BS: US Health Care Reform

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Stringsinger
Date: 02 Sep 09 - 11:50 AM

As I see it, wonkishness prevails on this issue. Whatever bill gets through the Senate,
with all these obstructions by failing to define the implications of each provision for the public, the Health Care Reform will turn out to be a jumbled mess and a favor to the Insurance and Big Pharma.

Obfuscation has been the tactic of the lobbyists, corporate networks and pundits and there's no sign that this will change with a bill that tinkers around the edges.

The only solution to the problem of health care that we have is a nationalized Single Payer system as they have in other parts of the civilized world that work.



We won't get what we need because the politicians, insurance companies, and Big Pharma control the semantics and the dialogue. In short, any "reform" turns out to be a whitewash.

The solution is to keep hammering away until we get a national health program that is exclusive of Big Insurance and Pharma's control. Take words like "public option" and redefine it for the lobbyists. Public option means that the government will supply a health care plan that competes with the private one and will be available to all who need it.
What's so complicated about that?

Health care reform means government regulation over the "malpractice insurance" malpractice by the insurance companies toward the medical profression. It means regulating the Insurers and the Drug Companies in the same way as we have established the SEC (question as to how that has been implemented).

All this wonkishness just confuses the public and is a weapon used by the lobbyists,corporatists,insurance and drug companies to control the debate.

BTW, does anyone figure into the cost of public health care that of Afghanistan/Iraq/Pakinstan? 57% of the national budget

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 02 Sep 09 - 11:45 AM

Bobert be right again.

" Axelrod said: 'There are a lot of ideas on the table and now it's time to pull those strands together and finish the work.'

That suggests the president could for the first time put in writing the elements of a health care plan, drawing from the common pieces of measures approved in three House committees and the Senate committee formerly headed by the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, in an attempt to spur Congressional action. To date he has deferred to Congress to write legislation following his general principles, including a public insurance option to create competition for insurance companies.

The White House recalibration in part reflects how patience has run out with the efforts of [those idiots.]"

NYT 9/1/09

see, also Obama Set To Reveal Specific Health Reform Details In Strategy Shift

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 09:28 PM

Public awareness is an illusive term.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 05:03 PM

I read somewhere that suggested a Senate bill cannot be subjected to the Reconciliation procedure as proposed to force something through, but I don't understand it and view it as a procedural detail.

Wyden-Bennett will not happen absent an unlikely public awareness.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 04:41 PM

Seems to me the Senate is more likely to get its way than the House (although I could be wrong about that). So the Wyden-Bennet plan just might happen, although possibly in a modified form.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 03:59 PM

There are several articles stating that plenty of Senators and Congresspersons publicly support this Bill "because it's right," but privately will not support it because the lobbyists will destroy their careers.

Can't prove it, but I believe it. I just think people should look and see what we are not going to get, because we won't demand it against the special interests.

I also believe that Obama should put his Presidency on the line, force this, lose his re-election bid, and go down as one of the great public servants in history. People would soon learn that he called out the insurers (and others) on their Great Game and ended it. And he's still young.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 03:38 PM

The insurance industry does not want you to have this. They would rather that public health funding be done by taxpayers paying the government. They would have a lot more people to provide for with this, but not the people they make the big bucks from.

Obama says this plan is 90% right, but "too radical."



Note also (about preserving Medicaid): Under section 104(a)(4), if someone has a Medicaid benefit entitlement under existing programs, the HAPI (FEHBA equivalent plan) is not allowed to demand any copays or contributions from them (that they wouldn't have had under Medicaid.)

Instead of getting Medicaid, the poor now would get:

(1) Medicaid;
(2) The Blue Cross/Blue Shield Standard Plan;
(3) A primary care provider to devise and monitor a care plan (with expert understanding of the benefits now available, even if the patient isn't up to speed on them), for free wellness care, comprehensive disease prevention, early detection, disease management, chronic pain treatment, and chronic condition management;
(4) Guaranteed nondiscrimination in any plan based on health status (or genetics); and
(5) Peri-natal care as good as anyone's.

