Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

2%, boy that was worth the fight.

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 (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
BobRossi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-01-09 12:05 PM
Original message
2%, boy that was worth the fight.
"WASHINGTON – What's all the fuss about? After all the noise over Democrats' push for a government insurance plan to compete with private carriers, coverage numbers are finally in: Two percent.

That's the estimated share of Americans younger than 65 who'd sign up for the public option plan under the health care bill that Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is steering toward House approval.

The underwhelming statistic is raising questions about whether the government plan will be the iron-fisted competitor that private insurers warn will shut them down or a niche operator that becomes a haven for patients with health insurance horror stories."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091101/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_public_plan

"Change"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-01-09 12:08 PM
Response to Original message
1. Why don't they just open it up to anyone who wants it?
I just don't get that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-01-09 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #1
12. That would cut into their constituents' profits, I'm afraid.
And by constituents I mean Wall Street and its emeshment in the insurance industry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ljm2002 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-01-09 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #1
21. Why?
Because that would mean fewer new customers for the private insurers. Because that would mean a stronger competitor to the private insurers. Because that would strengthen the public option to include more younger, healthier people. Because that would start to decouple insurance from employment. Because that would be less "uniquely American". Because that would make too damned much sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-01-09 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. Well stated.
I was being rhetorical. It makes too much sense on too many fronts to be considered. Sigh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #21
39. because obama sucks. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nightrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-01-09 12:09 PM
Response to Original message
2. knr. yep, dump it and start over...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brooklynite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-01-09 12:10 PM
Response to Original message
3. No, "choice"
Sorry, but you can't expect that everyone eligible for the public option is going to take it. The reality is, we're expanding choices and hoping competition follows. If you don't want choice, go ahead and fight for single payer, but you're not going to get it passed any time soon. I'll take choice for now, and build on that later.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BillE Donating Member (67 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-01-09 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #3
17. How is it "Choice" when
How is it "Choice" when the only ones allowed to "choose" it are the people the private insurance won't take. Everyone else (if insurance is mandated) will be forced to buy private insurance. The only way to force the private insurance to compete is to make the "Public Option" available to all, charge less premium than private insurance while not having co-pays or deductibles. and covering all health related problems including dental, eyes, and hearing. (i.e. glasses and hearing aides)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProleNoMore Donating Member (316 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-01-09 12:12 PM
Response to Original message
4. Hate To Say It - That Sure Is Change We Can Believe In
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-01-09 12:12 PM
Response to Original message
5. How many humans does that 2% equal? And arent they the ones w/o any coverage? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BobRossi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-01-09 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. One in three under 65 without health insurance.
That's 33.33333%

"(CNN) -- One out of three Americans under 65 were without health insurance at some point during 2007 and 2008, according to a report released Wednesday."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/04/uninsured.epidemic.obama/


And I'm one of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nightrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-01-09 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. 6 million, in the yahoo article.. yes, mostly those w/o.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-01-09 12:16 PM
Response to Original message
7. "a haven for patients with health insurance horror stories"
if it is truly a haven, then that would be a good thing.

Sure it is a teeny tiny step as far as the overall problem but if it makes some people's lives better that is a good thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-01-09 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #7
15. But if it isn't opened up to people without "health insurance horror stories"
you have no way of mitigating risk. All that is left in the public option are the uninsurables and anyone else the Cartel decides to dump in there.

Fiscally it makes no sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-01-09 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #7
28. I'm thinking this is more akin to the insurance pools for drivers that no company wants to touch
Basically it's a way of saying that the corporations don't have to face mandates the way that individuals have to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
comrade snarky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-01-09 12:19 PM
Response to Original message
9. The Public Option under discussion has always been limited
From the very beginning, it's been for people without other options. The idea is to grow it like Social Security has grown.

If you don't know that, you haven't been paying attention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donald Ian Rankin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-01-09 12:27 PM
Response to Original message
10. That's, what, about five million people? N.T.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shagbark Hickory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-01-09 12:41 PM
Response to Original message
11. The CBO estimated the 2%. Who knows how they arrived at that number.
I admit, I'm sure it will be like the making home affordable plan where a very tiny percentage of people that need help actually was able to get help but we don't know what that 2% is.

Some people say that the public option premiums will be higher tha private plans. A lot of people wouldn't sign up for it if it was more expensive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-01-09 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
13. It's starts small, but it starts.....
to campaign actively against this PO, or to throw your hands up in the air,
means it doesn't start at all.

It's call opening up the door and getting your foot in.

And starting small is usually better, because when it starts growing all of the kinks will be out of it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-01-09 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. But if the only people eligible are otherwise uninsurable
how can that be financially sustainable? They need to open it to the otherwise low-use 'healthy' people in order to spread the risk across a larger pool.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-01-09 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. It will not be just the uninsurables.......
Edited on Sun Nov-01-09 12:56 PM by FrenchieCat
I will be eligible, cause I'm self employed in a company of exactly 2 (my hubby and me). We currently pay $15,000+ per year in coverage, something we actually can't afford, but are forced to by giving up other things. We will be eligible for this PO, and we are in sound health.

Know that the most conservative estimates that you can kind of believe will get comes from the CBO as they play it safe.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-01-09 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Good point. Happy to hear that your rates will likely
go WAY down being pooled with millions of others as opposed to the pool of 2. :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 01:27 AM
Response to Reply #16
37. Social Security in 1936 stunk to high heaven
so did Medicare in 1965

For that matter S-CHIP in 1995

This is a stinker, but quite honestly more than I expected.... and it will grow... the battle just begins.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeycola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-01-09 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #13
20. "IT" is more money to health insurance and Big Pharm"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cry baby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-01-09 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #13
22. +1...it will save lives and hopefully grow into something bigger.
I bet those 5 million people will be happy to get it and it may make their lives better. In my opinion, it's a beginning - and it will grow like Medicare did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-01-09 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #13
32. Right. Just like Social Security started with a requirement that everyone have a stock market
--retirement account. There was a small public option for a government guaranteed pension available to 10% of the population, which then grew into the program we know today covering everyone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-01-09 12:44 PM
Response to Original message
14. "insurers fear that Congress could change the rules later, opening it up to all people"
Edited on Sun Nov-01-09 12:45 PM by emulatorloo
From the same article.


---
It is my understanding that both Social Security and Medicare were "broadened" out over the years after initial passage.

---

P.S. You should know by now that AP and POLITICO usually spin things as negatively as possible.


Both Weiner and Howard Dean have said it is a good bill, represents real reform, and is worth voting for - even if it isn't perfect. I trust those guys.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-01-09 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #14
23. But It's Not The Magic Pony
For some anything short of a socialized system where only the rich pay is "reform"...anything less is a sell-out despite millions being able to get healthcare coverage they currently don't have as well as wiping away the insurance companies anti-trust exemption and forcing them to honor their contracts regarding pre-existing conditions.

According to some, Dr. Dean, Paul Krugman, Cong. Weiner and Grayson are all corporate tools.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-01-09 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. Ahhh, an "according to some" post. What is your purpose with a post like this?
Are you trying to unify the party? or drive a wedge? Who is your "some" that call "Dr. Dean, Paul Krugman, Cong. Weiner and Grayson are all corporate tools."?

It seems to me that if the PO will only cover 6 million, that will only dent the number of people without any coverage. I thought one of the goals of health insurance reform was to get coverage of some kind for the approx 24 million uninsured.

So you are saying you are satisfied with the HOR bill? Do you think the Senate will agree or weaken it?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-01-09 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. Sorry...I Don't Play That Game...
You can browse for yourself and draw your own conclusions. What I say or think doesn't matter...it's the 535 votes that do. I can express my approval or disapointment with the ballot box and the check book next year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-01-09 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. If you mention pony you are playing "that game".
I have browsed and I know that a majority of the public wants a strong public option, one that covers ALL the 24 million uninsured. the HOR came up short and IMHO their bill will be further weakened by the upper class Senators that are on the payroll of big insurance.

If you are happy with the bill, fine. But why do you see a need to give the rest of us a bunch of "pony" crap? People are dying and you equate trying to save them with wishing for a pony. I bet you love Joe Lieberman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-01-09 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. Nice Try...
My last post on this place until the trantrums here die down. Yep...I sure loved liebermann so much I donated $500 to Ned Lamont. But presume away...if it feels good, do it. I'll give the pony a rest when others get off their high horses...

Peace...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-01-09 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. I suggest you re-read your signature. Peace back. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
optimator Donating Member (606 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-01-09 07:24 PM
Response to Original message
26. lets make our own nonprofit insurance org
since our party refuses to represent us
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-01-09 08:07 PM
Response to Original message
30. "Public" "option" is a ruse, designed to be a distraction ("shiny object") for the public.


The budget office estimated that about 6 million people would sign up for the public option in 2019, when the House bill is fully phased in. That represents about 2 percent of a total of 282 million Americans under age 65. (Older people are covered through Medicare.)
...
The budget office said "a less healthy pool of enrollees" would probably be attracted to the public option, drawn by the prospect of looser rules on access to specialists and medical services.

As a result, premiums in the public plan would be higher than the average for private plans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-01-09 11:20 PM
Response to Original message
34. 900 BILLION Dollars for a 2% Public Option.
What a DEAL !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-01-09 11:21 PM
Response to Original message
35. the bones are getting much smaller now
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PHIMG Donating Member (814 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 01:25 AM
Response to Original message
36. We've been had folks.
Edited on Mon Nov-02-09 01:25 AM by PHIMG
Democratic Party is addicted to campaign cash from the Insurance and Drug Companies and we are surprised at the result?

100% of the blame of this bill is going to go to Democrats and it's going to kill the DEMOCRATIC party.

MEDICARE FOR ALL NOW.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-02-09 01:30 AM
Response to Original message
38. Change I don't believe in.
SHEEEEE-ITTT!
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 Fri Apr 26th 2024, 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) 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