Hr676 a single-payer plan for health care would benefit all of America. What's holding it up?
The Senate Finance committee headed by Senators Max Baucus and Chuck Grassley are going to decide which model of health care will be adopted by this country; they would not have been my first choice to oversee this crucial and necessary need. The fact that it is a finance committee, and not the health care industry, that will decide the type of national health care that will be adopted by the United States sends up a huge red flag in my mind. I believe that Senator Baucus has an agenda to keep America saddled with the status quo, and is resistant to any true reform of our failing health care system. The following is an explanation of HR676 and what I believe is really motivating Senator Baucus.…
Article comments
376 - Clavos
bliffle,
One other point regarding my eligibility for VA medical treatment: I became a VA patient because of medical problems incurred as a direct result of my service in a combat zone, so I think it is fair to say I "earned" the right to be treated at the expense of the taxpayers who sent me into harm's way.
377 - Ruvy
Wow,
Looks like Jeannie Danna meant it when she said she was leaving. What a temper!
378 - Clavos
She didn't "leave," Ruvy.
379 - Cindy
Ruvy,
I finally figured out why she hated Twitter so much; people were on there saying whatever they want and there wasn't anything she could do about it.
I am very happy that, contrary to what she believes, she is not the gov't. The gov't is quite fucked up enough with the gang of loonies that's in charge now. I think if enough Jeannies took control we'd have instant fascism. All they'd have to do would be to but the press under military control for 'national security' reasons; like in this fictional flight of fancy.
380 - Cindy
378
Oh...
381 - Cindy
No question mark after that 'oh'.
382 - Clavos
Didn't expect one, Cindy.
383 - Jeannie
That's right Clavos she didn't leave
384 - Ruvy
That's right Clavos she didn't leave
OK Jeannie,
Did you erase the author bio, the name of the author, the picture? I'm just curious. It was the conclusion I drew from seeing no information as to who put this article together. If all that data is gone - and you're not posting your blog-site when you comment - that is the logical conclusion one has to draw from the evidence.
Don't get me wrong. I am neither happy, upset nor saddened. But I am curious.
385 - Bliffle
Clavos said:
"That's correct, bliffle, that's how insurance, as you very well know, works -- by spreading the risk. This is true of ALL insurance, not just medical."
Spread the risk? Isn't that just like spread the wealth?
So what's to keep Humana from dropping your policy? In fact, shouldn't a bureaucrat at Humana be dropping you right now? Isn't he acting irresponsible in the care of the shareholders capital values to let you continue on like this?
386 - Clavos
So what's to keep Humana from dropping your policy?
The terms of their contract with my wife's employer.
387 - Bliffle
So, what's to prevent her employer from dropping her?
On the face of it, it sounds like you've successfully gamed the medical insurance system - at other peoples expense. But do you think this is a reasonable model for other people to follow?
And don't count on your service 30 years ago protecting you from criticism. That protection was destroyed 5 years ago with the savaging of John Kerry.
388 - Clavos
So, what's to prevent her employer from dropping her?
It has nothing to gain from doing so; it doesn't even pay the premiums, we do.
On the face of it, it sounds like you've successfully gamed the medical insurance system - at other peoples expense.
Np more so than any other person with a serious chronic illness and good insurance; we're playing by the rules, not gaming.
And don't count on your service 30 years ago protecting you from criticism.
People can criticize me all they want, they did when I first got back from Nam, and have off and on ever since. I've never paid any attention to criticism.
My point about my service (forty, not thirty years ago) was that, again by the rules, I receive treatment from the VA because my service caused my medical problems.
Again, playing by the rules -- gaming nothing and no one.
389 - Jeannie Danna
THE ISSUE: Should Americans have the option of getting health insurance from a government plan that competes with private companies?
THE POLITICS: Many Democrats want to do away with private insurance and replace it with something resembling Medicare coverage for all, but that's not politically feasible. Offering the choice of a government insurance plan was a compromise within the Democratic Party. Republicans are adamantly opposed, saying it's the first step to a government takeover of health care. Defeating the government plan also is the top priority for the insurance industry, and hospitals, doctors, and drugmakers have their own concerns about it. Unions strongly support the public option, and so does a majority of the public in opinion polls. Four of five congressional committees considering overhaul legislation endorsed a government option, but the Finance Committee â€" which mirrors the composition of the Senate â€" has proven to be a tough sell. An effort to give government the right to sell insurance in competition with private industry failed in the committee on Tuesday.
