Magox Posted November 30, 2009 Posted November 30, 2009 Premiums covered under the public option.... CBO and JCT estimate that the average premium per person covered (including dependents) for new nongroup policies would be about 10 percent to 13 percent higher in 2016 than the average premium for nongroup coverage in that same year under current law. About half of those enrollees would receive government subsidies that would reduce their costs well below the premiums that would be charged for such policies under current law. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10781/11-30-Premiums.pdf WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate's healthcare bill would raise insurance premiums by at least 10 percent by 2016 for those independently buying coverage but subsidies would reduce the actual costs for half of that group, the Congressional Budget Office said on Monday. The nonpartisan CBO said the bill would have a much smaller impact on those who receive coverage through employer-based plans. The analysts said premiums would increase for those purchasing their plans individually largely because those plans would offer greater benefits than under current policies. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?hpid=topnews I would say that the Libs will not be too happy about this CBO score.
Magox Posted November 30, 2009 Author Posted November 30, 2009 I've been reading through this thing, and here are some interesting tidbits for those of you that give a !@#$. According to the CBO's analysis, if you are receiving insurance from the company you work for, you will most likely pay anywhere from the 2% more to as much as 3% less. Or to use their words, it would make a "negligible" difference. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10781/11-30-Premiums.pdf you can find it on page 6 But the biggest bombshell is that if you are an individual looking to buy insurance outside of what your work can offer you: The CBO report offers the first detailed analysis of those effects, which would fall most heavily on the relatively small individual market, where people who do not have access to affordable coverage from an employer purchase insurance directly from insurance companies. By 2016, two years after the Senate reforms are to take effect, the CBO projected that premiums for 32 million people in that market would be driven as much as 30 percent higher because insurance companies would be required to offer better coverage than they do now. But that increase would be partially offset by lower costs for insurers, who would have access to a new pool of younger, healthier customers who might previously have gone without insurance. Individual insurance premiums would increase by an average of 10 percent or more, according to an analysis of the Senate healthcare bill. So in other words, people who are looking to buy individual insurance will pay considerably more than the current system. Under the legislation, new nongroup policies would cover a broader scope of benefits than are projected to be covered by such policies, on average, under current law. In particular, the legislation would require all new nongroup policies to cover a specified set of “essential health benefits,” which would be further delineated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) and would be required to match the scope of benefits provided by typical employment-based plans. As a result, new nongroup policies would cover certain services that are often not covered by nongroup policies under current law, such as maternity care, prescription drugs, and mental health and substance abuse treatment. Moreover, nongroup insurers would be prohibited from denying coverage for preexisting conditions, so premiums would have to increase to cover the resulting costs. The underlined part is what some of us have been saying for months now, you can find that on page 11. The legislation would impose several new fees on firms in the health sector. New fees would be imposed on providers of health insurance and on manufacturers and importers of medical devices. Both of those fees would be largely passed through to consumers in the form of higher premiums for private coverage. you can find that on page 16, and to my understanding, this wasn't factored in to the overall analysis of the Bill. The good news is that if you fall anywhere from 133% below to 400% above the FPL you qualify for : of the 32 million people who would have nongroup coverage in 2016 under the proposal (including those purchased inside and outside the exchanges), about 18 million, or 57 percent, would receive exchange subsidies. For the people who received subsidies, those subsidies would, on average, cover nearly two-thirds of the premiums for their policies in 2016. Putting together the subsidies and the higher level of premiums paid to insurers yields a net reduction in average premiums paid by individuals and families in the nongroup market—for those receiving subsidies—of 56 percent to 59 percent relative to the amounts paid under current law. People in lower income ranges would generally experience greater reductions in premiums paid, and people in higher income ranges who receive subsidies would experience smaller reductions or net increases in premiums paid. page 25 and for the table 29 for a detailed breakdown research by Amy Finkelstein suggests that expanded insurance coverage could have broader effects on the use of health care services than are captured by focusing on changes for the previously uninsured. On the other hand, the proposal includes numerous provisions that would encourage the development and dissemination of less costly ways to deliver appropriate medical services, either directly or indirectly. Examples of those provisions include the excise tax on high-premium insurance plans; the creation of a new Medicare advisory board that might limit the growth rate of Medicare Examining trends in hospital spending, she found that the substantial increase in demand for medical services generated by the introduction of Medicare in 1965 accelerated the dissemination of new