DISQUS

trinu · 3 months ago

Yes, they'll increase our rates and we'll have no choice but to but into it because the bill requires us to have health insurance, which without the public option, can only come from the corp. This is why passing no bill at all is better than passing the Drivel that came out of the Senate Finance Committee.

ezpz · 3 months ago

"Why Did Health Insurance Stocks Go UP After The President's Speech?"
~RJ Eskow

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/23773

ChrisSF · 3 months ago

I have been worried about this for quite a while. If there is no public option and no price controls, why is it that Obama thinks his plan will lower costs? Just having more people in the system may not do it, since the additional people will include all of those with serious conditions who can't get insurance right now. I also am worried that insurers will still be able to charge less healthy people higher rates, so that insurance will still be out of reach for them even with government subsidies. A robust public option could help, since the government plan would have so many members that it could negotiate real price reductions for medical care, but this cobbled together system of "more of the same" is a recipe for disaster.

piltdown · 3 months ago

Exactly. Without a public option, this isn't reform at all. It's a gift to the insurance industries.

Obama has surrounded himself with a horrible assortment of corporate thieves and lobbyists. I'm extremely disappointed, and we basically just have to realize that it's just more business as usual. He's just another pro-corporate huckster. The people that he's appointing around him are just as crooked as the people they replaced, and it's the citizens being screwed yet again.

I think it's time to move to Canda, or some other country. This one is corrupt beyond repair.

therepguy · 3 months ago

Now, it's just one analyst, so it's not clear why the AP is quoting him as some huge source.

The why is simple... it's AP!

AP is second only to guess who... FOX NEWS!

debbietee · 3 months ago

I wouldn't overlook research out of UM. It enjoys a solid, if not glamourous, reputation. (My BA alma mater, BTW).

rf7777 · 3 months ago

This seems like common sense to me. Force the insurance companies to take everyone, drop no one and pay all claims and OF COURSE they are just going to raise premiums to compensate!

timncguy · 3 months ago

This is exactly what I've been saying for some time now. The insurance "reforms" they all agree on like pre-existing conditions, lifetime caps, no dropping sick people ALL increase the costs to insurance comapnies.

Without the public option to go along with the reforms insurance rates will just go up to cover these new costs.

Insurance companies are not in business to watch their profits go down. And, the stock market will not reward them for letting their profits go down.

There is supposedly an added $1,000 per yaer for a family insurance plan to pay for the care of the uninsured. Do you really believe that thee cost of a family policy will go down by $1,000 per year when everyone is mandated to have insurance? Don't hold your breath. They will keep that $1,000 and say they need it to cover the new reforms. And, then they will add a little to it to cover inflation as well.

BlueJelloElf · 3 months ago

This is exactly why we need the public option. The worse the insurance companies choose to behave, the stronger the public plan will get, as more and more Americans flock there.

mwfolsom · 3 months ago

This is really a no-brainer. How could anybody think that the Health Care Insurance mofia won't use these reforms as a reason to massively up the cost of policies? That's why we have to have some form of cost containment - i.e. the public option.

timncguy · 3 months ago

The repugs are going to use this legislation in the same way they used the stimulus bill. They will bitch and yell through the entire process and get the dems to water it down. In the same manner they got the stim watered down. ONe reason is because Obama STARTED negotiating the stim from the position he wanted to end up with (stupid). Obama started with 30% tax cuts for workers and small business. He ended up having to give 40% to "compromise" with Susan Collins. If he had started with 20%, he could have "bought" her vote for the 30% he originally wanted.

So, now we have a less effective stimulus and the rpugs have the public convinced that it isn't working and they will be campaigning against the dems using it to their advantage.

If the dems had stuck to their principles, we would have a MORE effective stimulus and it would be more difficult for the repugs to use it as a weapon.

Plus, the dems need to learn how to get public opinion (or the media's representation of it) to reflect reality instead of allowing the repugs to define it on their terms all the time.

SCLiberal · 3 months ago

I just got an email this morning:

In the ongoing mad dash of Congress to go in absolutely the wrong direction on health care, today Senator Max Baucus proposed a $3,800 fine to force us all to cough up whatever money is demanded by his "for the corporations only" health care bill. At the same time Steny Hoyer continues to maintain they may pass something with not even a weak shred of a so-called "public option" in it.

Has anyone else heard this about the Baucus proposal?

ezpz · 3 months ago

Not only that, but the so called baucus plan was written by an insurance co exec.

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/09/08/li...

scottinsf · 3 months ago

...and when insurance co. execs write bills you get little provisions like this:

Interstate Sale of Insurance. Starting in 2015, states may form “health care choice compacts” to allow for the purchase of non-group health insurance across state lines. Such compacts may exist between two or more states. Once compacts have been formed, insurers would be allowed to sell policies in any state participating in the compact. Insurers selling policies through a compact would only be subject to the laws and regulations of the state where the policy is written or issued.

The republicans and insurance companies have been trying to get this provision passed for years. It would effectively gut regulation of insurance companies by individual states. From Consumer Watchdog:

Washington, D.C. -- The consumer group that pioneered the most successful insurance premium regulation law in the nation, which has saved California drivers $62 billion on auto insurance rates since 1988, released a report today outlining the deep flaws in the proposed Senate Finance Committee health reforms. The report calls on Congress to adopt "prior approval" health insurance rate regulation and block insurance industry efforts to gut state consumer protection laws.

A "framework plan" released today by the so-called "Group of Six" Senators negotiating a health reform bill headed by Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) would open the door to gutting state laws. The plan would result in a "race to the bottom" in health care regulation by allowing insurance companies that participate in "health care compacts" to choose the weakest state law to govern all their policies, regardless of which state the policies are sold in. Currently, insurance companies must abide by the state laws of any state where they sell insurance. The Baucus plan resembles an industry proposal carried by Mike Enzi (R-WY) in 2006 discussed below [...]

** Loss of state benefit mandates would allow exclusion of preventive treatments and exams, prevent early diagnosis of disease and evade Patient Bill of Rights laws passed in nearly every state. Denying access to such basic preventive care makes treatment more costly to the policyholder and ultimately to taxpayers, who pick up the bill when individuals cannot pay outrageous out-of-pocket costs.

ezpz · 3 months ago

Wasn't this something McCain wanted?
Looks like he'll get it.

No doubt one of those 200 republican amendments that Obama so often boasts of to 'prove' his bipartisan credentials.

scottinsf · 3 months ago

Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) introduced this as legislation back in 2006. Couldn't get it passed then. Thanks to Baucus and the democrats it's well on it's way to getting passed with the current "health care reform".

rayso · 3 months ago

The Baucus proposal was released the morning of Obama's speech to congress and was discussed in this blog that day.

Butch1 · 3 months ago

Yes, I mentioned it he a day or two ago.

Zach Gates · 3 months ago

Step one: force insurance companies to be fair by not dropping coverage of sick people or rejecting pre-existing conditions claims.

Step two: wait for insurance companies to jack their rates absurdly.

Step three: watch as people flock to the public option en masse, bringing insurance companies to their knees.

Whether step four is a true overhaul of private care or the instutition of universal coverage is up for debate.

rf7777 · 3 months ago

The trajectory of the current bill seems to be steps 1 and 2 but without step 3because there will be no public option.

Obama and the lawmakers run the risk of making things MUCH worse than they are now if they do a half ass "solution."

Zach Gates · 3 months ago

Well either way the only thing we could call a possible silver lining is that if we make private insurance companies act "fairly", they're going to be so ridiculously expensive they'll be unusable.

Still more proof we need public coverage.

1970cs · 3 months ago

It doesn't sound like this article is basing the costs on the public option. This is the Romneycare plan.

" Lawmakers have yet to settle on any single health care plan. But several ideas being discussed could be a boon to private health insurers, especially if the eventual reform does not include a public plan to compete with them. Obama reiterated his support for a public plan but did not insist on it, and industry analysts think the idea will disappear eventually. That helps explain why analysts don't think the insurance industry faces any serious threat from the Obama plan."

DavidTinTX · 3 months ago

As a Texan (don't judge, please -- there are plenty of us progressives here), we see this all the time. "Tort reform" laws, which limit corporate losses from lawsuits, were supposed to result in savings that would be passed on to consumers. Relaxing environmental restrictions, same thing. In what world do corporations altruistically pass on savings (i.e. voluntarily reduce profits) without having to?

PorridgeGun · 3 months ago

Obama's +8 in the weekly dKos/Research 2000 poll, and that's just after a couple of days of his speech. If both he and his "advisers" are smart, which is debatable, they'll build on this by... well, you know the rest.

Baucus and Conrad had their chance, they blew it. The WH would be insane not to get behind the Waxmans and Schumers in wrapping this thing up. If the healthcare plan is done properly, and the sconomy shows more signs of recovey by December/January, after Obama's finished delivering his first State of the Union address, he'll no doubt be back around 65%. He can then move on other reforms. All this is achievable if the WH and Dems stop faffing about and get their act together. Obama says he wants to hold the insurance industry accountable? There's only one way to do that.

rayso · 3 months ago

Why not have a windfall profits tax on insurance companies and use the revenue to provide better healthcare?

NotTimothyGeithner · 3 months ago

Raise taxes?!?!? We can't do that!!! America is great because we have low taxes. World War II happened when the highest marginal tax rate was 98%. Maybe it wouldn't have happened if we had low taxes? We went to the moon when the highest rate was 78%. Maybe we would have gone to Mars instead.

Its a perfectly sensible idea; although, it doesn't actually discourage Corporate piracy, which is the problem. A CEO can still go in raid the pension fund, fudge the numbers, and the company he leaves is footing the bill and the tax whereas he's paying jack shit. I for one would welcome no taxes on business just on the people who profit from it. In theory the business will reinvest what can't be stolen.

rayso · 3 months ago

Overcome the corporate tomfoolery with regulations? Increase taxes on the unjustly rich executives?

If you don't tax the corporations, they will just give the money to shareholders. More efficient just to tax the corporations.

