AP: After all the fuss, gov plan to cover few and will cost more than private plans, Is it worth it?

[ind_thinker2]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091031/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_public_plan

Key points:

1. 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.

2. Who's likely to sign up?
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. That could nudge healthy middle-class workers and their families to sign up for private plans.

Some experts are wondering if lawmakers have wasted too much time arguing about the public plan, giving short shrift to basics such as ensuring that new coverage will be affordable. For the same reason, employer groups also remain wary. Big companies don't want to lose control of their health care budgets and instead have the government send them a tax bill."That cost is going to come back to you one way or another ... and it's coming back in the way of taxes and liabilities," said Eastman Kodak's chief executive, Antonio M. Perez, speaking for the Business Roundtable. "We just don't believe that there are miracles out there."

If Congress passes a public plan that's not much of a sensation, Democrats might have reason to regret all the time and energy they invested in it.

....

[BeatleBoot]

1. Pepperoni, Ham, and Onion...

[Xipe Totec]

2. ...

[quantass]

3. Right now Wall Street only see's this as a BIG boost for Private profits and nothing more....

Let's hope this is a foundation to grow on and things will expand in the future...or America is dead...

[emulatorloo]

4. "insurers fear that Congress could change the rules later, opening it up to all people"

A couple key paragraphs from the article;

Insurers aren't buying the budget office analysis. Asked if it might soften that opposition, industry spokesman Robert Zirkelbach of America's Health Insurance Plans responded with a curt "No."

While a government plan might start out modestly, insurers fear that Congress could change the rules later, opening it up to all people and setting take-it-or-leave payments for hospitals and medical providers, instead of negotiating, as the House bill calls for.

[Better Believe It]

5. And what are the chances Congress will move to the left on this bill in the future? Answer:

None to zero unless the Democrats elect 100 to the Senate and 435 to the House.

But, if this bill passes it will kill any single payer system for at least a generation. The public option is being written and designed to fail. Given that, why would anyone want to extend a public option?

[emulatorloo]

7. Apparently both Medicare and Social Security have expanded and evolved since the initial passage

I don't see why it is impossible the public option can't be modified either, especially once it is up and running for a little while.

[Better Believe It]

15. Public option will be changed. It will be dropped after proving to be a failure.

There is one way the public option can and probably be modified in the future. It will be dropped after it has proven to be a failure.

As proposed now, it is designed to fail.

And Social Security and Medicare will be on the chopping block next in a bi-partisan Republican/Democrat attack on entitlements in order to reduce the deficit and "save" these program.

[SpartanDem]

9. You might want to read up on the history of Social Security

As passed the it was far from perfect the NAACP largely panned the program and yet it arguably the great pieces of social legislation. You see this history repeated with SCHIP and Medicare as well I don't think your prediction is born out by past actions.

But as enacted, New Deal measures were far from universal. Political realities--especially the enduring power of urban political machines in the North and black disenfranchisement in the South--powerfully affected the drafting of legislation. The result was a two-tiered system that offered generous, nationally established benefits to some Americans, primarily white and male, while leaving others with lesser entitlements or none at all.

The most generous--old-age pensions and unemployment insurance--provided aid automatically and without the stigma of dependency. By linking benefits to taxes paid by eligible wageworkers, these programs identified assistance as a right rather than charity. But the exclusion of agricultural, domestic and casual laborers left uncovered the large majority of the employed black population

http://www.fathom.com/feature/121864/index.html

[SpartanDem]

10. dupe

[johnaries]

6. Don't trust the AP. Read it for yourself.

Yes, the estimate is 6 million but there is also the expansion of Medicaid, increased funding for Community Care ("free") Clinics, no co-pays for preventative care, lower co-pays and deductibles, no-one can be turned down, etc., etc. One good thing after another.

CBO report to Rangel:
http://www.centerforpolicyanalysis.org/id57.html

Summary of HR 3962:
http://www.centerforpolicyanalysis.org/id57.html

[brentspeak]

11. I trust Dennis Kucinich: Health care proposal "a bailout for insurance companies."

http://rawstory.com/2009/10/kucinich-health-reform-legislation-a-bailout-insurance-companies/

[johnaries]

13. So, you know need to read it for yourself? As much as I admire Kuch

even he can exagerate at times. I agree his amendment should be re-added, and it still can be. I would also see a version of Waxman's proposals added as an amendment in lieu of Eshoo's amendment to HR 3200. But pre-amendments it's still a damn good bill.

[DrToast]

8. It is troubling that the CBO thinks it will cost more

They need to have strong risk adjustment on the exchange. You can't let the insurers still act to dump unhealthy people. With proper risk adjusting, you can have a situation where insurers seek out sick people.

[Laelth]

12. No. Without the Kucinich Amendment it is definitelt NOT WORTH IT.

California will pass single-payer in 2011. All they need is a Democratic Governor. The legislature has already passed the bill. Schwarzenegger vetoed it. Once California has single-payer, most (if not all) states will follow suit.

It's likely that if we pass a new law now, the new law will preempt single-payer, i.e. the Federal law will preempt state law and prevent states from enacting a single-payer system.

THIS is what the health insurance companies fear. THIS is what brought them to the bargaining table. THIS is why they are not fighting Obama's tepid reforms, and THIS is why it is extremely important that we do not pass any health insurance reform bill this year.

Let's not settle for a bail-out of the health insurance industry. Let's insist on the eradication of it. In all likelihood, California will lead the way in 2011 ... if we can just give them time.

:dem:

-Laelth

[johnaries]

14. The Kuchinich amendment can be added. It should be, IMHO. nt

[Oregone]

16. It was probably just stripped to cause progressive outrage...

...and the focus of the outrage will be on this single amendment. They will give it back to get the progressives entirely on board.

Thats my call in the latest game of smoke & mirrors. Since this has started its been about moving goal posts and changing perception to shove this thing down everyone's throat.

Even with the Kucinich amendment, we can probably do better and not much worse.

[Laelth]

17. I hope you're right about that.

I think this bill is actually worth passing if states have the right to pass single-payer on their own. That's how Canada got it, as I am sure you know.

:dem:

-Laelth