The Democrats Want Higher Taxes And Have The Public Option Back On The Table

[Greenbeard]

There is no difference.
Social Security was supposed to be paid for out of premiums.

I'm trying to figure out if you actually believe this or you just think the average reader of this thread is completely unfamiliar with history and you can get away with a claim like that. Either way, I'm mildly disgusted.

To be very clear: Social Security has always been financed by taxes on workers, all the way back to when it first started paying out benefits in 1937. It has never been paid for by "premiums" of people receiving benefits (probably in part because that idea makes no sense).

Virtually every "cost free" government program has ended up costing taxpayers billions if not trillions of dollars. Please cite one that hasnt.

The public option isn't free, it would be funded by premiums like any insurance company. You're looking for an equivalent to the concept of the public option but there hasn't been one.

 

[rightwinger]

Never should have taken the Public Option off the table

Only way to keep insurance companies honest and rates down

 

[rightwinger]

Now they're floating stories that support their attempts.

Why are you afraid of a public option?

Not really afraid of it. I just like living.

Well ...thats why it is an OPTION. You are welcome to keep your existing policy

Why do you insist on denying other Americans the right to choose?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Actually, it is. It's right there in black and white. You can't argue that it's not intended to be paid through premiums since the bill clearly says that it is.

The Democrats will start crying that the poorest can't afford even the public option and that they should get subsidies or get it for free

You're not very familiar with the law already on the books, are you?

In the end it will put the health care industry 100% under government control, which is what the Socialists want anyway.

The public option would be a payer, not a provider.

Read again what I wrote.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Never should have taken the Public Option off the table

Only way to keep insurance companies honest and rates down

And drive them out of business completely so the government can take over the whole thing

 

[Avatar4321]

Never should have taken the Public Option off the table

Only way to keep insurance companies honest and rates down

I suppose that would be true if your definition of keep the insurance companies honest is to drive them out of business.

I don't want to see those people lose their jobs. Nor do I want a government bueaucracy taking their place.

See, I can change insurance companies if I don't trust my insurer. I can find someone i do trust.

I have no power with a bueauacracy. I either have to take what little they give or die. While they can take as much of my money as they please.

Empowering government is never the best option.

 

[Avatar4321]

Why are you afraid of a public option?

Not really afraid of it. I just like living.

Well ...thats why it is an OPTION. You are welcome to keep your existing policy

Why do you insist on denying other Americans the right to choose?

You can't choose your own insurance policy now? Is someone stopping you?

And please don't pretend I am stupid. I believe that there is an option about as much as I believed they would stop pushing for more control after the bill was passed. You guys want power over my life. Well, too bad. I am not giving it.

 

[Greenbeard]

Since this bit doesn't seem to be well-appreciated here, let me quote the relevant part of this new bill (H.R. 5808):

`(b) Premiums and Financing-

`(1) ESTABLISHMENT OF PREMIUMS-

`(A) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall establish geographically adjusted premium rates for the public health insurance option--

`(i) in a manner that complies with the premium rules under paragraph (3); and
`(ii) at a level sufficient to fully finance the costs of--

`(I) health benefits provided by the public health insurance option; and
`(II) administrative costs related to operating the public health insurance option.​

​

 

[Greenbeard]

I have no power with a bueauacracy.

Bureaucracy is not an exclusively public concept. For example, a private insurance company is a bureaucracy, too.

That said, the fears that the public option is intended to run private insurers out of business have little grounding. A public option that's doing its job well wouldn't be particularly large.

 

[rightwinger]

Never should have taken the Public Option off the table

Only way to keep insurance companies honest and rates down

And drive them out of business completely so the government can take over the whole thing

It doesn't drive them out of business, it forces them to be competitive.

They could always consider cutting executive salaries, DC Lobbyists, physician kickbacks, campaign contributions

No..just kidding
They would never do that

 

[rightwinger]

Not really afraid of it. I just like living.

Well ...thats why it is an OPTION. You are welcome to keep your existing policy

Why do you insist on denying other Americans the right to choose?

You can't choose your own insurance policy now? Is someone stopping you?

And please don't pretend I am stupid. I believe that there is an option about as much as I believed they would stop pushing for more control after the bill was passed. You guys want power over my life. Well, too bad. I am not giving it.

The law says OPTION
Until it says otherwise you are lying to state otherwise

Self employed Americans, those who work for small companies, those who are new to the job market do not have a choice...they are denied a competitive private policy.

Yet you seek to deny them access to a low cost Government Option

 

[The Rabbi]

There is no difference.
Social Security was supposed to be paid for out of premiums.

I'm trying to figure out if you actually believe this or you just think the average reader of this thread is completely unfamiliar with history and you can get away with a claim like that. Either way, I'm mildly disgusted.

To be very clear: Social Security has always been financed by taxes on workers, all the way back to when it first started paying out benefits in 1937. It has never been paid for by "premiums" of people receiving benefits (probably in part because that idea makes no sense).

Virtually every "cost free" government program has ended up costing taxpayers billions if not trillions of dollars. Please cite one that hasnt.

The public option isn't free, it would be funded by premiums like any insurance company. You're looking for an equivalent to the concept of the public option but there hasn't been one.

I agree you are disgusting in either naivete or disingenuousness.
WHether you call it "premium" or "tax" the result is the same: A system that is supposed to be self financing ends up costing government out of general tax funds.
Again, I challenge you to provide one example of a gov't program that was supposed to be externally financed and in fact has ended up that way. I've provided several that failed that test.

 

[The Rabbi]

Well ...thats why it is an OPTION. You are welcome to keep your existing policy

Why do you insist on denying other Americans the right to choose?

You can't choose your own insurance policy now? Is someone stopping you?

And please don't pretend I am stupid. I believe that there is an option about as much as I believed they would stop pushing for more control after the bill was passed. You guys want power over my life. Well, too bad. I am not giving it.

The law says OPTION
Until it says otherwise you are lying to state otherwise

Self employed Americans, those who work for small companies, those who are new to the job market do not have a choice...they are denied a competitive private policy.

Yet you seek to deny them access to a low cost Government Option

Options exist only where there are other choices. Since employers will be dumping their liabilities on the government in droves there will be no other options.
Thus it is not an option at all but merely a stalking horse for single payer, i.e. socialized medicine.

 

[jeffrockit]

Uh, no. You may have noticed in your paycheck that Medicare Part A is funded through a payroll tax on people who aren't using it. Part B is partially funded through premiums, which cover about 25% of its costs.

The public health insurance option, on the other hand, is required by statute to cover all of its costs by charging premiums.

Just like they promised SS and Medicare. We get it. Do you?

FICA taxes were introduced in 1937 and they were raised in 1965 to cover the costs of Medicare. Medicare was never supposed to be funded entirely by premiums.

And medicare was originally stated to cost 3 billion at its start in 1966. It was then only going to cost 12 billion by 1990. The actual cost in 1990 was 107 billion. How far off do you think the estimates for the public option are going to be 24 years later?
Govt can not run most programs at there initial estimates as they realize they have a seemingly endless supply of funding from the taxpayers. They really don't try to stay on budget IMO.

 

[jeffrockit]

Never should have taken the Public Option off the table

Only way to keep insurance companies honest and rates down

And drive them out of business completely so the government can take over the whole thing

It doesn't drive them out of business, it forces them to be competitive.

They could always consider cutting executive salaries, DC Lobbyists, physician kickbacks, campaign contributions

No..just kidding
They would never do that

How can a private, for profit company, be forced to be competitive against a govt (taxpayer) funded business. The private co has to make a profit to survive and the govt does not. The private business has to earn the money it makes and the govt business just keeps taking from the taxpayer to fund its entity. No way you can consider that fair competition.

 

[Greenbeard]

How can a private, for profit company, be forced to be competitive against a govt (taxpayer) funded business. The private co has to make a profit to survive and the govt does not. The private business has to earn the money it makes and the govt business just keeps taking from the taxpayer to fund its entity. No way you can consider that fair competition.

Some points to remember:

1. The proposed public option isn't funded by the taxpayer. It's funded by participants.
2. Your argument seems to be against any non-profit insurance company competing with for-profit insurers. Many insurance companies (e.g. Blue Cross Blue Shield in many states) are non-profits. Is that unfair?
3. Again, the public option isn't "taking from the taxpayer." It charges premium that cover costs.

