers so far has been $155 million.

This does not offer any comparison at all to cost per person at private insurance companies, nor does it mention how much, in total, is paid out to private companies in order to make a comparison with the $155 Million figure.

Simply stating total costs is meaningless without a basis for comparison.

Tennessee's plan for universal coverage, dubbed TennCare, fared even worse in the 1990s. The goal of the state-run public insurance plan was to expand coverage to the uninsured by reducing waste. But the costs of expanding coverage quickly ballooned. In 2005, facing bankruptcy, the state was forced to cut 170,000 individuals from its insurance rolls.

TennCare is a Medicaid program, not a "Public Option". There's quite a large difference between the two.

One is an entitlement program that provides free medical care for poor people, just like the current national medicaid program.

A "Public Option" is an insurance plan, provided by the government, that people can buy.

Comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges.

Since there is no comparable over 65 group on private health insurance it makes no sense to say Medicare costs 15% less than private insurance. If you are talking about administrative costs, unless you figure in all the costs footed by SS in keeping track of your Medicare eligibility from the first day you pay payroll taxes to the day you become eligible and all the costs of signing you up and all the costs Treasury assumes for handling all of Medicare's money and investments from the first payroll tax you pay to the current year's expenses, there again is no basis for comparison.

With respect to a public plan, unless some of its expenses are paid by other parts of the government, as in the case of Medicare, or it is otherwise subsidized by the government, there is no reason to think its administrative expenses would be significantly lower than a private plan's expenses, and since it would likely invest its reserves in Treasury bonds, as SS and Medicare do, it would earn less on its reserves than private plans do, the only basis for believing its costs would be lower is that it would not have to earn a profit for shareholders, about 3.5% on revenues normally for private plans, but non profit private plans already have that advantage and it has done little or nothing to drive down insurance premiums through competition.

So there is no basis in fact or logic for Obama's argument that a public plan would drive down health insurance costs through competition, and that result can only be achieved if the public plan is subsidized by taxes or accompanied by coercive legislation to compel health care providers to accept the plans reimbursement rates even if they want to opt out of the plan. In effect, it can't lower health insurance premiums unless it becomes essentially Canada's plan.

 

[Vast LWC]

And BTW, if you think government is about "helping people" you are sadly deluded. Corporations are far more apt to help people in the normal course of business (much less grants and donations) than government is.

You're clearly insane.

Corporations NEVER help people, unless it's either part of a PR Campaign that brings them free advertising or unless there is a profit to be made in it.

Government is in the business of helping people, that's the purpose of government.

Admittedly sometimes it doesn't do it very well or efficiently, but it helps people MUCH more often than corporations.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Again, there is no reason to believe a public option that does not also include coercive legislation to force health care providers to accept lower reimbursements and prevent them from opting out of the plan to charge more will lower insurance premiums. This was a lesson Canada learned in its experiment with national health insurance.

Health care providers being large public Hospitals, health care consortiums, and pharmacuetical corporations that are charging ridiculous amounts of money for treatment?

Heaven forbid.

I do however very much support the Republican initiatives for medial malpractice tort reform. Perhaps if the Republicans showed any willingness at all to come to any sort of agreement with the Democrats, they could negotiate for this to happen, which would save doctors and insurance companies a ell of a lot of money.

By 1971, all Canadians were guaranteed access to essential medical services, regardless of employment, income, or health (Kraker, 2002). Amid rising costs for health care, accompanied by low fees to doctors (which caused most to simply increase their daily caseload), many doctors opted out of the system and billed patients themselves. By the late 1970s and early 1980s there were calls to ban such extra billing and user fees – some Canadians could hardly find “opted-in” providers.

Health Care Without Hindrance

The Canadian Health Act of 1984, which was drafted in response to these protests, denies federal support to provinces that allow extra-billing within their insurance schemes and effectively forbids private or opted-out practitioners from billing beyond provincially man-dated fee schedules.
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/Canada.pdf

The idea that a public plan would be able to lower premiums or compete successfully against private plans without such coercive legislation is without basis in fact or logic.

