Forums | MacLife

resedit wrote:

Pariah wrote:

They are offered few choices themselves because they are too small for many insurers to bother with.

I already addressed that - quoting the San Francisco bakery owner that was on Fox complaining about laws prevented her from choosing from the thousands of companies out there.

We do no need reform, that reform needs to increase choice - not take it away.

There are not thousands of insurance companies in the entire world, much less the USA. There are less than ten major insurers and most of them only operate in certain regions.
I agree we need more choice which is why I want a public option.

lieberman/filibuster

Ever hear of a 'geographic lock?'

{Sigh}...

Moderate Democrats balk at public option
Reid's challenge: Secure 60 votes to overcome any filibuster

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic moderates who control the balance of power on health care legislation balked Tuesday at a government-run insurance option for millions of Americans, underscoring the enormity of the challenge confronting Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid one day after he unveiled the plan as a consensus product.

Republican opposition stiffened, and party leaders announced they would attempt to strangle the bill before formal debate begins.

Despite the obvious obstacles, senior Democrats cast Reid's draft legislation as a turning point in the yearlong campaign to enact President Barack Obama's top domestic priority. Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said there is now a "sense of inevitability, the sense that, yes, we're going to pass health care reform, and it's going to lower costs, provide better health insurance coverage and cover ... and reform the health insurance market."

The proposed government insurance option long ago emerged as the biggest flashpoint in both the House and Senate as Democrats struggle to pass legislation that extends coverage to millions who lack it, bans insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions and slows the growth of health care spending nationally.

But before that issue can be joined on the Senate floor, Reid's first challenge is to gain 60 votes — the number needed to overcome a filibuster by Republicans — just to bring the bill up, a parliamentary maneuver so routine that a vote is rarely required.

A key senator that Reid would need on board is Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman. Lieberman said Tuesday that while he's "strongly inclined" to vote to move Reid's plan to the Senate floor for debate, he would ultimately oppose the measure because it includes a public option.

Lieberman said he's worried a public option would be costly to taxpayers and drive up insurance premiums. An independent who caucuses with Democrats, Lieberman is among a group of about a dozen moderate senators whose support Reid will need as Senate critical health care votes near.

Lieberman said he's open to the possibility of supporting a plan set up and run by the states.

McConnell's threat
Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, announced [..]

resedit wrote:

user wrote:

resedit wrote:

btw - what small businesses commonly do here is join an association of small businesses that increases their buying power, which gives them more choice and lowers their cost.

Really? I've never seen that in all of the small businesses that I've worked for.

My only choice has been whatever the company offered - take it or leave it, which is my current situation. That includes a very high $1000 deductible! I'm taking it because I'll save $60 a month and I'll be able to actually go to the doctor with it.

You may not see the choice, but your employer does.

I don't care about the choice my employer makes.

I only see that I have a single choice for myself, buy into whatever they select or spend three or four times the money on an individual plan.

So are you saying that corporate choice trumps individual choice?

Cutting Medicare payouts is bad, Medicare doesn't cover the cost of providing health care as it is.

There is one bakery owner in SF who is complaining. One. Singular. Singleton. Did anyone bother to poll other small business owner's in SF? CA? The SW? The US? This is why anecdotal evidence is dangerous. Here you either provide coverage or pay into HealthySF. Most restaurants have tacked on small surcharges to cover the cost. Most patrons haven't complained. People in the program actually like it. It's limited, but better than nothing at all. But no, we should listen to the one person who complains because she's from SF and went on Fox.

Corporations choose, but even their choices are limited based on size. Huge corps manage to negotiate better rates, but even they're feeling the strain. Many have seen revenues decline and are looking to trim costs. That means looking for insurance based on cost, passing more cost onto employees and cutting benefits. All the while they're freezing wages so employees are taking more of a hit. Many will not cover spouses/partners and children completely and the employee share for covering them is very expensive. Let's not forget that for some of us, we pay even more because of DOMA.

The insurance exchanges aren't a bad idea and we'll see how many select from those. I just don't see why having a publicly administered plan in the mix is such a bad idea.

radarman wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

Just heard a piece on the news about how old people are largely against health care reform because they think that it will cut their Medicare payouts. A clip was played of a Republican Congressman saying that his constituents know enough to know that government takeover of health care is not a good idea, especially if it interferes with Medicare.

Not enough facepalm in the world.

Strictly speaking, they are right, and are making their interests known. After all, if you are getting X now, and would be getting X-Y later; wouldn't you grumble?

It doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, it just means that these people are probably right to fight it in terms of their own interests.

The fact that people separate "government health care" and "Medicare" continues to be hilariously stupid.

Tallgeese wrote:

radarman wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

Just heard a piece on the news about how old people are largely against health care reform because they think that it will cut their Medicare payouts. A clip was played of a Republican Congressman saying that his constituents know enough to know that government takeover of health care is not a good idea, especially if it interferes with Medicare.

Not enough facepalm in the world.

Strictly speaking, they are right, and are making their interests known. After all, if you are getting X now, and would be getting X-Y later; wouldn't you grumble?

It doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, it just means that these people are probably right to fight it in terms of their own interests.

The fact that people separate "government health care" and "Medicare" continues to be hilariously stupid.

Really?
Would you separate Medicare and Medicaid or call them identical programs?

The 'one' at issue appears to be the I–Conn.

daemon wrote:

lieberman/filibuster

Wow. That Lamont guy had to have been a major douche, right, Connecticut?

Tallgeese wrote:

Just heard a piece on the news about how old people are largely against health care reform because they think that it will cut their Medicare payouts. A clip was played of a Republican Congressman saying that his constituents know enough to know that government takeover of health care is not a good idea, especially if it interferes with Medicare.

Not enough facepalm in the world.

Clearly not enough facepalm!

Old people aren't necessarily wiser for their experience, and if they are from the ME generation (survivors of windows ME?), then perhaps somewhat less so. I'm reminded of the Futurama episode where time was all messed up (saved in part by the Harlem Globe Trotters, which Bender was not allowed to join. But I digress...)

I want Bohner's health plan.