Forums | MacLife

From what I have seen, current proposals will do nothing to lower the increase in health care cost inflation and only serve to put the government on the hook for more expense they can't afford.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

From what I have seen, current proposals will do nothing to lower the increase in health care cost inflation and only serve to put the government on the hook for more expense they can't afford.

Which the Republican Party, and the right in general, is so concerned about its alternative proposal is to do ... well, nothing.

Their plan is to move away from employer provided insurance, allow inter-state insurance purchasing, and probably remove the pre-existing condition thing.

But moving away from employer-provided insurance will never gain traction, because most people don’t want yet-another-bill to worry about, especially one as costly as health insurance.

I think Mr robco offers a very solid assessment.  I wouldn't be quite a gloomy* about the America's overall future, but time will tell.


* And not because I'm in the robber baron group.

In purely economic terms, maybe? But he admitted that the impact will linger for much longer in terms of the unemployed. So, no, for every day people it is a long way from being "over".

Bite your tongue.

Senate’s 10-year health fix would cost $856B
Bill unveiled Wednesday but hopes dim for bipartisan compromise

WASHINGTON - Sen. Max Baucus on Wednesday brought out the much-awaited Finance Committee version of an American health-system remake — a landmark $856 billion, 10-year measure that starts a rough ride through Congress without visible Republican backing.

The bill by Baucus, Democratic chairman of the Senate panel, would make major changes to the nation's $2.5 trillion health care system, including requiring most people to purchase insurance coverage or pay a fine and prohibiting insurance companies from charging more to people with more serious health problems.

"This is a unique moment in history where we can finally reach an objective so many of us have sought for so long," said Baucus, of Montana. "The Finance Committee has carefully worked through the details of health care reform to ensure this package works for patients, for health care providers and for our economy."

Consumers would be able to shop for and compare insurance plans in a new purchasing exchange. Medicaid would be expanded, and limits would be placed on patients' yearly health care costs. The plan would be paid for with $507 billion in cuts to government health programs and $349 billion in new taxes and fees, including a tax on high-end insurance plans and fees charged to insurance companies and medical device manufacturers.

But the bill fails to fulfill President Barack Obama's aim of creating a new government-run insurance plan — or option — to compete with the private market. It proposes instead a system of nonprofit member-owned cooperatives, somewhat akin to electric co-ops that exist in some areas of the country. That was one of many concessions meant to win over Republicans.

In other ways, including its overall cost and payment mechanisms, the bill tracks closely with the priorities Obama laid out in his speech to Congress last week.

The CBO is skeptical of co-ops, favorite of some hereabouts; see below.

For Dems, 60 senators is magic number
Health care proposal needs to attract at least one Republican for passage

WASHINGTON (NYT) - The unveiling of a compromise health care proposal has Senate Democrats pondering a daunting mathematical challenge: how to keep all 59 Democrats united and attract at least one Republican to pass an overhaul measure.

As many lawmakers on Wednesday got their first detailed look at a Finance Committee plan that was months in the making, senators immediately began exploring whether the plan — when combined with elements of another, more liberal one — could win enough senators to reach that magic procedural number of 60.

“We have to meld a couple of things together and see where we are,” said Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut. “I wouldn’t say today with absolute certainty that you could get to 60, but it would be just as foolish to say you can’t get there either. This is the Senate.”

In trying to reach critical mass for legislative success, advocates of health care overhaul face an extremely delicate balancing act. With the death of Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, Democrats control 59 seats, meaning they need at least one Republican to join them if they are to proceed without employing a procedural shortcut that could cause havoc in the Senate.

And Senate Democrats have substantial differences of their own. More liberal members like Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia and Senator Bernard Sanders, independent of Vermont, have been strong advocates of a public insurance option; many of the more centrist Democrats have come down just as strongly against one. Centrists are interested in holding costs down; progressives want to bring more Americans under the insurance umbrella, a push that drives costs up.

As a result, changes intended to bring the centrists and conservatives in line could drive away progressives, while any move to draw in the more liberal elements could end up alienating the centrists. There is little margin for error.

“I continue to believe that you start at the center and then move to collect additional support on both ends of the political spectrum,” said Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat and health policy expert whose seat on the Finance Committee makes him a key player as that panel considers the new plan from Senator Max Baucus, the Montana Democrat who leads the committee.

Juggling the individual party demands can be dizzying. [..]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The latest health overhaul plan circulating on Capitol Hill gives health insurers, drug makers and large employers reasons to heave sighs of relief, sparing them the higher costs and more burdensome rules included in other Democratic-written alternatives.

Industry players that have already struck bargains with President Barack Obama's administration and leading Democrats to help pay for revamping the health system saw most of those deals left intact - and in some cases sweetened - in the $856 billion proposal unveiled Wednesday by Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the Finance Committee chairman.

You won't hear any of them cheering publicly about what they would get out of the measure, because many are still hoping for a better deal before Congress takes final action on revamping the health care system. But don't expect to hear them coming out in opposition, since they know Baucus' plan is the lesser of many evils being considered.

Take the health insurance industry.

It would score a new, taxpayer-subsidized customer base of millions who don't currently have insurance, thanks to a mandate that everyone purchase coverage - backed up by steep penalties on people who don't. And it wouldn't have to compete with the government to cover people, unlike in the four other health overhaul plans approved this year by Democratic-dominated congressional committees.

Nor would the nonprofit so-called "co-ops" designed to provide consumers with an alternative to private health insurance pose any real threat to their business, according to a nonpartisan analysis released Wednesday. The Congressional Budget Office said those plans "seem unlikely to establish a significant market presence in many areas of the country or to noticeably affect federal subsidy payments."

Hmm. My bold. (And the industry profit margin cited elsewhere at ~3% is after, AFAIK, admin and other overhead, as well as the very high salaries of management- things we can live better without). Well, the journey of 1,000 miles, Rome wasn't built in and so on. A step at a time, but get moving.

New health proposal is industry's favorite so far

Somebody who knows Max B. and the Hard Centrists should view Moore's "SICKO!" and write the legislation.

I was just reading how the whole industry is very happy about this new bill. And why shouldn't they? All it does is shovel out more money to get more people into the existing system without doing anything to reform it.

daemon wrote:

Somebody who knows Max B. and the Hard Centrists should view Moore's "SICKO!" and write the legislation.

Someone who isn't bought and paid for by the health insurance industry should write the legislation. Baucus should never have been allowed near this.

freecat wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

That Senate bill is a piece of crap.

How can it offer so little and cost so much? It makes Medicare Part D look budget-friendly.

Tallgeese wrote:

daemon wrote:

Somebody who knows Max B. and the Hard Centrists should view Moore's "SICKO!" and write the legislation.

Someone who isn't bought and paid for by the health insurance industry should write the legislation. Baucus should never have been allowed near this.

While doing little to lower the cost of that insurance.

robco wrote:

While doing little to lower the cost of that insurance.

That's right.

In other words it proposes to use nonexistent tax dollars to fund a health care system that's already sending the country toward bankruptcy.

Bat wrote:

When the CBO opines that co-ops 'seem unlikely to establish significant market presence in much of the country' etc., that's a sign that part needs to be rethought- but there may not be time.

REthought?! Baucus' delay wasn't enough time to think things through? That gang of sux gave us the summer of hate.

Four committees have passed four bills already. ALL have a public option version, to my knowledge.