Absolutely. Without question

[Magox]

I have read portions of HR3200 which was the initial bill and there are some have been enough news reports to get a feel for what it does. I'm a business owner and have some idea what the impact will be for us and our employees. Have read or heard enough to know this thing is a P.O.S.

He cares more about protecting the Unions than small businesses. That is a fact!!

[Chef Jim]

The GOP had eight years, 6 years of Congressional control to get something done and all we ended up with was a Bill that gave $400 Billion to drug companies and cut off medicare's and medicaid's right to negotiate contracts.

 

He I agree with you on limited Tort reform, but unless there is control over premiums that won't work either. Insurance cos have everyone by the cahoonas and do really think if Tort reform happens they will lower premiums. Doubt it, large settlements don't make up that much of the overall premium, still cutting out frivolous lawsuits imo is a good thing.

 

Intrastate competition and Federal regulation, cutting out states would be a good thing. Agreed it should be added in, but it still doesn't eliminate the idea that the public option is a good alternative.

 

Those are incremental reforms and while I think they should be done and part of that is being considered in the Senate Bill wasting time and doing nothing is not the answer. Let it happen, if it sucks, then vote the bums out repeal it and start over. Short of outlawing insurance cos altogether, which I don't think is a bad idea, politically untenable, the attacks on the current bill are disingenuous.

 

So go on sucking the insurance co koolaide

 

I'd rather the insurance companies had me by the cahones than my government. I can always fight my insurance company with my feet but I can't fight my government that way.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

The government option only appears like a good option to those who believe they can not surive in this world without the government holding their hand through life. It's okay that you find it necessary for the government to take care of you. It's okay that you think that a government run option will do anything other than lead to the end of private coverage and the takeover of healthcare by the government. It's okay that you think that everyone should pay higher taxes in the face of 10.2% unemployment and a plummeting dollar.

 

But while you think this is all okay, and you clearly do, please don't forget that the more government you have in your life, the less freedom you have, and there are a lot of people who prefer liberty over more government.

 

That's what many of us are against, Charlie Brown. Not that I'd expect you to understand that. Because when you're echoing Nancy Pelosi talking points, you're too far off the edge to reason. But the issue here for many of us is liberty.

 

But please, tell us again how the last administration sucked so that makes it okay for this administation to suck even more. Great logic there.

No, I am not that dogmatic, and agree on the government stuff to an extent because it allows too many busy bodies to stick their nose into my life. That being said big Corporations do the same thing and unless both are reigned in at the same time what is the use. On the other hand, since they tend to compete with each other, I would rather pit them both against each other and have some competition if I we can't severely limit both. In reality I see no difference between the two.

[IDBillzFan]

No, I am not that dogmatic, and agree on the government stuff to an extent because it allows too many busy bodies to stick their nose into my life. That being said big Corporations do the same thing and unless both are reigned in at the same time what is the use. On the other hand, since they tend to compete with each other, I would rather pit them both against each other and have some competition if I we can't severely limit both. In reality I see no difference between the two.

The simple fact that you think the private industry can fairly compete with the government renders this conversation useless.

[Dante]

I'd rather the insurance companies had me by the cahones than my government. I can always fight my insurance company with my feet but I can't fight my government that way.

Agree 100%. At least with Kaiser, I know my expenses up front. It's not free but it is capped. If I'm in the hospital for a extended time it will cost me 2-3,000 but thats it. I can deal with that. I get hurt, but nothing I can't deal with one way or the other. When the government takes over good luck finding out how much it's really costing you. They will make sure it's a muddled mess so it will be unable to figure it out. And lets not get started on how inefficient and user abused it will be.

[Magox]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/06/opinion/06brooks.html?hp

 

Independents are herds of cats who find out what they think through a meandering process of discovery. Right now, independent voters are astonishingly volatile. Democrats did poorly in elections on Tuesday partly because of disappointed liberals who think that President Obama is moving too slowly, but mostly because of anxious suburban independents who think he is moving too fast. In Pennsylvania, there was an eight-point swing away from the Democrats among independents from a year ago. In New Jersey, there was a 12-point swing. In Virginia, there was a 13-point swing.

 

The most telling races this year were the suburban rebellions across the country. For example, in Westchester and Nassau counties in New York, Republican candidates came from nowhere to defeat entrenched Democratic county officials. In blue Pennsylvania, the G.O.P. won six out of seven statewide offices.

 

Middle-class suburban voters who have been trending Democratic for a decade suddenly lurched out of the Democratic camp — and are now in play.

 

Why? What do these voters want?

