Senator Max Baucus : Redefining "The Public Option"

[LibocalypseNow]

Yea the whole "Requiring all Americans to have Health Insurance" should be alarming to most Americans but shockingly it isn't. Fining and then possibly imprisoning your own people for not having health insurance just seems way too totalitarian to me. Giving away your Freedoms & Liberties for possible free health care just isn't a wise trade-off in my opinion. It really is shocking to me that so many are so willing to give their freedoms away in the name of "Health Care" or various other Government follies. What has happened to America? So many are so willing to be subservient to the Government? Mass brainwashing can be the only logical explanation for this. Health care reform can happen but not at the expense of Freedom & Liberty. I just hope more people start to understand this.

 

[Oldandtired]

fyi, you are incorrect:
The legislation in the bill SPECIFICALLY STATES that the Public option had to pay for itself through premiums....so they can NOT haphazardly via the public dole (which it seemed as though you implied above) undercut the private insurance companies.

Care

I have been told that several times and asked what page it is on....yet no one has offered the page number.

I read some of 3200....maybe 1/10 before I lost interest....but do you have a page nmumber for that?

The public option in H.R. 3200 has to meet the same benefit requirements and comply with the same insurance market reforms as private plans. It is also required to become financially self-sustaining and build up its own start up costs and contingency funds into its premium rates. To the chagrin for some on the left, the public option isn’t Medicare and wouldn’t be able to use Medicare’s purchasing power with prescription drugs and other health care products to bring down costs. John Conyers: House Health Care Bill Must Be Strengthened For His Support | NEWS JUNKIE POST

and here in the bill:

page 119
•HR 3200 IH
1 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish
2 geographically-adjusted premium rates for the public
3 health insurance option in a manner—
4 (A) that complies with the premium rules
5 established by the Commissioner under section
6 113 for Exchange-participating health benefit
7 plans; and (this covers that the public option has to offer all benefit requirements of the private insurers on the Exchange)
8 (B) at a level sufficient to fully finance the
9 costs of—
10 (i) health benefits provided by the
11 public health insurance option; and
12 (ii) administrative costs related to op13
erating the public health insurance option.
(this is what SHOWS that the public option has to be fully funded by premiums)

page 119 of the bill hr 3200

Thank you.

If 3200 is still on the table, whereas I have other issues with it, I will no longer debate with my concern about the bottomless pit.

However, we are still comparing a company without concern for profit to companies that need to answer to the stockholders.

As I said earlier.....I am curious as to how Ford will compete with GM's new "try for 2 months" deal they are offering. Certainly, it is a going to generate a loss for GM for a long time before it generates a profit. In times like this, can a company survive a long term INTENTIONAL loss without the support of the taxpayer? How is Ford going to compete with this?

Private industry is no place for government competition.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus - Taking advantage of the fact that most Americans are victims of government education hence easily fooled - has Introduced a $856 Billion Health-Care Bill

It will require nearly all Americans to carry health insurance while barring insurance companies from discriminating against people based on their health status or denying coverage because of preexisting conditions.

He says that "The plan does not call for a government-run insurance option" - so who the fuck is going to enforce those requirements : Blackwater? ArmorGroup ? The Mexicans ? Canadians?

What a fuck tard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


.

Health insurance companies are already regulated by state governments, in some states very highly regulated, and since there seems to be a large and broadly based consensus that we need a national policy to slow the rate of increase of health care and health insurance costs and to increase affordable access to health care/insurance, new federal legislation aimed at trying to achieve these goals is inevitable.

The problem with this bill, from what I have read so far about it, is that it fails to meet either goal and in the case of containing health care/insurance goals actually makes matters worse. Requiring insurers to cover those with pre existing conditions at standard rates and capping out of pocket health care expenses will cause standard rates to increase for everyone who now pays for health insurance. According to an analysis from the University of Michigan, insuring those with pre existing conditions at standard rates will cause standard rates to increase from 10% to 15%, an increase of $520 to $780 a year for a family of four paying for employers provided health insurance or $1,300 to $1,950 a year for those buying individual policies with comparable benefits.

