Fed-Run Public Health Plan is Now Expendable

[Frodo]

Health-Care Bills Begin to Crystallize

By NAFTALI BENDAVID and JANET ADAMY

WASHINGTON -- House leaders outlined a health-care overhaul plan that would create a national health-insurance "exchange" for consumers and include a government-run plan as one option, while Sen. Edward Kennedy introduced a similar bill in the Senate.

The draft House plan, presented to House Democrats at a meeting Tuesday, would require almost all Americans to have health insurance and provide subsidies to those with annual incomes as high as four times the poverty level. People without insurance could find a plan on an insurance exchange that would be set up by the government.

Pointed questions came both from lawmakers favoring a single, government-run plan, as well as those uncomfortable with any public option. Opposition from the liberal and the moderate wings of the Democratic Party doesn't appear strong enough to derail the plan in the House.

"We have to recognize that there are going to be compromises," said Rep. Henry Waxman (D., Calif.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Kennedy's 615-page bill proposes many of the same changes as in the House version. It would require individuals to carry health insurance except for those who couldn't afford it, and would establish federal or state "health benefit gateways" to allow Americans to buy it. Mr. Kennedy had earlier called for a new public insurance plan and a requirement that employers help pay for coverage, and while they are mentioned in the bill, there are few details, suggesting those policies are still being negotiated.

The Massachusetts Democrat's bill would provide subsidies for buying health insurance to families with annual incomes as high as five times the poverty level, a slightly more generous benefit than the one outlined in the House. Aid would be provided on a sliding scale, but it could cover more than half of all Americans.

House leaders said they planned to release a formal copy of their bill next week, with final wording completed in July. They hope to work out differences with the Senate over its version of a health bill in September and pass a final product in October.

[Earth]

Business continues to burrow itself in. This bill is garbage.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Sounds far superior to the alternative (which is single-payer for clarification).

[Lief 🗽]

The House outline is pretty good, though it's still understandably vague. We're heading in the right direction though.

[??????????]

     Sounds far superior to the alternative (which is single-payer for clarification).

That's the goal in the long term.

[CultureKing]

     Sounds far superior to the alternative (which is single-payer for clarification).

That's the goal in the long term.

No the end goal is communism. Duh.

[opebo]

     Sounds far superior to the alternative (which is single-payer for clarification).

That's the goal in the long term.

In the long run we're all dead.

[Frodo]

The American Medical Association has come out in opposition to any government-run public insurance plan.

[Stampever]

I will take a co-op over Nationalized healthcare anyday of the week and twice on Sunday.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The American Medical Association has come out in opposition to any government-run public insurance plan.

Fuck them.

[Nym90]

Apparently the idea that greater choice of health care options is a good thing only applies to private health care.

[Zarn]

The American Medical Association has come out in opposition to any government-run public insurance plan.

Fuck them.

Yeah, who needs people that actually know what they are talking bout?

[Vepres]

Apparently the idea that greater choice of health care options is a good thing only applies to private health care.

But will you have choice under a government option? Businesses will say, "Oh great, now we don't have to give our employees health insurance," and stop providing it. Because these bills don't address the roots of the problem, costs will continue to rise, thus forcing all poor and most middle class citizens into the public plan. I think most people would be better off if we just kept the current system of your employer providing health insurance.

[??????????]

Apparently the idea that greater choice of health care options is a good thing only applies to private health care.

But will you have choice under a government option? Businesses will say, "Oh great, now we don't have to give our employees health insurance," and stop providing it. Because these bills don't address the roots of the problem, costs will continue to rise, thus forcing all poor and most middle class citizens into the public plan. I think most people would be better off if we just kept the current system of your employer providing health insurance.

That's exactly the point. Obama knows that if he openly admits he wants socialized healthcare his support and poll numbers will plummet massively.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Apparently the idea that greater choice of health care options is a good thing only applies to private health care.

But will you have choice under a government option? Businesses will say, "Oh great, now we don't have to give our employees health insurance," and stop providing it. Because these bills don't address the roots of the problem, costs will continue to rise, thus forcing all poor and most middle class citizens into the public plan. I think most people would be better off if we just kept the current system of your employer providing health insurance.

Why should businesses be the ones providing it in the first place? Your employer doesn't provide your auto or homeowners' insurance. There's plenty of non-employer private plans available that will remain available.

[Zarn]

Apparently the idea that greater choice of health care options is a good thing only applies to private health care.

But will you have choice under a government option? Businesses will say, "Oh great, now we don't have to give our employees health insurance," and stop providing it. Because these bills don't address the roots of the problem, costs will continue to rise, thus forcing all poor and most middle class citizens into the public plan. I think most people would be better off if we just kept the current system of your employer providing health insurance.

Why should businesses be the ones providing it in the first place? Your employer doesn't provide your auto or homeowners' insurance. There's plenty of non-employer private plans available that will remain available.

Yes, they should. Private entities are much better, and who better than your own company?

Benefits from companies are just like pay.

[Frodo]

I am sure you all have heard of how Tom Daschle, Bob Dole, and Howard Baker have effectively called on President Obama to drop his call for a government-run public plan to compete against private health insurance companies, and settle for something less, like a co-op as Sen. Kent Conrad (D -ND) has advocated. 

What do you all think?  Would you still support a health care bill with a co-op as opposed to a fed-run public plan?   

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Now is not the time to be high minded, and stick to our ideals.  I will support the best plan that can get 60 votes in the Senate, and 218 in the House.  If that means co-op, then so be it.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I am sure you all have heard of how Tom Daschle, Bob Dole, and Howard Baker have effectively called on President Obama to drop his call for a government-run public plan to compete against private health insurance companies, and settle for something less, like a co-op as Sen. Kent Conrad (D -ND) has advocated. 

What do you all think?  Would you still support a health care bill with a co-op as opposed to a fed-run public plan?   

No, I think it's time to join the rest of the developed western democracies and implement true universal healthcare, not nibbling that won't solve the problem.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

The American Medical Association has come out in opposition to any government-run public insurance plan.

Fuck them.

Yeah, who needs people that actually know what they are talking bout?

The AMA is not a public health advocacy group, it is a lobbying group.

[Democratic Hawk]

Bottom-line to health care reform is optimum coverage at minimal cost - and I'd support any plan whether public or co-operative that achieves that. Healthcare reform is a must. Nevermind any of that wait until the economy improves posturing - because, right now, spiralling health care costs are a burden which may very well be impeding economic recovery

From the presidential campaign, I seem to recall that Obama's plan which did cost more, admittedly, than McCain's but, IIRC, in terms of actually expanding coverage was, by far, of better value

Furthermore, comprehensive healthcare reform should mean a comprehensive review of existing programs. There is going to have to be offsets somewhere

As for a public plan, there is no reason why it cannot compete with private plans if the end result of that is expanding coverage and driving costs down - but I wouldn't be insisting on it come hell or high water. And I'd certainly find the "bi-partisan" co-operative plan, from an ideological perspective, most appealing

The one area, however, I wouldn't be comfortable with is taxing healthcare benefits - and every effort should be made to avoid that

[Mint]

The one area, however, I wouldn't be comfortable with is taxing healthcare benefits - and every effort should be made to avoid that

So you oppose what's going to probably happen then. Honestly, that they could even propose this without Obama shooting them down immediately just shows what an utter joke this president is and how even more useless this congress is. I hope all of the losers involved in this go down in flames in a year or three.

[Rowan]

If McDonnell and Christie both win, and health care blows up in the Dems face, the parallels to 1993-1994 are pretty scary.