Thought Health Care Reform was to pay for itself?

[Care4all]

As I have stated, the Affordability Credits are a form of Welfare, they will substitute what we pay in Medicare now for the Health Insurance of the indigent and those in poverty...I am NOT disagreeing with this.

IF YOU believe that Medicaid is a redistribution of wealth, then yes, this is a redistribution of wealth.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

My point, is that without the Public Insurance option, those using their affordability credits, AND THOSE LIKE ME, NEEDING TO PURCHASE INDIVIDUAL COVERAGE, will NOT have an extra choice or 2 or three in insurance plans that we can buy, off of our Insurance Exchange.

With the Public Insurance Option plans available to the individual, along with those available from the private insurance companies, gives all of us more CHOICE and hopefully affects prices in the long haul with having more competition.

YES, those with affordability credits can choose to buy a plan that is offered by this Public option, so yes, their affordability credits given to them CAN BE and in some cases, WILL BE USED to pay for a Public Option insurance premium and this does mean that us tax payers are funding this, much as we fund MEDICAID now.....but different from medicaid, the affordability credits offer CHOICE, and a Private plan could be their choice.

 

[Immanuel]

As I have stated, the Affordability Credits are a form of Welfare, they will substitute what we pay in Medicare now for the Health Insurance of the indigent and those in poverty...I am NOT disagreeing with this.

IF YOU believe that Medicaid is a redistribution of wealth, then yes, this is a redistribution of wealth.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

My point, is that without the Public Insurance option, those using their affordability credits, AND THOSE LIKE ME, NEEDING TO PURCHASE INDIVIDUAL COVERAGE, will NOT have an extra choice or 2 or three in insurance plans that we can buy, off of our Insurance Exchange.

With the Public Insurance Option plans available to the individual, along with those available from the private insurance companies, gives all of us more CHOICE and hopefully affects prices in the long haul with having more competition.

YES, those with affordability credits can choose to buy a plan that is offered by this Public option, so yes, their affordability credits given to them CAN BE and in some cases, WILL BE USED to pay for a Public Option insurance premium and this does mean that us tax payers are funding this, much as we fund MEDICAID now.....but different from medicaid, the affordability credits offer CHOICE, and a Private plan could be their choice.

Open up the individual states to all insurers and you would have more than enough choices.

That is not the complete solution to solving this crisis though.

And yes, Medicare/Medicaid is redistribution of wealth.

What about my point about when gross taxes (throw in there penalties and fines) received for health care do not cover the costs of health care as in the case of Social Security (I said this is happening now, but I should have said that is projected in the near future) being charged to our grand children? You have made it clear that you expect HRC to pay for itself, but we all thought Social Security would do so and it does not look like that is true.

Immie

 

[Meister]

The perfect healthcare reform would just put us younger people on the same plan as all the old people who have social security. We wouldn't use it as much as old people do, so we'd actually end up lowering costs. Spread the risk among young and old, not just old. Social security is costly because its all old people who use it every month.

But I guess what they just gave us is going to give the insurance companies millions of new customers. This healthcare bill wasn't a solution at all. We were conned.

The government can't manage Medicare now with just the old folks on it. What makes you think they will be able to manage it if all of a sudden millions of more people are added to the program? Doctors are becoming difficult to find that will accept new Medicare patients because the government is so far behind in making payments to their medical practices for the Medicare patients they see now. This will be an even bigger problem if the Medicare program is expanded. Bad idea. Very bad idea.

Exactly, and this is something that nobody in favor of healthcare reform wants to talk about.

 

[toomuchtime_]

As I have stated, the Affordability Credits are a form of Welfare, they will substitute what we pay in Medicare now for the Health Insurance of the indigent and those in poverty...I am NOT disagreeing with this.

IF YOU believe that Medicaid is a redistribution of wealth, then yes, this is a redistribution of wealth.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

My point, is that without the Public Insurance option, those using their affordability credits, AND THOSE LIKE ME, NEEDING TO PURCHASE INDIVIDUAL COVERAGE, will NOT have an extra choice or 2 or three in insurance plans that we can buy, off of our Insurance Exchange.

With the Public Insurance Option plans available to the individual, along with those available from the private insurance companies, gives all of us more CHOICE and hopefully affects prices in the long haul with having more competition.

YES, those with affordability credits can choose to buy a plan that is offered by this Public option, so yes, their affordability credits given to them CAN BE and in some cases, WILL BE USED to pay for a Public Option insurance premium and this does mean that us tax payers are funding this, much as we fund MEDICAID now.....but different from medicaid, the affordability credits offer CHOICE, and a Private plan could be their choice.

First, it is unlikely you would be eligible for subsidies under the current House bill according to the CBO:

As a rule, full-time employees with a qualifying offer of
coverage from their employers would not be eligible to obtain subsidies via
the exchanges, but an exception to that “firewall” would be allowed for
workers who had to pay more than 12 percent of their income for their
employers’ insurance. In that case, the employers would have to pay an
amount equal to the per-worker fee due for firms subject to the play-or-pay
penalty.

In other words, unless your husband's employer paid such a small part of the health benefit it offered that it would be subject to penalties under the bill, you would not be able to receive subsidies and if you did use the exchange to buy insurance, it is unlikely your husband's employer would have to contribute anything towards its purchase.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10688/hr3962Rangel.pdf

Second, the public option plan in the current House bill is irrelevant to both cost and choice since according to the CBO its premiums will be higher than private insurers':

That estimate of enrollment reflects CBO’s assessment that a public plan
paying negotiated rates would attract a broad network of providers but
would typically have premiums that are somewhat higher than the average
premiums for the private plans in the exchanges. The rates the public plan
pays to providers would, on average, probably be comparable to the rates
paid by private insurers participating in the exchanges. The public plan
would have lower administrative costs than those private plans but would
probably engage in less management of utilization by its enrollees and
attract a less healthy pool of enrollees. (The effects of that “adverse
selection” on the public plan’s premiums would be only partially offset by
the “risk adjustment” procedures that would apply to all plans operating in
the exchanges.)

However, the assumption that the public plan would have lower administrative costs than private plans seems overly optimistic since our experience with Medicare suggests that government run health insurance has higher per person administrative expenses than private insurance, in 2005, $509 per person for Medicare as opposed to an average of $453 for private insurers.

Medicare Administrative Costs Are Higher, Not Lower, Than for Private Insurance

 

[Zoom-boing]

The perfect healthcare reform would just put us younger people on the same plan as all the old people who have social security. We wouldn't use it as much as old people do, so we'd actually end up lowering costs. Spread the risk among young and old, not just old. Social security is costly because its all old people who use it every month.

But I guess what they just gave us is going to give the insurance companies millions of new customers. This healthcare bill wasn't a solution at all. We were conned.

The government can't manage Medicare now with just the old folks on it. What makes you think they will be able to manage it if all of a sudden millions of more people are added to the program? Doctors are becoming difficult to find that will accept new Medicare patients because the government is so far behind in making payments to their medical practices for the Medicare patients they see now. This will be an even bigger problem if the Medicare program is expanded. Bad idea. Very bad idea.

You know how the government said 'a house for every citizen' and that bubble burst? Is this the start of the next bubble?

 

[Care4all]

As I have stated, the Affordability Credits are a form of Welfare, they will substitute what we pay in Medicare now for the Health Insurance of the indigent and those in poverty...I am NOT disagreeing with this.

IF YOU believe that Medicaid is a redistribution of wealth, then yes, this is a redistribution of wealth.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

My point, is that without the Public Insurance option, those using their affordability credits, AND THOSE LIKE ME, NEEDING TO PURCHASE INDIVIDUAL COVERAGE, will NOT have an extra choice or 2 or three in insurance plans that we can buy, off of our Insurance Exchange.

With the Public Insurance Option plans available to the individual, along with those available from the private insurance companies, gives all of us more CHOICE and hopefully affects prices in the long haul with having more competition.

YES, those with affordability credits can choose to buy a plan that is offered by this Public option, so yes, their affordability credits given to them CAN BE and in some cases, WILL BE USED to pay for a Public Option insurance premium and this does mean that us tax payers are funding this, much as we fund MEDICAID now.....but different from medicaid, the affordability credits offer CHOICE, and a Private plan could be their choice.

First, it is unlikely you would be eligible for subsidies under the current House bill according to the CBO:

As a rule, full-time employees with a qualifying offer of
coverage from their employers would not be eligible to obtain subsidies via
the exchanges, but an exception to that “firewall” would be allowed for
workers who had to pay more than 12 percent of their income for their
employers’ insurance. In that case, the employers would have to pay an
amount equal to the per-worker fee due for firms subject to the play-or-pay
penalty.

In other words, unless your husband's employer paid such a small part of the health benefit it offered that it would be subject to penalties under the bill, you would not be able to receive subsidies and if you did use the exchange to buy insurance, it is unlikely your husband's employer would have to contribute anything towards its purchase.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10688/hr3962Rangel.pdf

Second, the public option plan in the current House bill is irrelevant to both cost and choice since according to the CBO its premiums will be higher than private insurers':

That estimate of enrollment reflects CBO’s assessment that a public plan
paying negotiated rates would attract a broad network of providers but
would typically have premiums that are somewhat higher than the average
premiums for the private plans in the exchanges. The rates the public plan
pays to providers would, on average, probably be comparable to the rates
paid by private insurers participating in the exchanges. The public plan
would have lower administrative costs than those private plans but would
probably engage in less management of utilization by its enrollees and
attract a less healthy pool of enrollees. (The effects of that “adverse
selection” on the public plan’s premiums would be only partially offset by
the “risk adjustment” procedures that would apply to all plans operating in
the exchanges.)

However, the assumption that the public plan would have lower administrative costs than private plans seems overly optimistic since our experience with Medicare suggests that government run health insurance has higher per person administrative expenses than private insurance, in 2005, $509 per person for Medicare as opposed to an average of $453 for private insurers.

Medicare Administrative Costs Are Higher, Not Lower, Than for Private Insurance

toomuchtime....
FIRST AND FOREMOST, I am NOT and NEVER HAVE expected Affordability credits to BUY MY OWN insurance plan....I only ask that the insurance rates in my state for the two of us, NOT BE $25,000 A YEAR PLUS ANOTHER $10,000 OUT OF OUR POCKETS in copays and deductibles, as is the price now with the private insurance available to buy in my state, as individuals.

 

[toomuchtime_]

As I have stated, the Affordability Credits are a form of Welfare, they will substitute what we pay in Medicare now for the Health Insurance of the indigent and those in poverty...I am NOT disagreeing with this.

IF YOU believe that Medicaid is a redistribution of wealth, then yes, this is a redistribution of wealth.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

My point, is that without the Public Insurance option, those using their affordability credits, AND THOSE LIKE ME, NEEDING TO PURCHASE INDIVIDUAL COVERAGE, will NOT have an extra choice or 2 or three in insurance plans that we can buy, off of our Insurance Exchange.

With the Public Insurance Option plans available to the individual, along with those available from the private insurance companies, gives all of us more CHOICE and hopefully affects prices in the long haul with having more competition.

YES, those with affordability credits can choose to buy a plan that is offered by this Public option, so yes, their affordability credits given to them CAN BE and in some cases, WILL BE USED to pay for a Public Option insurance premium and this does mean that us tax payers are funding this, much as we fund MEDICAID now.....but different from medicaid, the affordability credits offer CHOICE, and a Private plan could be their choice.

First, it is unlikely you would be eligible for subsidies under the current House bill according to the CBO:



In other words, unless your husband's employer paid such a small part of the health benefit it offered that it would be subject to penalties under the bill, you would not be able to receive subsidies and if you did use the exchange to buy insurance, it is unlikely your husband's employer would have to contribute anything towards its purchase.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10688/hr3962Rangel.pdf

Second, the public option plan in the current House bill is irrelevant to both cost and choice since according to the CBO its premiums will be higher than private insurers':

That estimate of enrollment reflects CBO’s assessment that a public plan
paying negotiated rates would attract a broad network of providers but
would typically have premiums that are somewhat higher than the average
premiums for the private plans in the exchanges. The rates the public plan
pays to providers would, on average, probably be comparable to the rates
paid by private insurers participating in the exchanges. The public plan
would have lower administrative costs than those private plans but would
probably engage in less management of utilization by its enrollees and
attract a less healthy pool of enrollees. (The effects of that “adverse
selection” on the public plan’s premiums would be only partially offset by
the “risk adjustment” procedures that would apply to all plans operating in
the exchanges.)

However, the assumption that the public plan would have lower administrative costs than private plans seems overly optimistic since our experience with Medicare suggests that government run health insurance has higher per person administrative expenses than private insurance, in 2005, $509 per person for Medicare as opposed to an average of $453 for private insurers.