Insured might pay more under Obama plan - Health care reform- msnbc.com

In effect, this plan, and the other plans being considered by the Congress, would pay for this coverage of those with pre existing conditions by imposing a regressive tax - those earning $40,000 a year would pay the same amount as those earning $240,000 a year - on all those now paying for either group or individual health insurance. Of course, capping out of pocket expenses means insurance company costs will increase and this increase will also be passed on to consumers, further increasing the tax this bill imposes on health insurance consumers.

The bill proposes to pay for a part of the cost it will generate by imposing fees, really excise taxes, on medical device suppliers and on insurance companies for each high end policy they sell. The medical device suppliers will simply pass this new expense on to consumers, further driving up health care costs, which will make health insurance cost even more, driving health insurance costs to those now paying for it even higher, and insurance companies will, of course pass on their increased costs due to the fees on high end insurance policies in the form of higher premiums. It is not unreasonable to expect to see a middle class family of four paying at least $1,000 a year more for their health insurance if this bill becomes law.

These increases in the cost of health insurance raises serious questions about whether or not this bill will decrease the number of uninsured. How many of the people now struggling to pay their monthly health insurance premiums will be able to pay the additional $80 a month or more this bill will impose on them? How many will be forced to drop their coverage, thus swelling the ranks of the uninsured? How many employers facing an additional $160 a month in expenses to provide health insurance will simply choose to drop their plans or pass more of their costs on to their employees? Since the current estimates of how many currently uninsured will receive subsidies that will allow them to buy insurance are based on current rates and current estimates of rate increases, not the higher rates this bill will create, it is unclear how many now currently uninsured will be helped by this bill if Obama's pledge of a $900,000,000 ten year cap on the federal government's outlays becomes law. Will the number newly uninsured equal the number of newly insured? Nobody knows.

There are many other problems with this bill, but in terms of containing health care/insurance costs, it is worse than doing nothing and in terms of increasing affordable access to health care/insurance it may be as bad as doing nothing.

 

[Contumacious]

I don't support Baucus's plan. His plan only differs slightly from the Democrat's plan. "Requiring" Americans to carry health insurance is a non-starter for me. I always stand on the side of freedom & liberty. More freedom not less. I just don't understand why so many are so willing to give away their freedom & liberty.

Fair enough. Knowing that all American taxpayers already pay for those who do not have coverage as our Hospital emergency rooms are not allowed to turn people away, would you support changing the 1986 legislation that mandates care for all?

All federal and state laws regulating healthcare should be abolished:

Medical Control, Medical Corruption


"The American Medical Association, which for almost 150 years has sought to institutionalize a rip-off and to keep sick people and their families oblivious to it. Thanks to this central committee of the medical cartel, the number of medical schools and medical students is drastically restricted, state licensure further obstructs the supply of doctors, fees are largely secret and controlled across the industry, alternative treatments and practitioners are outlawed, pharmacists and nurses are hamstrung, and the mystique of the profession rivals the priesthood, although priests have a somewhat lower income. Meanwhile, the customer pays through the nose, even if he does not go to an otolaryngologist."


.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

What if citizens refuse to pay fines imposed on them for not having health insurance? What would the next course of action be by the Government? Would a "Health Care Gestapo" force storm the citizen's home to arrest and imprison them? All for not having health insurance? Sounds like something straight out of 1984. People need to awaken from their long slumber and understand that we can have health care reform without becoming a totalitarian state. Getting costs under control and other issues can be resolved without giving up one's Freedoms & Liberties. Why don't more Americans understand this? Is it all about mass brainwashing in the end? Lets be level-headed and rational in dealing with our health care issues. Lets not throw the baby out with the bath water. I just can't support Baucus's proposal at this point.

 

[VaYank5150]

Getting costs under control and other issues can be resolved without giving up one's Freedoms & Liberties. Why don't more Americans understand this?

Really? Please xplain HOW we are supposed to care for those people who CHOOSE not to have health insurance and still control costs?

 

[Care4all]

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus - Taking advantage of the fact that most Americans are victims of government education hence easily fooled - has Introduced a $856 Billion Health-Care Bill

It will require nearly all Americans to carry health insurance while barring insurance companies from discriminating against people based on their health status or denying coverage because of preexisting conditions.

He says that "The plan does not call for a government-run insurance option" - so who the fuck is going to enforce those requirements : Blackwater? ArmorGroup ? The Mexicans ? Canadians?

What a fuck tard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


.

Health insurance companies are already regulated by state governments, in some states very highly regulated, and since there seems to be a large and broadly based consensus that we need a national policy to slow the rate of increase of health care and health insurance costs and to increase affordable access to health care/insurance, new federal legislation aimed at trying to achieve these goals is inevitable.

The problem with this bill, from what I have read so far about it, is that it fails to meet either goal and in the case of containing health care/insurance goals actually makes matters worse. Requiring insurers to cover those with pre existing conditions at standard rates and capping out of pocket health care expenses will cause standard rates to increase for everyone who now pays for health insurance. According to an analysis from the University of Michigan, insuring those with pre existing conditions at standard rates will cause standard rates to increase from 10% to 15%, an increase of $520 to $780 a year for a family of four paying for employers provided health insurance or $1,300 to $1,950 a year for those buying individual policies with comparable benefits.

Insured might pay more under Obama plan - Health care reform- msnbc.com

In effect, this plan, and the other plans being considered by the Congress, would pay for this coverage of those with pre existing conditions by imposing a regressive tax - those earning $40,000 a year would pay the same amount as those earning $240,000 a year - on all those now paying for either group or individual health insurance. Of course, capping out of pocket expenses means insurance company costs will increase and this increase will also be passed on to consumers, further increasing the tax this bill imposes on health insurance consumers.

The bill proposes to pay for a part of the cost it will generate by imposing fees, really excise taxes, on medical device suppliers and on insurance companies for each high end policy they sell. The medical device suppliers will simply pass this new expense on to consumers, further driving up health care costs, which will make health insurance cost even more, driving health insurance costs to those now paying for it even higher, and insurance companies will, of course pass on their increased costs due to the fees on high end insurance policies in the form of higher premiums. It is not unreasonable to expect to see a middle class family of four paying at least $1,000 a year more for their health insurance if this bill becomes law.

These increases in the cost of health insurance raises serious questions about whether or not this bill will decrease the number of uninsured. How many of the people now struggling to pay their monthly health insurance premiums will be able to pay the additional $80 a month or more this bill will impose on them? How many will be forced to drop their coverage, thus swelling the ranks of the uninsured? How many employers facing an additional $160 a month in expenses to provide health insurance will simply choose to drop their plans or pass more of their costs on to their employees? Since the current estimates of how many currently uninsured will receive subsidies that will allow them to buy insurance are based on current rates and current estimates of rate increases, not the higher rates this bill will create, it is unclear how many now currently uninsured will be helped by this bill if Obama's pledge of a $900,000,000 ten year cap on the federal government's outlays becomes law. Will the number newly uninsured equal the number of newly insured? Nobody knows.

There are many other problems with this bill, but in terms of containing health care/insurance costs, it is worse than doing nothing and in terms of increasing affordable access to health care/insurance it may be as bad as doing nothing.

this is why insurance has to be mandatory in the bill, according to some, because it would add 30-40 million new people to the insurance companies rolls, which more than compensates with added profit for covering the preexisting conditions for people who do not work...and can get on a group rate plan, which ALL cover preexisting conditions NOW.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

I'm just not getting any answers from the politicians proposing fines and such for people who don't have health insurance. What happens when these people don't pay these fines? Will they have created a "Health Care Gestapo" force with the authority to storm one's home to arrest & imprison them for not paying these fines? Seems pretty ludicrous and frightening to me. Many people actually believe that we have to sacrifice our Freedoms & Liberties in the name of possible free Health Care. This just isn't the case. We really can have meaningful health care reform and keep our Freedoms & Liberties in the process. We really can have both. It really doesn't have to be one or the other. I just hope more Americans begin to understand this before it's too late.

