Schumer and Carper: Opt-Out Public Option is Being Seriously Discussed (1 Viewer)

[N.O.Bronco]

I still don't understand a damn thing about all of this. It was supposed to be discussed openly on CSPAN. It was then supposed to be posted on the 'net to review. Neither of which has occurred. All I hear is how both sides are arguing about it all. Ridiculous.

It has been discussed extensively on CSPAN, I see at least some discussion on it nearly daily. and the House bill is still available online to read, we even had a thread about it.

 

[wamland]

Opt-out seems like a great solution to me.



Beat me to that. Here's an updated look with the 08 votes and 05 data.



Even without a revenue neutral public option, our conservative welfare states have a long way to go before they start paying their fair share.

How dare those blue states give all their money to those red states. Oh, that's right...they're all socialists anyway.

 

[Crzycjunx76]

1.) First off, This
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html


2.) the public option is administered by the government but payed for by premiums just like any other insurer. Taxes do not support it, Those choosing to opt in to the public option do.

Shepard Smith agrees as well:
<object width="448" height="368"><param name="movie" value="http://www.dailykostv.com/flv/player.swf"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="flashvars" value="config=http://www.dailykostv.com/w/002215/vxml.php?448"></param><embed src="http://www.dailykostv.com/flv/player.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="448" height="368" flashvars="config=http://www.dailykostv.com/w/002215/vxml.php?448"></embed></object>

So when the public option has to take a loss to provide adequate insurance coverage at a palatable price for that those who cannot afford it normally it will not be subsidized by tax
money.
Also the government will not place any caps on the amount drug companies can charge for their products as the burden for research would just be shifted to the red states.

 

[BIG E]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091012/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul_insurers_1

"Several major provisions in the current legislative proposal will cause health care costs to increase far faster and higher than they would under the current system,"

The study projected that in 2019, family premiums could be $4,000 higher and individual premiums could be $1,500 higher.

It concluded that a combination of factors in the bill &#8212; and decisions by lawmakers as they amended it &#8212; would raise costs.
The chief reason, said the report, is a decision by lawmakers to weaken proposed penalties for failing to get health insurance. The bill would require insurers to take all applicants, doing away with denials for pre-existing health problems. In return, all Americans would be required to carry coverage, either through an employer or a government program, or by buying it themselves.


The maximum penalty is $750 for not having insurance. So why would anyone carry insurance? They could just pay the fine and if they get cancer or any other major medical problem, they could then get insurance because they can't be turned down for pre-existing conditions.

 

[Shawn]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091012/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul_insurers_1

"Several major provisions in the current legislative proposal will cause health care costs to increase far faster and higher than they would under the current system,"

The study projected that in 2019, family premiums could be $4,000 higher and individual premiums could be $1,500 higher.

It concluded that a combination of factors in the bill — and decisions by lawmakers as they amended it — would raise costs.
The chief reason, said the report, is a decision by lawmakers to weaken proposed penalties for failing to get health insurance. The bill would require insurers to take all applicants, doing away with denials for pre-existing health problems. In return, all Americans would be required to carry coverage, either through an employer or a government program, or by buying it themselves.


The maximum penalty is $750 for not having insurance. So why would anyone carry insurance? They could just pay the fine and if they get cancer or any other major medical problem, they could then get insurance because they can't be turned down for pre-existing conditions.

Their comments are no surprise. I would bet the life of my unborn child that it's also a lie.

I'm sure rates would be higher and there would be more costs, but not that much.

 

[BIG E]

Their comments are no surprise. I would bet the life of my unborn child that it's also a lie.

I'm sure rates would be higher and there would be more costs, but not that much.

How much more since they are lying?

I believe the Dem's are trying to say that health insurance cost will be less. I would bet my unborn child that is a lie.

 

[4saintspirit]

If this is going to work then the individual states should have to pay for the uninsured to get the public option -- not the federal government - then the states that want to pay for it out of their taxes can opt in -- see how many states opt in when its not a free federal government program -- if thats not the case then states would be foolish not to. Their citizens will still pay taxes to cover the uninsured of the states that opt in getting nothing in return for their own state citizens - this is just a another attempt at the more liberal democrats to get exactly what they want but the public doesnt want (latest polls on the public option not health care reform)

 

[N.O.Bronco]

So when the public option has to take a loss to provide adequate insurance coverage at a palatable price for that those who cannot afford it normally it will not be subsidized by tax
money.
Also the government will not place any caps on the amount drug companies can charge for their products as the burden for research would just be shifted to the red states.

This part makes no sense on several levels.

Though neither does the first part, but since that was already addressed twice, I think you just refuse to accept the answer.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

If this is going to work then the individual states should have to pay for the uninsured to get the public option -- not the federal government - then the states that want to pay for it out of their taxes can opt in -- see how many states opt in when its not a free federal government program -- if thats not the case then states would be foolish not to. Their citizens will still pay taxes to cover the uninsured of the states that opt in getting nothing in return for their own state citizens - this is just a another attempt at the more liberal democrats to get exactly what they want but the public doesnt want (latest polls on the public option not health care reform)

People who buy into the public option pay for it. Jesus, how many times must this be stated before people get it through their heads?

And im not sure what polls your sourcing, we had a several page thread about this. The public option continuously polls higher than the rest of the plans or health care reform in general.

 

[dtc]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091012/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul_insurers_1

"Several major provisions in the current legislative proposal will cause health care costs to increase far faster and higher than they would under the current system,"

The study projected that in 2019, family premiums could be $4,000 higher and individual premiums could be $1,500 higher.

Big deal. My insurance renewed last month and went up $315 for a family of 3. That's an increase of 25% and an annual change of $3780.

 

[4saintspirit]

People who buy into the public option pay for it. Jesus, how many times must this be stated before people get it through their heads?

And im not sure what polls your sourcing, we had a several page thread about this. The public option continuously polls higher than the rest of the plans or health care reform in general.

yes people who buy into it will pay -- unfortunately the whole premise behind health care reform is to get the uninsured covered -- now many of those, according to supporters, cannot afford health care coverage. So how does someone who cannot afford it pay? The government somewhere has to pay for them -- either with subsidies, free etc. Thats my point which you conventiently forgot to discuss -- and by the way -- if it is self sustaining how come every, and I mean every plan, needs to find a way to pay for it with most just surrendering to the fact that it will eventually increase the deficit --

As for the polls -- I took another look -- a month ago 54% opposed it -- in the latest poll its more like 55% approve of it -- my guess is its actually pretty even and depends on who and where you take the poll as well as the numbers went up after Obama's recent media blitz

 

[BIG E]

Big deal. My insurance renewed last month and went up $315 for a family of 3. That's an increase of 25% and an annual change of $3780.

The prediction is for 4,000 increase for a family of four on top of the normal increases. Your increase would be 7 or 8 thousand.

 

[dtc]

The prediction is for 4,000 increase for a family of four on top of the normal increases. Your increase would be 7 or 8 thousand.

Then its a good plan. FYI, in 1999 for a family of 2, I paid about $300 per month. It's gone up 14k in the past 10 years. So, 500% over 10 years is way worse than 50%. Heck, 50% over 10 sounds downright reasonable.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Bit of an update:

Carper: Senate Bill Will Include A National Public Plan With An Opt Out

After a meeting with Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee, Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) discussed the status of the public plan in the Senate health care bill with reporters. Here's what he said:

"I think at the end of the day there will be a national plan probably put together not by the federal government but by a non-profit board with some seed money from the federal government that states would initially participate in because of lack of affordability. The question is should there be an opportunity for states to opt out later on and if so, within a year, within two years, within three years?"​

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...ional-public-plan-with-an-opt-out.php?ref=fpa

 

[N.O.Bronco]

And now let me unpack it for my own sanity:

I think at the end of the day there will be a national plan

This was far and away the most important part of the public option - keeping it national in scope and not fragmenting it. So far so good.

probably put together not by the federal government but by a non-profit board with some seed money from the federal government

This is Kent Conrad's idea for co-ops, the main selling point being that by using non-profits it doesn't count as a "federal program". So they're going to set up a new government-funded organization to get around calling it government-run and appease the anti-government "moderates." Ah, Congress.

that states would initially participate in because of lack of affordability.

Smart policy and politics. The plan needs lots of members up front to negotiate effective rates. And by requiring states to participate initially, it gives an option to the people for a while, and then lets states decide whether to take that away from them. It's very different from letting states not participate from the onset.

The question is should there be an opportunity for states to opt out later on and if so, within a year, within two years, within three years?

Details. It's a hybrid of the HELP committee, which uses Medicare rates for the first few years, then decouples. Here they require everyone to be in it for a few years to ramp up the members, then let states opt out. Not as effective, but the same principle.

My god that's one convoluted Frankenstein's monster of a public option. But it's one that might actually work.