Close to 80%of Americans Support a Public Option

[pfife]

I don't think its true that you had to pay for medicare to use it.

[belcherboy]

Originally Posted by CMRivdog

I find it very interesting that in every report that I read on the supposed proposals (both blogs and news accounts) that there is any mention of FREE Insurance. Could you provide CREDIBLE LINKS.

I just heard Obama promise not to raise taxes on those making under $250,000. Perhaps this doesn't count toward that promise, but if he doesn't raise taxes on those making less than $250,000, than it is free for 85-90% of the population.

I also do assume it will be free to those who don't work. It would have to be if everyone was eligible (I'm assuming everyone would be eligible, so correct me if I am wrong).

[belcherboy]

Originally Posted by pfife

I don't think its true that you had to pay for medicare to use it.

My dad isn't eligible. He opted out of Social Security a long time ago.

I'm fairly certain if you never work, you are not eligible for social security benefits at 62. I was under the assumption that medicare was part of those benefits. (I do not what happens when I "assume" something )

[Who is the Drizzle?]

I believe pre-existing conditions is when you have a condition and they won't let you buy new insurance. For example maybe you have a job and disease X. You lose your job and therefore insurance, and now you can't buy new insurance because you have disease X.

This is why it is not a great idea to go to the doctor if you do not have insurance, even if you are willing to pay; if he finds something bad, then you can't get insurance anymore.

On the other hand, I could see how this could be abused; why should a healthy person bother getting insurance until they get sick?

[JohnJMS]

Originally Posted by pfife

I don't think its true that you had to pay for medicare to use it.

I'm on Medicare and I have to pay premiums every month, and that's after paying taxes for 27 years.

[apabruce]

Originally Posted by JohnJMS

I'm on Medicare and I have to pay premiums every month, and that's after paying taxes for 27 years.

I thought the premiums were for part B, and you could opt out of part B coverage.

[JohnJMS]

Originally Posted by apabruce

I thought the premiums were for part B, and you could opt out of part B coverage.

Yes. But if I opted out, and then tried to opt back in, the premiums would be even higher. So in my case, if in doubt (which I was), I opted in, even though Medicare is my secondary insurer. Better safe than sorry.

Hey, I'm in the system and I don't even understand it.

[sinister porpoise]

Originally Posted by belcherboy

I just heard Obama promise not to raise taxes on those making under $250,000. Perhaps this doesn't count toward that promise, but if he doesn't raise taxes on those making less than $250,000, than it is free for 85-90% of the population.

I also do assume it will be free to those who don't work. It would have to be if everyone was eligible (I'm assuming everyone would be eligible, so correct me if I am wrong).

If you CHOOSE to enroll in the public OPTION then you have to pay premiums. That's not a tax increase.

There will be initial seed money to set up the public option's administrative costs and then within short order it is funded completely by premiums. Conservatives that don't want poor people to have insurance say this is a slippery slope and that the government will continue to fund the public option even though current bills specify it will only receive user-funded premiums after the initial period of 'seed' money is done.

[JohnJMS]

Originally Posted by sinister porpoise

If you CHOOSE to enroll in the public OPTION then you have to pay premiums. That's not a tax increase.

There will be initial seed money to set up the public option's administrative costs and then within short order it is funded completely by premiums.

Conservatives that don't want poor people to have insurance say this is a slippery slope and that the government will continue to fund the public option even though current bills specify it will only receive user-funded premiums after the initial period of 'seed' money is done.

This is nothing but wishful thinking. If you actually believe that's how it's going to work - so be it. And by the way, I love how you change TAX to SEED MONEY. Nice try - but anyone can see through that smokescreen.

Also, I didn't know the Conservative goal was to keep poor people un-insured. More nonsense from the left. The Conservative/GOP plan would give an annual tax credit of $2,300 to each individual and $5,700 to each family that they could use to offset the cost of their health insurance. Low-income families would get extra money to buy into private insurance plans.

So don't give us this rhetoric that conservatives don't want poor people to have insurance. That's just crap, but it's what I've come to expect out here.

[CMRivdog]

Originally Posted by JohnJMS

That's just crap, but it's what I've come to expect out here.

On both sides of every issue

[sinister porpoise]

Originally Posted by JohnJMS

This is nothing but wishful thinking. If you actually believe that's how it's going to work - so be it. And by the way, I love how you change TAX to SEED MONEY. Nice try - but anyone can see through that smokescreen.

Also, I didn't know the Conservative goal was to keep poor people un-insured. More nonsense from the left. The Conservative/GOP plan would give an annual tax credit of $2,300 to each individual and $5,700 to each family that they could use to offset the cost of their health insurance. Low-income families would get extra money to buy into private insurance plans.

So don't give us this rhetoric that conservatives don't want poor people to have insurance. That's just crap, but it's what I've come to expect out here.

I don't believe the majority of American conservatives want to redistribute taxes from the rich to the poor so that poor people can buy into health insurance.

The way I described the public option is how the bills read. As I said in the post, conservatives think it is a slippery slope and that the plain language of the bill is a trojan horse.

[JohnJMS]

Originally Posted by sinister porpoise

I don't believe the majority of American conservatives want to redistribute taxes from the rich to the poor so that poor people can buy into health insurance.

How is giving people a tax credit, and poor people a larger tax credit - redistributing taxes from the rich to the poor?

[sub rosa]

Originally Posted by JohnJMS

How is giving people a tax credit, and poor people a larger tax credit - redistributing taxes from the rich to the poor?

tax credits help people who work and pay taxes. what about the rest of the uninsured?

[sinister porpoise]

Originally Posted by JohnJMS

How is giving people a tax credit, and poor people a larger tax credit - redistributing taxes from the rich to the poor?

Maybe I am wrong. I was assuming that the revenue lost would be made up somewhere else, so that the oft-cited deficit doesn't grow even larger.

Politically maybe they want to force the administration to raise taxes / cut social spending elsewhere / have a larger deficit to explain though.

[JohnJMS]

Originally Posted by sub rosa

tax credits help people who work and pay taxes. what about the rest of the uninsured?

It's detailed in the second link.

Read THE PATIENTS CHOICE ACT.

TheHill.com - Healthcare: Patients’ Choice Act would provide tax credits, not one-size-fits-all plan

http://coburn.senate.gov/public/inde...7-8b479a10affc

[Buddha]

Originally Posted by Who is the Drizzle?

I believe pre-existing conditions is when you have a condition and they won't let you buy new insurance. For example maybe you have a job and disease X. You lose your job and therefore insurance, and now you can't buy new insurance because you have disease X.

This is why it is not a great idea to go to the doctor if you do not have insurance, even if you are willing to pay; if he finds something bad, then you can't get insurance anymore.

On the other hand, I could see how this could be abused; why should a healthy person bother getting insurance until they get sick?

It's not that they won't usually sell you insurance, it's that they will sell you insurance and specifically not cover your pre-existing condition. I had a stomach condition awhile ago, when I switched jobs, the insurer wouldn't cover anything that resulted from that condition until a certain amount of time had passed and nothing happened.

For a lot of people, their conditions are why they get insurance in the first place. As insurance is a profit-driven business, the company will not walk into a claim if it doesn't have to do so.

Other things are not covered either, depending upon your insurer. I know of a woman who had gastric bypass surgery and developed complications after the surgery. The insurance company would not cover any of the resulting complications because she elected to have the surgery done. So now she's had to pay over $300,000 in bills by herself.

If you treat health care like a commodity, and health insurance as a profit business, you're never going to drive down costs or have complete coverage for everyone for every condition. The incentive will always be for doctors and insurers to make the most money they can whether that helps the patient or not. That's not to say that this results in all doctors running up the bill or all insurers cutting coverage whenever they can, but it happens a lot and will continue to happen as long as we maintain the current system.

[pfife]

Originally Posted by JohnJMS

I'm on Medicare and I have to pay premiums every month, and that's after paying taxes for 27 years.

Others are on it without paying a cent.

[JohnJMS]

From what I've read, I like

THE PATIENTS CHOICE ACT

I'd be interested in what liberals don't like about this. It seems to get UHC to Americans without the burdens of creating a completely government run process.

Comments?

[sinister porpoise]

Originally Posted by JohnJMS

From what I've read, I like

THE PATIENTS CHOICE ACT

I'd be interested in what liberals don't like about this. It seems to get UHC to Americans without the burdens of creating a completely government run process.

Comments?

It wouldn't lower costs or address pre-existing conditions / recission. And it would add a lot to the deficit whereas the CBO has scored at least Dem one health care plan as deficit-neutral.

[Deleterious]

Originally Posted by sinister porpoise

It wouldn't lower costs or address pre-existing conditions / recission. And it would add a lot to the deficit whereas the CBO has scored at least Dem one health care plan as deficit-neutral.

Can you quote me the text, from the CBO, that says it is deficit-neutral?

[sinister porpoise]

Originally Posted by Deleterious

Can you quote me the text, from the CBO, that says it is deficit-neutral?

Wonk Room » Why The House Bill Is Deficit Neutral
Why The House Bill Is Deficit Neutral

Heritage’s The Foundry is calling my claim that House’s Tri Committee health care bill is deficit neutral “flat out untrue,” quoting directly from the the CBO’s analysis of the bill. “Here is the CBO letter (pdf) that Volsky was referring to. Click on it. Search for the term “deficit neutral” … or even just “neutral”. You’ll notice that those terms do not appear anywhere in the document. This is what the CBO letter actually says“:

According to CBO’s and JCT’s assessment, enacting H.R. 3200 would result in a net increase in the federal budget deficit of $239 billion over the 2010-2019 period.”According to CBO’s and JCT’s assessment, enacting H.R. 3200 would result in a net increase in the federal budget deficit of $239 billion over the 2010-2019 period.”

But as the CBO letter explains, that $239 billion is not the cost of a specific reform. Rather, it is the cost of fixing the so-called Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR). Congress created the formula in 1997 to check rising health care costs. According to the formula, “the amount Medicare pays doctors for an average Medicare patient can’t grow faster than the economy as a whole.” In 2002, once medical inflation outpaced economic growth, physicians experienced a cut in reimbursement rates, and Congress has patched the cut every cut since (by eliminating the pay cut).


“The net cost of the changes in physicians’ payment rates would total $245 billion,” the CBO concludes in its letter. In other words, the House’s SGR fix and its $239 billion price tag has little to do with health care reform; the policy is not adjusting unsustainable growth in health care spending or some other system imbalance. It is fixing a complex formula that Congress created to control health care spending but has largely over-ridden in an effort to please a powerful political constituency. So I was right, health care reform is budget neutral; patching Congress’ patches is not.

[Mark The Shark]

Originally Posted by sinister porpoise

Wonk Room » Why The House Bill Is Deficit Neutral
Why The House Bill Is Deficit Neutral

So thinkprogress says that the CBO says its budget neutral. The CBO does not make such a claim.

Politico says different:

For the second time this month, congressional budget analysts have dealt a blow to the Democrat's health reform efforts, this time by saying a plan touted by the White House as crucial to paying for the bill would actually save almost no money over 10 years.

A key House chairman and moderate House Democrats on Tuesday agreed to a White House-backed proposal that would give an outside panel the power to make cuts to government-financed health care programs. White House budget director Peter Orszag declared the plan "probably the most important piece that can be added" to the House's health care reform legislation.

But on Saturday, the Congressional Budget Office said the proposal to give an independent panel the power to keep Medicare spending in check would only save about $2 billion over 10 years- a drop in the bucket compared to the bill's $1 trillion price tag.

CBO deals new blow to health plan - Chris Frates - POLITICO.com

[sinister porpoise]

The CBO says the health care reform aspects of the bill are deficit neutral. There is another provision that will pass (related to a bill first passed in 1997) regardless of whether or not it is attached to that bill, and that provision increases the deficit.

[Mark The Shark]

Originally Posted by sinister porpoise

The CBO says the health care reform aspects of the bill are deficit neutral. There is another provision that will pass (related to a bill first passed in 1997) regardless of whether or not it is attached to that bill, and that provision increases the deficit.

Show us. Not what thinkprogess says, but where the CBO actually says its deficit neutral.

