Looks Like ANY Public Option is DOA YES!!!

[billvon 3,116]

>> Will the Republicans put their alternative [health care plan] online for 72
>> hours as well?

>hope so, or I will call them out too

A letter from Reid to Republicans today:

==================
While the two health care reform plans that are serving as the main building blocks for the merged bill have been publicly available for quite some time, I would note that the Republican leadership’s health care plan remains a secret, unless perhaps it does not exist.

Needless to say, I fully understand if your plan is still under development, and would not presume to suggest that you publicly share draft legislative text for even an individual element of your plan, let alone an entire bill, before it is finalized.

However, as soon as a comprehensive Republican alternative is complete, I hope you will be willing to immediately make it public. I am sure you agree that the American people deserve the opportunity to fully review both parties’ health care reform plans before we begin this important debate.
=================

I didn't see you "calling them out" so I figured I'd remind you. Five days later, still no plan.

[sundevil777 102]

You and Kallend neglect the reality that Obama and Reed and Pelosi want a single payer system. If they want to fund a single payer system sufficiently so that it can take unlimited customers, then that is possible for them to do. I happen to take them at their word on this point - that it is what they actually want. They know this is a way to get there.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Five days later, still no plan.

Really? Nice set of blinders you have there, Bill.

Maybe you should look up HR 3400 - introduced July 30th.

Or maybe HR 3218 - introduced July 14th.

Or perhaps HR 2516 - introduced May 20th.

Since you're 'calling people out' on not having bills available online for the public to see, maybe you should start with the stimulus bill.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>> Will the Republicans put their alternative [health care plan] online for 72
>> hours as well?

>hope so, or I will call them out too

A letter from Reid to Republicans today:

==================
While the two health care reform plans that are serving as the main building blocks for the merged bill have been publicly available for quite some time, I would note that the Republican leadership’s health care plan remains a secret, unless perhaps it does not exist.

Needless to say, I fully understand if your plan is still under development, and would not presume to suggest that you publicly share draft legislative text for even an individual element of your plan, let alone an entire bill, before it is finalized.

However, as soon as a comprehensive Republican alternative is complete, I hope you will be willing to immediately make it public. I am sure you agree that the American people deserve the opportunity to fully review both parties’ health care reform plans before we begin this important debate.
=================

I didn't see you "calling them out" so I figured I'd remind you. Five days later, still no plan.

Cool. Then will they hold themselves to the same standard? Many of the components are yet to be written.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[likearock 2]

Quote

You and Kallend neglect the reality that Obama and Reed and Pelosi want a single payer system. If they want to fund a single payer system sufficiently so that it can take unlimited customers, then that is possible for them to do. I happen to take them at their word on this point - that it is what they actually want. They know this is a way to get there.

Let's see, the Democrats have 60 in the Senate, they have to work like hell to pass even a severely limited public option, and you contend they'll be voting in a single payer system if we don't watch out? I want some of what you're smoking.

Besides, even if your "stalking horse" theory were correct, there still are a whole lot of countries out there, including some with a single payer systems, where the private insurance companies continue to do just fine. Here's the link again. Just search for the word "private" to see how many countries accommodate both public and private insurers.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Let's see, the Democrats have 60 in the Senate, they have to work like hell to pass even a severely limited public option, and you contend they'll be voting in a single payer system if we don't watch out? I want some of what you're smoking.

No, I contend that they are voting in a system that they think will result in a single payer system over time, by introducing a public option that by design will be significantly cheaper than private plans. That is their desire - to have the public option be cheaper to the consumer (not counting the taxpayer money needed to make it cheaper).

If the public option isn't cheaper, then they will have failed to introduce "competition" as they call it. We'll see what they are able to do.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Very different than what is intended for the health care public option, where taxpayer money will make it cheaper than the private competition, whatever that takes.

And of course that claim is based on zero research or historical evidence. Since when has taxpayer money made anything cheaper?

Maybe it will be cheaper for the people actually in the public option (maybe. it could just go tits up like Hawaii)... but that's only going to be 2% of the population by 2019, according to the House bill.

Usually the govt doesn't do things more efficiently, but in this case, the entire point of the public option is to offer competition, and if that means what is implied, it will be less expensive, with taxpayer money making it so. If the public option isn't cheaper, then of course that would be very different.

I contend that congress and the pres will make any public option accomodate as many people that want it.