Medicare Administrative Costs Are Higher, Not Lower, Than for Private Insurance

toomuchtime....
FIRST AND FOREMOST, I am NOT and NEVER HAVE expected Affordability credits to BUY MY OWN insurance plan....I only ask that the insurance rates in my state for the two of us, NOT BE $25,000 A YEAR PLUS ANOTHER $10,000 OUT OF OUR POCKETS in copays and deductibles, as is the price now with the private insurance available to buy in my state, as individuals.

And again, since all the indications are that the public option in the current House plan will have higher premiums than private insurance, the public option is irrelevant to both choice and cost and the only reasons to support it would seem to be partisan political and ideological biases.

 

[Immanuel]

As I have stated, the Affordability Credits are a form of Welfare, they will substitute what we pay in Medicare now for the Health Insurance of the indigent and those in poverty...I am NOT disagreeing with this.

IF YOU believe that Medicaid is a redistribution of wealth, then yes, this is a redistribution of wealth.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

My point, is that without the Public Insurance option, those using their affordability credits, AND THOSE LIKE ME, NEEDING TO PURCHASE INDIVIDUAL COVERAGE, will NOT have an extra choice or 2 or three in insurance plans that we can buy, off of our Insurance Exchange.

With the Public Insurance Option plans available to the individual, along with those available from the private insurance companies, gives all of us more CHOICE and hopefully affects prices in the long haul with having more competition.

YES, those with affordability credits can choose to buy a plan that is offered by this Public option, so yes, their affordability credits given to them CAN BE and in some cases, WILL BE USED to pay for a Public Option insurance premium and this does mean that us tax payers are funding this, much as we fund MEDICAID now.....but different from medicaid, the affordability credits offer CHOICE, and a Private plan could be their choice.

First, it is unlikely you would be eligible for subsidies under the current House bill according to the CBO:



In other words, unless your husband's employer paid such a small part of the health benefit it offered that it would be subject to penalties under the bill, you would not be able to receive subsidies and if you did use the exchange to buy insurance, it is unlikely your husband's employer would have to contribute anything towards its purchase.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10688/hr3962Rangel.pdf

Second, the public option plan in the current House bill is irrelevant to both cost and choice since according to the CBO its premiums will be higher than private insurers':

That estimate of enrollment reflects CBO’s assessment that a public plan
paying negotiated rates would attract a broad network of providers but
would typically have premiums that are somewhat higher than the average
premiums for the private plans in the exchanges. The rates the public plan
pays to providers would, on average, probably be comparable to the rates
paid by private insurers participating in the exchanges. The public plan
would have lower administrative costs than those private plans but would
probably engage in less management of utilization by its enrollees and
attract a less healthy pool of enrollees. (The effects of that “adverse
selection” on the public plan’s premiums would be only partially offset by
the “risk adjustment” procedures that would apply to all plans operating in
the exchanges.)

However, the assumption that the public plan would have lower administrative costs than private plans seems overly optimistic since our experience with Medicare suggests that government run health insurance has higher per person administrative expenses than private insurance, in 2005, $509 per person for Medicare as opposed to an average of $453 for private insurers.

Medicare Administrative Costs Are Higher, Not Lower, Than for Private Insurance

toomuchtime....
FIRST AND FOREMOST, I am NOT and NEVER HAVE expected Affordability credits to BUY MY OWN insurance plan....I only ask that the insurance rates in my state for the two of us, NOT BE $25,000 A YEAR PLUS ANOTHER $10,000 OUT OF OUR POCKETS in copays and deductibles, as is the price now with the private insurance available to buy in my state, as individuals.

And that is a reasonable request.

Question: what are you going to do when you find out the public option is going to cost you $32,500 and $15,000 out of pocket?

Immie

 

[Care4all]

As I have stated, the Affordability Credits are a form of Welfare, they will substitute what we pay in Medicare now for the Health Insurance of the indigent and those in poverty...I am NOT disagreeing with this.

IF YOU believe that Medicaid is a redistribution of wealth, then yes, this is a redistribution of wealth.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

My point, is that without the Public Insurance option, those using their affordability credits, AND THOSE LIKE ME, NEEDING TO PURCHASE INDIVIDUAL COVERAGE, will NOT have an extra choice or 2 or three in insurance plans that we can buy, off of our Insurance Exchange.

With the Public Insurance Option plans available to the individual, along with those available from the private insurance companies, gives all of us more CHOICE and hopefully affects prices in the long haul with having more competition.

