"Opt Out" Scam Debunked

[The Rabbi]

please explain more about the taxes and fees that the public option will not have to pay while the private insurance will? If the state has laws that to sell insurance you have to be incensed in a certain manner, to be qualified then those selling insurance for the public option will also have to meet the state's requirements.

I believe you are incorrect.

Does Medicare have insurance salesmen? NO. ????

The public option would be a part of the Department of Health and Human Services, and as a part of the federal government it would not be subject to state and local taxes anymore than the Post Office is. UPS and FedEx have to pay a variety of state and local taxes, for example to place their kiosks on city streets, but the Post Office pays nothing for all the mailboxes it has on the streets. This is just an example. UPS and FedEx pay local business taxes just to do business in the many cities they serve, but the Post Office doesn't' have to pay those taxes. In the same way, since a public option would be a part of HHS, like the Post Office, it would not be subject to the taxes and fees insurance companies are, and that means states in which it operates will lose revenues.

i can understand the 'fee' or 'license' part that concerns you, but the tax part is on profit...whether it is state or federal....you gotta make a profit to be taxed....no?

Not at all. The gummint is about to impose an enormous tax on business and individuals regardless of what they earn or dont. The threshold for business is simply payroll of a certain amount.
And you have yet to explain coherently how a public option is going to help. Insurance company profits run 2-3%. Government inefficiency will certainly eat that in no time. Government has no advantage over private enterprise, other than the ability to command tax revenue. And that is exactly what they will do.
So how will that help anything?

 

[toomuchtime_]

please explain more about the taxes and fees that the public option will not have to pay while the private insurance will? If the state has laws that to sell insurance you have to be incensed in a certain manner, to be qualified then those selling insurance for the public option will also have to meet the state's requirements.

I believe you are incorrect.

Does Medicare have insurance salesmen? NO. ????

The public option would be a part of the Department of Health and Human Services, and as a part of the federal government it would not be subject to state and local taxes anymore than the Post Office is. UPS and FedEx have to pay a variety of state and local taxes, for example to place their kiosks on city streets, but the Post Office pays nothing for all the mailboxes it has on the streets. This is just an example. UPS and FedEx pay local business taxes just to do business in the many cities they serve, but the Post Office doesn't' have to pay those taxes. In the same way, since a public option would be a part of HHS, like the Post Office, it would not be subject to the taxes and fees insurance companies are, and that means states in which it operates will lose revenues.

The fees and taxes insurance business pay are used to hire government employees to regulate the insurance businesses. It would be a wash.

The revenues from these fees and taxes are not dedicated to a specific purpose. Like most fees and taxes they go into the general fund and are scaled to the state's need to raise revenues and not to the costs involved in any single function of government. To the extent the public option would be successful, the state would lose this ability to raise revenues as it needs to and would have to raise other taxes or create new taxes.

I do agree with you that a successful public plan would make a lot of insurance industry jobs in the state unnecessary, agents, claims adjusters, office support, etc., and the state and local governments would lose all the revenues these jobs generate.

Another issue states would have to consider is that insurance companies maintain large reserves against claims, and these reserves are invested mostly in the private sector economy. A public option's reserves, on the other hand, would go into Treasury bonds, as SS and Medicare reserves do, so that to the extent a public option would be successful, capital would be diverted from investment in the private sector economy to pay for the federal deficit, thus slowing economic growth and job creation. Since insurance companies often invest in projects in their home states, states that are home to insurance companies would have to consider what this loss of capital investment would mean to their state and local economies.

 

[Ravi]

Not sure what you are basing all that on.

IMO, if the state no longer has to cover emergency room visits from dead beats the state will come out ahead.

And I can't drum up any sorry if some insurance companies cannot compete.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

no.

the reason the public option will not have to pay taxes is because it is being run as a NON PROFIT BUSINESS, whatever money is made goes back in to the business itself or refunded to policy holders through lower premiums.... and if you do not make a profit, you do NOT pay taxes...PERIOD.

Only profits are taxed....if there are no profits there are no taxes and we have hundreds if not thousands of non profit businesses out there that do not pay taxes, who compete with businesses that do pay taxes....

I believe Anthem, blue cross blue shield is a non profit or was at one time, so they did not pay taxes either....is my understanding of it toomuchtime.

So how do they pay for the subsidies again? Where does the government get its money?

That would be financed from tax revenues. The point is that's not a feature of the public option. That's a feature of another provision of the bill. Get rid of the public option and those subsidies just go to buy other policies.

Are you sure? http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf The bill contradicts that statement as described below

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2aV6uJGkP0]YouTube - Christropher Hayes, Netroots Nation Day 1, Simple Explanation of the Proposed Public Option[/ame]

 

[Care4all]

So how do they pay for the subsidies again? Where does the government get its money?

That would be financed from tax revenues. The point is that's not a feature of the public option. That's a feature of another provision of the bill. Get rid of the public option and those subsidies just go to buy other policies.

Are you sure? http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf The bill contradicts that statement as described below

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2aV6uJGkP0]YouTube - Christropher Hayes, Netroots Nation Day 1, Simple Explanation of the Proposed Public Option[/ame]

This is the second time I have viewed this tape and he doesn't say crap and who is he????

Where in the bill does it state anything that this man states?

 

[toomuchtime_]

please explain more about the taxes and fees that the public option will not have to pay while the private insurance will? If the state has laws that to sell insurance you have to be incensed in a certain manner, to be qualified then those selling insurance for the public option will also have to meet the state's requirements.

I believe you are incorrect.

Does Medicare have insurance salesmen? NO. ????

The public option would be a part of the Department of Health and Human Services, and as a part of the federal government it would not be subject to state and local taxes anymore than the Post Office is. UPS and FedEx have to pay a variety of state and local taxes, for example to place their kiosks on city streets, but the Post Office pays nothing for all the mailboxes it has on the streets. This is just an example. UPS and FedEx pay local business taxes just to do business in the many cities they serve, but the Post Office doesn't' have to pay those taxes. In the same way, since a public option would be a part of HHS, like the Post Office, it would not be subject to the taxes and fees insurance companies are, and that means states in which it operates will lose revenues.

i can understand the 'fee' or 'license' part that concerns you, but the tax part is on profit...whether it is state or federal....you gotta make a profit to be taxed....no?

License fees are taxes imposed on the right to do business. An insurance company or agency is a business just like a pharmacy or clothing store or auto repair shop is a business and as such pays a variety of state and local taxes for the right to do business in that location regardless of whether it shows a profit or not. To the extent a public option would be successful, these fees and taxes would be lost as more agencies closed and more agents lost their jobs and more office workers from these agencies lost their jobs, and of course, all the revenues these jobs generated would be lost to the state and local governments. If your state or city is home to insurance companies, your local and state economies and your government coffers would be especially hard hit.

 

[Harry Dresden]

The public option would be a part of the Department of Health and Human Services, and as a part of the federal government it would not be subject to state and local taxes anymore than the Post Office is. UPS and FedEx have to pay a variety of state and local taxes, for example to place their kiosks on city streets, but the Post Office pays nothing for all the mailboxes it has on the streets. This is just an example. UPS and FedEx pay local business taxes just to do business in the many cities they serve, but the Post Office doesn't' have to pay those taxes. In the same way, since a public option would be a part of HHS, like the Post Office, it would not be subject to the taxes and fees insurance companies are, and that means states in which it operates will lose revenues.

and until all this shit happened the PO had to keep every PO in every Zip Code open even if it lost money ....which many did...

 

[alan1]

Let me remind you people of something,

Medicare (hospital insurance). In 1965, as Congress considered legislation to establish a national Medicare program, the House Ways and Means Committee estimated that the hospital insurance portion of the program, Part A, would cost about $9 billion annually by 1990.v Actual Part A spending in 1990 was $67 billion. The actuary who provided the original cost estimates acknowledged in 1994 that, even after conservatively discounting for the unexpectedly high inflation rates of the early ‘70s and other factors, “the actual [Part A] experience was 165% higher than the estimate.”

 

[Ravi]

Thank you MM, for not sourcing the extremely partisan Heritage group with your propaganda.

 

[alan1]

Thank you MM, for not sourcing the extremely partisan Heritage group with your propaganda.

Partisan or not, it's still a fact.
Thank you Ravi for trying to deny facts based solely upon the source you don't like.

 

[dilloduck]

Thank you MM, for not sourcing the extremely partisan Heritage group with your propaganda.

Partisan or not, it's still a fact.
Thank you Ravi for trying to deny facts based solely upon the source you don't like.

(Ravi didn't change while you were gone)

 

[alan1]

Thank you MM, for not sourcing the extremely partisan Heritage group with your propaganda.

Partisan or not, it's still a fact.
Thank you Ravi for trying to deny facts based solely upon the source you don't like.