medical procedures more broadly and could account for about half of the overall increase in hospital spending for the population as a whole that occurred in subsequent years. By that logic, the expansion of insurance coverage to millions of nonelderly people under this proposal could generate a larger increase in health care spending—and thereby health insurance premiums—than estimated here. the counter argument is: However, several factors temper that conclusion. For one, the quantitative effect would presumably be smaller than that caused by Medicare because nonelderly people use less health care, on average, than elderly people. Moreover, Medicare initially paid hospitals on the basis of their incurred costs—an approach that gave hospitals little incentive to control those costs. The increase in hospital spending that resulted from Medicare’s creation could well have been smaller under a less generous payment system or in an era of more tightly managed care. In particular, roughly half of the increase in insurance coverage generated by this proposal would come from expanded enrollment in Medicaid, which pays relatively low rates to providers. Incentives for cost control would also be greater in the proposed exchanges, because exchange enrollees would have to pay the full additional cost of joining a more expensive insurance plan. Regardless, any effects of expanded insurance coverage on the dissemination of new medical procedures would unfold slowly and would have little effect on health care and health insurance premiums by 2016. On the other hand, the proposal includes numerous provisions that would encourage the development and dissemination of less costly ways to deliver appropriate medical services, either directly or indirectly. Examples of those provisions include the excise tax on high-premium insurance plans; the creation of a new Medicare advisory board that might limit the growth rate of Medicare spending; and certain changes in Medicare’s payment methods as well as new pilot and demonstration projects regarding other changes in payment methods (such as penalties for hospital readmissions that are deemed avoidable and incentives to coordinate patients’ care). The changes in Medicare’s payment methods could “spill over” to the private sector and decrease spending for health care relative to currently projected levels. However, the effects of those initiatives on Medicare’s spending are uncertain and would probably be small in 2016 relative to the program’s total spending, so any spillover to private insurance at that point would probably be small as well. Like the recent mammograms recommendation maybe? page 26 and 27 I know, I'm a freak,
IDBillzFan Posted November 30, 2009 Posted November 30, 2009 I know, I'm a freak, Actually, you're a super freak. But I read what you posted and appreciate it. I hope you post this info somewhere useful, because for all intents and purposes, there are two groups here: those who see the health care reform for the fraud it is, and those who see no harm in providing yet another massive entitlement to the unproductive on the back of the productive, regardless of the fact that it won't reduce costs and won't be deficit neutral. So you're either preaching to the choir or pissing off the party faithful and there is little chance someone here will read this report and say "Hey, you know what? This health care reform bill actually looks like it will suck. I think I'll call my congresscritter and tell them I don't like it."
Magox Posted November 30, 2009 Author Posted November 30, 2009 Actually, you're a super freak. But I read what you posted and appreciate it. I hope you post this info somewhere useful, because for all intents and purposes, there are two groups here: those who see the health care reform for the fraud it is, and those who see no harm in providing yet another massive entitlement to the unproductive on the back of the productive, regardless of the fact that it won't reduce costs and won't be deficit neutral. So you're either preaching to the choir or pissing off the party faithful and there is little chance someone here will read this report and say "Hey, you know what? This health care reform bill actually looks like it will suck. I think I'll call my congresscritter and tell them I don't like it." You're probably right, but I believe it is important to put the information out there as much as possible. My thinking is that if I can get as many people informed on the possible implications of the bill, then maybe, just maybe a few of them will call their congresscritters to tell them that this Bill is a sham and have actual real, substantive data to provide them as opposed to the typical, ignorant "Death Panel" argument. I have posted some of this stuff on my Facebook, which most of my friends are either liberals or think they are, and I've actually opened up some of their eyes in regards to this topic. So, I'm doing everything I possibly can to KILL THIS !@#$ING BILL.
Adam Posted November 30, 2009 Posted November 30, 2009 Actually, you're a super freak. But I read what you posted and appreciate it. I hope you post this info somewhere useful, because for all intents and purposes, there are two groups here: those who see the health care reform for the fraud it is, and those who see no harm in providing yet another massive entitlement to the unproductive on the back of the productive, regardless of the fact that it won't reduce costs and won't be deficit neutral. So you're either preaching to the choir or pissing off the party faithful and there is little chance someone here will read this report and say "Hey, you know what? This health care reform bill actually looks like it will suck. I think I'll call my congresscritter and tell them I don't like it." It will suck- they are completely middling and muddling it. Both sides should be against it. Either have a full public option or make sure that all insurance companies are available to everyone in the country and let them compete till they drop. The current bill would just give more customers to the insurance companies that are already killing us.
