Healthcare reform

[kapkomet]

And you pay for those people to get them in the form of higher medical bills.

Right, so status quo with our government now intervening.

[Rex Kickass]

Right, so status quo with our government now intervening.

 

Except not, because with a public option and a health insurance mandate, the costs won't be passed on because someone is paying for the procedure, the hospital won't be forced to write off the manpower either. Someone is paying for the costs through the insurance pool, government subsidy or not.

 

Even if everyone on the public option who are currently uninsured got a Medicare or Medicaid option, we're all better off.

 

Because Medicare and Medicaid costs aren't passed along nearly as much as Charity Care costs are.

[kapkomet]

Except not, because with a public option and a health insurance mandate, the costs won't be passed on because someone is paying for the procedure, the hospital won't be forced to write off the manpower either. Someone is paying for the costs through the insurance pool, government subsidy or not.

 

Even if everyone on the public option who are currently uninsured got a Medicare or Medicaid option, we're all better off.

 

Because Medicare and Medicaid costs aren't passed along nearly as much as Charity Care costs are.

Why don't they? (I know the answer - I want to see if you are going where I think you are).

[southsider2k5]

Except not, because with a public option and a health insurance mandate, the costs won't be passed on because someone is paying for the procedure, the hospital won't be forced to write off the manpower either. Someone is paying for the costs through the insurance pool, government subsidy or not.

 

Even if everyone on the public option who are currently uninsured got a Medicare or Medicaid option, we're all better off.

 

Because Medicare and Medicaid costs aren't passed along nearly as much as Charity Care costs are.

 

What? Who do you think the Federal government is exactly? Medicare and Medicade costs are 110% passed on to the general public. We pay for the procedures, the staffing, the oversight, the tax collection, and the interest on the debt.

[NorthSideSox72]

Alright, now we actually have something new to discuss. Baucus unveiled the Senate's much-awaited compromise plan today. Highlights:

 

Consumers would be able to shop for and compare insurance plans in a new purchasing exchange. Medicaid would be expanded, and caps would be placed on patients' yearly health care costs. The plan would be paid for with $507 billion in cuts to government health programs and $349 billion in new taxes and fees, including a tax on high-end insurance plans and fees on insurance companies and medical device manufacturers.

 

I'm very curious as to what the new taxes are, but equally curious what they plan to cut by $507B - that was an unexpectedly large number.

 

The bill fails to fulfill President Barack Obama's aim of creating a new government-run insurance plan — or option — to compete with the private market. It proposes instead a system of nonprofit member owned cooperatives, somewhat akin to electric co-ops that exist in many places around the country. That was one of many concessions meant to win over Republicans.

 

So no true Obama-like public option, but something else, akin to things I was suggesting.

 

The bill includes provisions to keep illegal immigrants from obtaining health coverage through the new insurance exchanges, and to prevent federal funds from being used to pay for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or if the life of the mother would be endangered. It's all but certain that the Baucus provisions will not be the last word on either of those volatile issues.

 

The bill would set up a verification system to make sure people buying insurance in the exchanges are U.S. citizens or legal immigrants. Social Security data would be used to verify the identities of U.S. citizens, and Homeland Security Department files would be used to check legal immigrants. The bill would impose penalties for fraud and identity theft.

 

While only legal U.S. residents would be able to buy coverage through the exchanges, illegal immigrant parents would be able to get insurance for their U.S. born children.

 

So that addresses the two big controversial issues, hopefully, but we'll see.

 

Wednesday's bill release follows months of negotiations among Baucus and five other Finance Committee senators dubbed the "Gang of Six" — Republicans Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Mike Enzi of Wyoming and Olympia Snowe of Maine, and Democrats Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico.

 

In the end, Democrats believe Snowe may be the only Republican to support the bill, though she wasn't ready to commit her support Tuesday night. "Hopefully at some point through the committee process we can reach an agreement," she said.

 

The bill drew quick criticism from Republican leaders.

 

Looks like the bipartisan thing just isn't happening, at least not to any great extent.

[bmags]

Oh you were wondering? They are slashing the subsidies that will help poorer people pay for the mandated insurance. REFORM yayyyyy

[NorthSideSox72]

Oh you were wondering? They are slashing the subsidies that will help poorer people pay for the mandated insurance. REFORM yayyyyy

Your guess? Or do you have a source on that?

[chunk23]

The bipartisan thing was never going to happen. Which is why I hate that they bothered trying to compromise in the first place. Everyone knew the republicans would vote against anything put forth by a democrat, so why even bother?

 

That's why I think the democrats don't really care that much about the reform. If they did, they would've started with single payer, so if need be, they could negotiate down to public option. An individual mandate without a public option is a disaster and is a worst case scenario. Afterall, Baucus is a leading recipient of donations from insurance companies.

[bmags]

It's my guess. There's no way they got that much from anything but the subsidies.

[bmags]

The bipartisan thing was never going to happen. Which is why I hate that they bothered trying to compromise in the first place. Everyone knew the republicans would vote against anything put forth by a democrat, so why even bother?

 

That's why I think the democrats don't really care that much about the reform. If they did, they would've started with single payer, so if need be, they could negotiate down to public option. An individual mandate without a public option is a disaster and is a worst case scenario. Afterall, Baucus is a leading recipient of donations from insurance companies.

 

Well, frankly, passing the mandates, is going to make people a whole lot more welcoming of the public option.

[Rex Kickass]

What? Who do you think the Federal government is exactly? Medicare and Medicade costs are 110% passed on to the general public. We pay for the procedures, the staffing, the oversight, the tax collection, and the interest on the debt.

 

What affects your ER/Hospital bill more? Medicare cost overruns or completely unpaid medical bills (either through charity care or uncovered health care costs that just aren't paid for whatever reason?)

 

Health insurance reform is going to require subsidies for low income people - because its either something from the government or the hospitals eat that cost.

Health insurance reform won't be effective unless more people are insured. One way to do this is by mandating some basic level of coverage for Americans.

 

The more I think about this, the more I argue about this, the more f***ed up this whole system seems to be. Hospitals aren't allowed to turn away patients in need of urgent care, required to treat patients who receive health coverage from the government (Medicare, Medicaid). In many ways, as it should be, they are required by law to act in a non-profit interest.

 

This nonprofit interest acts in direct response to a profit motive that the medical industry has grown to embrace. There's a challenge to balance the altruistic care that is necessary for a health care system to work for a country with the need to protect people's money. Eventually, we're going to need to figure out which priority is more important - protecting money, or providing health care and go with it.

 

It kind of boils down to that. If we focus on the priority of providing some level of health care for all, we can find a way to make it affordable for everyone and we can do it in a way that won't break the bank.

 

I think part of the flaw in our arguments, on both sides, is that we expect the status quo in the levels of health care which we'll see in the future. Part of the goal of increasing health care coverage is that preventative care will become a bigger part of the solution than emergency care. Preventative care tends to be much cheaper than emergency/urgent care. If that's the case, wouldn't that naturally bring the cost of health care per capita down?

[Rex Kickass]

The bipartisan thing was never going to happen. Which is why I hate that they bothered trying to compromise in the first place. Everyone knew the republicans would vote against anything put forth by a democrat, so why even bother?

 

That's why I think the democrats don't really care that much about the reform. If they did, they would've started with single payer, so if need be, they could negotiate down to public option. An individual mandate without a public option is a disaster and is a worst case scenario. Afterall, Baucus is a leading recipient of donations from insurance companies.

 

Mandating that you're required to pay as much as one out of every eight dollars you earn to the insurance companies is what comes out of the bipartisan deal. The bipartisan deal that the GOP senators who helped craft it are walking away from. Bring on reconciliation, IMO - the GOP is not acting as an honest broker in any health care reform effort.

[bmags]

Mandating that you're required to pay as much as one out of every eight dollars you earn to the insurance companies is what comes out of the bipartisan deal. The bipartisan deal that the GOP senators who helped craft it are walking away from. Bring on reconciliation, IMO - the GOP is not acting as an honest broker in any health care reform effort.

 

whatever to the GOP, if this is the bill that the dems need to pass to get BLUE dog support, why would the repubs support it. The bill the dems will be owning is essentiallly telling the poor and middle class voters they need to pay money to health insurance companies, who are probably dancing to the bank right now.

[Rex Kickass]

whatever to the GOP, if this is the bill that the dems need to pass to get BLUE dog support, why would the repubs support it. The bill the dems will be owning is essentiallly telling the poor and middle class voters they need to pay money to health insurance companies, who are probably dancing to the bank right now.

 

I think the non Baucus proposal has 51 or 52 votes in the Senate, and it probably can get to 230 votes in the house. If that's the case, split the bill. Vote the public option budget stuff through reconciliation. Then put the preexisting condition language, tort reform language, etc in a regular bill and make the GOP stand up against it.

[bmags]

I think the non Baucus proposal has 51 or 52 votes in the Senate, and it probably can get to 230 votes in the house. If that's the case, split the bill. Vote the public option budget stuff through reconciliation. Then put the preexisting condition language, tort reform language, etc in a regular bill and make the GOP stand up against it.

 

One thing, Josh Marshall was reporting that there is a caveat to reconciliation for the public option. Due to some amendment by Byrd, any reconciled bill needs to come in at some zero cost proposal, which would need to beef up the public option. The more they beef it up the more votes they may lose, especially in Arkansas sens.

[Balta1701]

One thing, Josh Marshall was reporting that there is a caveat to reconciliation for the public option. Due to some amendment by Byrd, any reconciled bill needs to come in at some zero cost proposal, which would need to beef up the public option. The more they beef it up the more votes they may lose, especially in Arkansas sens.

The Dems can lose 9 Senators and still pass something through reconciliation. 10 Senators if Massachusetts names a temporary successor.

[Balta1701]

I think part of the flaw in our arguments, on both sides, is that we expect the status quo in the levels of health care which we'll see in the future. Part of the goal of increasing health care coverage is that preventative care will become a bigger part of the solution than emergency care. Preventative care tends to be much cheaper than emergency/urgent care. If that's the case, wouldn't that naturally bring the cost of health care per capita down?

Frankly, the idea that preventative care pushes down costs has been flatly rejected by 1 side in this discussion.

[bmags]

The Dems can lose 9 Senators and still pass something through reconciliation. 10 Senators if Massachusetts names a temporary successor.

 

well aware. Here's to hoping Sestak is providing enough heat that Specter continues his opportunistic flippy floppy

[chunk23]

The thing is though, with the exception of the progressive caucus (who tend to be ignored at all times), it seems that they just plain don't want the public option.

[bmags]

The thing is though, with the exception of the progressive caucus (who tend to be ignored at all times), it seems that they just plain don't want the public option.

 

If they are faced with a bill where they mandate insurance, and they don't plug it up with subsidies, that's even worse suicide.

[bmags]

Take that middle class!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/health/p...amp;_r=1&hp

The proposal would also set limits on out-of-pocket health care expenses. It would cap at 13 percent of household income — not including cost-sharing such as co-payments and deductibles — the cost of insurance premiums for middle-class Americans who just miss qualifying for the new government subsidies.

[StrangeSox]

So its just one giant handout to insurance companies.

[chunk23]

It was always going to be that the moment Baucus was put in charge.

[southsider2k5]

So its just one giant handout to insurance companies.

 

Why would anyone be surprised by that. This first nine months has been handouts for anyone and everyone.

[kapkomet]

Why would anyone be surprised by that. This first nine months has been handouts for anyone and everyone.

Right - they flood them with money in exchange for control. Pretty simple, and expected, just like we've all been saying - the lead in to the single payer - because it is. It's just a lot more veiled.