Healthcare reform

[Cknolls]

I'm looking around at articles on the health care bill right now, and not seeing this. I would highly doubt they would do this. What is your source?

 

And if you are right that it is being proposed, you are also right in that it would never pass.

 

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=aDvu77pZr7k4

[BearSox]

Balta, I got a question for you.... why has California's healthcare system worked so brilliantly? and why would doing it on an even larger scale make it work?

[Balta1701]

Balta, I got a question for you.... why has California's healthcare system worked so brilliantly? and why would doing it on an even larger scale make it work?

?

 

California doesn't have a state-wide or public health insurance option. There have been proposals but nothing has ever passed. California's on the same system as anywhere else, except California also keeps stabbing the eyes out of its budget .

[Y2HH]

?

 

California doesn't have a state-wide or public health insurance option. There have been proposals but nothing has ever passed. California's on the same system as anywhere else, except California also keeps stabbing the eyes out of its budget .

 

I doubt there is a single state that isn't over budget across the board. I know IL is in a pretty big hole, too.

[StrangeSox]

Alaska is good, but that's because they get tons of money from leasing their oil land. There's a couple of others that have balanced budgets right now.

[Y2HH]

Alaska is good, but that's because they get tons of money from leasing their oil land. There's a couple of others that have balanced budgets right now.

 

And this is my problem right now, especially related to political landscapes across the country. The fact that only a few of our states are in black ink or balanced annoys the holy hell out of me. It's not like everything and anything isn't taxed on top of being taxed, yet they're still unable to operate without deficit spending? It's ridiculous.

 

If you go over budget you should be forced out, because it means you cannot do your job.

[Balta1701]

If you go over budget you should be forced out, because it means you cannot do your job.

In an economic downturn like this one, going over budget is exactly what governments are supposed to do.

[Y2HH]

In an economic downturn like this one, going over budget is exactly what governments are supposed to do.

 

To a point -- but the fact is, they were over budget long before this downturn.

[southsider2k5]

I doubt there is a single state that isn't over budget across the board. I know IL is in a pretty big hole, too.

 

Indiana is still holding on to a large surplus.

[lostfan]

And this is my problem right now, especially related to political landscapes across the country. The fact that only a few of our states are in black ink or balanced annoys the holy hell out of me. It's not like everything and anything isn't taxed on top of being taxed, yet they're still unable to operate without deficit spending? It's ridiculous.

 

If you go over budget you should be forced out, because it means you cannot do your job.

How would you be able to handle your home budget if your job suddenly slashed your compensation by about 1/3 and you had no easy way of raising it back? You'd have some issues cutting expenses wouldn't you? I know I would. And I'm pretty decent with money.

 

Now, some states are better than others at planning for a rainy day, but that's beside the point. I'm not excusing states like CA that are hopeless either.

Edited June 27, 2009 by lostfan

[southsider2k5]

How would you be able to handle your home budget if your job suddenly slashed your compensation by about 1/3 and you had no easy way of raising it back? You'd have some issues cutting expenses wouldn't you? I know I would. And I'm pretty decent with money.

 

Now, some states are better than others at planning for a rainy day, but that's beside the point. I'm not excusing states like CA that are hopeless either.

 

The irony is, you are pretty much describing the health care plan, and its affect on doctors.

[lostfan]

The irony is, you are pretty much describing the health care plan, and its affect on doctors.

If done the wrong way. I'm thinking that current plan will die before the bill comes out. I could be wrong.

[kapkomet]

If done the wrong way. I'm thinking that current plan will die before the bill comes out. I could be wrong.

We can only hope.

 

The only thing I can agree with is pre-existing stuff - but you can get coverage on non-preexisting and that preexsiting clause usually expires after six months anyway.

 

 

[Balta1701]

An interesting other reason why the health care industry as currently constructed is so screwed up...total lack of competition. The Justice Department defines an industry as "Highly concentrated" if a single company controls 42% or more of the market share in a region (aka...it's approaching a monopoly). By that standard, 30 different states are considered highly concentrated. Beyond that, a significant fraction of the country is only served by 1 or 2 insurance companies at all, even in the areas that don't register as "highly concentrated". Chicago, for example, has 51% of its market controlled by Blue Cross.

 

Another reason why a public option would be useful; simple competition.

[vandy125]

Is it a weird thought to have our health insurance set up more like auto insurance? People shop around all the time for auto insurance. I like the thought of it being a requirement for individuals to have health insurance, and I would rather not have the government involved in what is basically a larger form of Medicare/Medicaid [green] since that has turned out to have plenty of cash and runs so well [/green].

 

One other thing that I have noticed in this conversation is that several posters are talking about how all of these health insurance companies are looking to make the biggest profit. Well, that may be true for companies that have to report to their stock holders, but there are many out there that are non-profit companies. They work for their policy holders and do not shoot for a profit.

[lostfan]

I think auto insurance is basically an elaborate scam. Ugh. Don't get me started.

[Texsox]

They work for their policy holders and do not shoot for a profit.

Great point. But as always that is balanced by their general avoidance of any risk. Many have very strict guidelines on who they enroll.

[Balta1701]

Last week, the Senate Committee working on Health care reform received a Congressional Budget Office Score on an incomplete bill not including a mandate to purchase insurance or a public option. That version would cost $1 trillion over 10 years and reduce the number of uninsured by 1/3.

 

Today, the CBO scored a bill including an employer mandate (now supported by Walmart, of all companies) and a public option. The cost over 10 years? $600 billion. Number of uninsured covered? 97%. That's cheaper than Bush's Medicare drug benefit.

 

Basically, it's going to wind up like this; if there is no public option, there will be no health care reform. Because the CBO score without a public option and a purchasing mandate is going to be over $1 trillion for any version of a plan, and it's going to only take out a small slice of the uninsured. The public option is the only cost control measure that will actually produce a good CBO score other than outright explicit government imposed cost controls, and those will never pass.

 

Oh, and the President of the AMA is now saying he supports a public plan.

[StrangeSox]

What sort of influence does the makeup of Congress have on the CBO? I know its ideally completely non-partisan, but...

 

edit: typo

Edited July 2, 2009 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

What sort of influence does the makeup of Congress have on the CBO? I know its ideally completely non-partisan, but...

 

edit: typo

Congress appoints the CBO Director in this fashion:

The Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate jointly appoint the CBO Director, after considering recommendations from the two budget committees. The term of office is four years, with no limit on the number of terms a Director may serve. Either House of Congress, however, may remove the Director by resolution. At the expiration of a term of office, the person serving as Director may continue in the position until his or her successor is appointed.

 

The Director appoints all CBO staff, including the Deputy Director, and all appointments are based solely on professional competence, without regard to political affiliation. The compensation of the Director and the Deputy Director is set by law at levels tied to the annual rate of compensation of House and Senate officers. The Director determines the compensation of all other staff.

[southsider2k5]

And now the Senate wants to fine you if you opt of out of the health insurance plan... The interesting part is that since they include the illegals in their numbers of the "uninsured" does that mean the Senate is going to fine illegal aliens for not taking up the Governmental health insurance plan to pay for it?

 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...ZHW-ywD996MDGG1

 

Senate bill fines people refusing health coverage

 

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR – 16 hours ago

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — Americans who refuse to buy affordable medical coverage could be hit with fines of more than $1,000 under a health care overhaul bill unveiled Thursday by key Senate Democrats looking to fulfill President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.

 

The Congressional Budget Office estimated the fines will raise around $36 billion over 10 years. Senate aides said the penalties would be modeled on the approach taken by Massachusetts, which now imposes a fine of about $1,000 a year on individuals who refuse to get coverage. Under the federal legislation, families would pay higher penalties than individuals.

 

In a revamped health care system envisioned by lawmakers, people would be required to carry health insurance just like motorists must get auto coverage now. The government would provide subsidies for the poor and many middle-class families, but those who still refuse to sign up would face penalties.

 

Called "shared responsibility payments," the fines would be set at least at half the cost of basic medical coverage, according to the legislation. The goal is to nudge people to sign up for coverage when they are healthy, not wait until they get sick.

 

In 2008, employer-provided coverage averaged $12,680 a year for a family plan, and $4,704 for individual coverage, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation's annual survey. Senate aides, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly, said the cost of the federal plan would be lower but declined to provide specifics.

 

The legislation would exempt certain hardship cases from fines. The fines would be collected through the income tax system.

 

The new proposals were released as Congress neared the end of a weeklong July 4 break, with lawmakers expected to quickly take up health care legislation when they return to Washington. With deepening divisions along partisan and ideological lines, the complex legislation faces an uncertain future.

 

Obama wants a bill this year that would provide coverage to the nearly 50 million Americans who lack it and reduce medical costs.

 

In a statement, Obama welcomed the legislation, saying it "reflects many of the principles I've laid out, such as reforms that will prohibit insurance companies from refusing coverage for people with pre-existing conditions and the concept of insurance exchanges where individuals can find affordable coverage if they lose their jobs, move or get sick."

 

The Senate Health Education, Labor and Pensions bill also calls for a government-run insurance option to compete with private plans as well as a $750-per-worker annual fee on larger companies that do not offer coverage to employees.

 

Sens. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., and Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., said in a letter to colleagues that their revised plan would cost dramatically less than an earlier, incomplete proposal, and help show the way toward coverage for 97 percent of all Americans.

 

In a conference call with reporters, Dodd said the revised bill had brought "historic reform of health care" closer. He said the bill's public option will bring coverage and benefit decisions driven "not by what generates the biggest profits, but by what works best for American families."

 

The Congressional Budget Office, in an analysis released Thursday evening, put the net cost of the proposal at $597 billion over 10 years, down from $1 trillion two weeks ago. Coverage expansions worth $645 billion would be partly offset by savings of $48 billion, the estimate said.

 

However, the total cost of legislation will rise considerably once provisions are added to subsidize health insurance for the poor through Medicaid. Those additions, needed to ensure coverage for nearly all U.S. residents, are being handled by a separate panel, the Senate Finance Committee. Bipartisan talks on the Finance panel aim to hold the overall price tag to $1 trillion.

 

The Health Committee could complete its portion of the bill as soon as next week, and the presence of a government health insurance option virtually assures a party-line vote.

 

In the Senate, the Finance Committee version of the bill is unlikely to include a government-run insurance option. Bipartisan negotiations are centered on a proposal for a nonprofit insurance cooperative as a competitor to private companies.

 

Three committees are collaborating in the House on legislation expected to come to a vote by the end of July. That measure is certain to include a government-run insurance option.

 

At their heart, all the bills would require insurance companies to sell coverage to any applicant, without charging higher premiums for pre-existing medical conditions. The poor and some middle-class families would qualify for government subsidies to help with the cost of coverage. The government's costs would be covered by a combination of higher taxes and cuts in projected Medicare and Medicaid spending.

 

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

[Texsox]

And now the Senate wants to fine you if you opt of out of the health insurance plan... The interesting part is that since they include the illegals in their numbers of the "uninsured" does that mean the Senate is going to fine illegal aliens for not taking up the Governmental health insurance plan to pay for it?

 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...ZHW-ywD996MDGG1

 

Seems like a trial balloon. I wonder how many will be launched before any of this becomes an official recommendation or *gasps* we see it in black and white on a proposal.

[Balta1701]

Seems like a trial balloon. I wonder how many will be launched before any of this becomes an official recommendation or *gasps* we see it in black and white on a proposal.

Quite frankly, there should be penalties for people who don't join in the system. That's the whole point of universality. You can't have people opting out when they're young and then opting in when they're old. It breaks the system.

[kapkomet]

Quite frankly, there should be penalties for people who don't join in the system. That's the whole point of universality. You can't have people opting out when they're young and then opting in when they're old. It breaks the system.

Oh goodie. Yet another mandate from our federal government. Pretty soon they are going to tell us when it's ok to take a s***. Oh wait, they already do that - 1.7 liters of water, anyone?

 

[Balta1701]

Oh goodie. Yet another mandate from our federal government. Pretty soon they are going to tell us when it's ok to take a s***. Oh wait, they already do that - 1.7 liters of water, anyone?

Water ought to also cost a lot more than it does in many areas but that's another decision by the governments too.