Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Cost of Not Having a Public Option

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 11:40 AM
Original message
The Cost of Not Having a Public Option

The Cost of Not Having a Public Option

by mcjoan

The California Nurses Association just sent out a press release highlighting new report from the Commonwealth Fund that projects a 94% increase in health insurance premiums by 2020, if effective reforms aren't enacted. From the e-mailed release:

Private insurance premiums for employer-sponsored coverage will rise by 94 percent by 2010, on top of the 119 percent increase since 1999, according to the Commonwealth Fund report. The increases in premiums from 1999 to 2008 were four times greater than the rise in family incomes, even prior to the current recession.

"These findings are merely the shocking state of premiums, not even including a concurrent jump in out-of-pocket costs for deductibles, co-pays, and other fees. It's no wonder that medical bills now are the leading factor in 62 percent of bankruptcies, and half of American families are rationing medical care because they can't afford it," noted Deborah Burger, RN, co-president of the 86,000-member California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee.

Karen Davis from the Commonweath Fund writes:

Health insurance is already becoming unaffordable for families and businesses, with premium inflation outpacing wage increases. Between 1999 and 2008, employer family health insurance premiums rose by 119 percent, while the median family income rose by less than 30 percent. As a result, average family premiums for group policies have risen from 11 percent to 18 percent of median family income. And if Congress fails to pass health reforms that control health care costs, premiums are projected to rise to 24 percent of a family's income by 2020. (Click on image at right to open chart.) In any economic climate, but especially in todays recession, most families cannot afford to devote a fourth of their income to insurance coverage, nor can businesses afford their share of insurance premiums in addition to raises for employees.

In light of this reality, it is important to remember the principal goals of comprehensive health reform: 1) to cover the uninsured, 2) to enhance the affordability of insurance coverage for everyone, and 3) to slow the rise in health care costs. Achieving the first goal without the second and third is a recipe for long-term failure.

The Public Plan: The Leverage to Set Rates

Although the Obama Administration may be scaling back its support for a public plan, Commonwealth Fund and Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analyses show that offering a strong public health insurance choice as well as private plans through a health insurance exchange will help all Americans, not just the uninsured, by slowing the growth in premiums. A recent Fund analysis found that offering a public plan alongside private plans to all individuals and employers is our most effective weapon in combating health care costs. The study found that cumulative health system savings between 2010 and 2020compared with projected trends for that periodcould be as high as $3 trillion if reform includes a public plan that adopts innovative payment methods that reward value and uses its purchasing leverage, along with a reformed Medicare program, to control costs. The annual growth rate in health system spending would fall from 6.5 percent to 5.2 percent consistent with an industry coalition pledge to slow spending by 1.5 percentage points annually over the next decade.

The CBO estimates that a public plan premium would be 10 percent lower than those of typical private plans offered in an insurance exchangea cost break that would provide much-needed relief to families and businesses in every state in the country. The average family would save $2,200 per year by 2020 with reforms that include a public plan. President Obama pledged during the presidential campaign to save American families $2,500 a year through health reform. This goal needs to be on par with a deficit-neutral health reform plan.

more




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
NYC_SKP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 11:45 AM
Response to Original message
1. "not even including a concurrent jump in out-of-pocket costs for deductibles..."
Yikes!

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
2. The California Nurses Association supports single payer because it best contains costs.
I agree with the California Nurses Association and am supporting HR676 in the US House of Representatives. It will be coming up for a floor vote later this year.

I hope you will support it also!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. And yet they see the value of a public option that others are trying to distort. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. No need to mislead, Prosense. The CNA doesn't endorse or support The Mini Public Option
Report that Premiums to Rise 94% by 2020 a Reminder Why Medicare for All Would Best Control Costs, Say RNs
http://www.calnurses.org/media-center/press-releases/20...

Your piece is a classic attempt to mislead readers about what the California Nurses Association supports and endorses and what they don't support and what they don't endorse.

If you feel you have to mis-lead people to get them to support your agenda, then how are you any better than the teabaggers? Please stick to the facts and stop the spin. Your misleading is hurting the reform effort. People aren't that dumb, believe me.



The Public Option is a Republican style free market based solution that won't work to contain costs. The best way to contain costs and cover everyone is a single payer Medicare for all. Obama said his plan won't cover everyone, that their will still be Americans with no health security. That's wrong in my opinion, and it's wrong in the opinion of the California Nurse's Association.