 

The second thing to say is that in this time of need, these voters are not turning to government for support. Trust in government is at its lowest level in recent memory. Over the past year, there has been a shift to the right on issue after issue. According to Gallup, the percentage of Americans who believe that there is too much government regulation rose from 38 percent in 2008 to 45 percent in 2009. The percentage of Americans who want unions to have less influence rose from 32 percent to a record 42 percent.

 

Americans have moved to the right on abortion, immigration and global warming. Over the past seven months, the number of people who say government is doing too many things better left to business has jumped from 40 percent to 48 percent, according to a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.

 

According to that same survey, only 31 percent of Americans believe that the president and Congress “should worry more about boosting the economy even though it may mean larger budget deficits.” Sixty-two percent, twice as many, believe the president and Congress “should worry more about keeping the deficit down, even though it may mean it will take longer for the economy to recover.”

 

These shifts have not occurred because conservatives and liberals have changed their minds. They haven’t. The shift is among independents.

 

According to Gallup, the share of independents who describe their views as conservative has moved from 29 percent last year to 35 percent today. The share of independents who believe there is too much government regulation of business has jumped from 38 percent to 50 percent. Independents are in the position of a person who is feeling gravely ill at the same time he has lost faith in his doctor.

 

Let the Libertards continue to keep having the eye off the ball. Many will get voted out of office come the November elections, unfortunately, the most disastrous piece of legislation that we have seen in our lifetime may very well have been passed.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

The simple fact that you think the private industry can fairly compete with the government renders this conversation useless.

Take your blinders off they do all the time and there are many examples of public private partnerships. I am talking about keep costs down, but you keep spouting the Laissez Faire crap. It ends up being trickle down econ all over again. It doesn't work.

[Magox]

Take your blinders off they do all the time and there are many examples of public private partnerships. I am talking about keep costs down, but you keep spouting the Laissez Faire crap. It ends up being trickle down econ all over again. It doesn't work.

Talk about blinders, the "public option" is going to increase costs, and you keep talking about "keeping costs down".

 

So you support the public option, even though those who buy insurance from the "public option" will pay higher premiums than private insurers?

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

Agree 100%. At least with Kaiser, I know my expenses up front. It's not free but it is capped. If I'm in the hospital for a extended time it will cost me 2-3,000 but thats it. I can deal with that. I get hurt, but nothing I can't deal with one way or the other. When the government takes over good luck finding out how much it's really costing you. They will make sure it's a muddled mess so it will be unable to figure it out. And lets not get started on how inefficient and user abused it will be.

Its capped and that already is creating problems. There are cases of swine flu aftermaths that are already bumping up against said caps. For most it works unless you have longterm illness issues or just get old and need lots of medical care to keep you alive.

 

Baby boomers aren't going to go for it. Need some Catastrophic care coverage in the plan, if not the taxpayers will end up paying for it anyway through medicare and you will be on welfare shortly.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

Talk about blinders, the "public option" is going to increase costs, and you keep talking about "keeping costs down".

 

So you support the public option, even though those who buy insurance from the "public option" will pay higher premiums than private insurers?

 

At the rate private insurance is increasing, maybe and if that is the case then you have nothing to worry about. The public option will fail or not be used and so what.

[Magox]

but you keep spouting the Laissez Faire crap. It ends up being trickle down econ all over again. It doesn't work.

Straight from the 2008 BO campaign. Pathetic, try saying something original. It does work, look at what happened when Reagan was in office. The main reason why we are in this mess that we are in right now comes from the decisions FDR made with the creation of Fannie, Jimmy Carter with the (CRA), the continued push of (CRA) from Bill Clinton and the Repeal of GS under Clinton.

 

So spare me your bull ****

[IDBillzFan]

Take your blinders off they do all the time and there are many examples of public private partnerships.

Please give examples where the government directly competes with the private sector while consequently bringing costs down and ensuring quality service, profitability and prosperity for all.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

Straight from the 2008 BO campaign. Pathetic, try saying something original. It does work, look at what happened when Reagan was in office. The main reason why we are in this mess that we are in right now comes from the decisions FDR made with the creation of Fannie, Jimmy Carter with the (CRA), the continued push of (CRA) from Bill Clinton and the Repeal of GS under Clinton.

 

So spare me your bull ****

 

 

Reagan started the spend, tax cut and deficit beyond the eyes can see economic theory. Until both sides become budget disciplined as under Clinton and Delay your singling out of one side is just partisan crap.

[Magox]

At the rate private insurance is increasing, maybe and if that is the case then you have nothing to worry about. The public option will fail or not be used and so what.

And so what?????? WTF

 

What do you mean "and so what"? How about the DEFICIT as a reason. Or how about the effects it will have on the DOLLAR. Or how about RAISING OVER $700 BILLION IN TAXES.

 

Not to mention once you have an entitlement program this big, it is nearly impossible to UNDO.

 

Give me a !@#$ing break, you really don't understand the magnitude of this Decision that is about to take place.

 

You're only argument is: "The Republicans did it, so" or "What about the cost of insurance premiums" which I just debunked, and "The public option will fail or not to be used and SO WHAT"????

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

Please give examples where the government directly competes with the private sector while consequently bringing costs down and ensuring quality service, profitability and prosperity for all.

And the current system does this.

 

Actually to an extent that is what CAT coverage and crop insurance does. In addition ad on coverage is subsidized through 3 risk pools that the government shares a percentage of with the insurance cos. It works pretty well and it keeps costs down through negotiations over rates. Losses are spread out and in good years money is returned to the treasury.

 

The public option should be set up as a ceiling and largely not competitive with the insurance cos. Doing this will hopefully slow the insurance oligopolies strangle hold over price setting. Currently they are operating like a Cartel and until that is broken up the whole process will remain an expensive cluster.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

And so what?????? WTF

 

What do you mean "and so what"? How about the DEFICIT as a reason. Or how about the effects it will have on the DOLLAR. Or how about RAISING OVER $700 BILLION IN TAXES.

 

Not to mention once you have an entitlement program this big, it is nearly impossible to UNDO.

 

Give me a !@#$ing break, you really don't understand the magnitude of this Decision that is about to take place.

 

You're only argument is: "The Republicans did it, so" or "What about the cost of insurance premiums" which I just debunked, and "The public option will fail or not to be used and SO WHAT"????

I do understand, show me how it is going to raise that much???? I have heard budget scores all over the place on this thing and don't believe any of it.

 

$700 B, at least paying for it is being talked about instead of deficit and spend.

[Magox]

I do understand, show me how it is going to raise that much???? I have heard budget scores all over the place on this thing and don't believe any of it.

 

$700 B, at least paying for it is being talked about instead of deficit and spend.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/...--69270747.html

 

Look at the GOP plan,

 

The Congressional Budget Office Wednesday night released its cost analysis of the Republican health care plan and found that it would reduce health care premiums and cut the deficit by $68 billion over ten years.

 

The Republican plan does not call for a government insurance plan but rather attempts to reform the system by creating high-risk insurance pools, allowing people to purchase health insurance policies across state lines and instituting medical malpractice reforms.

 

"Not only does the GOP plan lower health care costs, but it also increases access to quality care, including for those with pre-existing conditions, at a price our country can afford," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said.

 

According to CBO, the GOP bill would indeed lower costs, particularly for small businesses that have trouble finding affordable health care policies for their employees. The report found rates would drop by seven to 10 percent for this group, and by five to eight percent for the individual market, where it can also be difficult to find affordable policies.

 

The GOP plan would have the smallest economic impact on the large group market that serves people working for large businesses that have access to the cheapest coverage. Those premiums would decline by zero to 3 percent, the CBO said.

 

The analysis shows the Republican plan would do little to expand coverage, which Democrats were quick to point out in a late night missive to reporters.

 

"Here's the Bottom line - Americans lose and Insurance companies win under the Republican plan," Pelosi spokesman Nadeam Elshami said.

 

The CBO found that under the Republican plan, insurance coverage would increase by about 3 million and that the percentage of insured non-elderly adults would remain at about 83 percent after ten years. The House bill would increase coverage to an additional 36 million people, raising the number of insured to 96 percent.

 

The CBO put the price tag for the GOP plan at $61 billion, a fraction of the $1.05 trillion cost estimate it gave to the House bill that lawmakers are set to vote on this weekend. And the CBO found that the Republican provision to reform medical malpractice liability would result in $41 billion in savings and increase revenues by $13 billion by reducing the cost of private health insurance plans.

 

 

Covers 3 million more people, Only costs $61 Billion, reduces premiums significantly more than the "public option" and reduces the deficit.

 

This plan is a MILLION times better than the PUBLIC NIGHTMARE.

 

The Pelosi plan doesn't include the "DOC FIX".

 

The Bill didn't include the "DOC FIX", which raises the total cost above $1.2 Trillion.

 

Let me explain it to you, they want to keep the Bill "DEFICIT NEUTRAL". So what do they do? They cut out close to $500 Billion in Medicare so the bill magically becomes "DEFICIT NEUTRAL".

 

Then they create a new piece of legislation to add back in over $200 Billion for Medicare spending. It's like Magic, actually it's FRAUD.

 

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1109/BRE...e_doc_fix_.html

 

And to answer your question:

 

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm2648.cfm

Billions in New Taxes

 

The new House health care plan includes several tax increases that would cost taxpayers $700 billion over the next 10 years. In addition to the surtax, employer mandate, and individual mandate provisions found in the original bill, H.R. 3962 adds on several new taxes.

The new plan establishes a 5.4 percent surtax on joint filers with over $1 million in adjusted gross income or $500,000 for single filers. This surtax is not based on final adjusted gross income but instead on modified gross income, thereby increasing the overall effect of the tax.

 

This surtax is also not indexed to inflation. This would cause more and more taxpayers to be hammered by the surtax even as their real income does not increase. This is one reason the Joint Tax Committee expects the cost of the surtax to more than double in 10 years, from $30.9 billion in 2011 to $68.4 billion in 2021, and that taxpayers will be forced to pay $460.5 billion in higher taxes due to this provision.[2] This is a larger tax increase than the 1993 Clinton income tax increase provisions.

 

The House bill also limits contributions to flexible spending accounts (FSAs) to $2,500 per year and limits the ability of FSAs or health savings accounts to purchase goods by excluding over-the-counter drugs. It also taxes medical devices and self-insured health plans.

 

The Real Cost

 

The CBO's preliminary estimate of H.R. 3962 puts the total cost of the health care coverage provisions at $1.05 trillion (with offsets bringing the net cost down to close to $900 billion).[3] But there are other spending provisions in the bill that the CBO has not accounted for, such as special funding for prevention and wellness, increases in the federal Medicaid matching rate, and Medicaid reimbursement for primary care physicians.

 

Former CBO Director Donald Marron calculates that these additional provisions would add $217 billion to the total cost of the House health care bill, raising the total cost to almost $1.3 trillion.[4] Moreover, although the score is technically a 10-year score, it is not a 10-year cost under full implementation. A full 10-year cost puts the total close to $2.4 trillion.[5]

 

The real price tag for taxpayers gets higher when the cost of fixing the scheduled Medicare cuts to physicians is included. While House leaders propose to separate it from the larger bill in order to make their health care spending agenda appear less expensive, the CBO estimates the 10-year cost for this "doc fix" at over $200 billion. As of this writing, it is not clear whether House leaders will find a way to offset the "doc fix" or simply add the extra spending to the already massive increase in deficit spending.

 

One thing is certain: In the end, the House bill would cost more than the President's promised $900 billion price tag. As with previous health care programs, it will likely cost even more than its current estimated price tag: $1.5 trillion.

[IDBillzFan]

And the current system does this.

 

Actually to an extent that is what CAT coverage and crop insurance does. In addition ad on coverage is subsidized through 3 risk pools that the government shares a percentage of with the insurance cos. It works pretty well and it keeps costs down through negotiations over rates. Losses are spread out and in good years money is returned to the treasury.

 

The public option should be set up as a ceiling and largely not competitive with the insurance cos. Doing this will hopefully slow the insurance oligopolies strangle hold over price setting. Currently they are operating like a Cartel and until that is broken up the whole process will remain an expensive cluster.

Precisely how should the public option NOT be competitive with insurance companies? They would HAVE to be less expensive than the insurance companies, obviously, and since the federal government has a money printer and does not need to make a profit, they'd squeeze the private insurers right out of the business because employers across the board would gladly pay less and give their employees crappy government-run coverage since health care would no longer be a company benefit but rather a federal mandate.

 

And one of the main reasons the firms are operating like a cartel because of state restrictions. You want to watch prices drop? Let them compete across state lines.

 

The bottom line is this: the very last resort for health care reform should be any government-run ANYTHING. More government in your life is bad. I know that's impossible for a liberal to understand, but most Americans want less government in their lives, not more.

[Magox]

Take your blinders off they do all the time and there are many examples of public private partnerships. I am talking about keep costs down, but you keep spouting the Laissez Faire crap. It ends up being trickle down econ all over again. It doesn't work.

Since you've repeated that your major concern is "keeping costs down", and now that the CBO scored that the "public option" would increase premiums and the GOP plan would reduce it by 5-10%.

 

Shouldn't you be contacting your congressman now to drop the "public option" and look to adopt some of the GOP's ideas?

[keepthefaith]

Please give examples where the government directly competes with the private sector while consequently bringing costs down and ensuring quality service, profitability and prosperity for all.

 

I hate this health care reform bill as much as anyone. I would not be opposed to a public option if all that participated paid for the coverage without taxpayer funding. I wouldn't be too concerned about the government competing with the private sector. The USPS had about a 100 year head start on UPS and Fedex and has had its' ass kicked in terms of service and financial performance. I don't think the government is a big threat to compete with private insurance as long as the government doesn't control pricing and service levels. I think we could count on the government providing a lackluster service as a health care provider leaving plenty of room for private insurance to compete. However, expecting the government to offer health insurance and not meddle with the playing field is a pipe dream.