Look Out, It's On It's Way!

The health panel's $600 billion measure would require individuals to get health insurance and employers to contribute to the cost. The bill calls for the government to provide financial assistance with premiums for individuals and families making up to four times the federal poverty level, or about $88,000 for a family of four, a broad cross-section of the middle class.

gringaloca wrote:

Lucas McCain wrote:

Not exactly how I read it.. Why would you choose to pay for insurance when you could get it for "free"..

Because some people are stubborn. I know LOTS of folks who fear change even if that means it will cost them money. I could even see republicans refusing it simply out of spite because it was something those darn liberals came up with. And another thing, not all insurance costs people. My husband receives full benefits through his employer which includes health/dental/vision etc. at no cost to him whatsoever. If someone liked that kind of coverage enough, why drop it? There are also the young who think they are made of steel and irresponsible with their health. They could very well not sign up for it simply out of ignorance. There are lots of different scenarios. This plan is being made primarily for people who are unable to obtain insurance because they are either too poor or because insurance agencies won't accept them because of pre-existing conditions, which is just plain evil. Insurance companies have been making money hand over fist for years. They could easily offer a low cost insurance plan to every person in this country but that would mean the CEO might have to give up his super yacht and Lord knows we can't have that!

The biggest problem I have with BHO and his partners in this government health care is this. When he stands up and says "If you want to keep the plan you have now, you can...If you want to keep the doctor you have now, you can" I see it as misleading or may go as far as calling it a blatant lie. Here's why. Private business (even health care) must make some kind of profit that at least equals their risk or they cannot survive for long. Government health care will NOT have to make a profit therefore pushing the private company that provides your husband with full benefits out of business. It won't take long till the average Joe will only have one option (government), and then only the truly rich will be able to choose the care they want.

^ Then is it fair to say that the government insurance option would be on par with current private insurers? If price is all that is going to squeeze them out of business (and employer insurance plans are tax exempt currently so they're already receiving a form of a subsidy) then service would need to be similar. To put it another way, I wouldn't pay fifty cents less a gallon for gas if I knew it was substantially inferior to the normally priced gas.

And I've yet to see a detailed argument as to why or how the government insurance option would be inferior to current private insurance options, particularly considering the paucity of market mechanisms operating in the insurance industry presently.

Ja'far wrote:

^ Then is it fair to say that the government insurance option would be on par with current private insurers? If price is all that is going to squeeze them out of business (and employer insurance plans are tax exempt currently so they're already receiving a form of a subsidy) then service would need to be similar. To put it another way, I wouldn't pay fifty cents less a gallon for gas if I knew it was substantially inferior to the normally priced gas.

And I've yet to see a detailed argument as to why or how the government insurance option would be inferior to current private insurance options, particularly considering the paucity of market mechanisms operating in the insurance industry presently.

In the beginning govt insurance will "compare" with the private long enough to set the hook. If the government provides the same exact care as the best provider available without having to make a profit, private goes down along with the quality of care. Then our options are gone. Yes, I understand that the private side will then try to revive but the government will do whatever they have to do to keep the grip. They will tax the private side out if they want. They have the power my friend. There's no need to tear down the house for a leaky roof.

And I've yet to see a detailed argument as to why we should trust the government to be inferior to ANYTHING done in the private sector, particularly considering the audacity of it's leaders and the enormity of it's wasteful ways.

PLUS, Many people will take the cheaper (maybe not as good) government plan just because it is available and cheaper. This will also help put the private providers out. Putting the private providers out is a goal of theirs, Right?

The nature of the US insurance industry insulates companies from the most important mechanism of capitalism: competition. The large majority of Americans get their insurance through their employer, thus the only real competition between insurance companies exists through how cheaply they can provide coverage, not providing the best coverage. People don’t choose their insurance provider, it’s chosen for them and they are not in a reasonable position to opt for a competing company’s service if they perceive it as better. Additionally, people may not fully understand their policy or their insurance company until they have used it. This could lead to people going for years without having much information to evaluate their company on and thus there is only limited potential to provide market feedback (and this is assuming providing feedback would be viable anyhow).