Frit0 Bandit0 Posted November 30, 2009 Posted November 30, 2009 I've been reading through this thing, and here are some interesting tidbits for those of you that give a !@#$. According to the CBO's analysis, if you are receiving insurance from the company you work for, you will most likely pay anywhere from the 2% more to as much as 3% less. Or to use their words, it would make a "negligible" difference. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10781/11-30-Premiums.pdf you can find it on page 6 But the biggest bombshell is that if you are an individual looking to buy insurance outside of what your work can offer you: The CBO report offers the first detailed analysis of those effects, which would fall most heavily on the relatively small individual market, where people who do not have access to affordable coverage from an employer purchase insurance directly from insurance companies. By 2016, two years after the Senate reforms are to take effect, the CBO projected that premiums for 32 million people in that market would be driven as much as 30 percent higher because insurance companies would be required to offer better coverage than they do now. But that increase would be partially offset by lower costs for insurers, who would have access to a new pool of younger, healthier customers who might previously have gone without insurance. Individual insurance premiums would increase by an average of 10 percent or more, according to an analysis of the Senate healthcare bill. So in other words, people who are looking to buy individual insurance will pay considerably more than the current system. Under the legislation, new nongroup policies would cover a broader scope of benefits than are projected to be covered by such policies, on average, under current law. In particular, the legislation would require all new nongroup policies to cover a specified set of “essential health benefits,” which would be further delineated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) and would be required to match the scope of benefits provided by typical employment-based plans. As a result, new nongroup policies would cover certain services that are often not covered by nongroup policies under current law, such as maternity care, prescription drugs, and mental health and substance abuse treatment. Moreover, nongroup insurers would be prohibited from denying coverage for preexisting conditions, so premiums would have to increase to cover the resulting costs. The underlined part is what some of us have been saying for months now, you can find that on page 11. The legislation would impose several new fees on firms in the health sector. New fees would be imposed on providers of health insurance and on manufacturers and importers of medical devices. Both of those fees would be largely passed through to consumers in the form of higher premiums for private coverage. you can find that on page 16, and to my understanding, this wasn't factored in to the overall analysis of the Bill. The good news is that if you fall anywhere from 133% below to 400% above the FPL you qualify for : of the 32 million people who would have nongroup coverage in 2016 under the proposal (including those purchased inside and outside the exchanges), about 18 million, or 57 percent, would receive exchange subsidies. For the people who received subsidies, those subsidies would, on average, cover nearly two-thirds of the premiums for their policies in 2016. Putting together the subsidies and the higher level of premiums paid to insurers yields a net reduction in average premiums paid by individuals and families in the nongroup market—for those receiving subsidies—of 56 percent to 59 percent relative to the amounts paid under current law. People in lower income ranges would generally experience greater reductions in premiums paid, and people in higher income ranges who receive subsidies would experience smaller reductions or net increases in premiums paid. page 25 and for the table 29 for a detailed breakdown research by Amy Finkelstein suggests that expanded insurance coverage could have broader effects on the use of health care services than are captured by focusing on changes for the previously uninsured. On the other hand, the proposal includes numerous provisions that would encourage the development and dissemination of less costly ways to deliver appropriate medical services, either directly or indirectly. Examples of those provisions include the excise tax on high-premium insurance plans; the creation of a new Medicare advisory board that might limit the growth rate of Medicare Examining trends in hospital spending, she found that the substantial increase in demand for medical services generated by the introduction of Medicare in 1965 accelerated the dissemination of new medical procedures more broadly and could account for about half of the overall increase in hospital spending for the population as a whole that occurred in subsequent years. By that logic, the expansion of insurance coverage to millions of nonelderly people under this proposal could generate a larger increase in health care spending—and thereby health insurance premiums—than estimated here. the counter argument is: However, several factors temper that conclusion. For one, the quantitative effect would presumably be smaller than that caused by Medicare because nonelderly people use less health care, on average, than elderly people. Moreover, Medicare initially paid hospitals on the basis of their incurred costs—an approach that gave hospitals little incentive to control those costs. The increase in hospital spending that resulted from Medicare’s creation could well have been smaller under a less generous payment system or in an era of more tightly managed care. In particular, roughly half of the increase in insurance coverage generated by this proposal would come from expanded