Yahoo: After all the fuss, public health plan covers few

[SkinsHokieFan]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091101/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_public_plan

Some excerpts


WASHINGTON – What's all the fuss about? After all the noise over Democrats' push for a government insurance plan to compete with private carriers, coverage numbers are finally in: Two percent.

That's the estimated share of Americans younger than 65 who'd sign up for the public option plan under the health care bill that Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is steering toward House approval.

The underwhelming statistic is raising questions about whether the government plan will be the iron-fisted competitor that private insurers warn will shut them down or a niche operator that becomes a haven for patients with health insurance horror stories.

Some experts are wondering if lawmakers have wasted too much time arguing about the public plan, giving short shrift to basics such as ensuring that new coverage will be affordable.

"The public option is a significant issue, but its place in the debate is completely out of proportion to its actual importance to consumers," said Drew Altman, president of the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. "It has sucked all the oxygen out of the room and diverted attention from bread-and-butter consumer issues, such as affordable coverage and comprehensive benefits."


And this


The overwhelming majority of the population would remain in private health insurance plans sponsored by employers. Others, mainly low-income people, would be covered through an expanded Medicaid program.

To be fair, most people would not have access to the new public plan. Under the House bill, it would be offered through new insurance exchanges open only to those who buy coverage on their own or work for small companies. Yet even within that pool of 30 million people, only 1-in-5 would take the public option.

Who's likely to sign up?

The budget office said "a less healthy pool of enrollees" would probably be attracted to the public option, drawn by the prospect of looser rules on access to specialists and medical services.

As a result, premiums in the public plan would be higher than the average for private plans. That could nudge healthy middle-class workers and their families to sign up for private plans.

Click link for rest

[chipwhich]

Calling Baculus Calling Baculus.

He has it all solved.

$50 a month with a TEN THOUSAND DOLLAR deductible will get you AFFORDABLE health insurance.

Who needs a public option ;)

[SnyderShrugged]

Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act of 2009

- Amends the Internal Revenue Code to: (1) revise the tax credit for the health insurance costs of a taxpayer, the taxpayer's spouse, and dependents to increase the amount of, and expand eligibility criteria for, such credit; (2) permit up to $500 of unused health benefits under a health flexible spending arrangement to be carried over to a succeeding plan year or paid directly to an employee as compensation; (3) revise the tax deduction for payments to a health savings account to eliminate the requirement for coverage under a high deductible health plan; and (4) repeal the 7.5% threshold limitation on the tax deduction of medical and dental expenses.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Bump for the Monday crowd.

My opinion...this can't be the best they can do, can it?

[SnyderShrugged]

Bump for the Monday crowd.

My opinion...this can't be the best they can do, can it?


The only thing they really want to do is increase Federal control over an industry and the people who use it's product.

This accomplishes their goal to some degree.

[SkinsHokieFan]

The only thing they really want to do is increase Federal control over an industry and the people who use it's product.

This accomplishes their goal to some degree.

It becomes more and more apparent that this is the end goal, because there are about 1000 better ways to do this

[SnyderShrugged]

It becomes more and more apparent that this is the end goal, because there are about 1000 better ways to do this


I wish I could disagree, but it's certainly there and apparent.

[Baculus]

Calling Baculus Calling Baculus.

He has it all solved.

$50 a month with a TEN THOUSAND DOLLAR deductible will get you AFFORDABLE health insurance.

Who needs a public option ;)

Hey, you were the one that said such a plan didn't even exist! ;) I just proved you that it did!

Rawr! :saber:

[Baculus]

So, after all of the fuss from the right-wing that this is a communist takeover of the health care system, as it turns out, it isn't?

Well, gee, that is what many of us have been saying for months. We have been making this point time and time again:

1. The private health care and insurance industry is not being dismantled.

2. Most people will continue to use their work-provided health care.

3. This is a key quote from the article: "Some experts are wondering if lawmakers have wasted too much time arguing about the public plan, giving short shrift to basics such as ensuring that new coverage will be affordable." If there is a public option, it needs to be effective and affordable.