I think the point of this entity is being lost. To quote some things I said in another post:

The idea behind the public option was never that the public option would became the only insurer or that all insurance would eventually reimburse at rates set like Medicare rates. Instead, it would've put pressure on private insurers and providers alike to start controlling costs. The reason, of course, is that since the robust public option would have reimbursed at lower rates than private insurers, its premiums would be lower.

Insurers would face pressure to negotiate lower reimbursement rates to keep their own premiums down and providers would have an incentive to grant lower rates, lest more customers flock toward the public option (an outcome that would lower reimbursements to those providers more than would granting private insurers lower--but still higher than public option--rates). The intent wasn't for it to take over the market but rather to reshape the landscape in which the insurer-provider negotiation takes place. In one sense, it would have given private insurers cover (and leverage) to start bringing down rates.

As I mentioned in this thread, providers are playing a huge role in driving up costs--when your premiums skyrocket, it's often because providers are extorting more money out of your insurer. Sure, sometimes it's malfeasance on the part of the insurer but that will be pretty well contained under the new law with medical loss ratios, scrutiny of rate increases to make sure they're needed to cover costs, and so on. But what's not being addressed is providers who have the market clout to drive up prices by getting away with absurd mark-ups of their services.

Your insurer may not have the bargaining power (or the will, frankly) to say no when providers in its network continue jacking up reimbursement rates. Which means something new is needed in the mix. One possibility is the robust (i.e. reimbursing at Medicare + 5%) public option, which gives providers a reason to go easy on the hikes it passes on to insurers, and lights a fire under insurers' asses to get serious about containing premiums. There are alternatives (I'm going to post a thread about all-payer rate setting in the Health forum sometime today or tomorrow) but the public option is worth a shot.

 

[DiamondDave]

Never should have taken the Public Option off the table

Only way to keep insurance companies honest and rates down

And drive them out of business completely so the government can take over the whole thing

It doesn't drive them out of business, it forces them to be competitive.

They could always consider cutting executive salaries, DC Lobbyists, physician kickbacks, campaign contributions

No..just kidding
They would never do that

You just pull this shit out of your ass on a continual basis??

These supposed actions don't come from reality or even logical thinking.. they come from your pipe dreams... A public option will not cause them to be 'competitive' whatsoever

And lord knows that the government exists to ensure those in charge of businesses have to make less... and if you think contributions and lobby spending will decrease with more governmental control, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn

 

[DiamondDave]

The proposed public option isn't funded by the taxpayer. It's funded by participants.

Except that not all participants will be able to pay in a public option.. hence the WANT for it... it will be indeed either some participants paying for others, or taken out of the federal tax revenues.... you know it, I know it, and any logical thinking person who is not all into getting their government freebie and blinded by Obama worship knows it

 

[bigrebnc1775]

They say when your enemy is eating himself alive the best thing to do is pass the salt.



They can't admit to it because of Obama's promise to cut taxes for 95% of us....but most of the Dems still want to boost our taxes and now they've been looking at bringing back the Public Option again. They've been talking about it for a few weeks now.
There are some Democrats calling for keeping the Bush tax-cuts but they seem to be the ones that are the most in trouble in their states.

More Democrats Call for Keeping Tax Cuts - WSJ.com

House Progressives Push Reid To Put Public Option Back On Table

Why can't people understand the heathcare law just open the door for the government to take control of peoples lives. Are you so surprised to see that the public option is back on the table?

 

[rightwinger]

You can't choose your own insurance policy now? Is someone stopping you?

And please don't pretend I am stupid. I believe that there is an option about as much as I believed they would stop pushing for more control after the bill was passed. You guys want power over my life. Well, too bad. I am not giving it.

The law says OPTION
Until it says otherwise you are lying to state otherwise

Self employed Americans, those who work for small companies, those who are new to the job market do not have a choice...they are denied a competitive private policy.

Yet you seek to deny them access to a low cost Government Option

Options exist only where there are other choices. Since employers will be dumping their liabilities on the government in droves there will be no other options.
Thus it is not an option at all but merely a stalking horse for single payer, i.e. socialized medicine.

Got news for you...
Employers are droping healthcare covrage in droves right now. They do not want to be in the health insurance business. The paperwork and long term liabilities are excessive

Their response is that all those new employees they hire are not offered health insurance or else they water down the policy they offer

Having a Government Option would be a safe haven for employees to go if they do not get adequate insurance from their employer