(Ravi didn't change while you were gone)

I see.

 

[Ravi]

Thank you MM, for not sourcing the extremely partisan Heritage group with your propaganda.

Partisan or not, it's still a fact.
Thank you Ravi for trying to deny facts based solely upon the source you don't like.

Is it a fact? The reference I found was on a blog and it wasn't sourced. And no such report appears to exist on the Senate Joint Economic Committee's website.

 

[Ravi]

Thank you MM, for not sourcing the extremely partisan Heritage group with your propaganda.

Partisan or not, it's still a fact.
Thank you Ravi for trying to deny facts based solely upon the source you don't like.

(Ravi didn't change while you were gone)

Why would you expect me to since there are so many lies and rumors posted on this message board.

You are free to believe what you read here.

 

[Care4all]

The public option would be a part of the Department of Health and Human Services, and as a part of the federal government it would not be subject to state and local taxes anymore than the Post Office is. UPS and FedEx have to pay a variety of state and local taxes, for example to place their kiosks on city streets, but the Post Office pays nothing for all the mailboxes it has on the streets. This is just an example. UPS and FedEx pay local business taxes just to do business in the many cities they serve, but the Post Office doesn't' have to pay those taxes. In the same way, since a public option would be a part of HHS, like the Post Office, it would not be subject to the taxes and fees insurance companies are, and that means states in which it operates will lose revenues.

i can understand the 'fee' or 'license' part that concerns you, but the tax part is on profit...whether it is state or federal....you gotta make a profit to be taxed....no?

License fees are taxes imposed on the right to do business. An insurance company or agency is a business just like a pharmacy or clothing store or auto repair shop is a business and as such pays a variety of state and local taxes for the right to do business in that location regardless of whether it shows a profit or not. To the extent a public option would be successful, these fees and taxes would be lost as more agencies closed and more agents lost their jobs and more office workers from these agencies lost their jobs, and of course, all the revenues these jobs generated would be lost to the state and local governments. If your state or city is home to insurance companies, your local and state economies and your government coffers would be especially hard hit.

so the complaint is that health insurance as the public option will cost us consumers LESS money and we will pay less in taxes and fees normally priced in to the product by the private sector insurer if we choose the public option?

And this is not a good thing for us and health care reform?

you are actually fighting or taking the stance that it is GOOD that we pay so MUCH for our health insurance because our State gets to get more taxes from us toomuchtime, no???

I am uncertain if this is intentional on your part, but isn't that the end result of what you are arguing? And if intentional....please explain why you think this is good?

care

 

[toomuchtime_]

i can understand the 'fee' or 'license' part that concerns you, but the tax part is on profit...whether it is state or federal....you gotta make a profit to be taxed....no?

License fees are taxes imposed on the right to do business. An insurance company or agency is a business just like a pharmacy or clothing store or auto repair shop is a business and as such pays a variety of state and local taxes for the right to do business in that location regardless of whether it shows a profit or not. To the extent a public option would be successful, these fees and taxes would be lost as more agencies closed and more agents lost their jobs and more office workers from these agencies lost their jobs, and of course, all the revenues these jobs generated would be lost to the state and local governments. If your state or city is home to insurance companies, your local and state economies and your government coffers would be especially hard hit.

so the complaint is that health insurance as the public option will cost us consumers LESS money and we will pay less in taxes and fees normally priced in to the product by the private sector insurer if we choose the public option?

And this is not a good thing for us and health care reform?

you are actually fighting or taking the stance that it is GOOD that we pay so MUCH for our health insurance because our State gets to get more taxes from us toomuchtime, no???

I am uncertain if this is intentional on your part, but isn't that the end result of what you are arguing? And if intentional....please explain why you think this is good?

care

There is no reason to think a public option will be able to provide health insurance at a lower price that private insurers if Congress does not subsidize it or later pass additional legislation to compel health care providers to accept lower payments. Contrary to the beliefs of many, no country that has lower health care costs than we do has them because of a government run insurance program; the lower costs are produced by coercive legislation that forces health care providers to accept lower payments. The public option as written in the current House bill will not not use Medicare rates but will negotiate with providers to set rates in the same way insurance companies do. So while a public option will cost the state revenues and reduce the amount of investment capital available to grow the economy and create jobs, it will offer nothing to help lower health insurance rates.

If Obama and Pelosi wanted to lower health insurance premiums, all they would have to do is use the same authority they are invoking to tell insurance companies what kind of policies they must sell and limit the company's right to raise premiums to tell insurance companies they they cannot pay providers any more than Medicare does. If they passed such a law premiums would go down without any public option and if they don't legislate lower compensation for providers, premiums will not go down even if there is a public option.

If you think about it, it is obvious that without paying providers less, there is no reasonable basis for believing insurance premiums can be reduced, but if Obama and Pelosi had started out saying they intended to cut reimbursement rates for all health care providers, all of these providers, doctors, hospitals, drug companies, medical device manufacturers, etc., would have immediately combined to fight against this legislation from the start, so Obama and Pelosi made up this lie about insurance companies' "obscene" profits being the cause of high premiums and that meant the solution was a public option that would not have to earn "obscene" profits, about 3.5% on revenues.

However, while Obama and Pelosi thought their supporters were stupid enough to believe the lie about insurance companies' "obscene" 3.5% profits being the cause of high insurance premiums, they were not stupid enough to believe it themselves, and that's why Pelosi and the other liberal Dems fought so hard to tie the public option's rates to Medicare, because they understood that if they didn't do that, the public option would not be able to offer lower rates.

 

[MaggieMae]

Let me remind you people of something,

Medicare (hospital insurance). In 1965, as Congress considered legislation to establish a national Medicare program, the House Ways and Means Committee estimated that the hospital insurance portion of the program, Part A, would cost about $9 billion annually by 1990.v Actual Part A spending in 1990 was $67 billion. The actuary who provided the original cost estimates acknowledged in 1994 that, even after conservatively discounting for the unexpectedly high inflation rates of the early ‘70s and other factors, “the actual [Part A] experience was 165% higher than the estimate.”

Well I supposed we could have restricted scientists, engineers, and medical professionals from improving the quality of life, thereby extending life, over that period of time. That is basically what has caused the dramatic increases. More participants, the more it cost. A no-brainer.

 

[MaggieMae]

If Obama and Pelosi wanted to lower health insurance premiums, all they would have to do is use the same authority they are invoking to tell insurance companies what kind of policies they must sell and limit the company's right to raise premiums to tell insurance companies they they cannot pay providers any more than Medicare does. If they passed such a law premiums would go down without any public option and if they don't legislate lower compensation for providers, premiums will not go down even if there is a public option.

That would be the "trigger option," which is what will finally be passed, trust me.

However, while Obama and Pelosi thought their supporters were stupid enough to believe the lie about insurance companies' "obscene" 3.5% profits being the cause of high insurance premiums, they were not stupid enough to believe it themselves, and that's why Pelosi and the other liberal Dems fought so hard to tie the public option's rates to Medicare, because they understood that if they didn't do that, the public option would not be able to offer lower rates.

Regarding private health insurance, employer based plans are going to be dramatically changed to the detriment of the employee starting in December when those plans will all be up for renewal for the following year. Those plans will be increasing the employer portion of the premium by as much as a whopping 10%, plus a heftier co-pay and/or deductible option. So if you think private insurance carriers aren't gearing up to screw its members even further, then you're not paying attention.

Obama's biggest campaign promise was health care reform, which a majority of ALL AMERICANS wanted (and I can post ALL the polling data again, if you wish), and a great number of that majority wanted "universal" care. That ultimately became an expected sticking point, and therefore the House and Senate spent nearly six months developing other alternatives. There was no way in hell that Obama (or Pelosi or Reid) were just going to throw in the towel. Again.

 

[saveliberty]

Anyone read Reid's 1500 page bill yet? The one he won't post. Why not let us read what is so imporant and helpful to the American people?

Mr. Obama, I want you to veto this, if any pork is in the bill or it costs over $900b. with ALL costs included.

Mz. Pelosi, 1900 pages? Really? Doesn't that scream over regulation and expensive?

 

[The T]

Grubby Harry Reid's "opt out" provision works the same way you can "opt out" of sending your kids to gubmint schools.

You can send your kids to the private school all you want, but you don't get to opt out of the taxes to pay for everyone who opts into the gubmint schools.

How many states will fall for that?

Page 94, Pelosi plan: "Prohibits the sale of private individual health insurance policies, beginning in 2013, forcing individuals to purchase coverage through the federal government." In 2013, after the 2012 presidential election. In 2013, there is no private insurance allowed. The sale of it will be prohibited.

SOURCE

Alot of it is highlighted. Good Thread, Dude.