enrollment in Medicaid, which pays relatively low rates to providers. Incentives for cost control would also be greater in the proposed exchanges, because exchange enrollees would have to pay the full additional cost of joining a more expensive insurance plan. Regardless, any effects of expanded insurance coverage on the dissemination of new medical procedures would unfold slowly and would have little effect on health care and health insurance premiums by 2016. On the other hand, the proposal includes numerous provisions that would encourage the development and dissemination of less costly ways to deliver appropriate medical services, either directly or indirectly. Examples of those provisions include the excise tax on high-premium insurance plans; the creation of a new Medicare advisory board that might limit the growth rate of Medicare spending; and certain changes in Medicare’s payment methods as well as new pilot and demonstration projects regarding other changes in payment methods (such as penalties for hospital readmissions that are deemed avoidable and incentives to coordinate patients’ care). The changes in Medicare’s payment methods could “spill over” to the private sector and decrease spending for health care relative to currently projected levels. However, the effects of those initiatives on Medicare’s spending are uncertain and would probably be small in 2016 relative to the program’s total spending, so any spillover to private insurance at that point would probably be small as well. Like the recent mammograms recommendation maybe? page 26 and 27 I know, I'm a freak, That was good read, well done.
Magox Posted November 30, 2009 Author Posted November 30, 2009 The current bill would just give more customers to the insurance companies that are already killing us. You see, that is the exact same popular misconception that most people have regarding the health insurance industry, which has been been communicated to us through a bullhorn by the W.H and Congress, and that is just outright untrue. The problem is not the health insurance industry but rather the rising costs of health care.
Magox Posted December 1, 2009 Author Posted December 1, 2009 Here's how a liberal outlet will spin the CBO scoring: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/health/p...health.html?hpw No Big Cost Rise in U.S. Premiums Is Seen in Study WASHINGTON — The Congressional Budget Office said Monday that the Senate health bill could significantly reduce costs for many people who buy health insurance on their own, and that it would not substantially change premiums for the vast numbers of Americans who receive coverage from large employers. Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, said the debate on health care was one of the most significant in Senate history. The eagerly awaited report, which came as the Senate began debate on the legislation, provided Democrats with ammunition against Republicans who have criticized the bill on the ground that it would raise costs for a majority of Americans. Centrist Democrats like Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, whose votes are vital to President Obama’s hopes of getting the bill approved, had feared that the measure would drive up costs for people with employer-sponsored coverage. After reading the budget office report, Mr. Bayh said he was reassured on that point. Before taking account of federal subsidies to help people buy insurance on their own, the budget office said the bill would tend to drive up premiums. But as a result of the subsidies, it said, most people in the individual insurance market would see their costs decline, compared with the costs expected under current law. The subsidies, a main feature of the bill, would cost the government nearly $450 billion in the next 10 years and would cover nearly two-thirds of premiums for people who receive them. For most people who get health insurance through employers — five-sixths of the total market — the budget office concluded that there would be little change in their premiums relative to the amounts projected under current law. Administration officials said the report provided a lift to the bill, which embodies Mr. Obama’s top domestic priority. “The C.B.O. has rendered a fundamental judgment that this will reduce the deficit and reduce people’s premium costs,” said Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, who huddled with Senate Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill on Monday. “All the Republican leadership will guarantee you is the status quo.” So now they are touting that if the bill doesn't increase people's premiums who get health insurance through their employers, that it is a victory. That's pathetic, considering that one of the main points that the W.H and Congress were trying to sell us was FEAR. Fear that something had to be done about rising health insurance premiums. So now a neglible effect on health insurance premiums is a victory? Well, they can keep believing that, however I have little doubt that this will be good news to people and businesses that are actually paying for insurance. The other thing that I find funny about this is how they are pleased to hear that many people's insurance who qualify for government subsidies will be reduced, almost as if they were relieved to hear this. No ****! This isn't a surprise, of course there were going to be millions of people that have their insurance subsidized, that was the whole point of the plan, to subsidize those that meet the criteria of falling below or in many cases above the FPL. Of course, this article doesn't highlight the effect of those people that are looking to buy health insurance that isn't provided to them by their work, that make up nearly 30 million people. Which according to the CBO would raise some peoples insurance by as much as 30% and on average between 10-13%.