By its nature, insurance is not well suited for competition. Insurance is possible only through volume as insurance companies must pool risk. Clearly, in order to be profitable insurance companies need the amount of premiums coming in to exceed the amount of benefits being paid out. Therefore, insurance companies need a lot of people paying in so that when they do have to pay out for something expensive, it won’t terribly offend their bottom line. All of this is to say that insurance companies need to be very large and the nature of the industry creates a significant barrier to entry in and of itself. Put another way, competition is significantly limited. Indeed, the insurance sectors is perhaps the most consolidated in the economy, reaching monopolistic levels if analyzed along regional lines.

The opposite, in terms of information and feedback, would occur in the relationship between the consumer and the medical professional. The consumer would have a great deal of information concerning service and effect (and the ability to respond to it), but limited information concerning price since the insurance provider covers most of the cost. Therefore, the insurance companies negotiate pricing with the doctors and hospitals or they limit the choice of their coverage holders to the providers with the cheapest rates. Again, this is to say competition is convoluted and limited.

Considering this situation and that the US healthcare system is incredibly expensive I think it is reasonable policy for the government to provide an insurance option. Through this, coverage can be extended universally and preventive care can be enhanced while inefficiencies in the current insurance system can be replaced. Doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceuticals will remain private and their services and effects will be subject to competition, which is a reasoned argument for why the US may have better quality in those aspects. This could potentially boost competition among insurers as well since the government option will provide considerable pressure on existing insurance companies to do things the government does not or will not do.

SKINNYPIG wrote:

PLUS, Many people will take the cheaper (maybe not as good) government plan just because it is available and cheaper. This will also help put the private providers out. Putting the private providers out is a goal of theirs, Right?

Since nearly all get their insurance through their employer, they wouldn't be presented with that choice anyway, unless the employer switched the government option. And the rationale behind employers providing coverage, or at least the initial rationale, was as an incentive; to recruit the best employees. If the government provides an inferior service, will employers not want to continue the incentive policy? Furthermore, the norm of employer based healthcare can potentially stymie entrepreneurship and the desire for employees to attempt to move to different occupations/companies/levels/etc. since there would be potential to lose necessary coverage.

Ja'far wrote:

SKINNYPIG wrote:

PLUS, Many people will take the cheaper (maybe not as good) government plan just because it is available and cheaper. This will also help put the private providers out. Putting the private providers out is a goal of theirs, Right?

Since nearly all get their insurance through their employer, they wouldn't be presented with that choice anyway, unless the employer switched the government option. And the rationale behind employers providing coverage, or at least the initial rationale, was as an incentive; to recruit the best employees. If the government provides an inferior service, will employers not want to continue the incentive policy? Furthermore, the norm of employer based healthcare can potentially stymie entrepreneurship and the desire for employees to attempt to move to different occupations/companies/levels/etc. since there would be potential to lose necessary coverage.

Ja'far.... I just love reading your posts. I wish they had a "we're not worthy" emoticon.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/16/house-dems-votes-health/

The director of the Congressional Budget Office issued a warning to Democrats Thursday that their health care proposals would raise costs, not lower them.

And another thing, not all insurance costs people. My husband receives full benefits through his employer which includes health/dental/vision etc. at no cost to him whatsoever. If someone liked that kind of coverage enough, why drop it?

If Obamas plan passes you can kiss this option good-by..

gringaloca wrote:

Ja'far.... I just love reading your posts. I wish they had a "we're not worthy" emoticon.

Gracias.

Lucas McCain wrote:

And another thing, not all insurance costs people. My husband receives full benefits through his employer which includes health/dental/vision etc. at no cost to him whatsoever. If someone liked that kind of coverage enough, why drop it?

If Obamas plan passes you can kiss this option good-by..

Exactly Lucas! I believe our choices will be gone before long if it passes. Page 16 of the Bill states that if you currently are not covered, you will ONLY be able to take the Government option. YOU WILL NOT HAVE A CHOICE! It's another step into our front door folks, another step towards taking freedom and liberty. For all of you supporters that don't believe it, read it for yourself and tell us what you think...page 16. I'm anxious to hear your defense.

IMO Americans are in fact "worthy" of making our own decisions/choices, even when it comes to our health.

Ja'far wrote:

The nature of the US insurance industry insulates companies from the most important mechanism of capitalism: competition. The large majority of Americans get their insurance through their employer, thus the only real competition between insurance companies exists through how cheaply they can provide coverage, not providing the best coverage. People don’t choose their insurance provider, it’s chosen for them and they are not in a reasonable position to opt for a competing company’s service if they perceive it as better. Additionally, people may not fully understand their policy or their insurance company until they have used it. This could lead to people going for years without having much information to evaluate their company on and thus there is only limited potential to provide market feedback (and this is assuming providing feedback would be viable anyhow).

