Dems Agree to Drop Government-Run Insurance Option

Who do you think is going to pay for those guaranteed loses with pre existing conditions? It surely isn't going to be the insurance companies. Medical cost will skyrocket even further, and with no public option, those who are forced to buy healthcare will not be able to afford the already costly insurance. They will in turn be forced to pay the 7% uninsured tax or whatever it will be and still have no insurance.

Having a fiat mentality and burying your head in the sand is not a solution, regardless of how great it sounds.

 

The Senate-House reconciliation conference apparently can still be filibustered in the Senate, from what I understand. So it's not likely you're going to get a lot of improvements there. I hope I'm wrong about that - if so, then ignore all the rest.

The other alternative is a budget reconciliation method - but that's basically the equivalent of starting over.

The problem is that (in my opinion) this bill makes the situation worse than it is now - that's why it needs to be scrapped, not for political reasons. The entire bill was premised on the idea of making health care affordable and then requiring everyone to get it. But the problem is that the primary method of making it affordable has been scrapped - and it hasn't been replaced by an alternative. So health care costs will rise just as quickly, but now people are required to buy it. That's worse than it is now and will bankrupt the country much faster than we are now.

The reason to start over is that there are other methods of cost controls and something has to be worked on there. I've said from day one that the focus should be on affordability - if you achieve that, coverage is easy. They went backwards, focusing on coverage but taking out everything that made it affordable. That's a recipe for disaster. I do agree that this, or something, is going to pass for political purposes because it would be a disaster not to pass anything. But it's not good policy by any stretch. Just as the GOP said "country be damned, we want a political victory", this is the Democrats doing the same.

Ordinarily, I would say the bill is a start and can be improved upon later. But to me, that's like saying "we'll cut taxes now, and find spending cuts later". After how difficult this was, there's not going to be any will to do the tougher stuff later on.

Instead, if they can't pass the comprehensive coverage, they need to scrap the mandates (basically, scrap universal coverage) and find new and innovative ways to improve affordability and access - national exchanges, cross-state insurance selling, pre-existing condition requirements, improved service delivery, medical information exchanges, etc. It will be a hell of a lot better than what's about to go through the Senate.

 

Everyone will. Like they already do. Only this time, it will be intentional and, consequently, more efficient.

This has been explained to you over and over and over and over and over and over...

 

The pre-existing condition setup in the current bill has all sorts of loopholes. For example, you have to cover them, but you can charge 3x as much for an older person as a younger person. So an insurer just raises prices for the young - and since everyone has to get it and many states only have 1 or 2 insurers, they can get away with it - and then you can triple that and price out all the elderly. So yeah, they'll cover you with a pre-existing condition, but they'll simply make it unaffordable.

Without the cost controls aspect of this bill, it's essentially worthless. It's a dream bill for insurers with 40 million new customers subsidized by the government with no real requirements on the insurers.

 

I have already statedd earlier that I don't agree with the mandate to buy health insurance and frankly I would hope these guys would have the good sense to not pass a bill with mandates and no public options

 

They expect someone with more risk to pay more? The horror.

 

Unfortunately, that's exactly what this bill now is. There's not been any talk at all about removing the mandate - that's the heart of the "universal coverage" idea.

 

No, it will not be more efficient. For some reason, you feel like I don't understand the seriousness of the issue with pre existing conditions. I counter to say they are far more serious than you let on. The cost of medicine will not be able to substain themselves.

Further, using the terms "insurance" and "covering pre existing conditions" in the same sentence is down right stupid. Thats like not having car insurance, wrecking your car, and then expecting the insurance company to cover you. That is not insurance. Do me a favor and quit calling it insurance.

There are only a couple ways health care can be provided reasonably. One of those ways will never come about, which is a self regulated private industry and the other is a single payer system, which inevitably will be created. If this health bill is passed w/out a public option, then its the private industry that will run the single payer system.

Even Howard Dean recognizes this bill is down right atrocious.

 

Earlier quotes though from Harry Reid mention that there still is a trigger mechanism for a public option, exchanges or some other mechanism to bring cost down so it might not be the case that everything to make it affordable has been scrapped.

 

What a self righteous young prig.

Like most kids he feels he is invincible.

 

If that's the case, then I agree - the bill is not nearly as bad. The devil would be in the details of the trigger in that scenario. The Medicare expansion in 2004 also had a trigger built in, and despite the costs not being controlled, the trigger was never exacted. Not sure the details of how that trigger worked or why it didn't ever get triggered though.

 

No, it's quite the opposite. I am at peace with my mortality and I don't expect others to pay for it otherwise. Now if only the government would stop meddling and let the price go down. Liberals desire to live forever (on others money) becuase they fear the repercussions of the afterlife.

 

you're right, nothing self righteous in that statement

 

Assume you are correct.

I am liberal. I fear no repercussions of the afterlife. I do not want to live forever.

Contradictions. Therefore, you are incorrect.

 

Shovel Face, I have asked you this before, and you did not respond. If "liberals" seek to live "on others money," how do you account for the great majority of the GDP being generated by incredibly industrious and traditionally liberal states like New York and California. And how do you account for the leading subsidy-to-income states being GOP, conservative strongholds?

None of that squares with your red-state herring of "liberals" wanting "others money." Yours is a hollow rhetoric. It may be as comfortable as a snuggie to you, but it looks just as ridiculous to be trotting it out in public.

 

In Bid To Derail Health Care Reform, GOP Delays Passage Of Troop Funding

 

It is interesting most of the poor states are GOP strong hold isn't it.

 

This bill sucks, but it will insure another 30 million folks. Some of them are young and healthy or feel like they can't afford to pay so for them it won't be seen as a benefit and he won't score any points except with the insurance companies who like to insure healthy young folks. There will still be millions who will finally get insurance so that its good.

Overall, too bad Obama will not fight harder to have a good bill instead of just anything. It was in reach. I don't think he is even going to benefit politically by this cautious don't rock the boat centrism.

Maybe the House can save the cautious no audacity Obama from himself.

 

Did you ever stop to think that making health insurance affordable for people with pre-existing conditions can keep them healthy enough to continue contributing to society? It's hard to see how that's not a win-win situation.

 

We support the troops... during election advertising!