3rdnlng Posted December 1, 2009 Posted December 1, 2009 Here's how a liberal outlet will spin the CBO scoring: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/health/p...health.html?hpw No Big Cost Rise in U.S. Premiums Is Seen in Study WASHINGTON — The Congressional Budget Office said Monday that the Senate health bill could significantly reduce costs for many people who buy health insurance on their own, and that it would not substantially change premiums for the vast numbers of Americans who receive coverage from large employers. Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, said the debate on health care was one of the most significant in Senate history. The eagerly awaited report, which came as the Senate began debate on the legislation, provided Democrats with ammunition against Republicans who have criticized the bill on the ground that it would raise costs for a majority of Americans. Centrist Democrats like Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, whose votes are vital to President Obama’s hopes of getting the bill approved, had feared that the measure would drive up costs for people with employer-sponsored coverage. After reading the budget office report, Mr. Bayh said he was reassured on that point. Before taking account of federal subsidies to help people buy insurance on their own, the budget office said the bill would tend to drive up premiums. But as a result of the subsidies, it said, most people in the individual insurance market would see their costs decline, compared with the costs expected under current law. The subsidies, a main feature of the bill, would cost the government nearly $450 billion in the next 10 years and would cover nearly two-thirds of premiums for people who receive them. For most people who get health insurance through employers — five-sixths of the total market — the budget office concluded that there would be little change in their premiums relative to the amounts projected under current law. Administration officials said the report provided a lift to the bill, which embodies Mr. Obama’s top domestic priority. “The C.B.O. has rendered a fundamental judgment that this will reduce the deficit and reduce people’s premium costs,” said Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, who huddled with Senate Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill on Monday. “All the Republican leadership will guarantee you is the status quo.” So now they are touting that if the bill doesn't increase people's premiums who get health insurance through their employers, that it is a victory. That's pathetic, considering that one of the main points that the W.H and Congress were trying to sell us was FEAR. Fear that something had to be done about rising health insurance premiums. So now a neglible effect on health insurance premiums is a victory? Well, they can keep believing that, however I have little doubt that this will be good news to people and businesses that are actually paying for insurance. The other thing that I find funny about this is how they are pleased to hear that many people's insurance who qualify for government subsidies will be reduced, almost as if they were relieved to hear this. No ****! This isn't a surprise, of course there were going to be millions of people that have their insurance subsidized, that was the whole point of the plan, to subsidize those that meet the criteria of falling below or in many cases above the FPL. Of course, this article doesn't highlight the effect of those people that are looking to buy health insurance that isn't provided to them by their work, that make up nearly 30 million people. Which according to the CBO would raise some peoples insurance by as much as 30% and on average between 10-13%. Would cost the government?
Magox Posted December 1, 2009 Author Posted December 1, 2009 Would cost the government? http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/11/27/...top-6-trillion/ Congressional Democrats are using several budget gimmicks to disguise the cost of their health care overhaul, claiming the House and Senate bills would cost only (!) about $1 trillion over 10 years. Now that critics have begun to correct for those budget gimmicks, supporters of ObamaCare are firing back. One gimmick makes the new entitlement spending appear smaller by not opening the spigot until late in the official 10-year budget window (2010–2019). Correcting for that gimmick in the Senate version, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) estimates, “When all this new spending occurs” — i.e., from 2014 through 2023 — “this bill will cost $2.5 trillion over that ten-year period.” Another gimmick pushes much of the legislation’s costs off the federal budget and onto the private sector by requiring individuals and employers to purchase health insurance. When the bills force somebody to pay $10,000 to the government, the Congressional Budget Office treats that as a tax. When the government then hands that $10,000 to private insurers, the CBO counts that as government spending. But when the bills achieve the exact same outcome by forcing somebody to pay $10,000 directly to a private insurance company, it appears nowhere in the official CBO cost estimates — neither as federal revenues nor federal spending. That’s a sharp departure from how the CBO treated similar mandates in the Clinton health plan. And it hides maybe 60 percent of the legislation’s total costs. When I correct for that gimmick, it brings total costs to roughly $2.5 trillion (i.e., $1 trillion/0.4). Here’s where things get really ugly. TPMDC’s Brian Beutler calls “the” $2.5-trillion cost estimate a “doozy” of a “hysterical Republican whopper.” Not only is he incorrect, he doesn’t seem to realize that Gregg and I are correcting for different budget gimmicks; it’s just a coincidence that we happened to reach the same number. When we correct for both gimmicks, counting both on- and off-budget costs over the first 10 years of implementation, the total cost of ObamaCare reaches — I’m so sorry about this — $6.25 trillion. That’s not a precise estimate. It’s just far closer to the truth than President Obama and congressional Democrats want the debate to be. Beutler and other supporters of ObamaCare can react to this news in two ways. They can continue to deny the enormous cost of the legislation they support. Or they can question how President Obama’s health plan came to be so blessedly expensive, and how (and by whom) they were duped into thinking it wasn’t.