By its nature, insurance is not well suited for competition. Insurance is possible only through volume as insurance companies must pool risk. Clearly, in order to be profitable insurance companies need the amount of premiums coming in to exceed the amount of benefits being paid out. Therefore, insurance companies need a lot of people paying in so that when they do have to pay out for something expensive, it won’t terribly offend their bottom line. All of this is to say that insurance companies need to be very large and the nature of the industry creates a significant barrier to entry in and of itself. Put another way, competition is significantly limited. Indeed, the insurance sectors is perhaps the most consolidated in the economy, reaching monopolistic levels if analyzed along regional lines.

The opposite, in terms of information and feedback, would occur in the relationship between the consumer and the medical professional. The consumer would have a great deal of information concerning service and effect (and the ability to respond to it), but limited information concerning price since the insurance provider covers most of the cost. Therefore, the insurance companies negotiate pricing with the doctors and hospitals or they limit the choice of their coverage holders to the providers with the cheapest rates. Again, this is to say competition is convoluted and limited.

Considering this situation and that the US healthcare system is incredibly expensive I think it is reasonable policy for the government to provide an insurance option. Through this, coverage can be extended universally and preventive care can be enhanced while inefficiencies in the current insurance system can be replaced. Doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceuticals will remain private and their services and effects will be subject to competition, which is a reasoned argument for why the US may have better quality in those aspects. This could potentially boost competition among insurers as well since the government option will provide considerable pressure on existing insurance companies to do things the government does not or will not do.

I must say Ja'far, very impressive. And I agree I may not be worthy of reading such bliss. I could never, and I mean never compete with your wisdom and articulate writing skills. Just one thing though. Please tell this hard working regular guy that believes in less government intrusions why I should trust the government in this health reform endeavor. What examples can I go by that would make me feel better about this government spending billions more dollars (we don't have) on this reform? Please use your wisdom and superior writing skills to get down to my level. It's obvious some of us are not worthy.

It's a joke Annie, please don't edit.

SKINNYPIG wrote:

Exactly Lucas! I believe our choices will be gone before long if it passes. Page 16 of the Bill states that if you currently are not covered, you will ONLY be able to take the Government option. YOU WILL NOT HAVE A CHOICE! It's another step into our front door folks, another step towards taking freedom and liberty. For all of you supporters that don't believe it, read it for yourself and tell us what you think...page 16. I'm anxious to hear your defense.

IMO Americans are in fact "worthy" of making our own decisions/choices, even when it comes to our health.

I'm not sure whether you are referring to the House or Senate version. I have the House version up and don't see that. From my understanding of the bill, individuals will be required to have some form of health insurance - not necessarily the government's - or be required to pay a tax for not having coverage. While that removes the individual prerogative to not have coverage, it still leaves open choices among providers. I assume your complaint here is with the mandate vis-a-vis liberty. For the record, it's a complaint I would normally share and if it is your argument it is undeniable. However, in the case of health care, it is prudent policy for several reasons, and perhaps worth the aberration from my normally libertarian stance:

1. As mentioned previously, insurance works by pooling risk. Requiring all to have coverage hedges that risk.
   
2. Mandating coverage increases competition and necessary market forces. Simply, a mandate means an increase in demand (vs. supply) which leads to lower prices or, to put another way, greater competition.
   
3. Ultimately, it's the only way to achieve universal coverage and is hardly-intrusive as opting to not have insurance is a miserable idea.

SKINNYPIG wrote:

I must say Ja'far, very impressive. And I agree I may not be worthy of reading such bliss. I could never, and I mean never compete with your wisdom and articulate writing skills. Just one thing though. Please tell this hard working regular guy that believes in less government intrusions why I should trust the government in this health reform endeavor. What examples can I go by that would make me feel better about this government spending billions more dollars (we don't have) on this reform? Please use your wisdom and superior writing skills to get down to my level. It's obvious some of us are not worthy.

It's a joke Annie, please don't edit.

I've always welcomed open debate and I always support my arguments. I don't find this conducive to it, though.

