This is what the likely Democratic health care bill will look like

[WI_DEM]

Democratic plans for revamping U.S. healthcare are taking shape, with Senator Edward Kennedy soon to announce a proposal which could form the core of the nation's new health system.

Kennedy, a Democratic stalwart whose thinking is widely believed to track that of President Barack Obama on healthcare, is expected to unveil a plan in early June that will include both a new government program to provide medical coverage for all as well as a mandate that every American acquire some form of health insurance:


* Kennedy bill to include government-run insurance plan

* Also likely to include mandate to purchase coverage

The 77-year-old senator said the proposed law would establish a "gateway" for people without insurance or those who wish to change insurers to compare prices, and he made clear a government-run plan will be one of the options available.

"We'll negotiate with insurance companies to keep premiums and copays low and help you with your premiums if you can't afford them," Kennedy wrote.

"We're also hearing that some Americans want the choice of enrolling in a health insurance program backed by the government for the public good, not private profit - so that option will be available too," added Kennedy.

http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNewsAndPR/idUSN3042787920090531

[rockymountaindem]

1. Woo-hoo?

The public option looks like it's in this bill. I wonder what Baucus will do about it. Maybe he's already caved in to Kennedy. We'll have to wait and see.

My personal theory that the US will arrive at single-payer by degrees seems to be coming true.

[AndyTiedye]

4. The Repiggies Will Filibuster

We haven't got the votes to break a filibuster, and won't have until 2011 at the earliest,
and then only if we can somehow gain seats in the next election, which seems really unlikely right now.

[rockymountaindem]

5. We'll cram it down somehow

Besides, I think we can pick up seats in 2010. The Republicans are still wrecking their chances instead of getting on any kind of positive message.

[backscatter712]

14. Health care reform goes under the budget reconciliation rules. The GOP can't filibuster.

That's Senate rules - the GOP had their chance to filibuster when money was allocated for future health care reform in the budget bill, but they didn't unify, so we got sixty for the budget.

Now that money's allocated for health care reform, the health care reform bill that will use that money goes under budget reconciliation rules, which means the GOP cannot filibuster. We only need 51.

The only people we have to really worry about are the blue dogs, and it looks like Baucus and Nelson are backing down on their pro-insurance stances, after their constituents took them to the woodshed at town-hall meetings.

[DJ13]

2. Any government run program that forces people to buy coverage

will be a loser in this economic environment.

The Massachusetts program is the most unpopular state run health care in the country for this very reason.

If we WANT our party to lose in the midterms, and weaken Obama in 2012, then go for it.

[yourout]

3. I was thinking the same thing......what is the reasoning for forcing people to buy coverage?

If you want it.....great. Dont force people to get coverage if they dont want to.

[MyUserNameIsBroken]

6. You realize, of course

That a single payer program, financed as it would be by tax dollars, would technically be enforced coverage as well.

The reason is the same in both cases: avoiding antiselection. The young, healthy people who think they can get away without buying insurance are statistically likely to be correct, and their absence from a program thus makes the average burden higher for those who do pay, because that group is likelier to need health care.

[dflprincess]

9. I've said all along that the bill should be called

"The Health Insurance Company Profit and Campaign Donation Protection Act"

That's why they would force us to buy coverage.

[rockymountaindem]

7. Mass. forces people to buy coverage from private insurers

and whatever attempts they have made to reduce premiums have not succeeded in making them affordable to everybody. If the feds force people to buy coverage while extending the opportunity to buy into a public program funded by taxes, that will give everybody a free option (although they will be paying for some of it in their taxes). The main concern for me is how we are going to afford what will essentially be an expansion of Medicare in the current environment.

[redqueen]

8. Does the MA program help with payments?

"help you with your premiums if you can't afford them"

[dflprincess]

10. I think it does and I'm not familiar with the income limtits it may have

I imagine that, like all means tested programs, what they tell you you can afford (based on income) and what you can actually afford are two different things.

[Cleita]

15. Read the links on my post below. n/t

[dgibby]

11. What about taxing health care benefits?

Is that hair brained scheme still on the table?

[BonnieJW]

12. But what if your doctor charges more than the insurance?

We have good insurance and we end up paying a huge amount over what the insurance pays. I had an appointment with the dermatologist and my bill was $164 AFTER the insurance paid its portion. Most doctors won't accept what the insurance companies pay.

[Cleita]

13. My only hope is that the public option will resemble Conyers plan HR 676.

Otherwise this plan is doomed to failure, just like it's failing in Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy's home state. Why he wants to bring us this plan nationwide is a mystery to me.

http://prorev.com/2009/03/massachusetts-healthcare-plan-failing.html

Suzanne L. King, Boston Globe - Massachusetts has been lauded for its healthcare reform, but the program is a failure. Created solely to achieve universal insurance coverage, the plan does not even begin to address the other essential components of a successful healthcare system.

What would such a system provide? The prestigious Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academy of Sciences, has defined five criteria for healthcare reform. Coverage should be: universal, not tied to a job, affordable for individuals and families, affordable for society, and it should provide access to high-quality care for everyone.

The state's plan flunks on all counts. More at link.

http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/pnhp-massachusetts-healthcare-system-failure

WASHINGTON – The Massachusetts healthcare system, widely regarded as an example of how to provide universal coverage and keep costs low, is faltering badly and should not be held up as a national model for reform, according to a study released by Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) and Public Citizen.

The groups have urged Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) to reject his home state's approach and, instead, introduce Senate legislation crafted after the House's United States National Health Care Act, H.R. 676, which would implement single-payer financing of healthcare while maintaining the private delivery system.

"Massachusetts physicians have the unique opportunity to observe the effects of this reform on patients every day," said Rachel Nardin, MD, president of the Massachusetts chapter of PNHP and lead author of the study. "The nearly 500 doctors who have signed an open letter to Senator Kennedy see that the reform is deeply flawed."

PNHP's study found that the state's 2006 reforms, instead of reducing costs, have been more expensive. The budget overruns have forced the state to siphon about $150 million from safety-net providers such as public hospitals and community clinics. More at link.

[Romulox]

16. Sounds like a welfare program for insurance companies. nt