Healthcare Content (Protest Instructions) >>>>>

[Superfreakie]

New ABC poll, Support for Public Option, sampling error +/- 3%.

August
52% Favor
46% Oppose

Now                                         
57% Favor
40% Oppose

IMO, this is really good news. Without the public option, you essentially derive impotent policy from a bill that solves very little, exactly what the Republican leadership and insurance lobby are after. For, without the public option, the inevitable failures that would ensue would only serve as canon fodder come 2012.

Have any of you seen the figures pertaining to the amount spent by the insurance lobby since the fighting over this overhaul began? Last figure I saw bandied about was somewhere around 275 million. So who do you think is really going to lose if health care overhaul passes, the people or the insurance companies?  :lol:

[sls.stormyrider]

interesting.

Dave Axelrod was on GS Sunday AM talk show. He claims that in the mid 90s, 95% of premiums went into health care. Now, only about 80 - 85% of premiums go into health care. Guess where that extra 10 -15% (of a larger pie) is going?

sounds like a little old fashion competition is in order. These guys are exempt from anti - trust. McCain's idea about being able to buy insurance across state lines could also potentially increase competition as well.

to me, the interesting thing is how big a deal is being made by the public option - it will either save health care or ruin it, depending on who is speaking. My understanding is that the only people who would be eligible are those with incomes below a certain level who don't have employer provided insurance. Estimates are this is somewhere about 4% of the population.

[rowjimmy]

All I know is that each year, after my annual review, I am presented with the figures for my salary and "other compensation". Factored into the "other compensation" is the cost of my health and other benefits.

Guess which row has seen the most growth in the past five years?

The Health Benefit line, of course.

If they weren't paying so much (and more each year) for my health benefits, I might could see a bit of that money come home to my family.

Plus the firm could more likely afford to add staff where needed which equals more jobs.
Which equals economic growth.
Which leads to fewer people on welfare & such.


/just sayin'

[Superfreakie]

interesting.

Dave Axelrod was on GS Sunday AM talk show. He claims that in the mid 90s, 95% of premiums went into health care. Now, only about 80 - 85% of premiums go into health care. Guess where that extra 10 -15% (of a larger pie) is going?

sounds like a little old fashion competition is in order. These guys are exempt from anti - trust. McCain's idea about being able to buy insurance across state lines could also potentially increase competition as well.

to me, the interesting thing is how big a deal is being made by the public option - it will either save health care or ruin it, depending on who is speaking. My understanding is that the only people who would be eligible are those with incomes below a certain level who don't have employer provided insurance. Estimates are this is somewhere about 4% of the population.

Here is my Coles notes reason, please don't take me to task on it as I have to get some real work done today and can not get caught in a paug debate  :lol:

A public option is so incredibly important because it will finally establish a national price scale. The greatest problem with the US system is that the prices are not set according to true market forces for reasons such as one insurance company having a monopoly over an entire state, or a couple insurance companies setting prices in collusion (yes, this is illegal but do you really think this is not what is happening right now, why would premiums be increasing four times faster than the annual rate of inflation. Keep in mind, what McCain proposed about doing away with state lines, while increasing competition would not solve anything if the collusion I just mentioned was in play). By having a private option, all of a sudden you create a national pricing index against which private companies can push and the public can balance. In a roundabout way, by providing coverage for the poor, it will prevent gross insurance surcharges for everyone. This is why the insurance companies are spending millions to prevent this, their huge profit margins will be exposed and vanish. This is why these poor and middle class people who argue against it at town halls don't have a fucking clue what they are doing. Unless you are wealthy, you should be jumping up and down for a public option, regardless of whether you directly benefit. Is it fair the insurance companies should be setting prices according to the government competition? Not necessarily, but as I said, true market forces are not being allowed influence in the present system, so there is no other option but government intervention to create fairness for the consumer. 

Not sure if this makes sense. I'm busy but maybe I will return later to clarify some things.

[sls.stormyrider]

All I know is that each year, after my annual review, I am presented with the figures for my salary and "other compensation". Factored into the "other compensation" is the cost of my health and other benefits.