YES, those with affordability credits can choose to buy a plan that is offered by this Public option, so yes, their affordability credits given to them CAN BE and in some cases, WILL BE USED to pay for a Public Option insurance premium and this does mean that us tax payers are funding this, much as we fund MEDICAID now.....but different from medicaid, the affordability credits offer CHOICE, and a Private plan could be their choice.

First, it is unlikely you would be eligible for subsidies under the current House bill according to the CBO:

As a rule, full-time employees with a qualifying offer of
coverage from their employers would not be eligible to obtain subsidies via
the exchanges, but an exception to that “firewall” would be allowed for
workers who had to pay more than 12 percent of their income for their
employers’ insurance. In that case, the employers would have to pay an
amount equal to the per-worker fee due for firms subject to the play-or-pay
penalty.

In other words, unless your husband's employer paid such a small part of the health benefit it offered that it would be subject to penalties under the bill, you would not be able to receive subsidies and if you did use the exchange to buy insurance, it is unlikely your husband's employer would have to contribute anything towards its purchase.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10688/hr3962Rangel.pdf

Second, the public option plan in the current House bill is irrelevant to both cost and choice since according to the CBO its premiums will be higher than private insurers':

That estimate of enrollment reflects CBO’s assessment that a public plan
paying negotiated rates would attract a broad network of providers but
would typically have premiums that are somewhat higher than the average
premiums for the private plans in the exchanges. The rates the public plan
pays to providers would, on average, probably be comparable to the rates
paid by private insurers participating in the exchanges. The public plan
would have lower administrative costs than those private plans but would
probably engage in less management of utilization by its enrollees and
attract a less healthy pool of enrollees. (The effects of that “adverse
selection” on the public plan’s premiums would be only partially offset by
the “risk adjustment” procedures that would apply to all plans operating in
the exchanges.)

However, the assumption that the public plan would have lower administrative costs than private plans seems overly optimistic since our experience with Medicare suggests that government run health insurance has higher per person administrative expenses than private insurance, in 2005, $509 per person for Medicare as opposed to an average of $453 for private insurers.

Medicare Administrative Costs Are Higher, Not Lower, Than for Private Insurance

tmt.

also, on the heritage foundation assumption...I TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH THEM.

AND here is WHY they are ABSOLUTELY WRONG.

the heritage foundation had to use the cost per person served, while NEVER taking in to the consideration that medicare takes care of the sickly elderly, while the private insurance sector does not.

the figures of less than 3% administrative costs and 6%-8% if other depts that assist medicare's costs are in there vs the 14%-22% administrative costs for private insurance, ARE CORRECT and the heritage foundation's analysis or opinion is SIMPLY WRONG.

 

[Maple]

Haven't we been told all along by those on the left that the Public Option was going to pay for itself by the insured? I'm pretty sure Care4all has taken this stand time and time again, but, I have never been able to figure out how that was possible. It is impossible. We cannot provide health insurance to the poor free of charge and not have someone else pay for it.

AP Sources: Reid Eyes Payroll Tax Hike On Wealthy - cbs4denver.com

WASHINGTON (AP) ― Majority Leader Harry Reid is considering a plan for higher payroll taxes on the upper-income earners to help finance health care legislation he intends to introduce in the Senate in the next several days, numerous Democratic officials said Wednesday.

These officials said one of the options Reid has had under review would raise the payroll tax that goes to Medicare, but only on income above $250,000 a year. Current law sets the tax at 1.45 percent of income, an amount matched by employers.

It was not known how large an increase Reid, D-Nev., was considering, or whether it would also apply to a company's portion of the tax. President Barack Obama has said he will not raise taxes on wage earners making less than $250,000.

Now granted no one who thought about this actually believed health reform would pay for itself, but here we have it straight from the horse's as, er I mean, mouth! Senator Reid now says that it is not possible for health care reform to pay for itself so he's going to tax the rich (bet it wont only be the rich when this is said and done) to pay for it.

Would someone from the left please explain how the public option is supposed to be self sufficient AND still provide insurance to the poor without taxing others?

Immie

The old, " let's tax the rich" theory and get all the "have nots," on board. The rich are the employers in this country so let's tax em more so we can lay off more and more people.

How's that hopey changey stuff workin out for you libs?

