|
View Poll Results: How is Obama doing? (poll started 6/6) | |||
Great - above my expectations | 18 | 6.87% | |
Good - met most of my expectations | 66 | 25.19% | |
Average - so so, disappointed a little | 64 | 24.43% | |
Bad - sold us out | 101 | 38.55% | |
Trout - don't know yet | 13 | 4.96% | |
Voters: 262. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools |
08-19-2009, 04:06 PM | #3951 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
|
How about just lowering the payouts and offering more tax incentives on things like the Roth IRA and company 401Ks?
Last edited by RainMaker : 08-19-2009 at 04:06 PM. |
08-19-2009, 04:42 PM | #3952 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Quote:
Well, granted, I am speaking of a good deal of regulation on insurance companies. I think eliminating pre-existing condition exclusions, wide premium variances, and other shady type behavior, as well as opening up insurance companies to interstate competition is very good start. The mandates would allow for a much better spreading of the risk as well. Now, I guess, we could start off with strong regulations on insurance companies and the government acting as a broker for the poor and unemployed, having insurance companies compete over the pool, have more requirements that employers initiate health plans, and then add the mandate in later... but I think the mandate is essential at some point, and sooner rather than later, if we want to cut costs (also essential is removing the pay for service situation we have which just encourages doctors to perform unnecessary tests).
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
|
08-19-2009, 05:01 PM | #3953 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
|
Quote:
I agree, but I'm skeptical that Congress will put enough regulation on insurance companies.
__________________
To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers |
|
08-19-2009, 05:08 PM | #3954 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Quote:
I understand how the pre-existing thing screws a lot of people but I'm not sure how you get by without it. If there were no limitations on pre-existing conditions, shouldn't I just wait until I'm sick before I start paying for insurance? Presumably, the federal option would be particularly generous to pre-existing conditions. So why would anyone pay for it until they need it? If the public option is intended to pay for itself through premiums paid by the middle class (rich people aren't going to use the public option), that seems like a big risk. Last edited by molson : 08-19-2009 at 05:10 PM. |
|
08-19-2009, 05:10 PM | #3955 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
|
Quote:
That's why there's a mandate for everyone to purchase insurance.
__________________
To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers |
|
08-19-2009, 05:10 PM | #3956 | |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia
|
Quote:
That wouldn't be an issue if insurance coverage was mandatory.
__________________
Top 10 Songs of the Year 1955-Present (1976 Added) Franchise Portfolio Draft Winner Fictional Character Draft Winner Television Family Draft Winner Build Your Own Hollywood Studio Draft Winner |
|
08-19-2009, 05:12 PM | #3957 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Quote:
Oh right. But what if you're in the middle-class, have lots of student loans, and can't afford the public option? How much is this going to cost exactly? There's this assumption that it's going to be affordable. But how much? Or will it vary to whatever it takes to make this self-sufficient? Without the price-checks of pre-existing conditions, companies, how does this stay affordable? Do we have enough doctors and clinics in the U.S. for EVERYONE to have insurance? Those are the two biggest risks of these things to me. Does the middle class know they're going to be shelling out, what, $500-$1000/month if they don't have benefits from their job, or if their job drops benefits? Last edited by molson : 08-19-2009 at 05:19 PM. |
|
08-19-2009, 05:12 PM | #3958 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Quote:
Hence the need for mandates. Regardless, I've seen too many people get screwed over by pre-existing condition exclusion to believe that a few people who would merely wait until they are sick (and even then, for an employer plan, you'd have to wait until the next open enrollment period, and for completely individual plans, I doubt it'd be all that cheap unless you were close to the poverty line or something)
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
|
08-19-2009, 05:17 PM | #3959 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Quote:
I assume a tax subsidy would come into effect here. It'll likely be a sliding scale based on income, I'd imagine. Yes, to some it will have the appearance of, basically, a tax increase on everyone (it should, not just on the rich). But for necessary things (and I believe affordable health care for everyone is necessary), taxes are accepted. They have been in every other developed country after all.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
|
08-19-2009, 05:18 PM | #3960 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Quote:
Wouldn't the market expand to accommodate that need?
