President Obama Challenges states to come up with better plan: Vermont does.

[The T]

YouTube - Kieth Olbermann Discusses the Koch Brothers and Their Extremist Corporate Agenda​

5 Worst Things The Koch Brothers Have Done​

​

Indeed...

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Whats funny is this thread went nothing like predicted on the first page.

GL to Vermont!

Veromont WILL become the FIRST autonomous Self-Actuated Socialist State of the Union apart from the Constitution...and a SAD example for the rest.

It means they capitulated having run outta ideas when they signed on to the best idea...of individual Liberty when they helped RATIFY the Constitution as one of the original 13 States...

 

[MaggieMae]

A guaranteed payment by the State of Vermont that is only 40% of his cost of doing business will lead to a loss for him. He is not in the business of working for below cost wages.

I am willing to cut them some slack, but damn it, before this goes nationwide, and it will, I want some answers. This idea seems to be an economic nightmare when you look at the millions of jobs that will be lost when it goes nationwide and you and every other liberal I have talked to about this seem to be telling me, those people deserve to lose their jobs! They deserve to lose their jobs? Really? And what about the rest of us that are struggling to find employment in this market?

I simply want to know what the plans are for a SPS, how much my taxes are going to go up and how many people are you expecting to put on the unemployment lines. Shouldn't be all that difficult to explain now should it?

Immie

Unknown answers right now. That's why projecting is like spinning your wheels. So here we go all over again. Which is more cost-effective overall? The same basic question, mired with all kinds of what-ifs that occurred for a solid year over Obamacare. And my opinion remains the same. It is completely irrational to expect people to just go without health care because they cannot afford it. What kind of future does the country have when half of its people are sick when they don't need to be? I don't really care HOW we get there, just that we do.

Two years ago, my employer was paying approximately $1,300/month to cover a families health insurance. If that goes to $3,900/month there are going to be a lot of business going under.

You say, "That's why projecting is like spinning your wheels", but that is no different that Nancy Pelosi telling us, "we have to pass it so that they can know what is in it". I'm sorry, but that is not good enough. That kind of thinking is what gets us into trouble all the time. Once it is passed, there is NO GOING BACK. We simply can't afford that again.

Immie

Why would it go to $3,900 a month?

 

[Immanuel]

Unknown answers right now. That's why projecting is like spinning your wheels. So here we go all over again. Which is more cost-effective overall? The same basic question, mired with all kinds of what-ifs that occurred for a solid year over Obamacare. And my opinion remains the same. It is completely irrational to expect people to just go without health care because they cannot afford it. What kind of future does the country have when half of its people are sick when they don't need to be? I don't really care HOW we get there, just that we do.

Two years ago, my employer was paying approximately $1,300/month to cover a families health insurance. If that goes to $3,900/month there are going to be a lot of business going under.

You say, "That's why projecting is like spinning your wheels", but that is no different that Nancy Pelosi telling us, "we have to pass it so that they can know what is in it". I'm sorry, but that is not good enough. That kind of thinking is what gets us into trouble all the time. Once it is passed, there is NO GOING BACK. We simply can't afford that again.

Immie

Why would it go to $3,900 a month?

Why won't it? With zero competition there is no incentive for the government not to charge every dime they can and then throw those extra tax dollars into the general fund (which is where they will go in the first place) for use in adding pork.

Immie

 

[MaggieMae]

Mass does not have single payer, like Vermont lawmakers are aiming for. The Mass health care law is almost exactly the same as the new federal health care law.

What is Single Payer healthcare?

And this is a Government calling the shots. Liberty is lost for the individual that doesn't FIT the mold of what Gubmint dictates. private entities? Fuck you. You lost your liberty too.

For those that have accused me of crying wolf about the employment of people in the health insurance industry:

What is Single Payer? | Physicians for a National Health Program

The need for private insurance would be eliminated. One single payer bill currently in the House (H.R. 1200) would provide one percent of funding for retraining displaced insurance workers during its first few years of implementation.