Meanwhile, the uninsured continue to be uninsured, and more Americans die or suffer due to health care every month as the debate continues. But hey, who cares about them, right? "YOUR HEALTH CARE IS NOT MY PROBLEM" is the attitude of the anti-reformers. Who cares about solidarity with fellow Americans. Who cares if they need help. It is better to fear monger then to provide real solutions as long as your political goal -- to defeat Obama on this issue -- is attained.

[SkinsHokieFan]

So, after all of the fuss from the right-wing that this is a communist takeover of the health care system, as it turns out, it isn't?

Well, gee, that is what many of us have been saying for months. We have been making this point time and time again:

1. The private health care and insurance industry is not being dismantled.

2. Most people will continue to use their work-provided health care.

3. This is a key quote from the article: "Some experts are wondering if lawmakers have wasted too much time arguing about the public plan, giving short shrift to basics such as ensuring that new coverage will be affordable." If there is a public option, it needs to be effective and affordable.

.

So all of this to cover 2 percent?

There has to be SOMETHING far better the majority in Congress can come up with, right?

[Baculus]

So all of this to cover 2 percent?

There has to be SOMETHING far better the majority in Congress can come up with, right?

Of course, but even this effort to cover an additional 2% has caused people to scream at Town Halls and right-wingers to decry daily on radio that the demise of the Republic is at hand.

Basically, this public option has been possibly hamstrung just to appease those who oppose the concept of a public option.

[deejaydana]

It's hard not to be cynical when the gov't pushes for something so large to be passed "this year"

Certainly there are parts of our medical industry needing reform but the way both sides have cherry picked statistics to somewhat dishonestly push their agenda is just terribly disappointing to me (and I still don't understand how we can't just work on the items/parts of the present system that don't work well instead of creating another gigantic entitlement program). We're going to see this pass regardless of what the people want. I guess I was crazy for wanting a more deliberative process on something so large. (Maybe that's more of an indictment on the process of passing laws in D.C. more than on the individual parties.)

[SkinsHokieFan]

Of course, but even this effort to cover an additional 2% has caused people to scream at Town Halls and right-wingers to decry daily on radio that the demise of the Republic is at hand.

Basically, this public option has been possibly hamstrung just to appease those who oppose the concept of a public option.

So we are going to spend nearly 1 trillion dollars, to cover 2 percent?

Come on Bac, stop trying to deflect here. This is an epic fail by the majority in Congress

[December90]

...
Meanwhile, the uninsured continue to be uninsured, and more Americans die or suffer due to health care every month as the debate continues. But hey, who cares about them, right? "YOUR HEALTH CARE IS NOT MY PROBLEM" is the attitude of the anti-reformers. Who cares about solidarity with fellow Americans. Who cares if they need help. It is better to fear monger then to provide real solutions as long as your political goal -- to defeat Obama on this issue -- is attained.

This paragraph by you is typical of the fear mongering of the left.

In order to be "Fair" those who have can't have anymore because not everyone can afford it. We are NOT communist Cuba. We are better than that. "Fairness" (as defined by the extreme left) is not an achievable goal. There are many different ways to improve the situation of "those at the bottom" without toppling "those at the top". This is NOT a zero sum game that it is made out to be.

[Baculus]

So we are going to spend nearly 1 trillion dollars, to cover 2 percent?

Come on Bac, stop trying to deflect here. This is an epic fail by the majority in Congress

Where am I trying to deflect?

This EXACT issue has been arisen before -- the topic of this debate, as far as 2% coverage and the cost, is not new. As I said at that time when we discussed it, if we are going to spend a trillion dollars on health care (a trillion over TEN years -- you need to make that distinction, meaning it is $100 hundred billion a year), it better provide the coverage for those who need it.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Where am I trying to deflect?

This EXACT issue has been arisen before -- the topic of this debate, as far as 2% coverage and the cost, is not new. As I said at that time when we discussed it, if we are going to spend a trillion dollars on health care (a trillion over TEN years -- you need to make that distinction, meaning it is $100 hundred billion a year), it better provide the coverage for those who need it.

2 percent is a drop in the bucket for those who need it

What is it, 50 million uninsured

By 2019, lets say this country has a population of 400 million

So we are spending 1 trillion dollars on 8 million people, while another 42 million go without any coverage?

The math of this whole thing is not making sense. And we both know the program is not 100 billion over 10 years, the costs are not uniform year by year, and this doesn't even begin to address costs beyond 2019 once people actually enroll

[panel]

The only thing they really want to do is increase Federal control over an industry and the people who use it's product.

This accomplishes their goal to some degree.

I think they just want a foot in a door, because if you offer a free version of something, it eventually will monopolize the entire market.

[SnyderShrugged]

I think they just want a foot in a door, because if you offer a free version of something, it eventually will monopolize the entire market.



bingo!

[DjTj]

2 percent is a drop in the bucket for those who need it

What is it, 50 million uninsured

By 2019, lets say this country has a population of 400 million

So we are spending 1 trillion dollars on 8 million people, while another 42 million go without any coverage?

The math of this whole thing is not making sense. And we both know the program is not 100 billion over 10 years, the costs are not uniform year by year, and this doesn't even begin to address costs beyond 2019 once people actually enrollThe $1 trillion is not for the public option.

$1 trillion is for the total cost of the bill, which includes subsidies for many people who will still be buying private insurance. The number of people who will benefit from these subsidies is another 30 million people or so.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/health/compare-health-plans-2009/

The main cost of health care reform is not the public option. The majority of the people who will benefit from health care reform will not be using the public option.

The only reason the debate is so focused on the public option is ideological. Liberals believe that the ultimate goal is a single-payer public plan. Conservatives believe they must do everything in their power to prevent that from happening. The 50 million uninsured probably couldn't care less whether there is a public plan or not.

[SkinsHokieFan]

The $1 trillion is not for the public option.

$1 trillion is for the total cost of the bill, which includes subsidies for many people who will still be buying private insurance. The number of people who will benefit from these subsidies is another 30 million people or so.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/health/compare-health-plans-2009/

The main cost of health care reform is not the public option. The majority of the people who will benefit from health care reform will not be using the public option.

The only reason the debate is so focused on the public option is ideological. Liberals believe that the ultimate goal is a single-payer public plan. Conservatives believe they must do everything in their power to prevent that from happening. The 50 million uninsured probably couldn't care less whether there is a public plan or not.

Understood DJ.

The point is here, how is coverage being expanded by spending a trillion dollars?

From what I have seen thus far, the public option seems to be the vehicle in the bill to do that. That and an insurance exchange

So 8 million out of 50 million end up on the PO

What about the other 42 million?

[DjTj]

Understood DJ.

The point is here, how is coverage being expanded by spending a trillion dollars?

From what I have seen thus far, the public option seems to be the vehicle in the bill to do that. That and an insurance exchange

So 8 million out of 50 million end up on the PO

What about the other 42 million?Subsidies for low-income people to buy private insurance and an expansion of Medicaid. The public option/insurance exchange is not the primary vehicle for expanding coverage. The majority of the uninsured getting help would not do so through the exchange.
Under the House bill, 36 million uninsured Americans would become eligible for coverage. About 15 million of the poorest children and adults would enroll in Medicaid. An additional 21 million would purchase coverage on a new national insurance exchange, where private plans would compete with a "public option" backed by the federal government. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/29/AR2009102901841.html

[SkinsHokieFan]

Subsidies for low-income people to buy private insurance and an expansion of Medicaid. The public option/insurance exchange is not the primary vehicle for expanding coverage. The majority of the uninsured getting help would not do so through the exchange. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/29/AR2009102901841.html

Subsidies though? Really?

