"Trigger option" the only way?

[veritas]

The Baucus plan sucks.

 

[MaggieMae]

Moderate Democrats see the writing on the wall. 56 to 43 ironically nearly mirrors the electoral margin that swept President Obama into the White House, though already, only nine months into his presidency, the majority of American voters are opposed to his liberal health care agenda.

I would say that the majority of American voters want some kind of health care reform, but they've given up trying to get this one through. So have I. There's just to much to consider to NOT want to see reform. Kaiser recently did an analysis which found that for a family of four, today's average annual cost of private health care insurance is $13,000. By 2019, if the pattern continues with no restraint, that will rise to $30,000.

I agree with you, the system needs reform...what do you think about the Baucus plan?

It's awful. I think it was a last ditch effort to get it out of committee by giving the Republicans a few crumbs (like omitting the public option). It relies on co-ops to offer competition with private insurers, but how would that work in small states with small populations? It mandates individuals to buy insurance with very high financial penalties for those who don't that, when calculated and then compounded the longer they remain out of the system, might cost more than premiums in today's market! The business mandate/subsidy offsets is so convoluted that nobody really gets it.

So far, there are 564 amendments, so need I say more?

 

[auditor0007]

Everyone continues to argue for or against a public option, but nobody, including the politicians, has addressed how we will cut costs. The simple fact is that adding a public option will not cut costs. Leaving it the way it is will not cut costs either. So what will?

The only way to cut costs is to change entirely, the way healthcare is delivered. We have too many people going to the wrong places for many treatments. Many of the services offered by source A can be performed for half the price by source B, yet everyone goes to source A. In some cases, the price is four to five times higher just depending where a patient goes for certain tests.

Not all costs can be reduced so dramatically, but many can, and this is something that is being completely ignored. Insurance companies are a big part of the problem, but they are not the problem exclusively, and there is a place for insurance companies in the healthcare industry, specifically when it comes to catastrophic coverage. However, any plan, whether private or public, that tries to cover everything ends up costing way too much.

From everything I have seen, no matter what they do, costs will continue to rise until it really does become so bad that the entire system is revamped. We are at the point already where it should be revamped, but the discussed solutions are not solutions at all. The only thing that will happen under any of the proposed changes will be to shift costs, not reduce them.

 

[veritas]

I would say that the majority of American voters want some kind of health care reform, but they've given up trying to get this one through. So have I. There's just to much to consider to NOT want to see reform. Kaiser recently did an analysis which found that for a family of four, today's average annual cost of private health care insurance is $13,000. By 2019, if the pattern continues with no restraint, that will rise to $30,000.

I agree with you, the system needs reform...what do you think about the Baucus plan?

It's awful. I think it was a last ditch effort to get it out of committee by giving the Republicans a few crumbs (like omitting the public option). It relies on co-ops to offer competition with private insurers, but how would that work in small states with small populations? It mandates individuals to buy insurance with very high financial penalties for those who don't that, when calculated and then compounded the longer they remain out of the system, might cost more than premiums in today's market! The business mandate/subsidy offsets is so convoluted that nobody really gets it.

So far, there are 564 amendments, so need I say more?

The amendments are mostly bogus stall tactics, like Orrin Hatch sliming in his "any state whose name starts with the letter "U" transition" amendment. And Ensign's 30 craptastic offerings.

 

[Amanda]

I don't think any health care reform package can pass the Senate as the draft bills now stand.

...

Any comments?

Don't the Democrats still have a majority?

 

[Care4all]

I agree with you, the system needs reform...what do you think about the Baucus plan?

It's awful. I think it was a last ditch effort to get it out of committee by giving the Republicans a few crumbs (like omitting the public option). It relies on co-ops to offer competition with private insurers, but how would that work in small states with small populations? It mandates individuals to buy insurance with very high financial penalties for those who don't that, when calculated and then compounded the longer they remain out of the system, might cost more than premiums in today's market! The business mandate/subsidy offsets is so convoluted that nobody really gets it.

So far, there are 564 amendments, so need I say more?

The amendments are mostly bogus stall tactics, like Orrin Hatch sliming in his "any state whose name starts with the letter "U" transition" amendment. And Ensign's 30 craptastic offerings.

this is true...but, i don't even think the repubs are hiding behind what they are doing...they want to stall it, and procedures allow them to...by adding all these useless amendments.

 

[MaggieMae]

Everyone continues to argue for or against a public option, but nobody, including the politicians, has addressed how we will cut costs. The simple fact is that adding a public option will not cut costs. Leaving it the way it is will not cut costs either. So what will?

The only way to cut costs is to change entirely, the way healthcare is delivered. We have too many people going to the wrong places for many treatments. Many of the services offered by source A can be performed for half the price by source B, yet everyone goes to source A. In some cases, the price is four to five times higher just depending where a patient goes for certain tests.

Not all costs can be reduced so dramatically, but many can, and this is something that is being completely ignored. Insurance companies are a big part of the problem, but they are not the problem exclusively, and there is a place for insurance companies in the healthcare industry, specifically when it comes to catastrophic coverage. However, any plan, whether private or public, that tries to cover everything ends up costing way too much.

From everything I have seen, no matter what they do, costs will continue to rise until it really does become so bad that the entire system is revamped. We are at the point already where it should be revamped, but the discussed solutions are not solutions at all. The only thing that will happen under any of the proposed changes will be to shift costs, not reduce them.

I agree that there are numerous cost-saving areas that could immediately help save the current system, but the problem of course remains who takes on the responsibility for the necessary changes? Government? Or is it left up to the myriad arms of the health industry itself?

And with that constant, we're back to Square One:
From the right: NO GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE.
From the left: THE INDUSTRY WON'T DO IT.

 

[MaggieMae]

I agree with you, the system needs reform...what do you think about the Baucus plan?

It's awful. I think it was a last ditch effort to get it out of committee by giving the Republicans a few crumbs (like omitting the public option). It relies on co-ops to offer competition with private insurers, but how would that work in small states with small populations? It mandates individuals to buy insurance with very high financial penalties for those who don't that, when calculated and then compounded the longer they remain out of the system, might cost more than premiums in today's market! The business mandate/subsidy offsets is so convoluted that nobody really gets it.

So far, there are 564 amendments, so need I say more?

The amendments are mostly bogus stall tactics, like Orrin Hatch sliming in his "any state whose name starts with the letter "U" transition" amendment. And Ensign's 30 craptastic offerings.

But they still have to waste time calling them to a vote or risk Republican backlash 'THEY WON'T ALLOW OUR AMENDMENTS' which gets blasted all over MSM making the Dems once again look like the bad guys.

 

[MaggieMae]

I don't think any health care reform package can pass the Senate as the draft bills now stand.

...

Any comments?

Don't the Democrats still have a majority?

Not in the Finance Committee which is evenly split. If it deadlocks in committee, the chairman (Baucus) can offer his existing legislation with no changes to the full Senate, at which time any Senator can call for a "Reconciliation Bill" which only means that the Baucus bill goes to the floor anyway, but just gets recommitted for further work.

At which time, I predict it will be dead. There will be no more motivation left by either side, which is why Obama made a huge push to get something done in his first year in office.

 

[MaggieMae]

At which time, I predict it will be dead. There will be no more motivation left by either side, which is why Obama made a huge push to get something done in his first year in office.

There may well be serious political fallout for the Republicans. If costs continue to rise from the private sector (services and insurance premiums), there may be a backlash against them for not being willing to compromise at all.

The Republicans never did propose any real plan of their own. They went through some maneuvering with the ageless "tax credit" stuff, which were determined to be not nearly enough to resolve the problem anyway plus that would deplete the treasury of revenue even further, and then their final proposal was simply a "Patients Bill of Rights" which also didn't address costs in any meaningful way.

On the other hand, if the bill fails, Democrats may be lauded for at least trying to do something again (which the Republicans never do) and/or by 2010 people will have basically forgotten the past six months of bickering.

It's unclear what the political ramifications will be if no bill gets passed.

 

[HUGGY]

I don't think any health care reform package can pass the Senate as the draft bills now stand.

Quite some time ago, I posted a similar option such as this (although I'm certainly not taking credit--it belongs to Olympia Snow who later proposed it). I also can't find that posting.

What this would do is give insurance companies a set amount of time to make changes in its own industry in order to help cover more people and drive down long-term costs. If those changes failed to occur within the defined period, a trigger would provide for a public option to force change on the insurance companies.

Any comments?

Ya...Q:....of all the trigger options ever stuck into legislation how many have ever been activated? A:....none

More crap from the HMO camp.