" When the democrats start talking about taxing the rich, the middle class needs to run for cover." Fred Thompson

 

[Care4all]

First, it is unlikely you would be eligible for subsidies under the current House bill according to the CBO:



In other words, unless your husband's employer paid such a small part of the health benefit it offered that it would be subject to penalties under the bill, you would not be able to receive subsidies and if you did use the exchange to buy insurance, it is unlikely your husband's employer would have to contribute anything towards its purchase.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10688/hr3962Rangel.pdf

Second, the public option plan in the current House bill is irrelevant to both cost and choice since according to the CBO its premiums will be higher than private insurers':



However, the assumption that the public plan would have lower administrative costs than private plans seems overly optimistic since our experience with Medicare suggests that government run health insurance has higher per person administrative expenses than private insurance, in 2005, $509 per person for Medicare as opposed to an average of $453 for private insurers.

Medicare Administrative Costs Are Higher, Not Lower, Than for Private Insurance

toomuchtime....
FIRST AND FOREMOST, I am NOT and NEVER HAVE expected Affordability credits to BUY MY OWN insurance plan....I only ask that the insurance rates in my state for the two of us, NOT BE $25,000 A YEAR PLUS ANOTHER $10,000 OUT OF OUR POCKETS in copays and deductibles, as is the price now with the private insurance available to buy in my state, as individuals.

And that is a reasonable request.

Question: what are you going to do when you find out the public option is going to cost you $32,500 and $15,000 out of pocket?

Immie

buy the insurance policy that is less...

that would be a CHOICE I would like to have...

and if the private insurance policy is less, then this is what we will have to buy...

it sucks all around....

matt could go with the VA for all of his coverage not just his disability, but it is an hour from here.... but that would still mean about $13k just for me and $5 grand out of the pocket first, before 100% coverage.... still alot of money.

 

[Immanuel]

Haven't we been told all along by those on the left that the Public Option was going to pay for itself by the insured? I'm pretty sure Care4all has taken this stand time and time again, but, I have never been able to figure out how that was possible. It is impossible. We cannot provide health insurance to the poor free of charge and not have someone else pay for it.

AP Sources: Reid Eyes Payroll Tax Hike On Wealthy - cbs4denver.com

WASHINGTON (AP) ― Majority Leader Harry Reid is considering a plan for higher payroll taxes on the upper-income earners to help finance health care legislation he intends to introduce in the Senate in the next several days, numerous Democratic officials said Wednesday.

These officials said one of the options Reid has had under review would raise the payroll tax that goes to Medicare, but only on income above $250,000 a year. Current law sets the tax at 1.45 percent of income, an amount matched by employers.

It was not known how large an increase Reid, D-Nev., was considering, or whether it would also apply to a company's portion of the tax. President Barack Obama has said he will not raise taxes on wage earners making less than $250,000.

Now granted no one who thought about this actually believed health reform would pay for itself, but here we have it straight from the horse's as, er I mean, mouth! Senator Reid now says that it is not possible for health care reform to pay for itself so he's going to tax the rich (bet it wont only be the rich when this is said and done) to pay for it.

Would someone from the left please explain how the public option is supposed to be self sufficient AND still provide insurance to the poor without taxing others?

Immie

The old, " let's tax the rich" theory and get all the "have nots," on board. The rich are the employers in this country so let's tax em more so we can lay off more and more people.

How's that hopey changey stuff workin out for you libs?

" When the democrats start talking about taxing the rich, the middle class needs to run for cover." Fred Thompson

Hey!

First VaYank is calling me a conservative in one thread and now you are calling me a lib in another... what gives?

Or were you asking them... "libs"? Because I don't think I have exactly taken a liberal point of view on this one. I sure as hell don't agree with Nancy Pelosi, so I can't be all that liberal.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

toomuchtime....
FIRST AND FOREMOST, I am NOT and NEVER HAVE expected Affordability credits to BUY MY OWN insurance plan....I only ask that the insurance rates in my state for the two of us, NOT BE $25,000 A YEAR PLUS ANOTHER $10,000 OUT OF OUR POCKETS in copays and deductibles, as is the price now with the private insurance available to buy in my state, as individuals.

And that is a reasonable request.

Question: what are you going to do when you find out the public option is going to cost you $32,500 and $15,000 out of pocket?

Immie

buy the insurance policy that is less...

that would be a CHOICE I would like to have...

and if the private insurance policy is less, then this is what we will have to buy...

it sucks all around....

matt could go with the VA for all of his coverage not just his disability, but it is an hour from here.... but that would still mean about $13k just for me and $5 grand out of the pocket first, before 100% coverage.... still alot of money.

I agree. We definitely need to reform Health Care, but eliminating private insurers is a catastrophe waiting to happen in my humble opinion.

Immie

 

[Care4all]

And that is a reasonable request.

Question: what are you going to do when you find out the public option is going to cost you $32,500 and $15,000 out of pocket?

Immie

buy the insurance policy that is less...

that would be a CHOICE I would like to have...

and if the private insurance policy is less, then this is what we will have to buy...

it sucks all around....

matt could go with the VA for all of his coverage not just his disability, but it is an hour from here.... but that would still mean about $13k just for me and $5 grand out of the pocket first, before 100% coverage.... still alot of money.

I agree. We definitely need to reform Health Care, but eliminating private insurers is a catastrophe waiting to happen in my humble opinion.

Immie

i don't see anything in any of these bills that even remotely try to eliminate the private insurance companies, in fact, what i see is JUST THE OPPOSITE, I see the private insurance companies being embraced by these various plans...I see the Private insurers being given a GIFT HORSE with these different insurance reform bills out there...whether the public option is included or not....the gifthorse IS being handed to the insurance industry.

 

[Immanuel]

buy the insurance policy that is less...

that would be a CHOICE I would like to have...

and if the private insurance policy is less, then this is what we will have to buy...

it sucks all around....

matt could go with the VA for all of his coverage not just his disability, but it is an hour from here.... but that would still mean about $13k just for me and $5 grand out of the pocket first, before 100% coverage.... still alot of money.

I agree. We definitely need to reform Health Care, but eliminating private insurers is a catastrophe waiting to happen in my humble opinion.

Immie

i don't see anything in any of these bills that even remotely try to eliminate the private insurance companies, in fact, what i see is JUST THE OPPOSITE, I see the private insurance companies being embraced by these various plans...I see the Private insurers being given a GIFT HORSE with these different insurance reform bills out there...whether the public option is included or not....the gifthorse IS being handed to the insurance industry.

What I see is to borrow an over-used phrase is a Trojan Horse put outside the gates of the health insurance doors.

One would think that all these new customers being lined up for the private insurers would be a wonderful thing for them until one looks at the part about not being able to write new policies, eliminating their "pre-existing conditions" clauses and dumping the sick and dying in their laps. That part about no new policies means that all those "new customers" will have to go into the public option and it will eventually kill the private insurers (who do not simply become puppets of the government "plan") because if they cannot write new policies, they cannot survive.

Immie

 

[toomuchtime_]

As I have stated, the Affordability Credits are a form of Welfare, they will substitute what we pay in Medicare now for the Health Insurance of the indigent and those in poverty...I am NOT disagreeing with this.

IF YOU believe that Medicaid is a redistribution of wealth, then yes, this is a redistribution of wealth.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

My point, is that without the Public Insurance option, those using their affordability credits, AND THOSE LIKE ME, NEEDING TO PURCHASE INDIVIDUAL COVERAGE, will NOT have an extra choice or 2 or three in insurance plans that we can buy, off of our Insurance Exchange.

With the Public Insurance Option plans available to the individual, along with those available from the private insurance companies, gives all of us more CHOICE and hopefully affects prices in the long haul with having more competition.

YES, those with affordability credits can choose to buy a plan that is offered by this Public option, so yes, their affordability credits given to them CAN BE and in some cases, WILL BE USED to pay for a Public Option insurance premium and this does mean that us tax payers are funding this, much as we fund MEDICAID now.....but different from medicaid, the affordability credits offer CHOICE, and a Private plan could be their choice.

First, it is unlikely you would be eligible for subsidies under the current House bill according to the CBO:



In other words, unless your husband's employer paid such a small part of the health benefit it offered that it would be subject to penalties under the bill, you would not be able to receive subsidies and if you did use the exchange to buy insurance, it is unlikely your husband's employer would have to contribute anything towards its purchase.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10688/hr3962Rangel.pdf

Second, the public option plan in the current House bill is irrelevant to both cost and choice since according to the CBO its premiums will be higher than private insurers':

That estimate of enrollment reflects CBO’s assessment that a public plan
paying negotiated rates would attract a broad network of providers but
would typically have premiums that are somewhat higher than the average
premiums for the private plans in the exchanges. The rates the public plan
pays to providers would, on average, probably be comparable to the rates
paid by private insurers participating in the exchanges. The public plan
would have lower administrative costs than those private plans but would
probably engage in less management of utilization by its enrollees and
attract a less healthy pool of enrollees. (The effects of that “adverse
selection” on the public plan’s premiums would be only partially offset by
the “risk adjustment” procedures that would apply to all plans operating in
the exchanges.)

However, the assumption that the public plan would have lower administrative costs than private plans seems overly optimistic since our experience with Medicare suggests that government run health insurance has higher per person administrative expenses than private insurance, in 2005, $509 per person for Medicare as opposed to an average of $453 for private insurers.

Medicare Administrative Costs Are Higher, Not Lower, Than for Private Insurance

tmt.

also, on the heritage foundation assumption...I TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH THEM.

AND here is WHY they are ABSOLUTELY WRONG.

the heritage foundation had to use the cost per person served, while NEVER taking in to the consideration that medicare takes care of the sickly elderly, while the private insurance sector does not.

the figures of less than 3% administrative costs and 6%-8% if other depts that assist medicare's costs are in there vs the 14%-22% administrative costs for private insurance, ARE CORRECT and the heritage foundation's analysis or opinion is SIMPLY WRONG.

It is precisely because Medicare covers a more sickly population than private insurers do that the administrative cost per person is the relevant statistic when talking about the proposed public option, not administrative cost as a percent of expenditures advocates of government run health care like to use.

Consider two people who belong to the same plan, be it public or private, one healthy and one sickly. The administrative cost per person would be nearly the same for both individuals, which is what we would expect since they belong to the same plan, but the administrative cost as a percent of total expenditures, which you like to cite, would be much lower for the sickly individual because expenditures for his health care were much higher. Using your analysis, we would have to conclude the plan was more efficient in paying for the sickly person's bills than in paying for the healthy person's bills, but this is nonsense. Advocates of government run health care like to use the administrative cost as a percent of total expenditures because it hides the inefficiency of Medicare as compared to private insurers which the administrative cost per person reveals.

The proposed public option, unlike Medicare, would be dealing with the same population as private insurers, and so its expenditures for medical bills should be comparable to those of private insurers. That means that if, like Medicare, its administrative cost per person is higher than the average for private plans, its administrative cost as a percent of total expenditures would also be higher.

Again, no matter how you examine it, all the indications are that the public plan proposed in the current House bill would be less efficiently run than private plans, have higher premiums than private plans and, according to the AMA, if it is like Medicare, deny a higher percent of claims than private plans, so it is clear the public plan would provide no benefits for consumers and those who support it do so solely for partisan political and ideological reasons.

 

[WillowTree]

The perfect healthcare reform would just put us younger people on the same plan as all the old people who have social security. We wouldn't use it as much as old people do, so we'd actually end up lowering costs. Spread the risk among young and old, not just old. Social security is costly because its all old people who use it every month.

But I guess what they just gave us is going to give the insurance companies millions of new customers. This healthcare bill wasn't a solution at all. We were conned.

asswipe. Most of em,, worked their whole lives and paid into the system.. It sure was costly. you young ones just want something you have no intention of paying for. you don't pay taxes so your health care will be free. go figure.

 

[Claudette]

The whole obamahealth care plan, no matter how you parse it or dissect it is to spread the wealth. Ain't that what he told Ol' Joe the Plumber he was looking to do??

He will simply take from the hardworkers that earn it and give it to those that don't. What a guy. I'm beginning to feel like Boxer the workhorse from 1982. He got fucked over too.

 

[AllieBaba]

How are they going to bring the cost of premiums down? I really don't hear that being talked about anymore.

Premiums are going up, up, up as we speak.

 

[veritas]

Wages have been flat since '73 or so. Production skyrocketed and wages stagnated. If you are older than 55 you hit the wave and got a ride. The rest of us have had to work twice as hard to get half as much money. And it keeps getting suckier every day, except on Wall St.

What rich person pays themselves $500k a year and then pays all the accompanying taxes? None. They have writeoffs and tax shelters and various schemes to pay way less than the rest of us. They do pay taxes. It's the seriously rich that are causing the trouble. Their recent spate of investments is all about money making money, legalized gambling. They aren't creating any jobs, they suck the economy dry. They aren't even trading on the stock exchanges, they have private wagers with smart dressed bookies.