WHAT IT MEANS: A public plan could expand coverage at a lower cost to taxpayers, but it may also put insurers out of business and squeeze hospital budgets. Alternatives being discussed include nonprofit, self-governed co-ops, and giving insurers a last chance to show they can keep costs in check before resorting to a government plan. Studies indicate that a public plan could co-exist with private insurance, if the government option is restricted to individuals and small businesses.
_ Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar
390 - Jeannie Danna
The health care debate is far from over!
A public option will be formed in the United states.
This Obama cheerleader can feel it in her bones!!!!
391 - Jeannie Danna
Please call 1-866-338-1015-the Capital switchboard and speak to the representative of your choice or Speaker Pelosi.
The public option is not off the table. Don't believe the media.
392 - Jeannie Danna
The only way to keep this story alive around here is to comment on it!
393 - Jeannie Danna
Congratulations to President Obama for winning the Nobel Peace Prize!
394 - roger nowosielski
Don't expect our right wingers to join in the applause.
395 - Jeannie Danna
Quote from Nancy Pelosi “This is about going into that room and coming out with the best coverage and the lowest cost for America’s working families. I believe that that is best achieved by going to the table with the public option. I believe that the arguments are very convincing, public support is there, and, by the way, the dollars. The robust public option that is being considered in the House saves $110 billion. How can you ignore that?”
“Anyone who had any doubts about the need for such an option need only look at the…health insurance industry this week. They put out a report on health insurance reformâ€"specifically addressed to the Senate billâ€"which has been totally discredited…and then later in the week, in order to change the subject I guess, they launched a more than $1,000,000 TV ad campaign to falsely tell America’s seniors that they would be hurt by what happens to Medicare in the health reform bills.”
396 - Jeannie Danna
Statement of the Week; Senator Chuck Grassley said: "It's clear this bill is already moving on a slippery slope to more and more government control."
Seriously? Since when did spending less on Medicare and Medicaid programs, and handing billions of tax dollars over to the private health insurers become more government control?
The Senate Finance Committee bill is far from government run health care and much the worse for that. It is a bailout for the insurance companies, whose failing business model looks more and more like a Ponzi scheme, where new premiums are used to pay off the previous unsustainable profitable promises, until eventually money runs out and everyone catches on. Things will continue to get worse until we treat health care as a social necessity (like fire departments) and enact Medicare For All
397 - Jeannie Danna
#396 is an excerpt from Health Justice Now.
398 - NJ
Has anyone ever closely READ HR 676.
It is extremely vague about costs. But there is a clever little section slipped in there about borrowing money through US Treasury notes to PAY for the conversion of existing "for profit" companies to run as part of the government program. The government essentially can't simply order a bunch of businesses out of business (that' state level). The feds have to BUY all the real estate and other assets involved with the ending of "private insurance".
While it doesnt mention figures (of course it does not because it will cost trillions if not tens of trillions). A key to this is that it sets the "Buyout" period at 15 years. So the government will basically have to allow "private health insurance" to exist for an additional 15 years before eventually ending up with "Medicare for All"
The next set of un enumerated costs are to retrain hundreds of thousands of insurance workers, as well as pay them at least two years of unemployment benefits. This runs into the tens of billions at least.
The reason that the Finance committee has to look at bills is that the government has to SPEND money. The GENERAL rule on scoring such legislation is that it end up being "revenue neutral".
When you read the text of HR 676 it has no numbers at all. It makes a lot of assertions such as taxing the wealthiest Americans five percent more, but no hard, cold numbers as to cost. It simply makes assertions, and when you get to the Finance Committee you have to show SOME concept of cost.
But so far the nearest legislation to HR 676 that has ever been scored was Pete Stark's Americare. Which the CBO scored as adding 188.5 billion dollars to the deficit every year. Or to put it simply, over the next ten years the cost of health care in America would RISE by 1.885 trillion dollars, going up from 2.6 trillion to 4.4 trillion.
There are many reasons bills do not get out of the Finance Committee. The most common is legislation passed to make political brownie points, but don't have enough financial data to actually be scored as being "revenue neutral"
So once Stark's Americare was scored at adding to the deficit, if you want to CONTINUE to push that legislation you have to start making CUTS to what the legislation offers until you get to a point where the law will add NOTHING to the deficit.
The same would be true of HR 676. It must be able to PROVE that it will not add to the deficit, at least to the CBO, or it MUST start cutting from what it is offering until it GETS to the point of being revenue neutral.