Ja'far wrote:

SKINNYPIG wrote:

I must say Ja'far, very impressive. And I agree I may not be worthy of reading such bliss. I could never, and I mean never compete with your wisdom and articulate writing skills. Just one thing though. Please tell this hard working regular guy that believes in less government intrusions why I should trust the government in this health reform endeavor. What examples can I go by that would make me feel better about this government spending billions more dollars (we don't have) on this reform? Please use your wisdom and superior writing skills to get down to my level. It's obvious some of us are not worthy.

It's a joke Annie, please don't edit.

I've always welcomed open debate and I always support my arguments. I don't find this conducive to it, though.

Please forget my hogwash and tell me why I should trust this government on this health reform endeavor. Heck! Why should I trust them to TAKE my money and do anything with it? What examples can I go by that would make me feel better about this government spending billions more dollars (we don't have) on this reform? They won't read Bills, they are ignoring a big part of this countries population, they seem to be overly self serving, they are spending like drunken sailors, they are the most partisan bunch I can recall and I simply do not trust them. ALL of them...All parties. I'm not blaming democrats, republicans or Obama, I'm blaming the whole lot.

BHO and the rest of the reform supporters keep spewing that 50 some million Americans are uninsured. According to the census...10 or 15 million of those "Americans" are illegal aliens. Another 15 or twenty million of those are younger citizens earning over 50k a year that CHOOSE not to buy insurance. Look, it boils down to somewhere between 8 & 14 million Americans are uninsured. That is a very small percentage. Why spend a TRILLION dollars tearing down the house when all we have is a leaky roof?

I cannot trust this government to provide me with the best care at the best price. End of sentence.

ANYONE, please, anyone tell me why I should.

Please forget my hogwash and tell me why I should trust this government on this health reform endeavor. Heck! Why should I trust them to TAKE my money and do anything with it? What examples can I go by that would make me feel better about this government spending billions more dollars (we don't have) on this reform? They won't read Bills, they are ignoring a big part of this countries population, they seem to be overly self serving, they are spending like drunken sailors, they are the most partisan bunch I can recall and I simply do not trust them. ALL of them...All parties. I'm not blaming democrats, republicans or Obama, I'm blaming the whole lot.

BHO and the rest of the reform supporters keep spewing that 50 some million Americans are uninsured. According to the census...10 or 15 million of those "Americans" are illegal aliens. Another 15 or twenty million of those are younger citizens earning over 50k a year that CHOOSE not to buy insurance. Look, it boils down to somewhere between 8 & 14 million Americans are uninsured. That is a very small percentage. Why spend a TRILLION dollars tearing down the house when all we have is a leaky roof?

I cannot trust this government to provide me with the best care at the best price. End of sentence.

ANYONE, please, anyone tell me why I should.


Best post of this thread and I bet you don't get any answers other than more retoric.

SKINNYPIG wrote:

Please forget my hogwash and tell me why I should trust this government on this health reform endeavor. Heck! Why should I trust them to TAKE my money and do anything with it? What examples can I go by that would make me feel better about this government spending billions more dollars (we don't have) on this reform? They won't read Bills, they are ignoring a big part of this countries population, they seem to be overly self serving, they are spending like drunken sailors, they are the most partisan bunch I can recall and I simply do not trust them. ALL of them...All parties. I'm not blaming democrats, republicans or Obama, I'm blaming the whole lot.

I haven’t seen anything with this particular administration, if that is what you mean, than has not been in existence with any other administration.

SKINNYPIG wrote:

BHO and the rest of the reform supporters keep spewing that 50 some million Americans are uninsured. According to the census...10 or 15 million of those "Americans" are illegal aliens. Another 15 or twenty million of those are younger citizens earning over 50k a year that CHOOSE not to buy insurance. Look, it boils down to somewhere between 8 & 14 million Americans are uninsured. That is a very small percentage. Why spend a TRILLION dollars tearing down the house when all we have is a leaky roof?

There is a lot more wrong with our health care system other than having uninsured citizens. However, I personally consider that a rather large problem and also expect you to support your numbers.

