Senate committee approves health care plan

Bryan · 10-13-2009, 02:52 PM

Senate committee approves health care plan | Top Stories | Star-Telegram

any bill that doesn't include a public option should be thrown in the trash.

JerryLove · 10-13-2009, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryan

any bill that doesn't include a public option should be thrown in the trash.

Agreed.

nolidad · 10-13-2009, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryan

Senate committee approves health care plan | Top Stories | Star-Telegram

any bill that doesn't include a public option should be thrown in the trash.

Well not to worry this is only one of five bills (those this isn't even a bill yet- it hasn't even been written up).

The 2 in the senate ahve no public option while the three in the house have public options. It will all boil down to cost est. from the CBO and how much pork is tacked on to the final bill that will get voted on.

JerryLove · 10-13-2009, 05:59 PM

123 people died today because of poor health insurance. 123 more will die tomorrow.

**H.M. Murdock** · 10-13-2009, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nolidad

The 2 in the senate ahve no public option while the three in the house have public options. It will all boil down to cost est. from the CBO and how much pork is tacked on to the final bill that will get voted on.

Actually, it will come down to what benefits the insurance companies the most.

I am supremely upset at the proposed penalties for persons who do not choose to have insurance. I don't have insurance now because I can't afford it. Which is why the public option is a great idea- it is a disgusting thing for a person to file bankruptcy because they get sick. But the idea of being fined for not having insurance just guarantees that the insurance companies get a guaranteed customer base to play with as they please. Screw this bill. It's a bandaid on ruptured valve, and really all it does is boost taxes without really increasing the number of people who can receive coverage that really need it.

JerryLove · 10-13-2009, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by H.M. Murdock

Screw this bill. It's a bandaid on ruptured valve, and really all it does is boost taxes without really increasing the number of people who can receive coverage that really need it.

Actually: I think it's a republican plot.

Democrats pass nothing? Republicans win.

Democrats pass a "compromise bill" that forces people into private companies, creates new government spending to private companies, and a spectacular "coop" failure: Republicans win.

nolidad · 10-14-2009, 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by H.M. Murdock

Actually, it will come down to what benefits the insurance companies the most.

I am supremely upset at the proposed penalties for persons who do not choose to have insurance. I don't have insurance now because I can't afford it. Which is why the public option is a great idea- it is a disgusting thing for a person to file bankruptcy because they get sick. But the idea of being fined for not having insurance just guarantees that the insurance companies get a guaranteed customer base to play with as they please. Screw this bill. It's a bandaid on ruptured valve, and really all it does is boost taxes without really increasing the number of people who can receive coverage that really need it.

Mandating INsurance for all is a good thing if you are going to require insurance companies to cover pre existing conditions. Insurance pools money from many people to pay the expenses of those who need it. If the young and healthy are not required to purchase insurance, then the insurance companies eventually will go bankrupt.

Free insurance is not free. Somebody has to pay the expenses of those whouse it. If insurance companies are not allowed to expand the base of people covered, then they will have to increase rrates amongst all the people in the plan and eventually making insurance cost prohibitive

Example: You have 10 people who want to protect themselves against a damage or injury of $100.per incident. They hire someone to pay the claims. It is estimates that in any year $300 will be needed to pay claims, the hired persaon gets to make 9% and you establish a reserve of $50 a year for unforseen claims. So you nned $381.50 a year or $38.51 per policy. If you can only take on new people who need to file claims then you drain the reserves and increase the outflow odf cash thus forcing an increase in premiums. So if you add 10 new people and those ten need to file their $100 claims, now you have claims of 1,300 per year. Excluding paying your agent , and establishing reserves you now have expenses for twenty people of of $69 /person Thus you have doubled your out of pocket costs.

But if you are allowed to take on people who also are not expected to file claims for a long time- you lower the cost per claim/person because you spread the risk among more people.

Also the public option will require you to pay premiums. Here people who do not have the public option will be required to subsidize those who are in the public option by increased taxes.

Than · 10-14-2009, 09:15 AM

If coverage is going to mandated, there should be a public option, plain and simple. If the gov't is going to require it, then they should at least offer something. I don't really like the idea of being thrown at the mercy of Excellus, etc., even with more regulation.

Ax · 10-14-2009, 10:11 AM

I did like how they said that they were gonna tax insurance companies whose premiums were too high. What I didn't see, which I believe is necessary, is that it should be illegal for a drug corp to offer a drug cheaper overseas than in the U.S., which does happen. Also, possibly capping markup on production.