The House Bill estimates that only 2% of the population will be enrolled in the public option and even that won't happen until 2019. What kind of competition is that?

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

That is their desire - to have the public option be cheaper to the consumer (not counting the taxpayer money needed to make it cheaper).

This is one of my biggest problems with the whole thing.

Yes it'll be cheaper, if you don't count the money being spent.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

The House Bill estimates that only 2% of the population will be enrolled in the public option and even that won't happen until 2019. What kind of competition is that?

If that is what actually happens, then of course it won't be that significant.

However, I don't believe that the gov't option will turn away customers. Pelosi, Reed, and Obama will be very happy to accept as many customers as want to enroll. Since it will be designed to be inexpensive, why wouldn't a lot of individuals and businesses choose it? I understand that others will believe that Pelosi, Reed, and Obama have no greater ambition for the govt option than 2% of the population, but I do not.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

However, I don't believe that the gov't option will turn away customers. Pelosi, Reed, and Obama will be very happy to accept as many customers as want to enroll. Since it will be designed to be inexpensive, why wouldn't a lot of individuals and businesses choose it?

And here you got a typical Republican dilemma.

If you're claiming that the government plan will be inexpensive and high-quality (i.e. very good considering the cost/benefits ratio), than you're basically saying that the government CAN run healthcare effectively, and compete with private industry very well. It would also raise a lot of moral issues, as basically you'd be saying that we all should support private industry - because this is your choice - even though it would be overall better for us not to. This would mean you're arguing for REMOVING the choice from the people.

But if you're claiming that the government plan will be shitty (most likely inexpensive and low-quality) and generally has very low costs/benefit ratio, then you'd have hard time to explain why would it hurt or even kill the private industry - which, according to some Republicans, always provides much better service than the government.

What is your position? It's obvious that you cannot maintain both "public option gonna be shit" and "public option gonna kill private insurance", as they're pretty much mutually exclusive.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[downwardspiral 0]

House Republican Solutions for Health Care Reform
9.30.2009



Expanding Access to Affordable Health Care

H.R. 198 Health Care Tax Deduction Act

H.R. 502 Health Care Freedom of Choice Act

H.R. 544 Flexible Health Savings Act

H.R. 879 Affordable Health Care Expansion Act

H.R. 1891 Sunset of Life Protection Act

H.R. 2607 The Small Business Health Fairness Act

H.R. 3217 Health Care Choice Act

H.R. 3218 Improving Health Care for All Americans Act

H.R. 3508 Healthy Savings Act

H.R. 3821 Improved Employee Access to Health Insurance Act

H.R. 3822 Improved Access to Employer Financed Health Insurance Act

H.R. 3823 Medicaid and SCHIP Beneficiary Choice Improvement Act

H.R. 3824 Expanded Health Insurance Options Act

H.R. 3887 Health Insurance Access for Young Workers and College

Students Act



Rooting Out Waste, Fraud, Abuse and Enhancing Transparency

H.R. 27 Medicare Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Act

H.R. 203 Medicare Fraud Prevention Act

H.R. 2249 Health Care Price Transparency Promotion Act

H.R. 2785 Health Care Paperwork Reduction and Fraud Prevention Act



Medical Liability Reform

H.R. 1086 Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare Act

H.R. 1468 Medical Justice Act

H.R. 2787 Medical Liability Procedural Reform Act

H.R. 2975 Medical Practice Protection Act

H.R. 3372 Health Care Over Use Reform Today Act



Prevention/Wellness

H.R. 3468 Promoting Health and Preventing Chronic Disease through Prevention and Wellness Programs for Employees, Communities, and Individuals Act



Preserving Doctor/Patient Relationship

H.R. 2516 Medical Rights Act

H.R. 3002 Patients Act



http://blunt.house.gov/Read.aspx?ID=1204

I suppose Reid is right. It's not just 1 bill.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

What is your position? It's obvious that you cannot maintain both "public option gonna be shit" and "public option gonna kill private insurance", as they're pretty much mutually exclusive.

Sure you can - look at all the problems with Medicare (current public option, gov't run insurance).

When you have the resources of the gov't behind it, you can make it cheap enough to undercut insurance companies, simultaneously fulfilling both your 'mutually exclusive' options above.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Sure you can - look at all the problems with Medicare (current public option, gov't run insurance).

Please be more specific - do you consider Medicare a good value option or bad value option? Would you get it yourself if you can afford private insurance?