I have previously outlined multiple problems with the current “market-based” health care system from a theoretical perspective. As to how it is manifest in practical application, consider: 9-10% yearly increases in costs of health care (more than triple that of inflation) without an accompanying increase in service(1), a subsequent increase in out of pocket expense for premiums by the individual not covered by the tax-exempt amount paid by the employer, medical professionals exponentially over-prescribe and require a staggering array of superfluous procedures and treatments(2), deaths by way of medical “mistake” are among the most prevalent killer of Americans in terms of health(3), deaths associated with legal, prescription drugs surpass those related to cocaine and heroin(4), there is little ability for the streamlining of health information including records and referrals(5), insurance frequently does not cover necessary procedures and/or forces unnecessary delays in treatment(6). I could go on.

SKINNYPIG wrote:

I cannot trust this government to provide me with the best care at the best price. End of sentence.

ANYONE, please, anyone tell me why I should.

Considering the government will not be providing you with care - as doctors, hospitals, pharmacists, etc. will be doing that – it is difficult to argue that the standard of care would be reduced. In this case, the government would be providing an insurance option. Current insurance policies are not tempered by capitalistic competition (as noted before) and are thus motivated to lessen coverage, deny coverage, and increase rates to the individual. The government option would be beholden to laws rather than monopolistic profit motives. And, again, insurance requires the collection and pooling of risk, thus the government is in a vastly superior position to do this, giving it massive leverage in negotiating the price of care it is paying for, as insurance companies do currently, thus lowering the price.

Additionally, the United States’ health system costs roughly 16% of GDP, while most other developed countries’ systems cost a fraction of that, thanks large in part to the reasons cited in this and previous posts of mine. Mixing in the increased ability for preventive care and the thinning of patients crowding into emergency rooms for routine care, the costs of the system would be further reduced while bettering service.

This is not to say the government will not be incurring debt, as it will despite pledges for cost-neutrality. I would also prefer the costs of the system to be spread out among the tax brackets, rather than lumped into the top bracket. However, over time the costs of the system will be reduced and a significant benefit will be passed on to the taxpayers.

(1)[http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE55H68320090618]
(2)[http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=1]
(3)[http://www.healthgrades.com/media/DMS/pdf/HealthGradesPatientSafetyRelease2007.pdf]
(4)[http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/16/1752]
(5)[http://www.mahealthdata.org/hipaa/resources/general/benefits.html]
(6) [I could cite a prodigious number of anecdotal stories supporting this, including the existence of insurance operated call centers and the use and prevalence of denied referrals.]

O'Reilly makes excellent points on healthcare bill...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/07/16/oreilly_on_health_care_bill_con_or_great_thing.html

Chamber rips healthcare bill.. http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/u.s.-chamber-rips-senate-healthcare-bill-2009-06-16.html

Page 16.... It didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.
Quote:
When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.

It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:

"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.

So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.

CBO bashes healthcare bill....

Congress's chief budget analyst delivered a devastating assessment yesterday of the health-care proposals drafted by congressional Democrats, fueling an insurrection among fiscal conservatives in the House and pushing negotiators in the Senate to redouble efforts to draw up a new plan that more effectively restrains federal spending.

Under questioning by members of the Senate Budget Committee, Douglas Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, said bills crafted by House leaders and the Senate health committee do not propose "the sort of fundamental changes" necessary to rein in the skyrocketing cost of government health programs, particularly Medicare. On the contrary, Elmendorf said, the measures would pile on an expensive new program to cover the uninsured.

Quote:
PRESIDENT Obama promises that "if you like your health plan, you can keep it," even after he reforms our health-care system. That's untrue. The bills now before Congress would force you to switch to a managed-care plan with limits on your access to specialists and tests.
Quote:
When you file your taxes, if you can't prove to the IRS that you are in a qualified plan, you'll be fined thousands of dollars -- as much as the average cost of a health plan for your family size -- and then automatically enrolled in a randomly selected plan (House bill, p. 167-168).
Quote:
It's one thing to require that people getting government assistance tolerate managed care, but the legislation limits you to a managed-care plan even if you and your employer are footing the bill (Senate bill, p. 57-58). The goal is to reduce everyone's consumption of health care and to ensure that people have the same health-care experience, regardless of ability to pay.
Quote:
Shockingly, only a portion of the money accumulated from slashing senior benefits and raising taxes goes to pay for covering the uninsured. The Senate bill allocates huge sums to "community transformation grants," home visits for expectant families, services for migrant workers -- and the creation of dozens of new government councils, programs and advisory boards slipped into the last 500 pages.

Can any one tell me anything good about this bill?? If you agree with the bill, WHY??