I have been saying that if you are broke, even if you are able to buy insurance for 25 dollars a month instead of 50, you still don't have the money to do it :)

Medicaid expansion of course depends on how the states work it out on their level

[DjTj]

Subsidies though? Really?

I have been saying that if you are broke, even if you are able to buy insurance for 25 dollars a month instead of 50, you still don't have the money to do it :)

Medicaid expansion of course depends on how the states work it out on their levelBut it's not about helping people who are broke. People who are broke can go on Medicaid.

This Health Care Reform is precisely targeted at those people who can afford $25/month but cannot afford $50/month.

[SkinsHokieFan]

But it's not about helping people who are broke. People who are broke can go on Medicaid.

This Health Care Reform is precisely targeted at those people who can afford $25/month but cannot afford $50/month.

Medicaid is tricky, because of the state level issues.

You may as well call this an "expansion of Medicaid and tax dollars to insurance companies" reform, as opposed to promoting the public option/exchange

And I simply do not see how you'll get anywhere near 50 million people covered with an expansion of Medicaid/subsidies

[DjTj]

Medicaid is tricky, because of the state level issues.

You may as well call this an "expansion of Medicaid and tax dollars to insurance companies" reform, as opposed to promoting the public option/exchangeI think that would be a much more accurate description of the current Health Care Reform.

As I said, the only reason I think the public option is the headline is because it is important to partisans on both sides. It is really a minor part of the costs and the coverage.


And I simply do not see how you'll get anywhere near 50 million people covered with an expansion of Medicaid/subsidiesWell, if that's the case, then a lot of the money won't be spent, because tax breaks, subsidies, and Medicaid constitute a substantial portion of the $1 trillion.
According to a preliminary estimate by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, expanding coverage to an additional 36 million Americans would cost $1.055 trillion over the next decade under the House plan, counting tax breaks for small businesses, subsidies for low- and moderate-income families, and the largest expansion of Medicaid since its inception more than 40 years ago.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/30/AR2009103002026.html

[December90]

Medicaid is tricky, because of the state level issues.

You may as well call this an "expansion of Medicaid and tax dollars to insurance companies" reform, as opposed to promoting the public option/exchange

And I simply do not see how you'll get anywhere near 50 million people covered with an expansion of Medicaid/subsidies

Just curious, Why do people continue to spout off "50 million uninsured" as if it were fact?


Fact Sheet: America's Uninsured (http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20090623160905.aspx) We can knit-pick at the fine details, but nowhere near 50 million people are uninsured "Today" Maybe have been at some point this past year, but not right this very moment...

[Thiebear]

The Medicaid part will cost states 430billion dollars and the Fed 570billion?
Where do the states get that money?

The Public option has to be available to illegals.. (Constitutionally) so add them in and your 2% becomes 18%.

There, now its perfect again.

[Baculus]

This paragraph by you is typical of the fear mongering of the left.

In order to be "Fair" those who have can't have anymore because not everyone can afford it. We are NOT communist Cuba. We are better than that. "Fairness" (as defined by the extreme left) is not an achievable goal. There are many different ways to improve the situation of "those at the bottom" without toppling "those at the top". This is NOT a zero sum game that it is made out to be.

Complete hyperbole. If anyone is fear mongering, it is you. No one is asking to topple "those at the top." No one, at least for those who desire reform and a universal system, is suggesting that this is a zero-sum game, either.

I don't think you even understand the core issues involved with this subject.

Every first world, non-communist nation in the world has some sort of universal health care system. Are you really that ignorant of the health care debate that you really believes it takes a country such as "communist Cuba" to implement a universal health care system or some sort of reform? You're merely repeating the same "communist" bogeyman that anti-reform right-wingers have used in the past.

They warned that Medicare would lead to communism. Did it? No. They were wrong then, so why should we listen to any of this red baiting, neo-McCarthyism rubbish at this point in time?

