Whats crazy or ignorant about the whole healthcare reform thing is this, how can the greatest country in the world have so many elderly,women,and kids uninsured? Since I'm a business, i have to pay for my own insurance and such, but people that make $10 per hour realistically cant afford insurance. So when we break it down, we're talking about poor people and old people. So what happens is they cant make that 6 month trip to the doctor for a checkup. Thats compounded because now that growth that couldve been spotted early is now growing out of control. Now that person has to get advanced medical procedures and guess who pays for it? Even worse, its detected too late and now someone has lost a mother or father. Its a huge domino effect that people are just glazing over. When you have the ability to get regular checkups and prevention, the life span of good health is alot longer. Of course since we're talking about poorer people, it doesn't really register.
I do not think it is intended to effect most people that have private insurance. I am concerned that it will end up being a natural, yet unintended by-product of the health care reform.
White House ready to drop ‘public option’? HHS official: Insurance cooperatives would be an acceptable alternative The Associated Press updated 1:29 p.m. PT, Sun., Aug 16, 2009 WASHINGTON - Bowing to Republican pressure and an uneasy public, President Barack Obama's administration signaled Sunday it is ready to abandon the idea of giving Americans the option of government-run insurance as part of a new health care system. Facing mounting opposition to the overhaul, administration officials left open the chance for a compromise with Republicans that would include health insurance cooperatives instead of a government-run plan. Such a concession would likely enrage his liberal supporters but could deliver Obama a much-needed win on a top domestic priority opposed by GOP lawmakers. Officials from both political parties reached across the aisle in an effort to find compromises on proposals they left behind when they returned to their districts for an August recess. Obama had wanted the government to run a health insurance organization to help cover the nation's almost 50 million uninsured, but didn't include it as one of his three core principles of reform. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that government alternative to private health insurance is "not the essential element" of the administration's health care overhaul. The White House would be open to co-ops, she said, a sign that Democrats want a compromise so they can declare a victory. Under a proposal by Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., consumer-owned nonprofit cooperatives would sell insurance in competition with private industry, not unlike the way electric and agriculture co-ops operate. With $3 billion to $4 billion in initial support from the government, the co-ops would operate under a national structure with state affiliates but independent of the government. They still would be required to maintain the type of financial reserves that private companies are required to keep in case of unexpectedly high claims. "I think there will be a competitor to private insurers," Sebelius said. "That's really the essential part, is you don't turn over the whole new marketplace to private insurance companies and trust them to do the right thing." ‘Choice and competition’ Obama's top spokesman refused to say a public option was a make-or-break choice for the administration. "What I am saying is the bottom line for this for the president is, what we have to have is choice and competition in the insurance market," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Sunday. A day before, Obama appeared to hedge his bets. "All I'm saying is, though, that the public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of health care reform," Obama said in Grand Junction, Colo. "This is just one sliver of it, one aspect of it." Lawmakers have discussed the co-op model for months although the Democratic leadership and the White House have said they prefer a government-run option. Conrad, the chairman of the Senate's budget committee, called the argument for a government-run public plan little more than a "wasted effort." He added there are enough votes in the Senate for a cooperative plan. "It's not government-run and government-controlled," he said. "It's membership-run and membership-controlled. But it does provide a nonprofit competitor for the for-profit insurance companies, and that's why it has appeal on both sides." ‘Far cry from the original proposals’ Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., said Obama's team is making a political calculation and embracing the co-op alternative as "a step away from the government takeover of the health care system" that the GOP has pummeled. "I don't know if it will do everything people want, but we ought to look at it. I think it's a far cry from the original proposals," he said. Republicans say a public option would have unfair advantages that would drive private insurers out of business. Critics say co-ops would not be genuine public options for health insurance. Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas, said it would be difficult to pass any legislation through the Democratic-controlled Congress without the promised public plan. "We'll have the same number of people uninsured," she said. "If the insurance companies wanted to insure these people now, they'd be insured." Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., said the Democrats' option would force individuals from their private plans to a government-run plan, a claim that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office supports. "There is a way to get folks insured without having the government option," he said. What’s scary is ‘doing nothing’ Obama, writing an opinion piece in Sunday's New York Times, said political maneuvers should be excluded from the debate. "In the coming weeks, the cynics and the naysayers will continue to exploit fear and concerns for political gain," he wrote. "But for all the scare tactics out there, what's truly scary — truly risky — is the prospect of doing nothing." Congress' proposals, however, seemed likely to strike end-of-life counseling sessions. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has called the session "death panels," a label that has drawn rebuke from her fellow Republicans as well as Democrats. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, declined to criticize Palin's comments and said Obama wants to create a government-run panel to advise what types of care would be available to citizens. "In all honesty, I don't want a bunch of nameless, faceless bureaucrats setting health care for my aged citizens in Utah," Hatch said. Sebelius said the end-of-life proposal was likely to be dropped from the final bill. "We wanted to make sure doctors were reimbursed for that very important consultation if family members chose to make it, and instead it's been turned into this scare tactic and probably will be off the table," she said. Sebelius spoke on CNN's "State of the Union" and ABC's "This Week." Gibbs appeared on CBS' "Face the Nation." Conrad and Shelby appeared on "Fox News Sunday." Johnson and Price spoke with "State of the Union." Hatch was interviewed on "This Week." URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32437468/ns/politics-white_house/
I disagree - the key to whether this is a failure or not is if there are provisions that get costs under control. The universal coverage can come from a public option or these non-profit coops - it's really all the same in the end. The benefit of the public co-op is that we know the true cost of insurance since it has to be self-sustaining (but non-profit). The goal has to be to get the cost curve down. If that doesn't happen, it doesn't matter whether there's a public option or not - health care will quickly bankrupt us no matter what. If it does get the cost curve down, then the non-profit coops can provide a reasonable basic insurance alternative just as the public option would.
Senator Conrad has been very clear that there are not enough votes in the Senate to pass the public option. That means that there are several Dems that will not vote for it. Obama cannot "force" it through. I agree with Major that the co-ops will show us what the real costs of healthcare are, start to decrease overall costs, and allow for universal coverage.
From the above article: Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that government alternative to private health insurance is "not the essential element" of the administration's health care overhaul. The White House would be open to co-ops, she said, a sign that Democrats want a compromise so they can declare a victory. Under a proposal by Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., consumer-owned nonprofit cooperatives would sell insurance in competition with private industry, not unlike the way electric and agriculture co-ops operate. With $3 billion to $4 billion in initial support from the government, the co-ops would operate under a national structure with state affiliates but independent of the government. They still would be required to maintain the type of financial reserves that private companies are required to keep in case of unexpectedly high claims. "I think there will be a competitor to private insurers," Sebelius said. "That's really the essential part, is you don't turn over the whole new marketplace to private insurance companies and trust them to do the right thing." Essentially, the gov't would start up non-profit organizations that provide health insurance, but without a profit motive. Once up and running, they wouldn't be funded by the gov't, so they would have to be supported by the insurance premiums and function under the same rules as private insurers.
Thanks! This is more in line of what we need. We need competition. Right now, there is none. The doctors and insurance companies have no incentive to keep pricing down.
The doctors are fighting with the insurance companies as well. You are seeing a real decline in the small family practice, because they are having a hard time making it financially. Keep in mind that the average doctor comes out of med school over $100,000 in student debt. Add that to debt incurred to start a practice and they have to make a fair amount just to pay their basic bills. That doesn't even consider the enormous cost of med mal insurance.
I do understand that. The doctors try to stiff the insurance companies for as much as they possibly can, while the insurance companies try to deny as much as they can possibly get away from. That is why insurance needs to be just that ... insurance ... not a subsidy program. We shouldn't need insurance for minor issues for going to the doctor and such. I would think co-ops could do this ... if you have the flu, go to the doc, pay $50 and be done with it. Nobody should be excluded from paying. If you can afford to pay for TV, internet and cell phones, then you can pay for your trips to the doctor. This would allow insurance companies to give reasonable policies for major incidents. Instead of the gov. fronting all the medical costs, would it be better to have the gov. pay for doctors to goto school, pay for equipment, pay for reeducation, ect ... Would this also drop prices as it would encourage more doctors into the field?
I don't see it this way at all. It was a month or two (or three?) ago that I was reading about the co-ops and the possibility that the public option wouldn't be included. Now that a couple top administration officials said the same thing on the Sunday morning news programs it's all of a sudden a big defeat for "the liberals"? To me a big defeat would come if one of the promises or top priorities was lost. I don't think the public option was one of them.
I think this is a brilliant political move by the President. He gets to have a few Republicans on board, claim bipartisanship, and tout that they've really done something. Now the results could be good or they could be awful. The co-ops could be very competitive companies that just need some help to get the ball rolling. Or they could be Fannie/Freddie-esque market distorting behemoths. The devil is in the details.
Obama can't force it through. A significant portion of his own party, the Blue Dog Democrats, has stopped him cold. Could it be that Obama is making passing health care too difficult and too scary? IMO public health care is a serious need in this country, but why not pass two major pieces of regulatory legislation? First, require all insurance carriers to provide uniform pricing and policies -- without regard for pre-existing conditions -- for all U.S. citizens, regardless of age. Second, while setting a uniform price for coverage, allow companies to sell "improved" gap coverage for those who can afford something extra or who fear rationed service will leave them to die. From my own perspective, I know my kidney functions are down to 25% and diolysis looms in the near future. This is a service that can't be delayed or eased with a pill. Regardless of the hollow promises of Obama and the administration, they are asking people like me to gamble their lives on his promises. It's no wonder that seniors are very afraid of his changes, groundless or not.
I get my electricity out in Oak Hill (Austin) from a co-op, and while it has had problems with corruption (long story) that are being addressed, I'm very glad I have it instead of the City of Austin's electric utility. Kind of a halfway decent comparison, actually, since Austin is one of the few cities (maybe the only city) in Texas that has its own electric utility. I'm very happy with the co-op, have never had a problem with service, and I think my bill is lower than it would be if I had Austin's alternative. Go figure.
I think the co-op idea is a great idea. If you presently pay $350 a month for Blue Cross Blue Shield and they exclude a lot of things and then the co-op provides more coverage for a lower price then BCBS better step up their offering or face extinction. What a co-op can do is set a minimum standard of coverage. Great idea IMO. Get the bill written...go through the procedural steps and get it to a floor debate and subsequent vote.
???? So weird... Why is it that covering everyone - having everyone have health insurance is some sort of socialized communist takeover? I don't get that. The public option could easily be fixed so that it doesn't compete with private insurance. For example, you could say that only those who have not had private insurance in the last 12 months are eligible for the public plan excluding cobra. This would force employers to provide private insurance. But conservatives don't even propose this, instead they say obama wants to kill old people just stupid. I hope the people don't fall for the trap that conservatives are trying to set for them here.