And provisions have already been put into the legislation to stop this from happening. The Public Option will have the same restrictions, costs and abilities as private plans.

The public plan would be run out of HHS and would be whatever the Party in power wanted to be in any particular year. All it would take would be a rider on an essential appropriations bill to change whatever this year's bill defined it to be. This is why some moderate Dems are willing to support non private non profits that are started with grants/loans from the government but not a government run plan.

 

[Vast LWC]

Since there is no comparable over 65 group on private health insurance it makes no sense to say Medicare costs 15% less than private insurance.

Of course it makes sense. People over 65 obviously have MORE medical problems than people under 65, and it STILL costs less, per person, than private health insurance.

15% less in fact, per the Department of Health and Human Services, in a study undertaken during the Bush administration.

If you are talking about administrative costs, unless you figure in all the costs footed by SS in keeping track of your Medicare eligibility from the first day you pay payroll taxes to the day you become eligible and all the costs of signing you up and all the costs Treasury assumes for handling all of Medicare's money and investments from the first payroll tax you pay to the current year's expenses, there again is no basis for comparison.

They simply used costs per patient when actually paying the bills. This shows the efficiency of the system.

As far as the rest goes, as medical costs have increased quite a bit since old folks started putting into the system, they are actually saving quite a bit more than 15% in the long run.

With respect to a public plan, unless some of its expenses are paid by other parts of the government, as in the case of Medicare, or it is otherwise subsidized by the government, there is no reason to think its administrative expenses would be significantly lower than a private plan's expenses, and since it would likely invest its reserves in Treasury bonds, as SS and Medicare do, it would earn less on its reserves than private plans do, the only basis for believing its costs would be lower is that it would not have to earn a profit for shareholders, about 3.5% on revenues normally for private plans, but non profit private plans already have that advantage and it has done little or nothing to drive down insurance premiums through competition.

Medicare is, by definition, a government subsidy. There is no undeclared government subsidization, as it is all government subsidization.

So there is no basis in fact or logic for Obama's argument that a public plan would drive down health insurance costs through competition, and that result can only be achieved if the public plan is subsidized by taxes or accompanied by coercive legislation to compel health care providers to accept the plans reimbursement rates even if they want to opt out of the plan. In effect, it can't lower health insurance premiums unless it becomes essentially Canada's plan.

Don't even get me started on Canada.

Canada's plan costs HALF as much as private plans in the US, and is MORE effective at saving lives.

Medicare is only 15% more efficient.

 

[Vast LWC]

The public plan would be run out of HHS and would be whatever the Party in power wanted to be in any particular year. All it would take would be a rider on an essential appropriations bill to change whatever this year's bill defined it to be. This is why some moderate Dems are willing to support non private non profits that are started with grants/loans from the government but not a government run plan.

Of course they are.

Those politicians would then surely invest heavily in those new corporations, which would have a nice headstart on their competition, and make some nice personal profit on the deal.

Business as usual.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Since there is no comparable over 65 group on private health insurance it makes no sense to say Medicare costs 15% less than private insurance.

Of course it makes sense. People over 65 obviously have MORE medical problems than people under 65, and it STILL costs less, per person, than private health insurance.

15% less in fact, per the Department of Health and Human Services, in a study undertaken during the Bush administration.

If you are talking about administrative costs, unless you figure in all the costs footed by SS in keeping track of your Medicare eligibility from the first day you pay payroll taxes to the day you become eligible and all the costs of signing you up and all the costs Treasury assumes for handling all of Medicare's money and investments from the first payroll tax you pay to the current year's expenses, there again is no basis for comparison.

They simply used costs per patient when actually paying the bills. This shows the efficiency of the system.