3rdnlng Posted December 1, 2009 Posted December 1, 2009 http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/11/27/...top-6-trillion/ Congressional Democrats are using several budget gimmicks to disguise the cost of their health care overhaul, claiming the House and Senate bills would cost only (!) about $1 trillion over 10 years. Now that critics have begun to correct for those budget gimmicks, supporters of ObamaCare are firing back. One gimmick makes the new entitlement spending appear smaller by not opening the spigot until late in the official 10-year budget window (2010–2019). Correcting for that gimmick in the Senate version, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) estimates, “When all this new spending occurs” — i.e., from 2014 through 2023 — “this bill will cost $2.5 trillion over that ten-year period.” Another gimmick pushes much of the legislation’s costs off the federal budget and onto the private sector by requiring individuals and employers to purchase health insurance. When the bills force somebody to pay $10,000 to the government, the Congressional Budget Office treats that as a tax. When the government then hands that $10,000 to private insurers, the CBO counts that as government spending. But when the bills achieve the exact same outcome by forcing somebody to pay $10,000 directly to a private insurance company, it appears nowhere in the official CBO cost estimates — neither as federal revenues nor federal spending. That’s a sharp departure from how the CBO treated similar mandates in the Clinton health plan. And it hides maybe 60 percent of the legislation’s total costs. When I correct for that gimmick, it brings total costs to roughly $2.5 trillion (i.e., $1 trillion/0.4). Here’s where things get really ugly. TPMDC’s Brian Beutler calls “the” $2.5-trillion cost estimate a “doozy” of a “hysterical Republican whopper.” Not only is he incorrect, he doesn’t seem to realize that Gregg and I are correcting for different budget gimmicks; it’s just a coincidence that we happened to reach the same number. When we correct for both gimmicks, counting both on- and off-budget costs over the first 10 years of implementation, the total cost of ObamaCare reaches — I’m so sorry about this — $6.25 trillion. That’s not a precise estimate. It’s just far closer to the truth than President Obama and congressional Democrats want the debate to be. Beutler and other supporters of ObamaCare can react to this news in two ways. They can continue to deny the enormous cost of the legislation they support. Or they can question how President Obama’s health plan came to be so blessedly expensive, and how (and by whom) they were duped into thinking it wasn’t. I'm with you, but nothing ever costs the government anything, only the "governed".
Adam Posted December 1, 2009 Posted December 1, 2009 You see, that is the exact same popular misconception that most people have regarding the health insurance industry, which has been been communicated to us through a bullhorn by the W.H and Congress, and that is just outright untrue. The problem is not the health insurance industry but rather the rising costs of health care. By making health care mandatory, it would force people to them- and not lower costs at all. This bill is horrible. I believe that forcing them to compete more can lower costs, as can the public option. Either can be better than what we have now, but what we have now might be better than this horrible bill. They are trying to middle it, just to get something passed.
IDBillzFan Posted December 1, 2009 Posted December 1, 2009 By making health care mandatory, it would force people to them- and not lower costs at all. This bill is horrible. I believe that forcing them to compete more can lower costs, as can the public option. Either can be better than what we have now, but what we have now might be better than this horrible bill. They are trying to middle it, just to get something passed. No bill with a public option should be passed. Period. You should not be born into this country with a MANDATE to buy anything. Ever. We have some of the brightest minds in the world on our soil. If the liberals would just STOP trying to force us into a public option, they would get more support from a lot of people. But the public option is, pure and simple, an infringement on our freedoms and to FORCE us to do something against our will simply because we are American is disgusting. EVERYONE should be furious about a public option.
Booster4324 Posted December 2, 2009 Posted December 2, 2009 No bill with a public option should be passed. Period. You should not be born into this country with a MANDATE to buy anything. Ever. We have some of the brightest minds in the world on our soil. If the liberals would just STOP trying to force us into a public option, they would get more support from a lot of people. But the public option is, pure and simple, an infringement on our freedoms and to FORCE us to do something against our will simply because we are American is disgusting. EVERYONE should be furious about a public option. No, the problem is it isn't an option. The rest is **** too, but making it mandatory is just ridiculous.
Kelly the Dog Posted December 2, 2009 Posted December 2, 2009 No bill with a public option should be passed. Period. You should not be born into this country with a MANDATE to buy anything. Ever. We have some of the brightest minds in the world on our soil. If the liberals would just STOP trying to force us into a public option, they would get more support from a lot of people. But the public option is, pure and simple, an infringement on our freedoms and to FORCE us to do something against our will simply because we are American is disgusting. EVERYONE should be furious about a public option. You understand that any mandate has ABSOLUTELY ZERO to do with whether or not there is a public option, don't you? Apparently not. Do you even understand the idea of a public option? Do you understand public option portion of the bill? The exchanges? The meaning of the word "option"? Who is eligible?
DC Tom Posted December 2, 2009 Posted December 2, 2009 You understand that any mandate has ABSOLUTELY ZERO to do with whether or not there is a public option, don't you? Apparently not. Do you even understand the idea of a public option? Do you understand public option portion of the bill? The exchanges? The meaning of the word "option"? Who is eligible? Actually, the mandate to buy insurance and the provision of a public, subsidized insurance plan to compete with private plans does mean that the two have something to do with each other. They are not, however, the same thing, as LA suggested.
Kelly the Dog Posted December 2, 2009 Posted December 2, 2009 Actually, the mandate to buy insurance and the provision of a public, subsidized insurance plan to compete with private plans does mean that the two have something to do with each other. They are not, however, the same thing, as LA suggested. They have nothing to do with each other unless you want to say they are both potentially in the same bill. If there is a mandate, people will have NO requirement of any kind in any way to even consider the possibility of the public option. If there is not a mandate, the public option will exist in 100% the exact same manner as if there were a mandate. No one has to do anything whatsover with the public option unless they choose to on their own free will. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing about a potential mandate is linked to the public option. They are mutually exclusive of one another and you know it.
DC Tom Posted December 2, 2009 Posted December 2, 2009 They have nothing to do with each other unless you want to say they are both potentially in the same bill. If there is a mandate, people will have NO requirement of any kind in any way to even consider the possibility of the public option. If there is not a mandate, the public option will exist in 100% the exact same manner as if there were a mandate. No one has to do anything whatsover with the public option unless they choose to on their own free will. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing about a potential mandate is linked to the public option. They are mutually exclusive of one another and you know it. That's hair-splitting bull ****. If there is a mandate to buy insurance, and there is a public option available, then the public option is an option under the mandate to buy. And if there were no subsidized public option, you couldn't realistically have a mandate, since in the absence of the public option any mandate amounts to a blank check to the health insurance industry to gouge consumers. You can say they're not tightly related, but it's a connerish statement of idiocy to say they have absolutely zero relation to each other.
GG Posted December 2, 2009 Posted December 2, 2009 The other part is the Trojan Horse. When it will become obvious that the cost estimates of the public "option" were grossly understated, the only reasonable way to fund the shortfall will be to mandate everyone to buy into the plan to defray the skyrocketing costs.
DC Tom Posted December 2, 2009 Posted December 2, 2009 The other part is the Trojan Horse. When it will become obvious that the cost estimates of the public "option" were grossly understated, the only reasonable way to fund the shortfall will be to mandate everyone to buy into the plan to defray the skyrocketing costs. That's speculation, though, not fact. Two levels of speculation, in fact: the existence of the "Trojan Horse" (though I suspect the costs are grossly underestimated, since the plan does nothing to control health care costs themselves), and the idea that the public option will be mandated to cover it (this adminstration, I think, would be more likely to just raise the subsidy of the plan and fund it with some tax increase somewhere, as befits this administration's populist attitudes).
Recommended Posts