This is what the CBO actually says:

According to CBO’s and JCT’s assessment, enacting H.R. 3200 would result in a net increase in the federal budget deficit of $239 billion over the 2010-2019 period. That estimate reflects a projected 10-year cost of the bill’s insurance coverage provisions of $1,042 billion, partly offset by net spending changes that CBO estimates would save $219 billion over the same period, and by revenue provisions that JCT estimates would increase federal revenues by about $583 billion over those 10 years.

$1,042 billion cost partially offset by $219 billion in spending changes and $583 billion in increased revenues. Equals "a net increase in the federal budget deficit of $239 billion over the 2010-2019 period."

Director’s Blog » Blog Archive » Preliminary Analysis of the House Democrats’ Health Reform Proposal

But maybe your definition of "deficit neutral" is different than mine.

[Mark The Shark]

PoliFact.com classifies the "deficit neutral" claim as false

During a town hall meeting, U.S. Rep. Russ Carnahan, a Democrat from Missouri, tried to reassure constituents that his party's health care reform bill would cost less than expected.

"The Congressional Budget Office most recently came out and analyzed the current plan and said that it was not only deficit-neutral, which has been one of the important factors for the president and congressional leaders, but also that over 10 years it would create a $6 billion surplus," Carnahan told an audience on July 20, 2009, at Forest Park Community College in St. Louis.

The audience laughed in response. (To see for yourself, fast forward this video to the 7-minute mark.)

It's a claim that's been repeated by many Democrats since the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan group that does all the number crunching for Congress, released its cost estimate for the health care bill on July 17.

In its report, the CBO estimated the bill will cost about $1.04 trillion over 10 years. That sum would be partially offset by $219.3 billion in Medicare savings and by $583 billion in tax increases over the same amount of time.

Still, the bill would create a $239 billion deficit, according to CBO.

We were perplexed: How could Carnahan proclaim a $6 billion surplus if the budget office was projecting a deficit?

The confusion comes down to an accounting question about how to treat $245 billion in the House bill that would cover the cost of adjusting Medicare reimbursement rates so doctors don't face the potential of a 21 percent cut in fees.

In 1997, Congress agreed that, should Medicare reimbursement rates grow faster than the economy, they would be cut. But instead of following its own rules, Congress has put off those cuts year after year with a Medicare "fix." CBO considers that sum as part of the cost of the bill.

But many Democrats don't. Two days after Carnahan's town hall meeting, the House approved a bill that would require all new spending be paid for by new taxes or spending cuts to other government programs, a practice widely known as pay-as-you-go. That bill exempts the Medicare pay fix from these rules, which effectively reduces the cost of the health care reform bill by that same $245 billion. The pay-as-you-go bill is pending in the Senate.

But in the meantime, CBO will continue to include it as part of the legislation's price tag until the pay-as-you-go rules are put into law.

Back to Carnahan's math: If you accept his assumption that pay-as-you-go ultimately passes both houses of Congress and is signed into law, the health care bill will only cost $797 billion over 10 years. The $219.3 in spending cuts and the $583 billion in tax revenue total $802 billion, so that leaves $5.3 billion extra. (That's not quite $6 billion, but it's in the ballpark. We can assume this is the result of rounding.)

Whether Republicans or Democrats are in charge, this kind of budget trickery is nothing new to Washington, said Brian Riedl, a budget expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

"It's the best way to do business in Washington," he said. "You inflate the baseline [of a bill] to make it seem like you're spending less."

So as for Carnahan's statement, he is definitely misstating CBO's findings. The budget office did not say there would be a $6 billion surplus, it said there would be a $239 billion deficit. Only when Carnahan added some optimistic assumptions did the math work the way he claimed. We find his claim False.

PolitiFact | Carnahan misquotes CBO about cost of health care reform plan

And I thought I was bad at math.

[sinister porpoise]

There is a link in the thinkprogress paste to the original CBO document. You can read it. They find that the bill produces a 239 billion deficit.

But as the CBO letter explains, that $239 billion is not the cost of a specific reform. Rather, it is the cost of fixing the so-called Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR). Congress created the formula in 1997 to check rising health care costs. According to the formula, “the amount Medicare pays doctors for an average Medicare patient can’t grow faster than the economy as a whole.” In 2002, once medical inflation outpaced economic growth, physicians experienced a cut in reimbursement rates, and Congress has patched the cut every cut since (by eliminating the pay cut).

This is what I just said. Health care reform is deficit neutral. The bill is not deficit neutral.

Congress changes the SGR basically every year and it always includes a projected deficit. It happens that this year the SGR change was rolled into the health care bill.

[Who is the Drizzle?]

Originally Posted by Buddha

It's not that they won't usually sell you insurance, it's that they will sell you insurance and specifically not cover your pre-existing condition. I had a stomach condition awhile ago, when I switched jobs, the insurer wouldn't cover anything that resulted from that condition until a certain amount of time had passed and nothing happened.

Your completely right, I remember that now that you mention it. I forget what the time period is, and it probably depends on insurance companies (maybe 3 years?).

[MrDeeds]

Think Progress has an agenda? Who would've thunk?

[JohnJMS]

Originally Posted by JohnJMS

From what I've read, I like

THE PATIENTS CHOICE ACT

I'd be interested in what liberals don't like about this. It seems to get UHC to Americans without the burdens of creating a completely government run process.

Comments?

Originally Posted by sinister porpoise

It wouldn't lower costs or address pre-existing conditions

If only you were right about this - but you are wrong.

The Patients Choice Act would create State Based Health Insurance Exchanges, which would be a voluntary, one-stop marketplace of insurance plans. These state exchanges — which would be open to all Americans — would offer a broad range of plans but all would be required to have the same standard benefits as those enjoyed by members of Congress. Through this innovative reform, no individual could be turned down based on his or her age or health. This is because insurers who “cherry pick” healthy patients would be penalized, and those that cover patients with pre-existing conditions and emphasize prevention and wellness would be rewarded.

The exchanges must have a mechanism to avoid excessive premiums. And to protect uninsurable individuals, the exchanges would have to include independent risk adjustment, pools or reinsurance.

Go to Senator Coburn's Health Care Reform page .: United States Senator Tom Coburn :: HealthCareReform :. for links to the bill, FAQs, a short summary, a long summary, a section by section summary, and just about anything one would want to know about it.

I'm not against health care for the uninsured - I'm against overhauling the entire system.

[sub rosa]

Originally Posted by JohnJMS

From what I've read, I like

THE PATIENTS CHOICE ACT

I'd be interested in what liberals don't like about this. It seems to get UHC to Americans without the burdens of creating a completely government run process.

Comments?

i located the text of the actual bill on thomas.gov - it's h.r. 2520. it's going to take me some time to "read" it (which means not every word, but enough to understand what it does and doesn't do). realistically, with h.r. 3200 making its way through the committee process and public debate, i don't think this bill has a chance. if they had done this back when the republicans were in the majority and president bush in the white house, it probably would've had a much better chance.

but rather than make up things about the bill and try to kill interest in it by taking things out of context and deliberately miselading, i think i'll give it a "read" this weekend and get back to you.

notice the word "choice" in the act - somebody reads the psychology reports on buzzwords that make people feel comfy. too bad the house bill doesn't have the word "choice" in it. they might as well have called it the "socialist government takeover and elderly euthanasia act."

[JohnJMS]

Originally Posted by sub rosa

i located the text of the actual bill on thomas.gov - it's h.r. 2520. it's going to take me some time to "read" it (which means not every word, but enough to understand what it does and doesn't do). realistically, with h.r. 3200 making its way through the committee process and public debate, i don't think this bill has a chance. if they had done this back when the republicans were in the majority and president bush in the white house, it probably would've had a much better chance.

but rather than make up things about the bill and try to kill interest in it by taking things out of context and deliberately miselading, i think i'll give it a "read" this weekend and get back to you.

notice the word "choice" in the act - somebody reads the psychology reports on buzzwords that make people feel comfy. too bad the house bill doesn't have the word "choice" in it. they might as well have called it the "socialist government takeover and elderly euthanasia act."

I look forward to your comments. Also, as to what I bolded in your quote, I believe none of these bills have a chance.

[Buddha]

Originally Posted by JohnJMS

If only you were right about this - but you are wrong.

The Patients Choice Act would create State Based Health Insurance Exchanges, which would be a voluntary, one-stop marketplace of insurance plans. These state exchanges — which would be open to all Americans — would offer a broad range of plans but all would be required to have the same standard benefits as those enjoyed by members of Congress. Through this innovative reform, no individual could be turned down based on his or her age or health. This is because insurers who “cherry pick” healthy patients would be penalized, and those that cover patients with pre-existing conditions and emphasize prevention and wellness would be rewarded.

The exchanges must have a mechanism to avoid excessive premiums. And to protect uninsurable individuals, the exchanges would have to include independent risk adjustment, pools or reinsurance.

Go to Senator Coburn's Health Care Reform page .: United States Senator Tom Coburn :: HealthCareReform :. for links to the bill, FAQs, a short summary, a long summary, a section by section summary, and just about anything one would want to know about it.

I'm not against health care for the uninsured - I'm against overhauling the entire system.

How does that lower costs?

I'm not saying I'm against the bill - I don't know anything about it - but it doesn't seem like it would lower costs, IMO.

Also, saying you will "reward companies for covering pre-existing conditions" seems a bit dubious to me.

[sub rosa]

ok, i finally got around to "reading" the patients choice act. although i think it sets some nice goals, and isn't necessarily offensive in any way other than its utter insufficiency, as compared to HR 3200 i'll just say "no thanks" to the patients choice act and continue to support HR 3200.

Originally Posted by JohnJMS

The Patients Choice Act would create State Based Health Insurance Exchanges, which would be a voluntary, one-stop marketplace of insurance plans. These state exchanges — which would be open to all Americans — would offer a broad range of plans but all would be required to have the same standard benefits as those enjoyed by members of Congress. Through this innovative reform, no individual could be turned down based on his or her age or health.

open to all americans who could afford the premiums. there appear to be no controls on costs of premiums other than the marketplace. please let me know if i missed something here that guarantees "all americans" could afford insurance offered in these state exchanges.

also, as i read the bill - there is no protection guaranteeing people with pre-existing conditions could get insurance or that people who have insurance that get seriously ill couldn't be dropped.

no public option.

[Auburndale Ray]

If only we can have a public option like the fabulous Fidel Castro's in Cuba...

[TheCouga]

Originally Posted by Auburndale Ray

If only we can have a public option like the fabulous Fidel Castro's in Cuba...

Because the "public option" is the thing that's causing Cuba's problems...

Despite the trade embargo crippling their economy, they have a higher life expectancy than we do.

[Blue Square Thing]

Originally Posted by Auburndale Ray

If only we can have a public option like the fabulous Fidel Castro's in Cuba...

Oh, I don't know that you're capable of getting anywhere near that sort of quality of care, are you?

[MrDeeds]

Are there people who actually desire for the US to have Cuba quality health care?

[djhutch]

Originally Posted by TheCouga

Sorry, this was the link I meant to include. The Survey USA poll.

Mark, UPI can't be biased when they are simply reporting the results of a poll conducted by others. However, I was sloppy and I should have provided the link to the survey itself.

The fact remains that two recent polls show that close to 80% of the public supports a public option when it is properly explained to them -- and not lied about in a Republicanesque fashion.

You mean they support it when the idea is presented, but the nasty details of exactly what the plan would do are left out?

[DrWho17]

Originally Posted by TheCouga

Because the "public option" is the thing that's causing Cuba's problems...

Despite the trade embargo crippling their economy, they have a higher life expectancy than we do.

Of course Fidel Castro's health ministry wouldn't lie about their numbers either would they? I'll believe his health care numbers when he tells us how many political dissidents he has in prison. Here is a compilation of pictures from state run Cuban medical facilities Hospital Clínico Quirúrgico

Here is an interesting summary of a study for those who like to use life expectancy as a measure of a healthcare systems effectiveness http://health.dailynewscentral.com/c...ew/0002418/42/.

"The differences were attributed to a combination of injuries and such preventable risk factors as smoking, alcohol, obesity, high blood pressure, elevated cholesterol, diet and physical inactivity -- particularly among people from 15 years to 59 years of age. They were not due to income, insurance, infant mortality, AIDS or violence, said the study's lead investigator, Christopher J.L. Murray, director of the Harvard Initiative for Global Health. "

[Blue Square Thing]

Originally Posted by MrDeeds

Are there people who actually desire for the US to have Cuba quality health care?

Quality?

I doubt it.