As far as the rest goes, as medical costs have increased quite a bit since old folks started putting into the system, they are actually saving quite a bit more than 15% in the long run.

With respect to a public plan, unless some of its expenses are paid by other parts of the government, as in the case of Medicare, or it is otherwise subsidized by the government, there is no reason to think its administrative expenses would be significantly lower than a private plan's expenses, and since it would likely invest its reserves in Treasury bonds, as SS and Medicare do, it would earn less on its reserves than private plans do, the only basis for believing its costs would be lower is that it would not have to earn a profit for shareholders, about 3.5% on revenues normally for private plans, but non profit private plans already have that advantage and it has done little or nothing to drive down insurance premiums through competition.

Medicare is, by definition, a government subsidy. There is no undeclared government subsidization, as it is all government subsidization.

So there is no basis in fact or logic for Obama's argument that a public plan would drive down health insurance costs through competition, and that result can only be achieved if the public plan is subsidized by taxes or accompanied by coercive legislation to compel health care providers to accept the plans reimbursement rates even if they want to opt out of the plan. In effect, it can't lower health insurance premiums unless it becomes essentially Canada's plan.

Don't even get me started on Canada.

Canada's plan costs HALF as much as private plans in the US, and is MORE effective at saving lives.

Medicare is only 15% more efficient.

Canada's plan is less expensive because of coercive legislation that prevents doctors and other health care providers from charging more than the plan allows even if they choose to opt out of the system, something you claim a US public option would never do. However, demand has created an open "black market" in health care in Canada, especially in Quebec and British Columbia, where private clinics and surgical centers provide services to private pay patients who would otherwise go to the US rather that suffer the long waits for services under the Canadian plan, and the constitutionality of the law that makes such private services unlawful is being challenged in the Canadian high court this month or next.

In Canada, a move toward a private healthcare option -- latimes.com

In one post you seem to claim that the total cost of Medicare's services per patient is 15% less that the total cost of a private insurer's and in other posts you seem to be saying that Medicare is delivering services 15% more efficiently. Perhaps you could define exactly what you mean and provide a link to your source since I couldn't find anything it about on a google search.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The public plan would be run out of HHS and would be whatever the Party in power wanted to be in any particular year. All it would take would be a rider on an essential appropriations bill to change whatever this year's bill defined it to be. This is why some moderate Dems are willing to support non private non profits that are started with grants/loans from the government but not a government run plan.

Of course they are.

Those politicians would then surely invest heavily in those new corporations, which would have a nice headstart on their competition, and make some nice personal profit on the deal.

Business as usual.

These would be non profits which means there would be no opportunity for private investment or private profits.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one has posted any reliable data to conclude that a public option will not return better health care for a smaller cost.

Come on, guys, post if you have it. Don't argue with me. Just post the evidence.

 

[The Rabbi]

And BTW, if you think government is about "helping people" you are sadly deluded. Corporations are far more apt to help people in the normal course of business (much less grants and donations) than government is.

You're clearly insane.

Corporations NEVER help people, unless it's either part of a PR Campaign that brings them free advertising or unless there is a profit to be made in it.

Government is in the business of helping people, that's the purpose of government.

Admittedly sometimes it doesn't do it very well or efficiently, but it helps people MUCH more often than corporations.

You obviously live in a padded cell.
Corporations help people every day. They help their employees, often offering gyms, daycare, and a host of other perks.
Yes, they do it for profit. Heaven forbid someone should earn a profit in a capitalist economy, I know. That sullies the pure intent of helping.
Look up something called the Invisible Hand.
Government is in the business of aggregating as much power to itself as it can. Are poor people better off with welfare and other subsidies that keep them dependent? At what point did the rate of single parent households in the Black community skyrocket? Maybe about the same time as the great society programs?
Has government ever helped a business become more efficient or better managed? Has it ever created any wealth at all?
No.
There is no evidence that a non profit system would lower costs. And plenty of evidence that it does not, as witness insurance co ops today.