 

[Care4all]

I'm just not getting any answers from the politicians proposing fines and such for people who don't have health insurance. What happens when these people don't pay these fines? Will they have created a "Health Care Gestapo" force with the authority to storm one's home to arrest & imprison them for not paying these fines? Seems pretty ludacris and frightening to me. Many people actually believe that we have to sacrifice our Freedoms & Liberties in the name of possible free Health Care. This just isn't the case. We really can have meaningful health care reform and keep our Freedoms & Liberties in the process. We really can have both. It's not one or the other. I just hope more Americans begin to understand this before it's too late.

they might garnish their pay?

but i thought i heard it will be an IRS penalty somehow...

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Pretty scary stuff. A "Health Care Gestapo?" Yikes!

 

[VaYank5150]

Pretty scary stuff. A "Health Care Gestapo?" Yikes!

Fearmongering already? You haven't read the bill. You have seen NOTHING about enforcement of these polices and already you are using words like "Gestapo"???? Can you say "partisan hack"? I knew you could...

 

[Oldandtired]

Pretty scary stuff. A "Health Care Gestapo?" Yikes!

Fearmongering already? You haven't read the bill. You have seen NOTHING about enforcement of these polices and already you are using words like "Gestapo"???? Can you say "partisan hack"? I knew you could...

Actually, it seems to be an appropriate characterization for anything that comes out of this administration....and THIS congress.

Look what happened to Wilson.

Look at how the tea partyers were labelled by members of congress.

The town hall meeting attendees.....

It seems the general reaction to dissent is isolation and repudiation.

But time will tell......

 

[VaYank5150]

Pretty scary stuff. A "Health Care Gestapo?" Yikes!

Fearmongering already? You haven't read the bill. You have seen NOTHING about enforcement of these polices and already you are using words like "Gestapo"???? Can you say "partisan hack"? I knew you could...

Actually, it seems to be an appropriate characterization for anything that comes out of this administration....and THIS congress.

Look what happened to Wilson.

Look at how the tea partyers were labelled by members of congress.

The town hall meeting attendees.....

It seems the general reaction to dissent is isolation and repudiation.

But time will tell......

Sorry, Oldandtired, but I have to throw the BULLSHIT flag on this one. It was NOT the dissention that was criticized, it was the child like and mob like manner in which the dissention was carried out. You know it and I know. There is no need to get partisan on me now.

 

[Care4all]

I have been told that several times and asked what page it is on....yet no one has offered the page number.

I read some of 3200....maybe 1/10 before I lost interest....but do you have a page nmumber for that?

The public option in H.R. 3200 has to meet the same benefit requirements and comply with the same insurance market reforms as private plans. It is also required to become financially self-sustaining and build up its own start up costs and contingency funds into its premium rates. To the chagrin for some on the left, the public option isn’t Medicare and wouldn’t be able to use Medicare’s purchasing power with prescription drugs and other health care products to bring down costs. John Conyers: House Health Care Bill Must Be Strengthened For His Support | NEWS JUNKIE POST

and here in the bill:

page 119
•HR 3200 IH
1 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish
2 geographically-adjusted premium rates for the public
3 health insurance option in a manner—
4 (A) that complies with the premium rules
5 established by the Commissioner under section
6 113 for Exchange-participating health benefit
7 plans; and (this covers that the public option has to offer all benefit requirements of the private insurers on the Exchange)
8 (B) at a level sufficient to fully finance the
9 costs of—
10 (i) health benefits provided by the
11 public health insurance option; and
12 (ii) administrative costs related to op13
erating the public health insurance option.
(this is what SHOWS that the public option has to be fully funded by premiums)

page 119 of the bill hr 3200

Thank you.

If 3200 is still on the table, whereas I have other issues with it, I will no longer debate with my concern about the bottomless pit.

However, we are still comparing a company without concern for profit to companies that need to answer to the stockholders.

As I said earlier.....I am curious as to how Ford will compete with GM's new "try for 2 months" deal they are offering. Certainly, it is a going to generate a loss for GM for a long time before it generates a profit. In times like this, can a company survive a long term INTENTIONAL loss without the support of the taxpayer? How is Ford going to compete with this?

Private industry is no place for government competition.

their after tax profit for thehealth insurance industry runs from 6%-8%...i think it is manageable...

they will have an advantage on group rate price negotiation with hospitals compared to the individual state coop or state's public plan which is also regionalized in this bill....i don't believe the regional public or coop plans will have many people with alot of pull as far as bulk discounts, whereas the mega health insurance companies who do cross state lines, have bigger discount power with hospital chain owners who cross state lines as well.

also, the private insurer can protect their business share by offering BETTER coverage than the public or coop could, at a better price for these perks as well....they can dot their i's and cross their t's on customer service, they can cut waste and watch their hundred million dollar yearly salaries given out, and STILL GIVE their shareholders a profit, as they always have....

if they walked away because of a little bit of competition without giving it their ALL to keep the company afloat and profitable, then the stock holders have the wrong people working for them in leadership rolls, imho.

care

ps ALSO fedx /ups do fine against the post office with profit...?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Not trying to be partisan. I would oppose any proposal requiring Americans to have health insurance whether it comes from Democrats or Republicans. It just doesn't need to be included in any health care legislation. I'm willing to compromise a bit but not when it comes to giving away basic Freedom & Liberty. We really can have meaningful health care reform without giving our basic Freedoms away. Our politicians need to start approaching every issue with this in mind. They seem to have gone astray in this area. It's not just about them. I really wasn't trying to be partisan. I was merely asking some simple questions. What will the next course of action be by the Government if one refuses to pay fines for not having health insurance? They just haven't been clear on this issue yet. I just think it's unnecessary to include this in health care reform. Hey just my opinion anyway.

 

[VaYank5150]

We really can have meaningful health care reform without giving our basic Freedoms away

AGAIN, Libo, I ask....how do you suggest we do this?

 

[Oldandtired]

We really can have meaningful health care reform without giving our basic Freedoms away

AGAIN, Libo, I ask....how do you suggest we do this?

A little bit at a time.

I would start with eliminating the need for defensive medicine with tort reform.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Address each issue individually rather than passing a behemoth legislative boondoggle. There are issues with our current health care system so lets sort them out individually and begin to address them with logic & reason. The problem with this issue and so many others is that many like to create a "Crisis" atmosphere so they can rapidly shove their agendas down out throats. Both parties do this. We should simply take our time and sort out each issue individually. Enough of all this fear mongering "Crisis" stuff. These massive spending bills never work out well in the end. Should people be forced to have health insurance and suffer punitive measures if they don't? It's a question well worth asking and should be addressed individually on its own. They're simply presenting way too much way too fast. It's all about the "Crisis" in the end. Lets be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water. Lets preserve our basic freedoms as we move towards fixing our health care system. Questioning is a good thing in the end.

 

[VaYank5150]

We really can have meaningful health care reform without giving our basic Freedoms away

AGAIN, Libo, I ask....how do you suggest we do this?

A little bit at a time.

I would start with eliminating the need for defensive medicine with tort reform.

This is based an ASSUMPTION that all preventive medecine is practiced from a defensive standpoint, and I don't think all of it is. I JUST had a CT scan for my headaches. Was that preventive or defensive or diagnostic?

 

[Titanic Sailor]

service manager for what industry? Government?

And you can claim my assertions are out there, and use childish emoticons, but that seems to be the response when you have zero to add unfortunately.

How many Republican government employees do you people know? Who writes 99% of all legislation in this nation, state and federal? Let me guees, Bush?