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
|
08-19-2009, 05:23 PM | #3961 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Quote:
I'm not talking about taxes, I'm talking about the premiums the middle class will have to pay for the public option. The middle class will get screwed because rich people aren't going to buy the public option, so the only way the public option can be "self sufficient" is the middle class paying for the health care of the poor with their premiums. Bringing up the poor at the expense of the middle class would be a huge problem. |
|
08-19-2009, 05:25 PM | #3962 |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
I suppose, but doesn't that just mean lower standards for doctors and medical schools? And if doctors don't like the new system, or if it doesn't agree with their wallets, we'll probably see a lot of early retirements. Last edited by molson : 08-19-2009 at 05:27 PM. |
08-19-2009, 05:25 PM | #3963 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
|
Quote:
Supply and demand. Give more incentives on student loans and stuff so doctors we can produce more doctors. Let more students in from abroad if we need to. It's pretty shitty to sit there and tell 15% of the country they are fucked because the other 85% demands more. We wouldn't do this with police protection. |
|
08-19-2009, 05:26 PM | #3964 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Quote:
Well, I'm saying it would have the appearance of a tax increase. Second, not sure why you are speaking of the public plan as it appears it may be dead in the water. Thirdly, the public option, if it comes to fruition, would be a government run self-insured program. Why would it be required to be self sufficient? It most likely won't be. Hence why the talk about raising more taxes on the rich to pay for health care (of course originally it was stated that the rich would pay for all of it, but I think even the administration has backed off that fallacy).
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
|
08-19-2009, 05:29 PM | #3965 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Quote:
Other countries seem to do it and have just as high standards for doctors as we do (European doctors are pretty damned good). I don't see why it would lead to that much decline. A bunch of new med schools would start up and more people who wanted to be doctors would be accepted to them.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
|
08-19-2009, 05:31 PM | #3966 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Apr 2005
|
Quote:
It's that not simple. You can't "tell" people to go into a profession. If you've noticed, we are facing a big problem with general physicians these days. Also, more doctors/surgeons are starting to a) opt out of government problems (Medicare/Medicaid) or b) retire early. Top it off with the ability to be sue at anytime. Last edited by Galaxy : 08-19-2009 at 05:34 PM. |
|
08-19-2009, 05:32 PM | #3967 | ||
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
Quote:
Quote:
Again, I don't think it would happen the second the public option came out. But, 2-3 years down the round, I'd be shocked if half the companies offering health insurance still did. Plus, at some point, a push will be made for the fees will go away as few will be offering insurance (which will mean even more savings). |
||
08-19-2009, 05:34 PM | #3968 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Quote:
The .pdf summary of the house plan claims that the public option would be self-sustaining: http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/1...ARY-071409.pdf "The public option will operate on a level playing field. It will be subject to the same market reforms and consumer protections as other private plans in the Exchange and it will be self-sustaining – financed only by its premiums." |
|
08-19-2009, 05:37 PM | #3969 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Do you actually believe that? I doubt they really believe that.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
08-19-2009, 05:41 PM | #3970 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Quote:
That would kind of shed light on the lack of credibility on the whole thing, wouldn't it? The only way I can reason that it might be just misleading, rather than a lie, is that the rich will pay taxes for the poor to get the public option (the "affordability credits"), and that isn't included in the whole "self-sustaining" goal. I.e., the plan would be self-sufficient after the affordability credits are paid for by the rich. Last edited by molson : 08-19-2009 at 05:41 PM. |
|
08-19-2009, 05:42 PM | #3971 | |
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
Quote:
This is why private insurance brokers look for similar age/health people when grouping plans. In a public option, many of the top 10-15% will opt out because they have white collar/good benefit jobs. Companies will start dropping coverage on the cheaper employees (where the 8% hit makes sense) and then you'll have a group of 30-60K salary employees without employer sponsored insurance being grouped in with people in poverty unable to pay their public premiums. So, guess who pays that bill? The 30-60K crowd who now is forced with paying taxes and a premium for a plan that's not as good as what they had last year. The public plan will be great for people who make less than 25K and people who make between 80 and 200K won't care. It will suck for people who make 30-60K and now must go with inferior insurance for the same (if not more) price, as well as the 200,000+ "rich" who's taxes get hiked to help pay for it. Seems to me a better plan is to setup incentives to get under 25K people covered under private plans (with some restrictions on dropping people as long as they pay their low premiums) than screw the 30-60K salary people who will now be faced with dropped employer coverage because the 8% penalty isn't enough to justify keeping them insured with the public option out there. Last edited by Arles : 08-19-2009 at 05:45 PM. |
|
08-19-2009, 05:43 PM | #3972 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Quote:
Did any of the European countries have to cover, what, 40 million new people overnight? Maybe there would be a shortage, maybe there wouldn't, but I'd like to know what would happen if there was a shortage, not just assume everything will be fine. Part of the failure of the MA universal health care attempt was a poor ability to predict the future, and especially the effects of a recession and greater-than-anticipated costs. I don't think the government can predict the future. This administration has already shown to have a poor handle on unemployment numbers, something a lot less complicated than this. Last edited by molson : 08-19-2009 at 05:47 PM. |
|
08-19-2009, 05:44 PM | #3973 |
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
We've been told by others if you don't trust the bill you should just leave the discussion. I think the comparison was that we are saying "the sky is orange".
|
08-19-2009, 05:53 PM | #3974 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
|
Quote:
That seems awfully high per insured employee. Don't know what the going rates are for everyone, but 7-9k per insured employee is much higher than our rates with United Healthcare. Certainly there are employees who can hit that level, but on average with a diverse employment base, I don't see how it would be that high. Benefits are also an extension of salary. If you remove $7-$9k in benefits from someone and replace it with $5k, you are in fact lowering the salary of the individual. |
|
08-19-2009, 05:55 PM | #3975 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
|
Quote:
These people aren't being added into the system, they are just being setup in a more consistent and convenient way. Last edited by RainMaker : 08-19-2009 at 05:55 PM. |
|
08-19-2009, 05:59 PM | #3976 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Quote:
Well you raise a good point in that a lot of these people are being taking care of on the state level. All states have some form of healthcare assistance to the poor, if not universal health care. (I'm always amazed to see how many criminals have access to free mental health care and drugs - and not as a result of their conviction, I mean before they committed their crimes. I know that's through the state, though there's surely some federal funding) Can we assume that all goes away too? Will the feds manage healthcare better than the states? How is that possible? Has the federal government ever done anything in a "more consistent and convenient way". I wonder how well a "European health care" would work, one plan for the entire continent. Everyone's stuck with any flaws and risks, and the entire continent's economic future rests on the decisions of a few bureaucrats and the influence of lobbyists on them. Would Europeans have any concerns about that? I know it's not quite the same, but neither is comparing a small European country to a plan for the entire United States. Last edited by molson : 08-19-2009 at 06:07 PM. |
|
08-19-2009, 06:17 PM | #3977 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
|
Quote:
The fed a lot of things consistently and conveniently. Social security has worked well for decades. Medicare has cost issues but still works. FDA, FBI, NTSB, and many other organizations work well too. This notion that the federal government can't manage anything is a talking point with no substance. |
|
08-19-2009, 08:08 PM | #3978 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
|
If the poor get insurance none of us will ever get to see a doctor again. Keep your hands off my insurance you homeless bastards.
FUCK THE POOR!
__________________
To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers |
08-19-2009, 08:10 PM | #3979 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
|
Quote:
The government would subsidize those unable to afford coverage, hence the @1 trillion cost over ten years. There isn't any way to have a plan that covers the poor without some form of government assistance.
__________________
To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers |
|
08-19-2009, 08:11 PM | #3980 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
|
Quote:
The federal government isn't running healthcare. The grandest plan is a public option for insurance, but most everything would stay the way it is currently.
__________________
To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers |
|
08-19-2009, 08:14 PM | #3981 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Quote:
That's the part I don't quite understand. What's the $1 trillion going to if not to cover the poor? Clearly, the pdf and everything I've heard claims that the public option will be self-sufficient (i.e. subsidized by middle class premiums). I know there's much more to the plan then the public option, but $1 trillion worth? |
|
08-19-2009, 08:15 PM | #3982 |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
|
08-19-2009, 08:21 PM | #3983 | |
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
Quote:
We'll put it in a different light. How many companies in the UK or Canada provide privately sponsored health care coverage? Employers don't want to be in that business. |
|
08-19-2009, 08:22 PM | #3984 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Quote:
It's a great chart to get the basics of how everything would work if you completely negate any risk factors. The public option is a LOT smaller than I thought it was. Mostly it's just paying people to get private insurance. Does the fed predict that the public option will be that undesirable? What if, as many believe, and even Obama concedes is possible, a big chunk of that 122 million who get insurance through their employers need to suddenly get the public option? Last edited by molson : 08-19-2009 at 08:30 PM. |
|
08-19-2009, 08:22 PM | #3985 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
|
Quote:
Self-sufficient in that it won't be given money outside of premiums, but premiums of those under a certain income level would be subsidized by the government through a tax on those making more than 200k. Most of the 1 trillion cost will go to subsidizing premiums.
__________________
To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers |
|
08-19-2009, 08:27 PM | #3986 |
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
I'm not following this. The whole plan costs just $300 million? If that's the case, why does the democrat plan cost $600 bullion?
|
08-19-2009, 08:28 PM | #3987 |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
|
08-19-2009, 08:29 PM | #3988 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
|
Quote:
There are so many restrictions on who is eligible for the public option that I don't see your nightmare scenario being widespread. What happens to your company when you cut health insurance and your employees aren't eligible for a public plan? Are you really going to have a workforce happy with doubling their medical expenses while your company pockets the profits? And if your company is run by such bastards that will only get us to a single payer system faster, which IMO would probably be a good thing. At the end of the day I don't think we should eliminate the possibility of reform because CEO's are going to be pricks or poor people will go to the doctor too much. As for costs, I'm concerned about total costs, not where the money comes from. I think a public option can reduce the growth of medical expenses and I don't see much in the way of credible arguments for how that will happen otherwise.
__________________
To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers |
|
08-19-2009, 08:32 PM | #3989 |
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
So, is this plan insuring 10 million people that weren't insured before or the 25 million + the 7.2 mil + 2.5 mil?
Last edited by Arles : 08-19-2009 at 08:32 PM. |
08-19-2009, 08:37 PM | #3990 | |
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
Quote:
Now, I don't think it's a terrible idea to have some sort of plan for covering people in poverty without insurance, but I'm not sure this public option is the way to go. |
|
08-19-2009, 08:39 PM | #3991 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
|
The proposal is a plan that would cover people in poverty without insurance which you want, but then you say it's not the way to go. How do you change your mind in the middle of a sentence?
|
08-19-2009, 08:41 PM | #3992 | ||
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Quote:
Uh, what exactly do you think they had to do when they started their plans? Quote:
I guess there is a crux of the difference. MA, which is considering a new way of paying for service to cut costs, has almost a 100% of the population with health care coverage. I see this as a SUCCESS, not a failure. Are the costs higher? Yes, because no plan is perfect, but they are dealing with them.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
||
08-19-2009, 08:42 PM | #3993 |
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
I'll repeat what I wrote again:
Now, I don't think it's a terrible idea to have some sort of plan for covering people in poverty without insurance, but I'm not sure this public option is the way to go. |
08-19-2009, 08:43 PM | #3994 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
|
Why is this public option not the way to go?
|
08-19-2009, 08:47 PM | #3995 |
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
Because I think there are ways the government can subsidize that kind of coverage via private industry without having to "own it". We're talking about 10-25 million people in a country of 300 million.
|
08-19-2009, 08:50 PM | #3996 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
|
What's the difference outside of the fact that your way would just be handing over more money to health insurance companies?
|
08-19-2009, 08:55 PM | #3997 | |
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
Quote:
I'd rather have the government setup guidelines for coverage (restriction on dropping, certain minimum coverage requirements) and let private companies take a stipend to provide the coverage. This way everyone is on an equal playing field for cost and you give people on this coverage a shot at actually having it be accepted by their doctor. |
|
08-19-2009, 08:55 PM | #3998 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
I think not having the government as a market participant is a good thing. When it's a broker for the poor rather than being an insurance company in its own right, it allows for better competition and less... let's say, incentive.. for increase government power in the system.
In listening to some Dem pundits, they almost see the public option as a stepping stone for a single payer health plan.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
08-19-2009, 08:59 PM | #3999 |
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
Exactly my thoughts. If all we want is to cover 10-25 million of the currently uninsured, we can do that at a much lower expense by outsourcing it. The only reason to go public is with the idea to have it eventually expand to a single payer system.
|
08-19-2009, 09:07 PM | #4000 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
|
Quote:
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 40 (0 members and 40 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|