"The Mini Public Option" which is found in HR3200 is a big joke. It won't contain costs in the slightest. Is that what you support, Prosense? The "Mini Public Option?" Why not say so then? Why rely on misleading people instead of sticking to the truth? Is the truth your enemy?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lyonn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Please explain the "mini option"
No sarcasm meant, just uninformed......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Sure. Here's a link to an article with an indepth history of the public option,
and I will also give you a quick overview.

http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/07/20/bait-and-switch-how-the... /

I call what is referred to in HR3200 as "the public option" the "Mini Public Option" because it is almost nothing like what was originally proposed. It's tiny, it's weak, hardly anyone will be able to be enrolled in it and it won't contain costs at all as a result.

But please read the article at the link. It's very well written and researched and it explains just about everything everyone needs to know about the public option.

i will confess that if we could get a real, strong, and Mega Public option introduced into congress that I would support it as better than nothing. But the "Mini Public Option" ends up being worse than nothing because it just sucks more money out for the private insurance companies (the plan as a whole) and it will make any real reform almost impossible forever. If you think the insurance companies are strong now, wait until they are pulling in a trillion a decade in public monies plus all the mandatory private payments from currently uninsured and under insured people.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Mislead? They distributed the press release. The CNA can advocate
all out for single payer, but saying it's the best doesn't preclued other measures from being considered reform. The CNA release:

Alarming new numbers released Thursday by the Commonwealth Fund on expected insurance premium increases in the coming decade are yet another reminder that genuine healthcare reform, in particular Medicare for all, is the most effective way to rein in costs said the nation's largest organization of nurses today.

The Commonwealth Fund report provides the fact that show the viability of a public option.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Yes, mislead.
You attempted to make it sound as if the CA Nurses Association was endorsing your mini public option. They aren't.

Why won't you tell people that the CBO says that the mini "Public Option" found in HR3200 won't contain costs at all? That almost nobody will be allowed into the mini public option. How can you continue to claim that a public option is needed to contain costs and allow people a choice, then at the same time champion the weak, anemic, and useless, "mini Public Option" in HR3200 and the even worse public option in the Senate HELP committee bill?

It's as honest as the practice of bait and switch is honest. It's not. It's a sham.

If you ever wonder why people have turned tepid on health care (now called insurance) reform, look no further than the shady product you are trying to convince them to buy.

I have an idea. How about a real choice. No subsidies for any private insurance, just subsidies for a big strong "mega public option" that can negotiate drug prices and can use Medicare reimbursement rates. If you want to buy private insurance, you can privately pay for it. Or even better yet, how about a liberal solution. Like Improved Medicare for All!

Here's what the CA Nurse's have to say, in full

http://www.calnurses.org/media-center/press-releases/20...
Report that Premiums to Rise 94% by 2020 a Reminder Why Medicare for All Would Best Control Costs, Say RNs

Alarming new numbers released Thursday by the Commonwealth Fund on expected insurance premium increases in the coming decade are yet another reminder that genuine healthcare reform, in particular Medicare for all, is the most effective way to rein in costs said the nation's largest organization of nurses today.

Private insurance premiums for employer-sponsored coverage will rise by 94 percent by 2010, on top of the 119 percent increase since 1999, according to the Commonwealth Fund report. The increases in premiums from 1999 to 2008 were four times greater than the rise in family incomes, even prior to the current recession.

"These findings are merely the shocking state of premiums, not even including a concurrent jump in out-of-pocket costs for deductibles, co-pays, and other fees. It's no wonder that medical bills now are the leading factor in 62 percent of bankruptcies, and half of American families are rationing medical care because they can't afford it," noted Deborah Burger, RN, co-president of the 86,000-member California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee.

"Yet, rather than show any compassion for how their price gouging practices have harmed so many families, the insurance giants are planning to continue to plunder the American people with more huge increases in premium prices," Burger noted.

"Such practices should remind us why there is such a desperate need for real reform. Unfortunately, there is little in the major plans being discussed to crack down on the pricing practices of the insurance industry. The most effective approach is the one that has worked in other industrial countries, a single-payer or national system," said Burger.

"Congress and the administration still has time to pass legislation that will protect American families facing rationing, denial of care, and bankruptcy due to the disgraceful insurance industry policies. Medicare for all remains the most universal, most cost-effective solution to this crisis," Burger said.

In a commentary today in the Times of London, CNA/NNOC Executive Director Rose Ann DeMoro noted how the Obama administration has had trouble mobilizing supporters and activists for a more tepid plan. "It is still possible" to achieve broader reform, she noted. "But time is running out."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. BS. No one said they endorsed the plan.
They are the ones distributing the Commonwealth Fund report. They cannot cherry pick the claim that premiums will rise and expect that everyone is going to ignore that the report is advocating the benefits of a public option.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. You implied that the CNA endorsed the plan.
You also imply that there is a plan in front of Congress which is anything like the study the the Commonwealth Fund is talking about. But the truth is that the CBO says that the mini public option in HR3200 as written provides no cost savings. It's all smoke and mirrors with you guys. I can't believe how you think this is going to help Democrats politically. It's going to screw Democrats because people don't like to be misled

You have to rely on misleading people because if you were full out honest and forthcoming even fewer people would be excited about "The "Mini public Option"-Insurance-company give-away plan" that's being offered up as reform.

As Frank Zappa said; "It hard to defend an unpopular policy."

He was speaking about US policy during Vietnam. The war's Democratic proponents also had to mislead a lot, for similar reasons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lyonn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 12:26 PM
Response to Original message
4. This is the bottom line, if the insurance co. can keep the status quo
Edited on Sat Aug-22-09 12:37 PM by lyonn
The people will wish the only additional cost for health care for all was a trillion or less in 10 years. Getting this msg. across is too deep for about 50% of the population. They don't understand they are being raped now. They must be the ones that haven't had serious health issues and experienced how the insur. co. and HMO's deny coverage or deny right to use a Dr. they would prefer. How do you get through to these people?

First of all they hate Dems and appear to believe this socialist BS?? Second, I think they are against Obama, period, color doncha know. The next election is primary in their minds. They have found a cause that they can hammer against our President and are beating it to death, logic be damned. Strap the guns on sorta mentality that gets way too much attention and excites the Obama haters.

This whole issue just makes my mind buzz. I am over 70 yrs, white, female and my medicare is swell, A & B. It's young people around me that will suffer for this bias in the U.S.

Watched over 2 hrs. of Barney Franks town hall meeting and the guy is fantastic. Howard Dean is full of facts. We need smart people like these out there explaining. The media fails the people once again. It's the way you frame a question that matters. Just like the polls I suspect.

Personal story: A friend of mine, about 10 years ago, that is an atty. for a firm that defends Dr.'s, had a son that needed a delicate heart operation that only a few were highly qualified, those that had a good track record of success with this delicate procedure. Her insurance carrier or HMO, not sure, denied them coverage on the Dr. she felt was the best since he wasn't on "their list". Never knew how it turned out but she had said at the time that she would pay out of pocket to get the best care for her 19 yr. old kid. I know he got the Dr. she wanted just never knew how it was handled financially. The operation was a success and he is cured! YET, she is a died in the wool repub?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. The insurance industry doesn't want to keep the status quo. They are losing customers.
As the number of uninsured go up, the number of paying customers for the insurance industry goes down. Sounds logical, right? It is logical.

That's why the insurance industry has been working with the Obama administration to pass a law that will require every American to buy insurance from them. And the Feds will use tax monies (a trillion a decade) to subsidies lower income folks.

So the insurance industry likes that idea so much that they have agreed to give up excluding customers for pre-existing conditions, and they have agreed to modified community rating and to guaranteed issue.

The only thing they haven't agreed to is the so-called public option. Right now what';s in the House bill HR3200 should be called the "Mini Public Option," because it is so tiny and weak and small that according to the CBO it won't enroll more then 10 million people in 10 years (by 2019) and it won't have any effect at all on cost.

The problem is that people aren't stupid. They don't like this plan much, because they don't think it will do anything except make even more profits for the insurance industry and as costs go up, there coverage will continue to go down or they will lose coverage all together.

Democrats who voted for Obama are the ones who don't like this. They wanted real reform, not Romney care.

The people who voted McCain don't like anything anyway no how, but that isn't the problem. The problem are the Democratic voters who want real reform, not this corporate sponsored reform.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Wow, who knew the insurance companies wanted reform?
Why didn't they push reform when they had Republican majorities in Congress?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. The insurance companies want a trillion in new public monies a decade and they want
a law passed that makes it mandatory that everyone has to buy insurance.

Don't tell me you didn't know that. Obama knows it. He said so at the Montana town hall. He said AHIO and him were working together on reform. He met with them many many times. They held press conferences together to announce the agreements they made.

You didn't know that? Where have you been?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Answer the question:
Why didn't they push reform when they had Republican majorities in Congress?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. They did. They got Medicare part D, passed with key Democratic support. Now it's
the insurance companies turn.

The public didn't trust Repos with health care reform. We (the people) would have opposed it like we opposed Medicare part D.

But that won't stop the Dems from passing Romney care, and it won't stop you from helping them do it by misleading people.

Look, I have zero problem with the fact that Baucus and you want to reward the insurance companies and in fact the whole medical industrial complex. But when you mislead people to try and do that, it bothers me. a lot.

So stick to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, please.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. That is not reform. Why didn't they pass reform, e.g. co-ops to get the additional customers?
Why not?

You claim they don't want to keep the status quo, so provide the facts to support that.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #18
20.  Here If this isn' enough let me know
Edited on Sat Aug-22-09 03:11 PM by John Q. Citizen
http://www.ahip.org/content/pressrelease.aspx?docid=249...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
http://www.healthinsurancesort.com/blog/2008/12/health-... /
http://www.crackinsurance.com/2009/03/08/ahip-sides-wit... /
http://undertheinfluence.nationaljournal.com/2009/08/ah...
http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news-1/AHIP-Congra... /
http://www.americanhealthsolution.org /
http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/08/interview_with_...


President Obama, speaking in Montana at the Town Hall Meeting in Belgrade.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/August/14/...

"Now, one point I want to make about insurance: Some of the reforms that we want for the insurance market are very hard to achieve, unless we've got everybody covered. This is the reason the insurance companies are willing to support reform, because their attitude is if we can't exclude people for preexisting conditions, for example, if we can't cherry pick the healthy folks from the not-so-healthy folks, well, that means that we're taking on more people with more expensive care. What's in it for us? The answer is if they've got more customers, then they're willing to make sure that they are eliminating some of these practices. If they've got fewer customers, they're less willing to do it.

So it's important for people -- when people ask me sometimes, why don't you just do the insurance reform stuff and not expand coverage for more people, my answer is I can't do the insurance reform stuff by itself. The only way that we can change some of the insurance practices that are hurting people now is to make sure that everybody is covered and everybody has got a stake in it, and then the insurance companies are able and willing to make some of these changes that will help people who have insurance right now. But thank you for the question. I appreciate it." (Applause.)



OK, The President Of The United States, Barack Obama, just said that the insurance industry is on board for the reforms as long as they get a bunch of new customers, right. That's what I said in the post up thread.

Are you suggesting that Obama is a liar? Or that what he is saying isn't true?
Or do you think he knows what's going on and he is telling the truth?

I'd be interested in your response, Prosense.

Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Enough? None of those unrelated press releases answer the question.
Edited on Sat Aug-22-09 03:11 PM by ProSense
Admit that you have no answer, or explain why the insurance companies didn't take the opportunity to pass reform when the Republicans held majorities in Congress.



edited typo.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. I was attempting to answer you and posted to where you first asked your question.
Edited on Sat Aug-22-09 03:29 PM by John Q. Citizen
I think I've pretty well demonstrated that the insurance industry is on board with most of the proposed "reforms" except the public option, as I said up thread.

There are press releases and there are news articles about joint statements with the White House and such, if you read them you will see. And there is Obama's own public statement which i asked for you to comment on but you didn't. I don't know why you didn't. It seems pretty clear to me that he's saying exactly what i said. The insurance companies are working with him to get lots more money and customers in return for supporting reform. It's kind of like bribery, when you think about it.

Why they didn't attempt to pass them with bush is really kind of beside the point. They are raking it in now, and if what you are shilling for passes, they will be raking it in even better. I assume that they know opportunity when they see it and they took theirs.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. Bush couldn't even deliever on market based
Social Security reforms. How was he supposed to deliver on market based health care reforms?

Obama is getting them their customers. He says so right there.

Agreed?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. That's not an answer. Bush never even tried to push health reform
Why not? Why didn't the insurance companies advocate reform during the Republican-controlled Congress?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. Again, please be intellectually honest here. Why is your question relevant to your
thesis that the insurance industry is dead set against what Obama is trying to achieve?

Obama says they aren't. You say they are. Attempting to divert by insisting repeatedly that I haven't answered your question is just another form of dishonest communication.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. So after all the non-answer responses you're accusing me on not being intellectually honest and
asking why the question is relevant?

You made a bogus claim that the "insurance industry doesn't want to keep the status quo. They are losing customers."

You can't answer why it is that if they wanted reform so desperately, they didn't push for it when there were Republican majorities in Congress.

The question is relevant because you are the one who made the bogus claim. You can't answer it, and your responses are the epitome of deflection.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. Obama said that the insurance companies are in favor of changing the status quo. They made a deal
to change the status quo.

Call Obama a liar if you want. I think he's telling the truth when he says they made a deal.



He says the insurance industry has agreed to change the status quo in return for more customers and tax subsidies so those customers can afford to pay the insurance companies.

How do you know the insurance companies didn't want to change the status quo during the Republican majorities back from 2004 to 2006? Or from 2000 to 2002?

Do you know for a fact that they didn't ask to change the status quo back then? I have no idea, and I doubt you would either.

I can guarantee you if they wanted to keep the status quo they wouldn't have made a deal to change it. I think they made a very good deal and will come out far ahead economically and in terms of the power that money can bring. They know that. Which is why they wanted to make that deal to change the status quo. I think we got the worse end of the deal. That's my opinion.

I have proof that the insurance industry wants to change the status quo. My proof is they made a deal to change the status quo. Hello. Is anybody home?

OK now for the second part. More and more Americans are without insurance coverage. True or false? (the answer is true) Why is this? Because the cost keeps going up, so less can afford it.

So, that would mean that insurance companies are selling less insurance because less people can afford it. We know that Americans are aging which means they go from work supplied insurance to Medicare. Even if they get a supplemental, it's small compared to the private insurance they got when they were working.

Also the economy has been shedding jobs, and more jobs offer less insurance, and that's been a trend for awhile. So yes, Insurance companies are selling less insurance as time goes on.

Now they will sell more if the Obama plan goes through, just as the President said.

If you can't get it from that, then you are either being obstinate or you have some sort of comprehension problem.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #30
34. Obama: Health Reform Will Put Patients Interests Ahead of Insurance Company Profits
Edited on Sat Aug-22-09 06:34 PM by ProSense
Obama: Health Reform Will Put Patients Interests Ahead of Insurance Company Profits

Insurance companies will be prohibited from denying you coverage because of your medical history, dropping your coverage if you get sick, or watering down your coverage when it counts because theres no point in having health insurance if its not there when you need it.

Insurance companies will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or lifetime, and we will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses because no one in America should go broke just because they get sick.


If the insurance companies want to, as you say, change the status quo, why haven't they voluntarily stopped putting excessive profits ahead of people's health?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. They want to change the staus quo so they make more money than they currenly are.
Which is why they made a deal.

Get it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 07:33 AM
Response to Reply #10
37. Here's an article on the huge windfall insurers are expecting to get. And you helped!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lyonn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #7
23. Last I heard the health insurance providers were making at least a 300%
profit in the last 8 or so years. How do I get into this "losing" business?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. It's almost impossible to break in. And they enjoy anti-trust protection through special
legislation. Them and Major League Baseball.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 02:21 AM
Response to Reply #23
36. Here's an article from the LA Times on the big windfall insurance companies are going to get
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quakerboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #7
29. When your price goes up 94%
you can loose almost half your customers and still have the same income.

Only then you are only having to pay out on half as many people making Claims.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. That would be true if the costs of pay outs stayed the same, but those go up as well which
is what they are basing there estimates off of.

So if an appendectomy doubles in cost then the price of insurance will of course go up.

I'm for single payer and for getting rid of the insurance companies. They do nothing except suck money out of the system.

I am also opposed to forcing people to buy private insurance from private companies, and I'm opposed to subsidizing private insurance. If they want a real public option that anybody can really buy into and that can really control costs because it's big and can reimburse at Medicare rates and can negotiate for fair drug prices, then I could support that. But i'm afraid that's not what they want.

I don't see any cost controls in the bills as currently written, and I would caution people against hoping that something big and miraculous will take place in conference.

Here's wikipedia on conference committees. Looks like nothing big can come out of this at that point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressiona...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quakerboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 06:02 PM
Original message
Is that an honest estimate, though?
Are the health care costs really going to double, or how much of that is going to profit?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
33. My advice is to look at the board of the Commonwealth Club see who they are.
Edited on Sat Aug-22-09 06:25 PM by John Q. Citizen
And try to get as much info as you can on the methodology of their study to determine if in fact those predictions makes sense.

All i know is that private health insurances job is to take in as much money as possible and to pay out as little as possible. That is their whole business model, and that is their fiduciary responsibility under law to their stock holders.

Which is why I am working to get a single payer system. It's far simpler, it contains costs effectively, it's time tested, and everybody is always insured no matter what.

I don't know what the profit margins are in private insurance but they are probably a lot. In a single payer system there is no profit.

HR676 the Medicare for all act is getting a full floor debate and vote later this year. Ask your Rep to support it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 02:20 PM
Response to Original message
17. K&R I hope people read through the posts and make up thier own minds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onestepforward Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 02:53 PM
Response to Original message
19. Great information. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU GrovelBot  Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 06:02 PM
Response to Original message
32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##



This week is our third quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 02nd 2014, 08:55 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC