OK no "public option" and mandated Insurance for all

[Winterblues]

But if the government pays the bills for all those that can not afford to purchase Insurance, what's the difference? Granted tax payer money will be used to pay private corporations for health care but tax payer money is used right now to support many Private corporations..It isn't like this will set any precedents or anything. If Government puts it's muscle behind lowering Health Care costs and making sure that everyone is covered then why isn't it a win for us..

[Oregone]

1. The government will be subsidizing profits and overhead (exec pay) of greedy inefficient insurers

Thats ok with you?

Guaranteeing all health costs are at least 25% more than they should be, and doling that out from government coffers, seems terribly inefficient and a crappy solution to the problem

[Winterblues]

4. You don't think they are doing that right now?

Halliburton, Blackwater, Brown & Root, I could go on and on.

[Oregone]

7. Confucious say: a whole lot of wrongs make a right?

:wtf:


This isn't a health care solution. It just isn't.

[debbierlus]

29. And, it is NOT sustainable. Deep cuts in needed programs to pay for this greedfest

The health insurance need to be excised just like the tumor they are....

[WeDidIt]

2. That means prioces go through the roof

Do you want your insruance costs doubling every year?

That's what will happen with mandates and no public option.

[Warpy]

3. Great, everybody will have the illusion of coverage

but still have their care delayed or denied, parts of the bills unpaid, payouts capped, and co pays increase into the stratosphere.

We wouldn't be having this debate if for profit insurance had worked as advertised. It didn't. It failed.

Mandating everyone into a failed system is not the answer.

[kath]

16. Yeppers, just like we have the *illusion* of democracy...

Government of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations really sucks.

[BlueDemKev]

17. Mandated Coverage--A More Market-Based Approach

I don't think premiums will increase nearly so much because now there will be a whole new pool of citizens paying into the system (i.e.--paying money to insurance companies). When more people contribute, the less everyone needs to put in. Plus, the competition between insurance companies fighting to gain clientele (everyone between the ages of 18 and 65) will put downward pressure on premiums. Plus, if companies no longer need to buy health insurance for their employees, this will free up dollars which can be invested in expansion which will result in new jobs being created. The nature of the free market does have some advantages. And a market-based approach to reforming the health care system will win over a lot of independents and centrists, as opposed to a government-run, single-payer system.

The tough part of mandating coverage is helping people who are unable to afford to buy health insurance (college students, unemployed individuals, etc. immediately come to mind). Government subsidies will need to be provided to remedy this situation. Perhaps this funding could be provided by scaling back Medicaid (which may no longer be needed if everyone has health insurance)?

Something to think about.

[redqueen]

20. You don't think? Well that's reassuring, that you don't think they'll just keep raking in billions

in profits, while (due to) denying care... that's very comforting.

Is this the "faith-based" approach to swallowing corporate welfare? Does it really work for you?

[BlueDemKev]

27. What are the $ Figures?

Okay....do we know how much have insurance company CEO's made over the past five years? I understand insurance companies profit margins on average have fallen below 5% in recent years. Does anyone have these figures? (And please, from an objective source).

I'm not saying there's no greed involved in the insurance industry, but the problem may be more of the fact that the cost of health care itself keeps going up (which ultimately makes our insurance premiums go up).

[redqueen]

28. See post #25. Good luck weaning yourself from the propaganda. (nt)

[Warpy]

21. Insurance companies are near monopolies in most markets

in flyover country. They are under no pressure to lower their premiums.

You're assuming that market forces are at work in this. They're not. There is little competition and no incentive for them to cut their massive profits by playing fair.

Only the pressure of true competition from a public option will give them any incentive to cut their bureaucracies and lower their premiums.

Competition is what they don't want and it's why they're fighting this tooth and nail.

I'm surprised you fell for it.

[ejpoeta]

5. unless the private companies are FORCED to compete with a public option,

the costs are not going to go down. and i don't believe that the government is going to make them lower costs. they may threaten to do it, but then the insurers will say, but we can do it on our own... just trust us... and they will continue doing what they are doing now... but if it's mandated, then they can do it even more. If they HAD to compete, they could I have no doubt of it. but they prefer their brand of competition, which is no competition at all.... all the insurance companies are on board to charge high premiums and deny claims as it is right now. They have no reason to change what they are doing.... a mandate would just make it easier for them to screw us all over. a mandate without some true public option is useless.

[Oregone]

9. They won't be anyway with a public option

A firewalled public option, scored as covering 10 million people in a decade, will only be open for enrollment from unprofitable sectors of the population. Everyone else won't have the option to enroll in the public option, and no insurers will have to compete for their business. Its all a fuckn joke. The American people are the punchline.

[ejpoeta]

18. yeah, if that's how it is then you are right. that's what gets me about this whole thing...

it's like a shell game they are playing. slight of hand.... it ticks me off! just the idea of creating a completely new thing is ridiculous when we have a system that is already in place that we could just expand to include everyone who wants in. i just want to cry. i feel so much like we have been left out to dry.

[T Wolf]

6. Because the insurance parasites will suck even more than the 30-40% they skim off

the top now.

And we all will be forced to pay taxes to keep the CEOs in their mansions.

And the costs to patients will go up with premiums and co-pays.

Unless the corporations are eliminated from the equation, the math of providing health care will always be unbalanced.

It's as simple as 1-2-3.