Guess which row has seen the most growth in the past five years?

The Health Benefit line, of course.

If they weren't paying so much (and more each year) for my health benefits, I might could see a bit of that money come home to my family.

Plus the firm could more likely afford to add staff where needed which equals more jobs.
Which equals economic growth.
Which leads to fewer people on welfare & such.


/just sayin'

exactly

Here is my Coles notes reason, please don't take me to task on it as I have to get some real work done today and can not get caught in a paug debate  :lol:

A public option is so incredibly important because it will finally establish a national price scale. The greatest problem with the US system is that the prices are not set according to true market forces for reasons such as one insurance company having a monopoly over an entire state, or a couple insurance companies setting prices in collusion (yes, this is illegal but do you really think this is not what is happening right now, why would premiums be increasing four times faster than the annual rate of inflation. Keep in mind, what McCain proposed about doing away with state lines, while increasing competition would not solve anything if the collusion I just mentioned was in play). By having a private option, all of a sudden you create a national pricing index against which private companies can push and the public can balance. In a roundabout way, by providing coverage for the poor, it will prevent gross insurance surcharges for everyone. This is why the insurance companies are spending millions to prevent this, their huge profit margins will be exposed and vanish. This is why these poor and middle class people who argue against it at town halls don't have a fucking clue what they are doing. Unless you are wealthy, you should be jumping up and down for a public option, regardless of whether you directly benefit. Is it fair the insurance companies should be setting prices according to the government competition? Not necessarily, but as I said, true market forces are not being allowed influence in the present system, so there is no other option but government intervention to create fairness for the consumer. 

Not sure if this makes sense. I'm busy but maybe I will return later to clarify some things.

makes sense. the insurance system, while competitive in parts of the country (like New England) is not competitive at all in much of the country. It is my impression that most of the abuses take place where the insurance is least competitive, but I have no data to back that up.

so - we need more competition. honest competition, without collusion.

I agree, it seems like the people screaming the loudest against the public option are the people who will benefit most (not counting Congressmen in that).

My issues regarding the public option is that
1)as I understand it, very few people will be affected by it. It will impact those people who don't have insurance (positively I suspect) but I don't see it as the cure-all or wrecking ball to the system, as people will argue

2) the govt has a track record for underfunding some things, like Medicare, and paying waaaay too much for other things, like defense contracts. The Medicare reimbursement system is flawed on many levels. Forgive me if I'm repeating myself, but Mayo clinic, reportedly one of the most efficient (economically) and high quality systems in the US, also is reportedly losing money on their Medicare patients. With or without a public option, the reimbursement system needs to be fixed - paying appropriately for required services and discouraging (or not paying for) unnecessary / redundant services. The drug and equipment companies and the liability system all need to be put in line with reality, too.

[Superfreakie]

My issues regarding the public option is that
1)as I understand it, very few people will be affected by it. It will impact those people who don't have insurance (positively I suspect) but I don't see it as the cure-all or wrecking ball to the system, as people will argue

2) the govt has a track record for underfunding some things, like Medicare, and paying waaaay too much for other things, like defense contracts.

Answers

1) Here is the best way to explain public option. The government comes in and says that, after much research (not funded by insurance companies), a heart by-pass will cost 1000$. Then there is an insurance company somewhere that is trying to put together a plan for middle class clients and on it they decide to write that, after their research, the cost of a by-pass is 10,000$. Well, then the middle class clients go "how is that possible, the govt says it can do it for a 1000$". Then the insurance company goes ooops our bad, we will charge 2000$, a thousand more but you get some bells and whistles.

2) Govt like business requires proper oversight. Each fails without it as they suffer the same problems, save one being slightly more concerned about profit margin.

[sls.stormyrider]

right - but the gov't has gotten it wrong so many times. The way CMS decides on what to pay for something is they see what they are paying the most money for and decide it's too much, then say it should be less. It seems as if they know the answer they want and find a way to get it (see my post from a few days ago or the WSJ editorial here http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574443472658898710.html)

I'm not against the concept of a public option, and I don't inherently mistrust the gov't, but I don't inherently trust them either. If they get it wrong, it literally takes an act of Congress to fix it.

Other things have to change as well for this to work - the CER they are proposing is a good idea. It's just more complex, imo than public option or not.

Even with single payer systems, Canada and W Europe are wrestling with containing health care costs

[Superfreakie]

Even with single payer systems, Canada and W Europe are wrestling with containing health care costs

IMO this is what health care should be. Personally, I favor the single payer with a possible private option, a hybrid like in France but, as you mention, there are troubles containing costs. However, this burden must be shouldered by all if you believe in some permutation of social morality. It is harder to sell this in a country such as the United States which is founded on the bastion of individualism. In Europe, health care is an inherent cost that society must bear because it is a moral duty. For relinquishing some of your individual rights to join society, your participation is rewarded with health care and other protections such as the rule of law. And yes, maybe you pay more taxes, but you know what, you are better off than most other societies on earth, be satisfied.

[fauxpaxfauxreal]

Lollerz.  American morality.

[sls.stormyrider]

Even with single payer systems, Canada and W Europe are wrestling with containing health care costs

IMO this is what health care should be. Personally, I favor the single payer with a possible private option, a hybrid like in France but, as you mention, there are troubles containing costs. However, this burden must be shouldered by all if you believe in some permutation of social morality. It is harder to sell this in a country such as the United States which is founded on the bastion of individualism. In Europe, health care is an inherent cost that society must bear because it is a moral duty. For relinquishing some of your individual rights to join society, your participation is rewarded with health care and other protections such as the rule of law.

once again, no problem with that, either. I suspect you and I are on the same side of the argument, just to different degrees.
To clarify, I think everyone has the right to coverage.
A true "free market" system won't / can't / hasn't worked imo.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that we need to keep our eyes open, there is more than one thing that needs to be fixed, a "public option" or single payer system doesn't make all the other problems go away, and if done improperly, could make it worse.

[fauxpaxfauxreal]

Also, the public option covers a failure of the measure by those who would not be able to afford health care, but would be required (by law) to purchase it.  I thought it was shady that they were mandating that everyone in the nation buy healthcare, which in turn mandates that everyone in the nation possess money without actually mandating that everyone in the nation has access to money.

[sls.stormyrider]

yes, true.
the same could be accomplished by subsidized pvt insurance or by expanding Medicaid, which already exists.

not disagreeing with you, just playing  :evil: advocate

[fauxpaxfauxreal]

Oh, yeah, totally.  The way the Baucus bill sounds is that you buy insurance or you pay a fine.  If you don't have money for insurance, do you have money to pay the fine?  Probably not.  "Who cares for those people", you ask?  "We all should", is my answer.

[Superfreakie]

Even with single payer systems, Canada and W Europe are wrestling with containing health care costs

IMO this is what health care should be. Personally, I favor the single payer with a possible private option, a hybrid like in France but, as you mention, there are troubles containing costs. However, this burden must be shouldered by all if you believe in some permutation of social morality. It is harder to sell this in a country such as the United States which is founded on the bastion of individualism. In Europe, health care is an inherent cost that society must bear because it is a moral duty. For relinquishing some of your individual rights to join society, your participation is rewarded with health care and other protections such as the rule of law.

once again, no problem with that, either. I suspect you and I are on the same side of the argument, just to different degrees.
To clarify, I think everyone has the right to coverage.
A true "free market" system won't / can't / hasn't worked imo.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that we need to keep our eyes open, there is more than one thing that needs to be fixed, a "public option" or single payer system doesn't make all the other problems go away, and if done improperly, could make it worse.

Tax the rich and get them to pay for it. But that's socialism  :wink: 

[sls.stormyrider]

Oh, yeah, totally.  The way the Baucus bill sounds is that you buy insurance or you pay a fine.  If you don't have money for insurance, do you have money to pay the fine?  Probably not.  "Who cares for those people", you ask?  "We all should", is my answer.

in theory, anyone who can't afford insurance will have some or all of it covered by gov't funds.
in practice, the question is where you draw the lines

and, yes, we all should care