JerryLove · 10-14-2009, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nolidad

Mandating INsurance for all is a good thing if you are going to require insurance companies to cover pre existing conditions. Insurance pools money from many people to pay the expenses of those who need it. If the young and healthy are not required to purchase insurance, then the insurance companies eventually will go bankrupt.

Or, as is the case with personal insurance, the prices will simply be unaffordable.

But you are correct. You cannot mandate pre-existing coverage without mandating coverage.

Quote:

Free insurance is not free. Somebody has to pay the expenses of those whouse it. If insurance companies are not allowed to expand the base of people covered, then they will have to increase rrates amongst all the people in the plan and eventually making insurance cost prohibitive

More precisely, if it expands only to include the sickest of people, it will drive up costs.

Quote:

Also the public option will require you to pay premiums. Here people who do not have the public option will be required to subsidize those who are in the public option by increased taxes.

"Increased taxes" assumes that the system is incapable of funding them within existing premiums, and that there's no offsetting cost-savings.

But people without insurance now will, effectively, have a new tax (an insurance premium, however collected). This should lower premiums for the rest of us (both because some of the lowest-cost people are coming in, and because treatment of chronic conditions is cheaper than the accute results of untreated chronic conditions, which we currently pay for.)

tlj009 · 10-15-2009, 08:23 AM

Quote:

But people without insurance now will, effectively, have a new tax (an insurance premium, however collected). This should lower premiums for the rest of us (both because some of the lowest-cost people are coming in, and because treatment of chronic conditions is cheaper than the accute results of untreated chronic conditions, which we currently pay for.)

I kinda worry about those people who are currently receiving some sort of government aid for their medical care. I want to know if someone who is currently receiving free medical would suddenly have a new insurance premium or copay that they can't afford. I also want to know if charity hospitals are likely to lose government funding in order to pay for this new bill. I just can't seem to find these answers.

Ax · 10-15-2009, 08:38 AM

As a human being and a Christian, I want universal healthcare to work. As a realist, I don't think it can and it will hurt those it intends to help thru economic strain. But from either standpoint, I see this version of the bill as being completely ridiculous. There's basically NONE of the reforms they were pushing for in it. I don't see how this does anything more than bloat the system further and increase government spending into something that's completely useless. Seriously Dems, you gotta go all or nothing on this.

JerryLove · 10-15-2009, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tlj009

I kinda worry about those people who are currently receiving some sort of government aid for their medical care. I want to know if someone who is currently receiving free medical would suddenly have a new insurance premium or copay that they can't afford. I also want to know if charity hospitals are likely to lose government funding in order to pay for this new bill. I just can't seem to find these answers.

We don't know what bill will eventually come out... but the entire point of reform has included some tennants.

Everyone will have health insurance.
The government will assist or cover the costs for those below a certain income (which is who you seem to be mentioning).
I don't know about grants to charity hospitals. If UHC is comprehensive, I don't see that hospitals will have a need to be charities and their patients will be covered. Perhaps for forigners (people who fly in to get medical attention from said hospital)?

JerryLove · 10-15-2009, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ax

Seriously Dems, you gotta go all or nothing on this.

Agreed. Bipartisanship works only when both parties are willing to actually work on it. It's time to unite the party and push forward despite the republicans instead of with them (unless some reasonable ones show up).

tlj009 · 10-15-2009, 10:18 AM

Quote:

We don't know what bill will eventually come out... but the entire point of reform has included some tennants.

Everyone will have health insurance.
The government will assist or cover the costs for those below a certain income (which is who you seem to be mentioning).
I don't know about grants to charity hospitals. If UHC is comprehensive, I don't see that hospitals will have a need to be charities and their patients will be covered. Perhaps for forigners (people who fly in to get medical attention from said hospital)?

I was just thinking of the Mass. attempt at healthcare for their state. And that was the result of their plan. I highly suspect that the feds will determine a specific income to pay X amount whether as a premium or a copay. My only question (and I doubt that anyone in Washington has even studied the issue enough to know) is whether or not that is going to add an extra bill to some of the poorest in the country. I also suspect that charity hospitals will lose their funding. So if the poor don't have a premium but can't even pay the copay and they don't have charity hospitals to go to, then I think that is much, much worse than some middle class families going bankrupt.

I would feel a lot better about these bills if I thought that the issues were being studied rather than just arguing for the sake of arguing.