[redqueen]

8. Because there will be no motivation for the insurers to stop fleecing us...

it's corporate welfare, and they are horribly greedy and unashamed of their indefensible parasitic behavior.

[BlueDemKev]

23. Incentive to Stop Insurance Co's from Fleecing Us

Yes, there will be...Competition between the insurance companies will put downward pressure on premiums (and upward pressure on service). I think some caps on executive pay should also be considered, but probably won't help very much.

Remember, even if there is a public option, the government will be looking to make it as cost-effective as possible (i.e.--look for all possible ways to fund it while providing the least expensive service possible). That's the goal of any organization, be it for-profit or non-profit.

[redqueen]

25. There is a reason we pay so very much more than people with single-payer systems.

You clearly need to do some research.

I'll leave it to you to figure out how your faith in the "free market" is sadly misplaced.

Here's a good place to start:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=6428698

[ashling]

10. I always thought of the Public option as a strong

non-profit competitor to the privates which would get start up financing from the feds, but then operate on its own.

I am concerned that regulation of the corps. on its own, though absolutely necessary (ie. no pre-existing conditions, govt, watchdogs, etc.) because we all are familiar with the revolving door. Regulations alone can be watered down through lax enforcement, etc.

The non-profit would compete with and keep the corps on their toes

[abelenkpe2]

11. If the government puts its muscle behind lowering costs.....

That's a big if. Not really one I'm willing to consider. Government subsidizing individuals to buy insurance is the same thing as government subsidizing insurance companies. It's a handout to big business and the lobbyists pushing for such a scheme. And will continue a tiered system that provides good health care to the rich and substandard health care to the poor. How is that a good thing?

No compromise! The democrats are in control in congress and the white house. Now is the time to get policies passed that actually benefit the people. We cannot pass up this opportunity.

C'mon Don't give up the fight!

[laughingliberal]

12. The bills out of committee now include subsidies

I believe the current bills include subsidies for those at 400% of the poverty level. Senate Finance looks as if they will lower that to people who are at 300% of poverty level. A couple making more than $34,000 per year will not get subsidized. My husband and I had premiums of $1200 per month. Tell me how a couple with $34,000 per year can pay rates like this. The problem with so many people with employer based insurance is they have no idea the kind of money we are talking about here.

[Oregone]

19. Yes, subsidies that are diverted to exec pay and shareholders' portfolios

Lets put a line below FICA for a Rich Guy Deduction. We take that money you earn, and just send it to pay ridiculous salaries and be distributed as dividends to people so rich they never had to work an hour of their life.


Its quite a dilemma. The burden for health care needs to be shifted to the upper quintiles (subsidies could potentially do this), but with them going to companies that add 30% to the costs of health care seems like an insane answer to spiralling health costs.

[abelenkpe2]

13. Single payer!

We need to form a movement to push for real health care reform.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

14. Single payer Period. All of the money sunk into the bottomless greedy pit of

insurance companies and big pharma will more than pay for it.

[kath]

15. Because what they call "affordable" is utter bullshit --

As I said in this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=8606059#8606229 :

what Congresscritters call "affordable" and what
people IN REAL LIFE are actually able to afford are miles apart.

For instance, in this thread, apparently under Massachusetts' mandatory insurance bullshit plan they think "1,400 dollars a month for a family of three making 70,000" is "affordable" Bull-fucking-shit! http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

That's more than ***10X more*** than a family of 3 or more pays per month in British Columbia, but the Canadian family pays NOTHING at point-of-service -- NO co-pays, and NO deductibles -- non, zero, zip, nada. And prescription meds are available at low cost.

[liberal N proud]

22. Yea, that sure helps the family living on $35,000/year

[John Q. Citizen]

24. That's the situation in Romney Care MA, and it's failing. Benefits are being cut.

[Overseas]

26. NOT OK. Expanding Medicare is the most efficient option.

And the private insurers know that. That's why they hired amoral right wing PR firms to stir up very dangerous fear and hatred in the lunatic fringe "genuine grass roots groups" to storm the town halls.

Their greatest fear was that we would spend August talking about the many many ways our current cruel Pay-to-Play system is broken and immoral.

And how economically efficient it would be to just scale up our Medicare system to cover all who want it.

They had to stop that at all costs-- a few million of their billions in privatized profits to stir up very dangerous moods with ridiculous rumors we'd have to discuss because they made colorful news bytes.

I'd say that professional reckless bullying is enough of a trigger for Democrats to stand together and say-- MEDICARE FOR ALL WHO WANT IT is our public option.

They can "make things fair" for the companies who have been unfair to many of us by putting in regulations for private insurers requiring them to cover everyone and explain the reduction in profits to their shareholders-- damn govt regulations requiring ethical behavior-- that's enough of a break for those cruel companies.

We voted for change. We voted for a stronger, more empathetic Democratic party.

[ddeclue]

30. The DIFFERENCE: It's a rip off, millions of people will be forced to buy junk policies

that insure nothing in reality and only a very few of the poorest will get any kind of subsidy.

It's a windfall for the insurance crooks and a total sell out of progressive ideals.

I for one will be backing a draft Dean or draft Kucinich movement in 2012 if Obama actually does this.

[barbiegeek]

31. THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS FIGHT IS ABOUT

It's about covering the 65 million with health care and NO coverage for their disorder/disease.