And your "extreme left" cliche isn't even accurate -- even the conservative parties in Europe, such as the Christian Democrats, support universal health care. If anyone has an "extreme" attitude compared with the majority of people in this country (who support a universal system) and around the globe, it is you.

"Extreme left" -- every time I hear this term, I know someone is turning off their thinking cap.

[Baculus]

Just curious, Why do people continue to spout off "50 million uninsured" as if it were fact?


Fact Sheet: America's Uninsured (http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20090623160905.aspx) We can knit-pick at the fine details, but nowhere near 50 million people are uninsured "Today" Maybe have been at some point this past year, but not right this very moment...

Some "fact sheet." Look at this "fact" that they throw out:

"Fact: Nearly 10 million (9.7) of the 45.7 million uninsured are “not a citizen.” That makes every media claim of uninsured Americans higher than 35.9 million is wrong."

We have NO idea if "nearly 10 million (9.7) of the 45.7 million uninsured are “not a citizen[s].” They are merely making a guess to the number of illegal immigrants and subtracting it from that 45.7 million figure. The rest of their 'facts" are figures from different "pro-business" think tanks, such as the National Center for Policy Analysis.

Their final conclusion that "between 8.2 million and 13.9 million" are uninsured, even if we take their lowest total figure, is still quite a bit. That does change much about the issue at all, does it?

[Baculus]

2 percent is a drop in the bucket for those who need it

What is it, 50 million uninsured

By 2019, lets say this country has a population of 400 million

So we are spending 1 trillion dollars on 8 million people, while another 42 million go without any coverage?

The math of this whole thing is not making sense. And we both know the program is not 100 billion over 10 years, the costs are not uniform year by year, and this doesn't even begin to address costs beyond 2019 once people actually enroll

I don't disagree with you at all on this subject. That is why I haven't been completely happy with the house bills and the suggested public option, because they don't expand enough coverage, and the costs may be too much for the small percentage that it does cover.

[Baculus]

I will add this -- until we see the final makeup of the public option, we really don't know how much it will cost for the enrollees and how many people it will really cover. IF a public option is ultimately added to whatever bill is completed.

[DjTj]

The Public option has to be available to illegals.. (Constitutionally) so add them in and your 2% becomes 18%.Why would the Constitution require us to cover illegals? It is perfectly legal to discriminate between citizens and non-citizens.

Illegal immigrants are not allowed to vote, they are not eligible for Social Security, unemployment benefits, or student loans. Why would they be allowed to buy into the public option?

[GibbsFactor]

So where's the savings? Someone show me how this improves things.

[SnyderShrugged]

So where's the savings? Someone show me how this improves things.,

It doesnt, it only increases the power of the federal government over an industry and it's customers.

They never wanted actual improvement only the control it seems

[Baculus]

,

It doesnt, it only increases the power of the federal government over an industry and it's customers.

They never wanted actual improvement only the control it seems

This thread is a representation of the entire health care reform effort in the US. This bill does not break up private insurer monopolies nor does it "take over" their business, and yet, you are saying that it "increases the power of the federal government over an industry and it's customers."

How so?

As the article demonstrates here, the public option does not "take over" the health care industry, with the possibility of only 2% of the uninsured being covered by the public option. And yet, we still hear someone mention "communist Cuba" and your assertion that "they never wanted actual improvement only the control it seems."

So we have one bill on the table that has been basically watered down, far from where many reformers would want it, and it is still being criticized as some "takeover," akin to communist Cuba or something.

It's ridiculous.

[Seabee1973]

Just curious, Why do people continue to spout off "50 million uninsured" as if it were fact?


Fact Sheet: America's Uninsured (http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20090623160905.aspx) We can knit-pick at the fine details, but nowhere near 50 million people are uninsured "Today" Maybe have been at some point this past year, but not right this very moment...


Thats what Harry Reid spouted earlier this year. But it includes illegal immagrants and people who can afford insurance but dont want it