There it is right there in black and white.

Immie

And? That's the whole point. It's the insurance industry that has been driving the bus...right into a ditch, which is why affordable health care for all Americans is even an issue at all.

 

[Immanuel]

What is Single Payer healthcare?

And this is a Government calling the shots. Liberty is lost for the individual that doesn't FIT the mold of what Gubmint dictates. private entities? Fuck you. You lost your liberty too.

For those that have accused me of crying wolf about the employment of people in the health insurance industry:

What is Single Payer? | Physicians for a National Health Program

The need for private insurance would be eliminated. One single payer bill currently in the House (H.R. 1200) would provide one percent of funding for retraining displaced insurance workers during its first few years of implementation.

There it is right there in black and white.

Immie

And? That's the whole point. It's the insurance industry that has been driving the bus...right into a ditch, which is why affordable health care for all Americans is even an issue at all.

Affordable?

At what costs? Significantly reduced tax revenues because 25% of the work force is unemployed and not paying employment taxes or income taxes? Higher costs for Unemployment? Or are we just going to end Unemployment because with 25% of the workforce is out of work and we simply cannot afford it?

As I said, I am not completely against an SPS, but I am very concerned about what is going to happen when we adopt one. I think we as citizens of the United States should be asking those tough questions. When and if they are answered to our satisfaction, then we should move forward, but not until.

Immie

 

[MaggieMae]

The question is will you be the first on your side to finally admit you are a Marxist?

If solving the health care COST crisis means calling me a Marxist, then be my guest. I prefer to believe that the framers had in mind the inclusion of health of its citizens when it used the words "...promote the general welfare..." After all, what are people without their health?

Part-time employees......if you ask anyone at the RNC.​

Actually, my point was without good health, all the other contributions mean nothing. First responders need to be physically healthy in order to insure domestic tranquility, military people need to be physically healthy to provide for the common defense, so everyone else also needs to be physically healthy in order to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

 

[MaggieMae]

My question is how many people work in the health insurance industry in Vermont and how many of them will be unemployed by the end of this year? Then, since the state does not actually have to begin funding it until 2013, how many of those insurance industry workers will be unemployed by the end of 2012?

As of right now, the single-payer system in the bill passed by the Vermont house wouldn't go into effect until sometime around 2017 because it's contingent upon receiving an ACA waiver, which they can't get before 2017 (if the Wyden-Brown proposal to amend the ACA to make state innovation waivers available earlier were adopted, that would change).

In the meantime, the bill provides for the establishment of an ACA-friendly health benefits exchange in which private insurance is available, with the aim that this exchange ultimately provide the infrastructure for the single-payer system a few years down the line. What's interesting is that the bill calls for a "unified, simplified administration system" for insurers offering plans through the exchange (the system to which they refer includes "claims administration, benefit management, billing, or other components"). So they're already looking to streamline the administrative side of (private) insurance, completely independent of the single-payer phase of the plan.

And when the single-payer part finally goes into effect, there's still a role for the private sector on the paper-pushing front (namely, they'll probably be doing most of it):

§ 1826. ADMINISTRATION; ENROLLMENT

(a)(1) The agency may, under an open bidding process, solicit bids from and award contracts to public or private entities for administration of certain elements of Green Mountain Care, such as claims administration and provider relations.​

There are other possible (reduced) roles for private insurers, such as offering supplemental coverage beyond the single-payer's benefit package, though the legislature has kicked the can down the road a bit on deciding whether or not to allow private insurers to offer this kind of coverage (the bill calls for recommendations to the relevant legislative committees on this point by 2012).

But will be there be a substantially reduced role for private insurers (and, presumably, few jobs in that industry in the state) in the future? Yes, administrative savings is one of the strong, though probably not among the most important, selling points for Vermont's proposal. But any money saved--money that stays in the consumer's pocket instead of going into the health care system--is going to be coming out of somebody else's pocket. That goes for everything: nationally, if we want our health spending to be less than 17% of GDP, then that likely ultimately means having fewer jobs in the health-related sector and directing those savings into some other sector.

That said, like most single-payer bills, Vermont's does devote some attention to those on the losing side of the administrative savings. Namely, it commits the state government to:

A strategic approach to workforce needs, including retraining programs for workers displaced through increased efficiency and reduced administration in the health care system and ensuring an adequate health care workforce to provide access to health care for all Vermonters.​

In other words, the employees of said insurance companies and the rest of the unemployed are basically screwed. There is actually a synonym for screwed that I would like to use there, but I try to keep that word from coming off my fingertips. Isn't that what I have been saying?

The very lucky few that get hired by the single payer system will keep their jobs, those that aren't so lucky will be out on the streets with the government throwing them a dirty bone and those who are now unemployed will have thousands upon thousands of new competitors in the search for new jobs.

Thanks a whole hell of a lot Democrats!

Please, Democrats, quit pointing at Republicans as the ones that are anti-jobs.

Immie

I'd be careful with the hypocrisy, Immie.

More Layoffs, Bigger Payoffs: CEOs Who Cut More Jobs Got Paid 42% More Money in 2009 - DailyFinance

Why was there no noise about those top companies laying off tens of thousands at the same time they reported positive earnings? Suddenly, everyone is projecting fear about a few hundred people getting laid off in the State of Vermont because their jobs in the insurance industry might be eliminated?

 

[Zander]

If it works - I will amongst the first to applaud it.

But it won't work. It will lead to care rationing, increased cost, and ever higher taxes. Human nature is too powerful. There is no free lunch, ever.

 

[Immanuel]

As of right now, the single-payer system in the bill passed by the Vermont house wouldn't go into effect until sometime around 2017 because it's contingent upon receiving an ACA waiver, which they can't get before 2017 (if the Wyden-Brown proposal to amend the ACA to make state innovation waivers available earlier were adopted, that would change).

In the meantime, the bill provides for the establishment of an ACA-friendly health benefits exchange in which private insurance is available, with the aim that this exchange ultimately provide the infrastructure for the single-payer system a few years down the line. What's interesting is that the bill calls for a "unified, simplified administration system" for insurers offering plans through the exchange (the system to which they refer includes "claims administration, benefit management, billing, or other components"). So they're already looking to streamline the administrative side of (private) insurance, completely independent of the single-payer phase of the plan.

And when the single-payer part finally goes into effect, there's still a role for the private sector on the paper-pushing front (namely, they'll probably be doing most of it):

§ 1826. ADMINISTRATION; ENROLLMENT

(a)(1) The agency may, under an open bidding process, solicit bids from and award contracts to public or private entities for administration of certain elements of Green Mountain Care, such as claims administration and provider relations.​

There are other possible (reduced) roles for private insurers, such as offering supplemental coverage beyond the single-payer's benefit package, though the legislature has kicked the can down the road a bit on deciding whether or not to allow private insurers to offer this kind of coverage (the bill calls for recommendations to the relevant legislative committees on this point by 2012).

But will be there be a substantially reduced role for private insurers (and, presumably, few jobs in that industry in the state) in the future? Yes, administrative savings is one of the strong, though probably not among the most important, selling points for Vermont's proposal. But any money saved--money that stays in the consumer's pocket instead of going into the health care system--is going to be coming out of somebody else's pocket. That goes for everything: nationally, if we want our health spending to be less than 17% of GDP, then that likely ultimately means having fewer jobs in the health-related sector and directing those savings into some other sector.

That said, like most single-payer bills, Vermont's does devote some attention to those on the losing side of the administrative savings. Namely, it commits the state government to:

A strategic approach to workforce needs, including retraining programs for workers displaced through increased efficiency and reduced administration in the health care system and ensuring an adequate health care workforce to provide access to health care for all Vermonters.​

In other words, the employees of said insurance companies and the rest of the unemployed are basically screwed. There is actually a synonym for screwed that I would like to use there, but I try to keep that word from coming off my fingertips. Isn't that what I have been saying?

The very lucky few that get hired by the single payer system will keep their jobs, those that aren't so lucky will be out on the streets with the government throwing them a dirty bone and those who are now unemployed will have thousands upon thousands of new competitors in the search for new jobs.

Thanks a whole hell of a lot Democrats!

Please, Democrats, quit pointing at Republicans as the ones that are anti-jobs.

Immie

I'd be careful with the hypocrisy, Immie.

More Layoffs, Bigger Payoffs: CEOs Who Cut More Jobs Got Paid 42% More Money in 2009 - DailyFinance

Why was there no noise about those top companies laying off tens of thousands at the same time they reported positive earnings? Suddenly, everyone is projecting fear about a few hundred people getting laid off in the State of Vermont because their jobs in the insurance industry might be eliminated?

A few hundred?

We're talking nationwide and we're talking hundreds of thousands of jobs when this goes national.

Also, we are not talking about companies choosing to eliminate positions here although the issue is something to be concerned about. We are talking about the U.S. Government systematically destroying a very large sector of the U.S. Economy. I'm not sure, but I believe I read somewhere that it was 16% of the U.S. Economy and that is only the direct part of the health insurance industry. It does not include all the satellite industries that are going to be effected.

Immie

 

[MaggieMae]

The very lucky few that get hired by the single payer system will keep their jobs, those that aren't so lucky will be out on the streets with the government throwing them a dirty bone and those who are now unemployed will have thousands upon thousands of new competitors in the search for new jobs.

Thanks a whole hell of a lot Democrats!

Please, Democrats, quit pointing at Republicans as the ones that are anti-jobs.

I'm a bit confused. On the other page you said "I have said it dozens of times, I do not trust bureaucrats. I don't want them making my health care decisions. "

But now you're arguing for bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy: administrative complexity and disorganization solely so we can keep cutting checks to those pushing the papers around. This particular back-and-forth, however, is a good example of why it's so difficult to find any savings in our health care system.

No, you are wrong, I am arguing that the Democrats are further screwing up the economy.

Private insurers are not bureaucrats.

Immie

They're even worse because they've got one of the biggest lobbying effort in Washington going for them.

Insurance: Top Contributors to Federal Candidates, Parties, and Outside Groups | OpenSecrets

 

[Immanuel]

I'm a bit confused. On the other page you said "I have said it dozens of times, I do not trust bureaucrats. I don't want them making my health care decisions. "

But now you're arguing for bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy: administrative complexity and disorganization solely so we can keep cutting checks to those pushing the papers around. This particular back-and-forth, however, is a good example of why it's so difficult to find any savings in our health care system.

No, you are wrong, I am arguing that the Democrats are further screwing up the economy.

Private insurers are not bureaucrats.

Immie

They're even worse because they've got one of the biggest lobbying effort in Washington going for them.

Insurance: Top Contributors to Federal Candidates, Parties, and Outside Groups | OpenSecrets

Not even close.

They don't have the endless supply of tax dollars to allow them to spend without concern for staying in business. The U.S. Government can simply raise taxes or print more money or add on to the National Debt regardless of what it costs us in the long run.

Immie

 

[MaggieMae]

Do I have to point out that administrative procedure is precisely the topic of conversation here? Bureaucracy is a function of organization, not your ideology.

Dictionary: Online definitions and pronunciations - Yahoo! Education

Your link actually contains a brief discussion of private sector bureaucracy. It's not particularly enlightening, but I'm not here to provide a reading list in organizational theory.

My point stands. You're making a blanket argument against any increase in administrative efficiency in the health insurance sector because then, sadly, we'd be paying less for those functions (ergo we'd be employing fewer folks in that sector). Overhead for the sake of overhead (there, do you prefer that?) is not good medicine and it's not good policy.

So, you want to literally destroy the economy in order to drop administrative expenses by a percent or two? Wow!

Tax revenues will plummet for one thing. Unemployment expenses are going to sky-rocket, but by God we saved a million dollars in administrative expenses by eliminating hundreds of thousands of jobs. Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant.

Immie

Hundreds of thousands? News flash: The entire State of Vermont only has a population of 621,000.

That's what I mean about overreacting and projection. ONE state; a very, very few number of people who will be affected by layoffs.

 

[MaggieMae]

Please do take your business elsewhere. And B&J is now part of a conglomerate. Cons love those, so it's safe for you to eat it.

The company is still based in Vermont, so NO it is not safe for me to eat it. That money would go to citizens of the state of Vermont and put food on their tables after they've voted for people who are doing this stupid crap. Not something I'm interested in supporting.

Nobody gives a shit what you eat.

 

[Two Thumbs]

lol no it didn't. Stop making up bullshit. the housing market and the failures of wallstreets caused Mass economy to collapse.

But good on you to pass the buck to their healthcare system for being the real reason.

What a joke

Massachusetts health care reform - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The reduced state payments anticipated that by reducing the number of uninsured people Commonwealth Care would reduce the amount of charity care provided by hospitals.[36] In a subsequent story that same month the Globe reported that Commonwealth Care faced a short-term funding gap of $100 million and the need to obtain a new three-year funding commitment from the federal government of $1.5 billion.[37] By June 2011 enrollment is projected to grow to 342,000 people at an annual expense of $1.35 billion. The original projections were for the program to ultimately cover approximately 215,000 people at a cost of $725 million.[


During the week of April 5, 2010, the Boston Globe reported that more than a thousand people in Massachusetts had "gamed" the mandate/penalty provision of the law since implementation by choosing to be insured only a few months a year, typically when in need of a specific medical procedure. On the average, the Globe reported, these part-time enrolees were paying $1200–$1600 in premiums over a few months and receiving $10,000 or more in healthcare services before again dropping coverage


There's more if you want to do some searching on your own.

.....Like if you'd moved-down (a little-farther) and read:

Outcomes

LOL!!!!!!

I read the whole thing moron.

What part of they had to borrow $1.5 BILLION from the Fed escapes that simpleton brain of your?

Is math really that hard?

 

[MaggieMae]

Two years ago, my employer was paying approximately $1,300/month to cover a families health insurance. If that goes to $3,900/month there are going to be a lot of business going under.

You say, "That's why projecting is like spinning your wheels", but that is no different that Nancy Pelosi telling us, "we have to pass it so that they can know what is in it". I'm sorry, but that is not good enough. That kind of thinking is what gets us into trouble all the time. Once it is passed, there is NO GOING BACK. We simply can't afford that again.

Immie

Why would it go to $3,900 a month?

Why won't it? With zero competition there is no incentive for the government not to charge every dime they can and then throw those extra tax dollars into the general fund (which is where they will go in the first place) for use in adding pork.

Immie

You've totally lost me. Are you now talking about single-payer or Obamacare? Under the latter, there would be plenty of competition, which is as it should be, because insurance companies will have to compete with each other for the pool of subscribers in the exchange program. Under single payer, the administration would be a separately administered program. Huh?

 

[MaggieMae]

For those that have accused me of crying wolf about the employment of people in the health insurance industry:

What is Single Payer? | Physicians for a National Health Program



There it is right there in black and white.

Immie

And? That's the whole point. It's the insurance industry that has been driving the bus...right into a ditch, which is why affordable health care for all Americans is even an issue at all.

Affordable?

At what costs? Significantly reduced tax revenues because 25% of the work force is unemployed and not paying employment taxes or income taxes? Higher costs for Unemployment? Or are we just going to end Unemployment because with 25% of the workforce is out of work and we simply cannot afford it?

As I said, I am not completely against an SPS, but I am very concerned about what is going to happen when we adopt one. I think we as citizens of the United States should be asking those tough questions. When and if they are answered to our satisfaction, then we should move forward, but not until.

Immie

What ARE you talking about? I'm talking about skyrocketing HEALTH CARE COSTS, not tax revenue or unemployment. Medical costs continue to rise, and insurance premiums continue to rise with them, putting health care out of reach for far too many people.

 

[MaggieMae]

If it works - I will amongst the first to applaud it.

But it won't work. It will lead to care rationing, increased cost, and ever higher taxes. Human nature is too powerful. There is no free lunch, ever.

Just as there are restrictions in general Medicare coverage, there should also be restrictions in any single-payer plan for general health care costs, i.e., deductibles, limits, exclusions.

 

[Immanuel]

Why would it go to $3,900 a month?

Why won't it? With zero competition there is no incentive for the government not to charge every dime they can and then throw those extra tax dollars into the general fund (which is where they will go in the first place) for use in adding pork.

Immie

You've totally lost me. Are you now talking about single-payer or Obamacare? Under the latter, there would be plenty of competition, which is as it should be, because insurance companies will have to compete with each other for the pool of subscribers in the exchange program. Under single payer, the administration would be a separately administered program. Huh?

I am talking about the goal of taking single payer nation wide.

And I believe you are wrong in your assertion about the Health Care Reform bill that passed last year that you term, Obamacare. I don't like that word, because it is right wing crap trying to denounce the efforts of the legislature. HCR sets up exchanges, but it limits what insurance companies in the exchange (and in order to sell insurance they have to be in the exchange) can sell. In effect, it makes them puppets of the government. They are not allowed to market their products. They must be just like every other company on the exchange... i.e. a puppet of the government.

Under a SPS, the government would be the sole provider of Health Insurance and there will be no competition at all, not even the puppets.

Immie

 

[MaggieMae]

In other words, the employees of said insurance companies and the rest of the unemployed are basically screwed. There is actually a synonym for screwed that I would like to use there, but I try to keep that word from coming off my fingertips. Isn't that what I have been saying?

The very lucky few that get hired by the single payer system will keep their jobs, those that aren't so lucky will be out on the streets with the government throwing them a dirty bone and those who are now unemployed will have thousands upon thousands of new competitors in the search for new jobs.

Thanks a whole hell of a lot Democrats!

Please, Democrats, quit pointing at Republicans as the ones that are anti-jobs.

Immie

I'd be careful with the hypocrisy, Immie.

More Layoffs, Bigger Payoffs: CEOs Who Cut More Jobs Got Paid 42% More Money in 2009 - DailyFinance

Why was there no noise about those top companies laying off tens of thousands at the same time they reported positive earnings? Suddenly, everyone is projecting fear about a few hundred people getting laid off in the State of Vermont because their jobs in the insurance industry might be eliminated?

A few hundred?

We're talking nationwide and we're talking hundreds of thousands of jobs when this goes national.

Also, we are not talking about companies choosing to eliminate positions here although the issue is something to be concerned about. We are talking about the U.S. Government systematically destroying a very large sector of the U.S. Economy. I'm not sure, but I believe I read somewhere that it was 16% of the U.S. Economy and that is only the direct part of the health insurance industry. It does not include all the satellite industries that are going to be effected.

Immie

Would you puleeze stop worrying that the sky is falling NOW? This is one state, has only passed the House in Vermont, not the Senate yet, nor been signed into law, it will not even be funded until 2013 and not ready to administer until 2017. You've got a few years left before you seriously need to start losing your mind over this, so please take care of your blood pressure before you wear out all your arguments before any such plan ever, ever EVER gets installed across the United States.