SubscribeI think there will be a competitor to private insurers," Sebelius said. "That's really the essential part, is you don't turn over the whole new marketplace to private insurance companies and trust them to do the right thing."Alright, I'm following this so far, but then:
Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., chairman of the Senate's budget committee, pushed the co-op model as an alternative.
"It's not government-run and government-controlled," he said. "It's membership-run and membership-controlled. But it does provide a nonprofit competitor for the for-profit insurance companies, and that's why it has appeal on both sides."
As proposed by Conrad, the co-ops would receive federal startup money, but then would operate independently of the government. They would have to maintain the same financial reserves that private companies are required to keep to handle unexpectedly high claims.Can someone explain to me how a non-profit business receiving no government support will be able to handle major insurance claims? Wouldn't it become prohibitively expensive? Someone educate me here.
It's everything. That's what the system is: everything working together, every aspect of society, like lightning, taking the path of least resistance into the ground. You can't shoot the CEO of your insurance company. You'll get raped in the ass before your lethal injection and he'll get replaced by another CEO with better bodyguards. You can't do anything against the system. Neither can Obama, and he's the most powerful single individual in the whole system.Assuming he's even trying. While he's obviously trying to improve healtcare, he is clearly not even trying to reform "the system". Remember, this is a guy who worked out a secret deal with the drug companies for their political support. Does that seem like the actions of a guy who thinks that the immense political power over American's lives by corporate interests is fundamental problem that needs to be solved.
do *you* want health care run as "effectively" as the Post Office?I've heard this used rhetorically a lot. I honestly don't get it.
Why doesn't the public option have the votes for passage? You'd think that a provision that is both fairly popular and money-saving was a good bet for passage. But the insurance industry really, really does not like the public option. We'd previously estimated that its lobbying influence has cost the public option something like nine (9) votes in the Senate.P.S. to Silver: Please get a spell-checker.
This is an unpleasant truth. But jus because it's an unpleasant truth doesn't mean it's not the truth.
Baucus's bill will not contain an employer mandate -- a requirement that employers provide health insurance to their employees -- even though it does contain an individual mandate.I'm having trouble understanding how Blue Dogs consider lobbyist pressure more persuasive now than the very real political damage they're doing to themselves in the long run by passing such shitty policy.
Does this look familiar to anyone?
-- No employer mandate
-- No public option
-- But yes, an individual mandate
It should -- because this particular permutation on health care reform looks an awful lot like the incomplete draft of the HELP Committee's bill that the CBO scored last month, which also lacked an employer mandate and a public option but contained an individual mandate. That bill, the CBO estimated, would cost about $1.0 trillion -- but would only cover a net of about 16 million people. In contrast, the revised version of the HELP Committee's bill, which did include both a public option and an employer mandate, would cost about the same amount but cover a net of 37 million people.
[...]
The AP may be right that Baucus's bill will cost less than $1 trillion, but it accomplishes that by shifting the burden to middle-income families, some of whom have poor balance sheets and will face a really tough choice between paying for health insurance they can't quite afford and facing some kind of penalty. Odds are that many of them will take the penalty, which is why coverage probably won't expand very much. Or, the enforcement mechanisms could be more stringent, in which case they'll have to buy health care, at the cost of reducing their spending in other areas -- and in probably being very teed off at the Democrats who passed the bill.
[...]
Just to underscore this point: when it scored a similar bill, the CBO estimated that 15 million people would lose their employer-provided coverage. Most of these people are likely to be lower-to-middle income persons with somewhat tenuous employment situations, a group that tends classically to be swing voters.
Now, how are those 15 million people going to feel about health care reform when they find out that:
a) Although the bill was supposed to guarantee access to health insurance, they've in fact lost theirs;
b) They're required to buy an expensive, private plan on their own, or to pay a fine;
c) They're probably not getting any government assistance;
d) They certainly don't have any Medicare-like alternative to fall back upon;
e) All of this cost the country about $1 trillion dollars.
You think those 15 million people are going to vote for the Democrats again, like, ever?
A second official, Linda Douglass, director of health reform communications for the administration, said that President Obama believed that a public option was the best way to reduce costs and promote competition among insurance companies, that he had not backed away from that belief, and that he still wanted to see a public option in the final bill.Sometimes, I think he has people in his team say things designed to enrage Democrats, giving signs that he's caving, just to light a fire under the electorate and remind them what they're up against if the Right gets their way, only to reaffirm his position later in the day. It's a clever strategy, after all - the cons start shilling their hype, people start murmuring "hm, maybe they have a point", Obama fakes like he's going to take a step back and people freak out, pushing against the Right.
"Nothing has changed.," she said. "The President has always said that what is essential that health insurance reform lower costs, ensure that there are affordable options for all Americans and increase choice and competition in the health insurance market. He believes that the public option is the best way to achieve these goals."*
A second official, Linda Douglass, director of health reform communications for the administration, said that President Obama believed that a public option was the best way to reduce costs and promote competition among insurance companies, that he had not backed away from that belief, and that he still wanted to see a public option in the final bill.
"Nothing has changed.," she said. "The President has always said that what is essential that health insurance reform lower costs, ensure that there are affordable options for all Americans and increase choice and competition in the health insurance market. He believes that the public option is the best way to achieve these goals."
Dear Senator _______,Seriously, take the time to do this. We have leverage beyond "well I'm not voting for you anymore nyah nyah". Our currency here is how much we care about this issue, not just whether or not we'll punch a ballot every two or four years. Convince your congressfolk that your opinion matters.
I'm sure you receive more letters each day than I've received in my entire life, so I'll get right to my point... I would like you to support health care reform. I want that reform to consist of a single-payer solution, but I would be satisfied (for the time being) by a public option.
However, I'm not just looking for your vote on an eventual bill. I wish for you to *actively* pursue those ends. Speak out about the merits of a nationalized system. Criticize your Republican opponents who are using outright lies to stand in the way of change. Take control of the discourse. Stick your neck out.
The majority wants this reform; all the polls I've seen bear that out. The minority who oppose it will be convinced soon enough as they watch the bureaucracy they took for granted evaporate before their very eyes.
You have everything to gain by taking an active stand, but letting this get quietly defeated will only drive the "common wisdom" that the Democratic Party is spineless or ineffectual or complicit in the status quo.
I am not naive. I realize that's a simplistic view of a complex political ecosystem. We are more of a coalition of progressive interests than a single party, and we'll probably never see the solidarity enjoyed by the Republicans.
But in a country with 55% voter turnout in presidential election years and 40% turnout otherwise, that doesn't matter. We just need to *engage* people so that they show up to vote their support. The best way to do that is to set an example. Show that this issue matters to you, and it will matter to your constituents.
I'm sure many people have threatened to vote against you if you don't support this legislation. Now *that* is naive. We won't make any progress if we let the enemies of reform gain more ground while we stomp our feet and pout. Let me be clear: you have my vote as long as you are a Democrat and as long as reform remains the Democratic party line.
But you don't just need my vote. You need my support, and that comes at a steeper price. Take a stand. Put your name out there, take the risk. For every voter you alienate by being on Sean Hannity's blacklist, you'll gain a campaign volunteer who will earn you ten "undecided" votes.
To that end, I offer this. If you convince me that you are on the front lines of this fight, you will have my support in your primary battles and you will have my volunteer hours devoted to your reelection campaigns. This is not an idle offer... I have lots of free time and I care about a progressive future for this country.
I sincerely hope you make the right decision. Thank you for your consideration and your service to this country.
Can you think of a domain where a government-run business competes successfully with private-sector companies? In a town hall meeting last week, President Obama mentioned one such example: the market for overnight shipments. This market now has two main private suppliers, FedEx and UPS, and one public one, the United States Postal Service. When you have to send something overnight, which one do you use? Most shippers choose one of the private companies. (Indeed, even the idea that we need a government-run postal service is doubtful. Sweden has successfully privatized its postal service. Sweden! And the European Union will open mail service to competition in 2011.)I couldn't be arsed to read through this whole thread after the first hundred or so comments, but the teeth-gnashing I saw there was pretty silly. I'm a big fan of this community's capacity to think clearly, but this thread is a case of FAIL. Anybody paying attention should already know and embrace Richard Thaler's cautions.
The Postal Service offers another instructive lesson. When it periodically starts running deficits (as it is now) and proposes cost-saving measures like eliminating Saturday delivery or closing tiny post offices, Congress often intervenes under pressure from predictable interest groups like bulk mailers, the 600,000 postal employees, and the users of those tiny offices.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that administrative costs under the public Medicare plan are less than 2 percent of expenditures, compared with approximately 11 percent of spending by private plans under Medicare Advantage. This is a near perfect “apples to apples” comparison of administrative costs, because the public Medicare plan and Medicare Advantage plans are operating under similar rules and treating the same population.I agree fraud is a big problem; however, it occurs in private insurance as well as this article from the American Medical News reports:
Health care fraud accounts for as much as 10% of overall health spending and is occurring just as frequently among private insurance plans as public programs, according to a recent report..The report's authors called the issue "a systemic problem affecting public and private insurers alike, in the individual market, the employer-sponsored group market and public programs."
In the 1960s, before the procedural filibuster, there were seven or fewer "old" filibusters in an entire term. In the most recent Senate term, there were 138.
Obama isn't saying the right thing. He should be saying, "Stop lying." Or maybe he should send Biden out to say it. That's probably the best thing.We have to be realistic about the way things work. Amazing how the people screaming here that "all that matters" is "getting a bill through" forgot that Obama's now being blamed for the weakened stimulus because it was rendered less effective. That Clinton got reamed for health care because he caved. That Kerry lost because he just needed to concentrate on holding Ohio.
I'm not basing this on some misguided sense that being aggressive is what's required. Rather, I'm basing it on how the MSM works. They report what politicians say. And they don't fact check them. That's the system -- maybe you don't like it. I don't like it either. But it's not changing any time soon.
That's a key point, so I'm going to repeat it. All the broadcast MSM does is report what politicians say. They don't fact check them. Afterwards, they have blowhards sit around in panels and have disingenuous spin-meister discussions about whether or not what was said is playing well with the general public.
But they don't have real journalists who pour over data, or who ask questions, or who talk to economists, or whatever. instead, they have the blowhards on TV. (OK, some of them do have journalists -- but those guys don't dominate the coverage. The blowhards do.)
If the Republicans are lying -- and they are -- we have to call them on it. If we don't, no one will. And by "we", I mean our politicians. They have to say, "Stop lying." If they say that, the blowhards will say, "Do people like it when the president calls his opponents liars?" And after that, they'll say, "Is it a lie to say that there will be death panels?"
This is exactly what Kerry did when he got swiftboated. The whole, "This is so stupid, and so insulting, I won't even dignify it with a response," response. It's why he lost. If you don't dignify something with a response, the other side controls the entire
discussion.
We know how the MSM works. Tim Russert responded to all of the criticism he got by explaining it, over and over again. "I just let these guys talk. I ask them questions, and I let them talk. The public can judge their responses." I know that sucks, and he should have done more. But it's not like we don't know what the score is. We have to be realistic about the way things work.
why was Bush so much more effective at getting his way in Congress with a smaller majority?(1) Exploitation of 9/11 for political gain.
What did Bush do in the first six months? Vacation, if I remember.
“PUBLIC OPTION” BY ANY OTHER NAME IS STILL GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CAREKeep in mind that this is a center-right compromise being promoted by one of the most conservative Democratic legislators -- and the Republicans are still crying "SOCIALISM!!!"
Sen. Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) Says Co-Ops Another Form Of Government-Run Health Care. “‘We’re going to have some type of public option, call it “co-op,” call it what you want,’ Reid said, adding that Democrats are working on ‘some version of a co-op that may satisfy everyone.’” (Trish Turner, “Reid Says Co-Ops Might Be Public Option,” Fox News’s “The Speaker’s Lobby” Blog, 7/9/09)
Open To Co-Ops, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Doesn’t Care What Government-Run Health Care Is Called. “’We don't care what it's called. We need something that's going to keep the insurance companies honest,’ Schumer said, adding that any co-op plan must also ‘be available right at the beginning, have competition ... and have the strength to bargain.’” (Trish Turner, “Reid Says Co-Ops Might Be Public Option,” Fox News’s “The Speaker’s Lobby” Blog, 7/9/09)
SO WHAT IS A “CO-OP”?
Co-Ops Would Be Funded By Federal Government. “Senator Kent Conrad, a Democrat, proposed creating nonprofit, member-operated health cooperatives to compete with insurers … The government would offer start-up money -- Conrad said $6 billion would be needed -- in loans and grants to help doctors, hospitals, businesses and other groups form nonprofit cooperative networks to obtain and provide healthcare.” (“Q&A – Co-Ops In Focus In U.S. Health Care Debate,” Reuters, 7/30/09)
Co-Ops Would Be Regulated By Federal Government. “Advisory board makes recommendations to HHS Secretary who makes final decisions about approvals of business plans … Business plans must meet governance standards, and eligible applicants must meet the standard for non-profit, participating mutual insurance.” (“Senate Finance Committee Draft Proposal,” 6/19/09)
Co-Ops Would Force Individuals Who Want To Join To Go Through State Governments. “Co-op membership would be offered through state insurance exchanges where small businesses and individuals without employer-sponsored plans would shop for health coverage.” (“Q&A – Co-Ops In Focus In U.S. Health Care Debate,” Reuters, 7/30/09)
Federal Government Would Use Co-Ops To Monopolize Health Insurance. “[T]hese co-ops sound a lot like a health-care Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which Congress created because there was supposedly no secondary mortgage market. The duo proceeded to use their government subsidy to dominate the market and drive out private competitors.” (Editorial, “Fannie Med,”The Wall Street Journal, 7/30/09)
Percentage change since 2002 in average premiums paid to large U.S. health-insurance companies : +87It's really amazing that this situation is tolerable to so many. If the situation were reversed, and we already had a UK- or Canada- style medical system and were proposing total privatization, there would be armed revolt before it would be allowed to pass. Heck, half of the ammunition that the republicans have is that reform would threaten our (omg socialized!) Medicare benefits.
Percentage change in the profits of the top ten insurance companies : +428
Percentage change since 2002 in average premiums paid to large U.S. health-insurance companies : +87The issue of health care reform is personal for me in part because I've been living this statistic. Over the last five years, I've seen my employer-based family health plan premium creep up from roughly $3,600 bucks a year to over $10,000 dollars a year straight off the top of my take home pay.
Percentage change in the profits of the top ten insurance companies : +428
« Older Better than Radiohead.... | Judee Sill (previously) was th... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Artw at 11:35 AM on August 16 [2 favorites]