NotTimothyGeithner · 3 months ago

You tax the shareholders too by strengthening the capital gains tax. If it spreads money around without concentrating it will increase local government's tax bases letting them raise the money to provide infrastructural improvements. The basic problem is we allow for too much concentration of wealth in private hands.

If we tax the corporations that in theory will mean they will have to rely on loans more often driving up the prices of loans (if there were steady rates.). If the corporation (its just a thing; its people who run it) wants to expand, let them keep as much money as they can for the expansion and not rely on the loan market. The point of taxes is to raise money for the mutual welfare and to prevent accumulation of wealth. As long as the corporation is investing and not given over to piracy, its using it money wisely. In a lot of ways there is no reason to tax corporations if you are taxing the profiteers which include shareholders.

Indigo · 3 months ago

Okay. Well, then, let's just shout them down, shut them out, and drive them back into the woods.

rayso · 3 months ago

re: "Now, it's just one analyst, so it's not clear why the AP is quoting him as some huge source."

Since we don't know who Erik Gordon, a health care analyst and assistant professor at the University of Michigan's Ross School of Business is: Maybe we should attack the flaws in his analysis.

Butch1 · 3 months ago

"Others said Obama's plan might not raise costs as much as expected ..."
====================================
might not raise costs as much as expected . . .so you are expecting to raise the costs of health care but perhaps, not as much as expected? So, we're expecting a mandate that forces us to buy insurance and at an higher rate, ALL of us... This is quite a deal for the insurance companies. Obama is a sell out and obviously, is representing the interests of the insurance companies. We need to sink this bill. How about Medicare for all? It's the obvious plan.

ChrisSF · 3 months ago

That makes way too much sense for Americans, Butch! We fear socialism more than we like common sense. I love all the seniors at town halls who complain about socialized medicine and then go to the bank to cash their fat Medicare checks.

Butch1 · 3 months ago

This is what I do not understand. The obvious answer is right in front of them and they choose to ignore it or make snide remarks about it being a far left idea. That is insulting to me and coming from our own party. They are so giddy being centrists and trying to be like their idols, the republicans. We need a progressive party to compete with this centrist democratic party. They do not like us and they do not represent us. If they did, we would have had the Medicare like bill on Obama's desk by now.

debbietee · 3 months ago

All--Thanks to Rayso's conversation with me yesterday I've actually started to think about these issues. Seems to me we need unemotional analysis of the competitive factors to contain costs and an analysis of how the the various providers might discriminate against people by zip or name or whatever--you know, lose the application, etc. I'll be in Medicare before any of this is in effect, and I'm straight and white but I worry, I worry about younger people and minorities and gays.

NotTimothyGeithner · 3 months ago

If its on the backs of younger people, the elderly run the risk that at some point young people will say, "I can't get loans, wages blow, I don't have healthcare, and I'm paying for the old people's health care and for the wars they started. Maybe its time we put some serious thought into these death panels."

debbietee · 3 months ago

Tim--That's a pleasant thought. I will acknowledge there are a lot of gimme, gimme old people out there. I try to stay away from them, too.

NotTimothyGeithner · 3 months ago

Although its more conservative than I would like, I worry Christopher Buckley's book "Boomsday" is prophetic. Also its hilarious and enjoyable.

debbietee · 3 months ago

I'll try that book. I liked the NYT excerpt of "Mum and Pop," especially the part where he says about his dad, "The great are not like the rest of us." Funny.

Ferdiad · 3 months ago

The "if we just had more preventative care costs would go down" party line is garbage. Mandatory testing and increased care typically adds more cost than what is saved by the few people that catch diseases early. There are several good studies out about this issue. I'm not saying preventative care isn't good for people, just that it is not a cost saver. Also, the idea that we can drive down costs by "stopping fraud" is also a misnomer. I worked in Medicaid fraud investigation and it is almost impossible to stop. Typically, the bad actors have mad so much money off the fraud they settle for pennies with the government. The idea is just to catch them and put them on the "red flag" list so they can't do it again. However, they often just start new corporations with new people. I have personally seen cases such as vans that go around the inner city and pay people $10 to swipe their Medicaid car whereby the government then gets billed for eye glasses, orthopedic shoes, etc. that never exchange hands. If we expand government healthcare that problem will only increase, not decrease. Again, don't take that mean I am against a better healthcare system, or even a publc option, but don't be fooled about the arguments that costs will go down.

An_American_Karol · 3 months ago

I removed the double post

dezgyrl12208 · 3 months ago

Ha.Ha.Ha.

This "healthcare reform" is TOTAL crap. If the government can control medical care, then they can ontrol the "free" peoples of the United States.

Also, we'll have to pay for abortions, euthanasia NOT just for the eldery, but young adults and older so they don't have to pay for 'pesky' life saving operations and medicines.

The government will pick and choose who gets treatment and who doesn't.

I hope it DOES NOT pass, God save us all if it does. We're screwed and skewered if it does.

But I'm glad it's not only patients creating an uproar, but doctors too.

Obama's going to fall HARD. I hope he breaks his tyranical face in the process.