The House Health Care Bill is 1990 Pages

[drjekyllus]

Quote from tmarket:

Quote from Scataphagos:

A point which eludes the Administration. Via Medicare/Medicade the structure to provide care for EVERYBODY is already in place. All they'd need to do is figure out how to price and pay for it all.

But nooooooo.... gotta have "Obamacare"... which isn't REALLY about medical treatment at all... it's about a gigantic power grab.

A point that eluded both of you is that Medicare has too much of an unfunded liability (read: biggest hole in future budgets, about 70% of projected deficit will come from Medicare). Medicare is a LOT more expensive than this proposed plan, which is revenue neutral or slightly positive in projected savings. [/QUOTE]


No way is this going to be revenue neutral or anywhere even close. That is the biggest lie going.

 

[tmarket]

Quote from omegapoint:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/06/the_truth_about_the_insurance.html

Thanks for the article. Wendell Potter is an insurance company insider who quit after twenty years in the business.

"One is policy rescission," says Potter. "They look carefully to see if a sick policyholder may have omitted a minor illness, a pre-existing condition, when applying for coverage, and then they use that as justification to cancel the policy, even if the enrollee has never missed a premium payment."

And don't be fooled: rescission is important to the business model. Last week, at a hearing before the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation, Rep. Bart Stupak, the committee chairman, asked three insurance industry executives if they would commit to ending rescission except in cases of intentional fraud. "No," they each said.

 

[tmarket]

Quote from drjekyllus:

No way is this going to be revenue neutral or anywhere even close. That is the biggest lie going. [/B]

Please read the CBO report if you are really interested:
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=403

Estimated Budgetary Impact of H.R. 3962
According to CBO and JCT’s assessment, enacting H.R. 3962 would result
in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $104 billion over the 2010–
2019 period (see Table 1). In the subsequent decade, the collective effect of
its provisions would probably be slight reductions in federal budget
deficits. Those estimates are all subject to substantial uncertainty.

The estimate includes a projected net cost of $894 billion over 10 years for
the proposed expansions in insurance coverage. That net cost itself reflects
a gross total of $1,055 billion in subsidies provided through the exchanges
(and related spending), increased net outlays for Medicaid and the
Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and tax credits for small
employers; those costs are partly offset by $167 billion in collections of
penalties paid by individuals and employers. On balance, other effects on
revenues and outlays associated with the coverage provisions add $6 billion
to their total cost.

Over the 2010–2019 period, the net cost of the coverage expansions would
be more than offset by the combination of other spending changes, which
CBO estimates would save $426 billion, and receipts resulting from the
income tax surcharge on high-income individuals and other provisions,
which JCT and CBO estimate would increase federal revenues by
$572 billion over that period.

 

[omegapoint]

You can't possibly be saying that Health Care Insurers, w/o a public option, will lower premiums out of the kindness of their hearts. However its funded, when you take the profit out of it, its got to at least not raise premiums like having profit in it would.
Advocating for Health Care Insurers here would be like advocating for bankers before the bailout w/o the too big too fail
poison pill aspect of letting the institutionalized investments
all tank. If the insurers tank great ...see ya.

Yea, its complicated and I'll bet it still didn't account for teams of lawyers abilities to deconstruct language and come away with
loopholes that circumscribe the spirit of the law or at least hold it up in court backlogs. Still better than Insurance middlemen salivating like vultures at the windfalls if they win. Taxpayers will pay more then.

 

[Scataphagos]

Quote from drjekyllus:

A point that eluded both of you is that Medicare has too much of an unfunded liability (read: biggest hole in future budgets, about 70% of projected deficit will come from Medicare). Medicare is a LOT more expensive than this proposed plan, which is revenue neutral or slightly positive in projected savings.

No way is this going to be revenue neutral or anywhere even close. That is the biggest lie going. [/QUOTE]

The point was that the MECHANISM AND STRUCTURE are already in place. No need to re-invent that wheel (unless, of course, your REAL objective has little to do with providing medical treatment.)

 

[drjekyllus]

Quote from omegapoint:

You can't possibly be saying that Health Care Insurers, w/o a public option, will lower premiums out of the kindness of their hearts. However its funded, when you take the profit out of it, its got to at least not raise premiums like having profit in it would.

You nailed it exactly. Except the fact the private insurers are in fact private companies that are for profit. If you take the profit out of it, why be in business? They are going shut down. Look at the profit margins of health insurance companies. Its pretty small. The idea of the public option is to force the health insurers out of business so that in 10 years, the public option is the only option. Of course members of Congress will still have their own cadillac plan, but we won't mention that. Its really easy making rules when you don't have to live by them.