Quote

When you have the resources of the gov't behind it, you can make it cheap enough to undercut insurance companies, simultaneously fulfilling both your 'mutually exclusive' options above.

"Cheap" is not the only criteria. In California you can get (at least in past) HealthNet health insurance, which was dirty cheap, but then you'd have hard time to find a doctor/hospital who would actually take it. Talk about value, price is only part of it.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[rushmc 23]

The longer is takes the less the chance

Quote

Top Dems: Obama Won't Get Health Care Bill in 2009

Senior Congressional Democrats say reform before end of year is highly unlikely.

Senior Congressional Democrats told ABC News today it is highly unlikely that a health care reform bill will be completed this year, just a week after President Barack Obama declared he was "absolutely confident" he'll be able to sign one by then.

"Getting this done by the by the end of the year is a no-go," a senior Democratic leadership aide told ABC News. Two other key Congressional Democrats also told ABC News the same thing.

This may come as an unwelcome surprise for the White House, where officials from the president on down have repeatedly said the health care bill would be signed into law by the end of the year.

"I am absolutely confident that we are going to get health care done by the end of this year, and Nancy Pelosi is just as confident," Obama said Oct. 27 at a fundraiser for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi may still be confident -- and her spokesman Brendan Daly said today, "We are going to get our part done" -- but the reason for the delay can be found in the Senate.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has yet to release the bill he eventually plans to bring to the Senate floor. Reid is still waiting for the Congressional Budget Office to come up with an estimated cost of several possible variations of his bill before deciding which one to introduce in the Senate.

That cost estimate, Democrats tell ABC News, is not expected until next week.

Asked directly by ABC News, "Will you pass health care reform this year?" Reid pointedly did not answer "yes."

Instead, he replied, "We are not going to be bound by any timetables," adding, "We are going to do this as quickly as we can."

The delay is causing some frustration among Reid's fellow Democrats, but Reid said of his colleagues, "They want us to do this the right way, not the fast way."
Health Care Reform Won't Be Finished This Year, Democrats Tell ABC News

After Reid made his comments, his spokesman said the goal remains getting a health care bill passed by the end of the year.

"Our goals remain unchanged," Reid spokesman Jim Manley said. "We want to get health insurance reform done this year, and we have unprecedented momentum to achieve that."

The White House has pushed hard to get a bill passed this year, getting it done before the beginning of the Congressional campaign season. But the delay in the Senate will almost certainly push the health care debate into 2010.

The White House has tried to avoid that because passing major legislation in a Congressional election year is considered more difficult.

The best hope, Congressional Democrats now say, is for Democrats to pass Senate and House versions of the health care bill by the end of the year, pushing off House-Senate negotiations for a final bill until January.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,116]

>The longer is takes the less the chance

Yep. Delay, deny, distort, deceive is working out pretty well for you.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>The longer is takes the less the chance

Yep. Delay, deny, distort, deceive is working out pretty well for you.

I see it more that the details see the light of day. And less and less like what they see.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>The longer is takes the less the chance

Yep. Delay, deny, distort, deceive is working out pretty well for you.

Speaking of....how's that whole "no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase" thing working out for you?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>The longer is takes the less the chance

Yep. Delay, deny, distort, deceive is working out pretty well for you.

and, if you remove the delay, these are the tactics used to try and pass the thing......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

If you're claiming that the government plan will be inexpensive and high-quality (i.e. very good considering the cost/benefits ratio), than you're basically saying that the government CAN run healthcare effectively, and compete with private industry very well.

Why is it that you don't understand WHY the govt plan will be inexpensive? It will be because it is essential to the stated purpose that it be "competitive", meaning less expensive no matter how much tax dollars have to be devoted to that end. The amount of tax dollars put to that purpose is a part of that "effectively competing" to which you refer.

The stated purpose of the govt plan will be to use anti-competitive practices to undercut private business. Employers will naturally want to save money, so they will be very tempted to put their employees on the plan.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Why is it that you don't understand WHY the govt plan will be inexpensive? It will be because it is essential to the stated purpose that it be "competitive", meaning less expensive no matter how much tax dollars have to be devoted to that end.