Under HR 3200, with the public option as it was written, they would get:
(1) Medicaid.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 02:45 PM

Based on the information I've seen so far on HR 3200 and Wyden-Bennett, I honestly can't say which one I think is better. I may be leaning a bit toward HR 3200 with a public option, and partly that's for a rather glib reason. I saw that Lieberman was there with Wyden when he announced the bill and he appeared to support it. I don't trust Lieberman on this subject because I find him to be too much on the side of the insurance industry cabal.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 01:21 PM

West Virginia

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 01:15 PM

coverageforall.ORG

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 12:52 PM

Another problem with the HSA model is that it would encourage people to put off getting care for all kinds of problems that, if left untreated, will become catastrophic and far more expensive later on, which ultimately causes everyone's costs to rise. The HSA "concept" is penny wise and pound foolish.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 12:48 PM

No, I picked a state at random (well, because it is large.) Do it for any state. Start at coverageforall.com for an overview of the available programs in any state, then google "[State] Medicaid benefits."

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 12:39 PM

People can characterize my statements about HSAs as "smug" if they want, but as someone without access to insurance myself, and having attempted to get insurance through an HSA, I am very suspicious of people trying to divert health care reform in that particular direction. It really does boil down to a matter of life and death for some of us, myself and JtS included. So please excuse me if I take this matter very seriously.

The problem I have with using New York's medicaid program as an example is that New York state may have (and probably does have) much better medicaid coverage than states like West Virginia, where I had medicaid coverage for several years. In some states, medicaid has huge gaps in coverage. Does Wyden-Bennett use New York's medicaid coverage as the standard for the whole country?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 12:21 PM

"'Any reform of our health care system must include a catastrophic insurance program open to all Americans, in which participation of all Americans is required.'

Agree. The FEHBA equivalent plan has (and requires) that for everyone in the country."

. . with the twin benefits of protecting everyone from financial disaster and stopping the cost-shifting that necessarily follows from those disasters.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 12:10 PM

"Any reform of our health care system must include a catastrophic insurance program open to all Americans, in which participation of all Americans is required."

Agree. The FEHBA equivalent plan has (and requires) that for everyone in the country.

That, and basic care for the underserved. Wyden Bennet excels at both.

(A problem with HSAs is that plans might offer them in connection with the basic plan, and attract the wealthier who can afford a health savings plan, thereby to getting a competitive advanatge. That can be managed by regulation.)

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 12:02 PM

I'll bet the Medicaid benefits they are keeping from erasure are largely in-home care or assistance.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 12:01 PM

Despite smug statements to the contrary, HSA is a concept, not a "plan". Any reform of our health care system must include a catastrophic insurance program open to all Americans, in which participation of all Americans is required, and with fixed premiums based solely on age. Government regulation and participation would be necessary so that all are covered, without underwriting for specific risk factors.
Such a program would eventually replace Medicare and Medicade, classic examples of the over-spending abuses and convoluted billing that the health care industry counts on to perpetuate its profits.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 11:46 AM

Note, with regard to actively seeking out children (18 and younger - 3x poverty or less) to ensure they are receiving care, those children (like everyone else) must have a primary care physician selected or appointed to take responsibility for monitoring their care. So the current problem of people not applying for benefits simply out of confusion or lack of knowledge, gets addressed.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 11:22 AM

Here's what you currently get under New York State Medicaid

Here's what you get under Blue Cross/Blue Shield Standard Plan

Under HR 3200, if you are Medicaid eligible you get Medicaid.

Under Wyden-Bennett, you get both. The standard plan has the primary coverage obligation and Medicaid as it currently exists becomes the supplemental coverage.

Maybe some Medicaid plans have more services applicable to mental health or chronic care, I don't know, but anyone can find them for their own state. If you do find anything, don't worry, because they are not going away.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Amos
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 10:43 AM

"Two weeks ago, President Obama offered to cut several hundred billion more dollars out of the Medicare and Medicaid budget to help make room for health care reform. This sort of gesture ought to appeal to conservatives, right? Apparently not. The Heritage Foundation warned, "At a time when Medicare is dangerously close to bankruptcy, it is shortsighted to funnel funds into the creation of another government-run program instead of shoring up Medicare." A National Review editorial complained, "These cuts in Medicare and Medicaid payments are nothing more than reimbursement reductions with no empirical or economic basis to justify them."

No empirical basis to justify them? Since when do conservatives require an empirical basis to justify cutting social spending?

The health care debate has been presented as a conflict between spendthrift Democrats and skinflint Republicans. The reality is closer to the opposite. Conservatives may make up the strongest opponents of new government spending (to cover the uninsured), but they also make up the strongest opponents of cutting existing spending. Health care has become the new defense spending--a category of public outlay that the right has trained itself to defend in even the most wasteful iterations.

The U.S. health care system, as you probably realize, is a vast cesspool of waste. We spend nearly twice as much on health care as the average advanced country and have no better results to show for it. Alas, every dollar of what we call waste is what somebody in the industry calls "income." So anything that makes the system more efficient makes somebody unhappy, and that somebody has a team of lobbyists." New Republic

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 09:56 AM

Back to Wyden-Bennett... I'm having difficulty understanding that whole bit about the medicaid. Why would they need a separate wrap around? If the HAPI coverage isn't good enough for the people on medicaid, why is it good enough for everyone else?

The thing that really scares me about that is that medicaid doesn't pay for a lot of things that other programs do pay for. So if they are anticipating that HAPI coverage will leave gaps that are covered by medicaid, we will see a significant reduction in the quality of care people receive even beyond what we see today, which is bad enough.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 09:51 AM

That plan is the HSA (health savings account) plan and it doesn't work for people with pre-existing conditions who can't get coverage and for people whose insurance companies deny needed catastrophic care.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 01:29 AM

Our current system, if you want to call it a system, is a rotting edifice of poor care, lousy record keeping, out-of-control charges, unnecessary tests and procedures, no customer service, complex and esoteric billing procedures, and caustically expensive pharmaceuticals. Anyone who doesn't see this either has a vested interest in the system as is, or is ignorant of the impact its skyrocketing costs are having on our country. We currently spend 20% of our GDP on healthcare.
This system of employer-bankrolled insurance began during World War 2 when the government imposed a wage freeze on business. In order to attract employees, creative businesses began to offer health insurance as a substitute for a wage increase. So, essentially, we have paid for health insurance through our employers our entire lives in lieu of salary. A 22 year old who starts work today, can in effect expect to pay 1.3 million dollars in health care insurance expenses. How have we come to believe that someone else is bankrolling our health care? Because we see only the deductions on our checks, not the medical bills. In fact, most of us have no idea what an MRI prescribed by our doctor will cost, and we could care less because, after all, we're not paying for it. This is the reason the costs of MRIs have skyrocketed...there is no competition.
Compare that to the cost of Lasik surgery, which is rarely covered by insurance. Lasik when first introduced, cost around 8,000 dollars. You can now have Lasik done for 500 or less. Why? Because patients spend money out of their pockets for Lasik, and so doctors and clinics must compete.
Although I support the Obama plan as superior to the existing mess, it will not address these basic issues. What it will do is assign maximum costs for things like MRIs and drugs, and negotiate huge discounts with providers. It will force insurance companies to compete with these lower costs. It cannot eliminate things like batteries of unneeded tests. Clinics will make up for lost revenue due to cost controls by increasing the volume of service.
The best approach would have us carry insurance only for major catastrophic medical issues. For ordinary treatment, we should be allowed by the government to invest money in a tax-exempt medical fund, from which funds can be used for treatment which we would negotiate on our own. I am pretty sure that we would all know exactly, at that point, what an MRI costs, and knowing that would allow us to make an informed buying decision. Clinics and Doctors seeking our business would be forced to be cost competitive and transparent in their billing. Government should still play a role in providing care for the indigent, and for sponsoring wellness programs.
I am under no illusion that such a system would be easy to establish, but we must recognize that, until the basic flaws of the existing system are recognized, no solution will effectively tame the monster.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 01:21 AM

You know what I'm not likely to come up with a good side by side comparison of Wyden-Bennett to HR 3200. It's like comparing a tiny ball of plutonium to a beach ball that has gone flat. As I've said, it now looks like they are sewing new appendages onto Frankenstein, or gluing solar panels on top of an eighties Chrysler. As the sausage making goes on, the insurers and providers and all the profiteers are going to say go ahead and throw in all sorts of good stuff for consumers, they'll like it and we'll get more money. That's probably what will get enacted. Insurer mandates and employer mandates. Not a good public option; not a dismantling of the employer-run perversity.

We'll see. If you want me to keep going on why Wyden-Bennett is change we can believe in I'll sure do that.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 12:23 AM

Wyden Bennett gets them out of Medicaid and into the same plan everyone has but in case (and I don't know where it would happen) the main plan doesn't cover something they would have had if they had just stuck with Medicaid, Medicaid must provide that service.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 12:13 AM

No HAPI is the FEHBA (equivalent) plan and Medicaid is the wrap around.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 12:01 AM

But is a HAPI plan the same as the kind of medicaid wraparound that they're talking about for those eligible for medicaid?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 11:58 PM

One distinction stemming from HR 3200 leaving people on Medicaid: They can only get care from Medicaid providers. Wyden-Bennet requires all Medicare (i.e. about everyone) to participate, and they don't need to even do that since every provider will want to be on this program.

Note above there are other requirements beyond basic FEHBA coverage, including wellness care and several basic preventaive care items which the poor need but don't get very well from Medicaid, and these can have no co-pays or contribution requirements.


SEC. 112. SPECIFIC COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS.

(a) In General- Each HAPI plan offered through a HHA shall--

(1) provide for increased portability through limitations on the application of preexisting condition exclusions, consistent with that provided for under section 2701 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg), as such section existed on the day before the date of enactment of this Act, except that the State shall develop procedures to ensure that preexisting exclusion limitations do not apply to new enrollees who had no applicable creditable coverage immediately prior to the first enrollment period;

(2) provide for the guaranteed availability of coverage to prospective enrollees in a manner similar to that provided for under section 2711 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-11), as such section existed on the day before the date of enactment of this Act;

(3) provide for the guaranteed renewability of coverage in a manner similar to that provided for under section 2712 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-12), as such section existed on the day before the date of enactment of this Act, except that the prohibition on market reentry provided for under such section shall be deemed to be 2 years;

(4) prohibit discrimination against individual enrollees and prospective enrollees based on health status in a manner similar to that provided for under section 2702 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-1), as such section existed on the day before the date of enactment of this Act;

(5) provide coverage protections for enrollees who are mothers and newborns in a manner similar to that provided for under section 2704 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-3), as such section existed on the day before the date of enactment of this Act;

(6) provide for full parity in the application of certain limits to mental health benefits in a manner similar to that provided for under section 2705 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-4), as such section existed on the day before the date of enactment of this Act;

(7) provide coverage for reconstructive surgery following a mastectomy in a manner similar to that provided for under section 2706 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-5), as such section existed on the day before the date of enactment of this Act; and

(8) prohibit discrimination on the basis of genetic information, as provided for under the amendments made by the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-233).

(b) Guidelines- Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop guidelines for the application of the requirements of this section.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 11:52 PM

(Yes thanks Art - I should drop that little flourish.)

Carol: Section 111(b)(1)(A):

Each HAPI plan offered through an HHA shall--

(A) provide benefits for health care items and services that are actuarially equivalent or greater in value than the benefits offered as of January 1, 2009, under the Blue Cross/Blue Shield Standard Plan provided under the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, including coverage of an initial primary care assessment and annual physical examinations;

(B) provide benefits for wellness programs and incentives to promote the use of such programs;

(C) provide coverage for catastrophic medical events that result in out-of-pocket costs for an individual or family if lifetime limits are exhausted;

(D) designate a health care provider, such as a primary care physician, nurse practitioner, or other qualified health provider, to monitor the health and health care of a covered individuals (such provider shall be known as the `health home' of the covered individual);

(E) ensure that, as part of the first visit with a primary care physician or the health home of a covered individual, such provider and individual determine a care plan to maximize the health of the individual through wellness and activities prevention;

(F) provide benefits for comprehensive disease prevention, early detection, disease management, and chronic condition management that meets minimum standards developed by the Secretary;

(G) provide for the application of personal responsibility contribution requirements with respect to covered benefits in a manner that may be similar to the cost sharing requirements applied as of January 1, 2009, under the Blue Cross/Blue Shield Standard Plan provided under the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, except that no contributions shall be required for--

(i) preventive items or services; and

(ii) early detection, disease management, or chronic pain treatment items or services; and

(H) comply with the requirements of section 112.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 11:47 PM

So call this a public option or don't, but under Wyden-Bennett the benefits for the poor equal the benefits of everyone in the nation, reimbursed by the government and backed by the full faith and credit of the US Treasury, which is in turn reimbursed by premiums paid by every person in the country (unless poor.) All of those people are paying (close to) the same rate as everyone elsee in their state based on actuarial data for almost the entire population of the state, pre-existing or chronic conditions be damned, with insurers trying to beat the actuarial rates by a small margin, gaining customers.

If these people weren't paying it through "premiums," (paid by withholdings and on tax returns) they'd still be paying it as taxes as they are now, without the benfit of the tax deductions now going to corporations (and richer people) as a regressive tax.

I would call that a public option, and one which funds health care honestly, without irrational cost shifting, without a regressive tax, and without the private insurers feasting by insuring the healthy/wealthy, while shuffling the poor and unhealthy onto the taxpayers (which you may have noticed are the same people they are insuring.)

That last point is the main point. It's hard to see it until you see it - and then it is as plain as day.

When you throw in cost shifting, regressive taxation, and medical-bill-induced bankruptcy, the "public" is already paying more than 50% of the nation's health care costs, while feeding a gluttonous industry.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 11:31 PM

Where does it say that the coverage would be equivalent to a US Congressperson's basic package?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: artbrooks
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 11:29 PM

Just a reminder - Congressmen pay for what they get under FEHBP...about 25% of the total cost (the same as any other Federal employee), and that can be over $300 per month depending upon the specific plan and option they select.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 11:18 PM

I think this bill is a beautiful work of art, mostly for the distinctions you just asked for, but also in the minutiae. For example, note that the first line puts this burden, to assure that no gaps in coverage for the poor occur, on THREE entities, each owing an independent obligation: DHHS, the State, and the insurer in question.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 10:57 PM

Oh you would ask that. It's in section 104(a)

-(disabled is included because they're under Medicare)

-(Section 631(d) prevents revisions to a state Medicaid plan that would vreat a gap in coverage - i.e preserving it's safety net function)

Section 104(a):

Subject to section 631(d), the Secretary, States, and health insurance issuers shall ensure that any nondisabled, nonelderly adult individual eligible under title XIX of the Social Security Act (including any nondisabled, nonelderly adult individual eligible under a waiver under such title or under section 1115 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1315)) covered under a HAPI plan provided through the State HHA receives medical assistance under State Medicaid plans in a manner that--

(1) is provided in coordination with, and as a supplement to, the coverage provided the nondisabled, nonelderly adult individual under the HAPI plan in which the individual is enrolled;

(2) does not supplant the nondisabled, nonelderly adult individual's coverage under a HAPI plan;

(3) ensures that the nondisabled, nonelderly adult individual receives all items or services that are not available (or are otherwise limited) under the HAPI plan in which they are enrolled but that is provided under the State plan (or provided to a greater extent or in a less restrictive manner) under title XIX of the Social Security Act (including any waiver under such title or under section 1115 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1315)) of the State in which the nondisabled, nonelderly adult individual resides; and

(4) ensures that the family of the nondisabled, nonelderly adult individual is not charged premiums, deductibles, or other cost-sharing that is greater than would have been charged under the State plan under title XIX of the Social Security Act of the State in which the nondisabled, nonelderly adult individual resides if such coverage was not provided as a supplement to the coverage provided the child under the HAPI plan in which the nondisabled, nonelderly adult individual is enrolled.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 10:47 PM

I don't see where it says that in the PDF description of the bill. Point me in the right direction to find that part?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 10:30 PM

Bit of a rush here, but did you notice that with the HR 3200 "public option," if you qualify for Medicaid you stay on Medicaid, as-is, whereas with Wyden-Bennett, you get free FEHBA benefits, the same as a US Congressperson's basic package, and the same as every other person in the country (unless they are on Medicare or VA)?

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 10:16 PM

Ok, I've read most of the literature presented here on Wyden-Bennett. What, in the opinion of the thread originator, are the significant differences between Wyden-Bennett and HR 3200?

It looks to me like Wyden-Bennett doesn't have a public option.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 09:47 PM

In Wyden-Bennett, states are required, with assistance and funding from DHHS, to actively seek out children (18 and younger - 3x poverty or less) to ensure they are receiving care, regardless of their parents' eligibility or participation. (Section 201).

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Bobert
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 08:53 PM

No matter... The next month will be interesting... What we need now is for Obama to turn into Ross Perot, charts, graphs and all...

The right has contolled the debate by not allowing it to occur and I think Obma has been smrat to let the right blow themselves out in August... Yeah, I realize this is a minority view but the right loves its temper tandrums and I'm thinking that they have really shown their collective asses and September will be a different game... Obama knows that the progressives are just about fed up and ready to jump ship... He knows that... Watch for Obama as Professor Perot...

BTW, I agree that a public option isn't negotiable... It has to be in the final legislation... It may take changing the rules in the Senate but, hey, change is tough on everyone and there is going to be political blow-back if real reform goes thru... That is normal... The Repubs have alot to loose here... This is their Waterloo... Not Obama's...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 08:38 PM

Oh Dick you are a Wyden-Bennett candidate. Those industries don't want (almost certainly will never let you have) Wyden-Bennett BECAUSE it will force level-playing-field competition with all people aware of the cost of their identical premiums for a basic FEHBA benefits package.

Thousands of insurers will be fighting for market share on a level instead of lopsided field where the healthy/wealthy AND the poor or sick are all funded and treated equally. They will push hard on pharma and the others to also compete. (They will also push on the health care providers but - shhhh.)

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 08:33 PM

If I have that about right (never mind the funding questions - $2 billion into a pot then find the rest from Medicare "waste" and tax the rich only and, well yeah premiums but still underfunded by $1 trillion over ten years):

Now might be a good time to go back and look at the beautiful simplicity if the Wyden-Bennet legislation or its 19 page it's description of the entire proposed legislation translated into plain English.

Everyone is entitled to participate in it (including federal employees and Congress), but they needn't bother if they have Medicare (or VA), and Medicaid will be modified to become its safety net.

Everyone in a state pays the same amount for the FEHBA-analogous benefits package, free or subsidized up to 400% of poverty, and if your coworkers and employer agree you want to go with employer-provided insurance - you can. And of you want to buy Cadillac insurance (after you have paid for and bought into the statewide pool) you go right ahead.

Obama says it's 90% right, but too "radical" to pass. What he means is your employer, the insurers, the employee benefits sub-industries, and the provider industry and the pharma and biomedical device industries don't want it.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 08:30 PM

I'd feel a lot more comfortable if at least part of the debate was about reducing costs, rather than concentrating solely on how these exorbitant costs will be paid. We're faced with doctors (who are represented by the second-strongest union in the US, and who are enjoying a government-granted monopoly status), health insurance companies (who are out to grab whatever they can) and drug companies (who are doing the same). Medical training is restricted (costs are astronomical and no new medical schools are opening), and lawyers are happily humming to themselves (I think it's Sweet Sue). Now health insuers are trying to push through a co-pay limit of 35%; it won't get better until somebody does something to make it better.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 08:05 PM

(or FEHBA or VA or Medicare)

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 08:02 PM

The way I understood it, everyone would be entitled to participate in the public option unless they qualify for Medicaid or their employer provides them with sufficient health insurance, but they could be forced into it at their employer's election, with premiums to be determined and mutiple benefits packages to be offered.

I don't know where it stands now.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: pdq
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 07:42 PM

"...56-62 percent of the public supporting the public option..." ~ Alice

One minute people are giving poll numbers about the "single-payer plan".

Next minute we get polls about support for "public option".

Next minute it's about support for HR 3200.

Next minute it's about ObamaCare. He wrote not a word of HR 3200. He has not even read most of it.

"...led by confusion boats, mutiny from stern to bow..."

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: heric
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 07:31 PM

Please stay focused. If anyone knows where the public option under America's Affordable Health Choices Act (H.R. 3200) (sections 221 -226)stands, please just tell us.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 06:00 PM

They think they understand it based on the lies they've been told by the insurance industry propaganda campaign.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Alice
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 05:56 PM

See the article on how poll questions are being worded.

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 05:47 PM

"Public option" doesn't seem very hard to understand from this distance. If people over there don't understand it, doesn't that suggest that they don't want to understand it?

As the saying goes "Don't confuse me with the facts. My mind is made up!"

Subject: RE: BS: US Health Care Reform
From: Alice
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 04:57 PM

That is part of the point made in the article I linked to. People generally don't understand what "public option" means.