There are more variables here even if you only consider costs. It may cost less because it reimburses less, or cover less - my current plan, for example, covers massages and chiropractors which is blatantly stupid. It also may only cover necessities - for example, if you break a leg, you gonna get a government-paid cast, but no surgery. Neck pain? No immediate MRI for you, here are painkillers, and if things go worse get back in six month, and you might get your MRI. And so on.

There are a lot of ways to have it cheaper by providing less services. Even private industry already does it - for example, most HSA plans do not cover maternity.

Quote

The amount of tax dollars put to that purpose is a part of that "effectively competing" to which you refer.

Not true. First, the amount of tax dollars is limited, and it is very hard to collect more. Second, why would the government do this only for healthcare, and does not do this for example for USPS? The government indeed can offer free mail delivery covered by taxpayers, so why do you think it doesn't?

Quote

The stated purpose of the govt plan will be to use anti-competitive practices to undercut private business. Employers will naturally want to save money, so they will be very tempted to put their employees on the plan.

This is completely untrue. In most states there seems to be an "outsider" health insurance company, which provides the cheapest rates, but most doctors do not accept it. According to you, this should be the best choice for everyone, as it would save money, right?

I wonder if you travel everywhere by bus, as it seem to provide the best savings as well.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[rushmc 23]

I wonder if you travel everywhere by bus, as it seem to provide the best savings as well.

[sundevil777 102]

It seems that perhaps we're going back and forth over issues regarding exactly what a govt plan will actually be like and how it will be done in reality. We obviously don't know that yet. What we do know is that the Dem leadership in congress and our pres want it to be very competitive. From that I am concluding that it will be a very attractive service for a very attractive price, that will be very attractive to a lot of employers eager to save money. If the Dem leadership and the president fail to make it so, then they have failed at their stated goal and it will not have so much impact on private companies.

We don't yet know what will happen, I contend we do know what the Dem leadership and the pres want to happen.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Quote

The House Bill estimates that only 2% of the population will be enrolled in the public option and even that won't happen until 2019. What kind of competition is that?

If that is what actually happens, then of course it won't be that significant.

However, I don't believe that the gov't option will turn away customers. Pelosi, Reed, and Obama will be very happy to accept as many customers as want to enroll. Since it will be designed to be inexpensive, why wouldn't a lot of individuals and businesses choose it? I understand that others will believe that Pelosi, Reed, and Obama have no greater ambition for the govt option than 2% of the population, but I do not.

I tend to be in agreement with most of that. I find it highly doubtful that only 2% will try to join the cheapest health insurance available, which is exactly what happened in Hawaii. People dropped their expensive care for the cheap government option. Why wouldn't they? It eventually (ie. about 7 months) overloaded the system and it was cancelled. The bill is already estimated at $1.2T. Adding more people to the government option than planned will not make it cheaper. It will be immensely more expensive and will eventually go the way of Hawaii.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[billvon 3,116]

>The assertion that the GOP is not putting forth an alternative
>healthcare plan is a flat out lie.

Looks like Boehner is still a stinking liar then:

========
Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) was "hot" when news broke that a premature copy of his much-awaited healthcare bill had been published on the Internet, aides and GOP lawmakers told The Hill....

"It was a very unauthorized leak," the member told The Hill, noting that the GOP aides were still in discussions with staffers at the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

On Tuesday afternoon, GOP Conference Chairman Mike Pence (Ind.) had to tell reporters that the document was not, in fact, the final text of their bill.

"The Republican alternative is still a work in progress, and we’re putting the finishing touches on our legislation as we speak," Pence said hours after media outlets, including The Hill, posted copies of the document online.
========

But I am sure they will post it Real Soon Now.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

It seems that perhaps we're going back and forth over issues regarding exactly what a govt plan will actually be like and how it will be done in reality.

Not really. My point is that the fact the government plan will be cheap does not mean that it will provide exactly the same set of services on the same terms as your current $500/mo plan.

Quote

We obviously don't know that yet. What we do know is that the Dem leadership in congress and our pres want it to be very competitive. From that I am concluding that it will be a very attractive service for a very attractive price, that will be very attractive to a lot of employers eager to save money.

I would speculate that at least initially it gonna be so crappy in terms of value that only those who REALLY cannot afford anything else but still are not eligible to Medicare would get it. This is enough to get it competitive - look on Walmart which sells crap for cheap... even though I have never bought anything there, they're definitely very competitive. But, of course, nobody who can afford better would get this one.

Why would Congress make it very quality? It's not like they're signing up themselves there.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *