[besson3c]

Sounds like a good solution to me! You Conservatives that are dead set against this can move to your problem-ridden red states, and we'll have our public option in our blue states.

I've always supported dividing up the country into red states and blue states anyway, it would solve a lot of problems!

[besson3c]

It will be interesting to see if this is an acceptable compromise to enough Conservatives. What was on the table prior was already a compromise for those Liberals who would prefer a single payer system. How much longer than the Conservatives hold out by saying no for the sake of saying no when polls indicate that a large majority of the public supports a public option?

[mduell]

If states can opt out, why not just rely on state-run programs in the states where voters want more universal coverage?

Why does the public option need to be seperate from Medicare? Why not just let non-old/disabled people buy into Medicare? Is the goal to build a better alternative that eventually Medicare could be rolled in to? Without the massive ($60b/yr per 60 Minutes last night) ongoing fraud issues?

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I've always supported dividing up the country into red states and blue states anyway, it would solve a lot of problems!

We kicked their butt before, and we'll do it again! Yankees rule!!!

[Dork.]

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Can individuals opt out of paying for this mess also?

[besson3c]

Sure! Move to one of the lovely states in Jesusland that will be public option free

[chabig]

Sure states can opt-out, provided they also agree to forgo federal highway funds. Sorry, there will always be strings attached...

[Big Mac]

No state will opt out when it's explained that all states will still have to pay into the system, and the effect of opting out would be to not get anything back for its citizens paying in.

Besson, instead of telling real Americans where they need to live, you really should think about going back to your home north of the border, where you can get all the Socialist commie medicine you want. Doesn't that sound good buddy?

Said only half in jest. Ding me if you want, but this country will be Third World in no time courtesy of Statists like besson.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I've always supported dividing up the country into red states and blue states anyway, it would solve a lot of problems!

Sure, let the gays have Vermont and the black people can take Mississippi

[Chuckit]

Better would be an opt-in system where you only pay if you're a member. Heck, maybe we could even have many such systems competing to apply selective pressure.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Yeah, they used to call that the private sector. Good idea while it lasted.

[besson3c]

AFAIK the legislation still on the table calls for the public option to not be funded by tax dollars, except for that bracket of people that can't afford any health care at all (we pay for their trips to the ER anyway). I'm assuming what the opt in part is for is for allowing the option to exist among private insurance options. I don't think this has anything to do with funding.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Sure! Move to one of the lovely states in Jesusland that will be public option free

You can have that block of ice, except The Socialist People's Republic of Canuckistan does NOT get to claim California. Too many great capitalist ideas built and made this state wealthy- just because libs of late have hijacked, bankrupted and gutted it doesn't mean you get to claim it.

Oh, and if you manage to tunnel under or scale the iron curtain your beloved politicians erect to keep you in, and make it south, be forewarned: there WILL NOT be automatic Amnesty granted. In fact, if we've currently got all the migrant labor we need, you'll be returned to the custody of your Dear Leader.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by mduell 

If states can opt out, why not just rely on state-run programs in the states where voters want more universal coverage?

Yes, wouldn't that be nice? Let the states handle their own citizens, so that my tax dollars aren't paying for the medical problems in New York or California or some other more densely-populated area. The federal government has already proved itself pretty inept at keeping its programs from going down the shitter. Seems like giving states the power they were originally supposed to have is probably a better move.

[besson3c]

The argument is that the states don't have the power to negotiate and work some leverage against the medical providers they are working with like the federal government does.

[Gee-Man]

It's clear that our resident conservatives don't understand what the public option is. They're so blinded by anti-government rage that they really can't tell what a milquetoast offering this really is. The Republican talking point of "Government Takeover of Health Care™" is so far removed from the reality of what is being proposed, it would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

The public option is merely a non-profit insurance company, run by the federal government. There are premiums and everything, just like any other for-profit health insurance company. The cost of the public option is, by law, fully funded by the premiums paid by its members, not by taxpayer dollars.

It is not Medicare-For-All, or anything even remotely resembling the Canadian or British health care systems, not even close. Truthfully, it should have been Medicare-For-All, but that was never an option, because the Democrats got scared and took that off the table before they even started the process of crafting a bill.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Can individuals opt out of paying for this mess also?

Yes - because that's how it works. You do not pay for the public option with your taxpayer dollars. The only way you pay for the public option is if you choose to enroll it in (assuming your state doesn't opt-out, which would prevent you from doing so).

Originally Posted by Big Mac

No state will opt out when it's explained that all states will still have to pay into the system, and the effect of opting out would be to not get anything back for its citizens paying in.

No, that's wrong. No one pays into it unless they enroll. Federal taxes are not used to pay for the public option, it is a non-profit insurance company entirely paid for by the premiums of those who enroll.

You're right, most states won't opt out. But not for the reasons you think. States won't opt out because their citizens will be mighty pissed that they can't get the same health insurance options that people in other states get, not because they're paying in without benefits.

[chabig]

Whatever it is, the government shouldn't be in the business of running companies (for profit or not).

[besson3c]

Play it again, Sam!

If the public option insurance company was called a "department" like your police department, fire department, would that be okay? How about if the latter were called companies? Does it matter what it is called? No shareholders, no stocks, no board of directors, no CEOs. Would it still be a company? Does it matter?

Gee-Man is absolutely right, the FUD is incredible.

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by chabig 

Whatever it is, the government shouldn't be in the business of running companies (for profit or not).

The government already runs a number of non-profit companies. The US Postal Service, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, FDIC, and others are all "companies" in that regard.

You are certainly free to make an ideological argument that "governments shouldn't run companies", but the reality is that we do, and have done so for many many years. I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for a president who seriously wants to eliminate all government-owned corporations in the United States, they'd be laughed out of office.

In fact, the relatively few non-profit companies that the government does run actually do just fine. They're stable, they don't run deficits, and in most cases they cost nothing to taxpayers - but they do provide valuable services. Would you propose we eliminate the USPS, which runs perfectly fine, just because political principles held by a few suggest that government-run companies shouldn't exist?

As long as they maintain good management, there's no institutional reason for a non-profit, regardless of who runs it, to be more likely to fail than a for-profit company.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

It's clear that our resident conservatives don't understand what the public option is. They're so blinded by anti-government rage that they really can't tell what a milquetoast offering this really is. The Republican talking point of "Government Takeover of Health Care™" is so far removed from the reality of what is being proposed, it would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

The public option is merely a non-profit insurance company, run by the federal government. There are premiums and everything, just like any other for-profit health insurance company. The cost of the public option is, by law, fully funded by the premiums paid by its members, not by taxpayer dollars.

It is not Medicare-For-All, or anything even remotely resembling the Canadian or British health care systems, not even close. Truthfully, it should have been Medicare-For-All, but that was never an option, because the Democrats got scared and took that off the table before they even started the process of crafting a bill.



Yes - because that's how it works. You do not pay for the public option with your taxpayer dollars. The only way you pay for the public option is if you choose to enroll it in (assuming your state doesn't opt-out, which would prevent you from doing so).



No, that's wrong. No one pays into it unless they enroll. Federal taxes are not used to pay for the public option, it is a non-profit insurance company entirely paid for by the premiums of those who enroll.

You're right, most states won't opt out. But not for the reasons you think. States won't opt out because their citizens will be mighty pissed that they can't get the same health insurance options that people in other states get, not because they're paying in without benefits.

The public "option" is a mean to an end, single payer.

YouTube - SHOCK UNCOVERED: Obama IN HIS OWN WORDS saying His Health Care Plan will ELIMINATE private insurance

The senate bill has a 40% surcharge on called "Cadillac Plans" along with "streamlining/cutting waste" and fraud from Medicare/Medicaid as part of the funding mechanism for the public "option", so people who haven't enrolled will be paying for it.
During our open enrollment meeting I asked if this surcharge would affect us. The answer was YES and wee will address that if or when it happens. At one time we had three option: HealthNet, Cigna, and Freescales's self insured program administered by Aetna. This year, Freescale dropped HealthNet because the premiums were going up 40%. Two years ago, they dropped Cigna for the same reason. Freescale nor any other company is going to accept a 40% increase. They will drop their coverage and force everyone to the public "option"

BTW, the Post Office would be out of business if it did not have a monopoly on first class mail. There are several parcel post companies that are doing faster and for less that the USPS.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

BTW, the Post Office would be out of business if it did not have a monopoly on first class mail.

Heck, ANYTHING run by the government would be out of business if it wasn't for monopolies.

And the most important monopoly of it all: TAXES, which finance this sh!t and wastes Billions of $$$.

-t

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

There are several parcel post companies that are doing faster and for less that the USPS.

I always price-shop for shipping packages, and the USPS has always had the lowest price, every single time.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I always price-shop for shipping packages, and the USPS has always had the lowest price, every single time.

Again, depends on what you ship.

And also: the USPS is tax-payer subsidized, what do you expect ?

-t

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

And the most important monopoly of it all: TAXES, which finance this sh!t and wastes Billions of $$$.

And also: the USPS is tax-payer subsidized, what do you expect ?

No, it is not. The USPS is self-financing and does not use taxpayer dollars, and it has been this way for over 25 years. If you want to rail against the Post Office in some kind of political fundamentalist "GUVMINT IS ALWEYS TEH BAD" rant, at least make sure you actually have the facts on-hand first.

The USPS is frequently cheaper than private competition mainly because a) they are run as a non-profit, which can be passed on to the consumer in the form of lower prices, and b) economy of scale. Because they are an independent organization, taxpayer funding has absolutely nothing to do with their ability to keep prices low, just as the "public option" does not need to rely on taxpayer funding in order to provide a cheaper alternative to private health insurance.

Heck, ANYTHING run by the government would be out of business if it wasn't for monopolies.

Silly argument. This is merely more political fundamentalism, seeing government efficiency as a religious-like test, rather than simple pragmatism.

The USPS is established by the Constitution. It is not a monopoly in the classic textbook sense. I suppose that poses quite a dilemma for the so-called "originalist" crowd, who claim to hate any law or agency not specified by the Constitution, yet also hate any government-run agency. Which principles should you throw away for convenience? My money's on throwing away the US Constitution, since being an Originalist actually means "I have a slavish devotion to the parts of the Constitution I already agree with, and want to change the parts I don't agree with" anyway.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

No, it is not. The USPS is self-financing

Right.

E.g. Postal Service Projects $1.5 Billion Year-End Deficit (2002)

USPS - May 7, 2002 - Postal Service Projects $1.5 Billion Year-End Deficit; Tackles Transformation Challenges At May 28 Ratemaking Summit

-t

[Dork.]

The Postal Service has not received any Federal money for years. That does not mean they are immune to running a deficit, it just means the deficit is not made good with any tax dollars. They go into debt just like any other corporation.

U.S. Postal Service find ways to save money - May. 11, 2009

Even though it's a federal agency, the Postal Service has not received any taxpayer funding since the early 1980s, when it was phased into an independent, self-sufficient financial entity. "We're not seeking any tax dollars," said Postal Service spokesman David Partenheimer. "We don't use tax dollars for our operation."

[turtle777]

So where does the "funding" for all those loses come from ?

Any private company would have gone into liquidation long ago if they ran deficits like the USPS.

-t

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

The public option is merely a non-profit insurance company, run by the federal government. There are premiums and everything, just like any other for-profit health insurance company. The cost of the public option is, by law, fully funded by the premiums paid by its members, not by taxpayer dollars

House to Unveil Plan With Public Option, Wealth Tax (Update1) - Bloomberg.com

To finance the bill, House Democrats plan a surtax on couples who make more than $1 million a year. Leaders are also planning fees on medical-device makers that will add up to $20 billion over 10 years, according to another congressional aide. The Senate has proposed $40 billion in fees on device makers, as well as levies on drug makers and insurers.

No tax dollars used? Taxing couples making more than $1million a year is going to hit a lot of small businesses. "Fees" on medical devices makers will be passed on to insurances companies and/or consumers, as will the levies on drug makers and insurers.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Taxing couples making more than $1million a year is going to hit a lot of small businesses.

Only if the business is grossing more than $1m a year, divided among the owners. Even sole proprietorships still get to deduct their business expenses form their business income before it hits their personal taxes. And if the business is making enough money so that more than $1m in profit is realized per owner, then they ought to be able to draw enough out of the business to pay the tax bill. Or, they should just incorporate already.

I don't mean to necessarily defend imposing a surtax on these individuals to fund health care, and I'm not sure if I like the fee idea. But now that I know a bit more about how small businesses operate, I see that the notion that tax increases on high income individuals hurt small businesses is a myth. It doesn't affect small business owners any more than it effects anyone else who can pull in $1m a year in paper profits on their personal income taxes (but who don't necessarily get the $1m as cash in the bank).

[Lint Police]

How about we let Massachusetts try this plan first. Oh wait.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

So where does the "funding" for all those loses come from ?

Any private company would have gone into liquidation long ago if they ran deficits like the USPS.

-t

What happens is that the government uses its authority to exempt the post office from having to make payments for some of its liabilities, which lets the post office maintain enough of a cash cushion to continue to fund its day-to-day operations. The liabilities end up being deferred to the next year. Rinse and repeat.

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

House to Unveil Plan With Public Option, Wealth Tax (Update1) - Bloomberg.com

No tax dollars used? Taxing couples making more than $1million a year is going to hit a lot of small businesses. "Fees" on medical devices makers will be passed on to insurances companies and/or consumers, as will the levies on drug makers and insurers.

You are confusing the public option with the taxes proposed in some of the plans (not all) to fund other parts of the health care bill. In short, the public option is self-financing, and doesn't need taxpayer funds, but the subsidies to expand Medicare & Medicaid for the uninsured do need to be paid for some way. The various bills have different proposals to fund the expansion of coverage, but none of them have anything to do with the public option, because this expansion of coverage exists even in the versions without a public option at all.

Here's the relevant passage for the public option explaining how it's paid for:

SEC. 222. PREMIUMS AND FINANCING.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF PREMIUMS. --

(1) IN GENERAL. -- The Secretary shall establish geographically-adjusted premium rates for the public health insurance option in a manner --

(A) that complies with the premium rules established by the Commissioner under section 113 for Exchange-participating health benefit plans; and

(B) at a level sufficient to fully finance the costs of --

(i) health benefits provided by the public health insurance option; and

(ii) administrative costs related to operating the public health insurance option.

As for the "small business will get hit" claim, that's already been covered elsewhere, so I won't repeat that rebuttal.

[Gee-Man]

So where does the "funding" for all those loses come from ?

They get rolled over to the next year, and the business adjusts costs and revenue (i.e. raising prices of stamps and other services, deliver mail 5 days a week instead of 6) to compensate. Since these deficits are not a long running thing (only the past 2 years), this isn't all that unusual. Private companies do this all the time.

The USPS is a $79 billion/year business. It is the second-largest employer in the US, next to Walmart. A less than 10% short-term deficit is not a big deal at all for a non-profit corporation of that size.

Let's just repeat it once again: any surpluses or deficits have to be managed entirely by the USPS, with federal taxpayer dollars not contributing to this at all. They do not fund downturns with federal taxpayer dollars. When they run surpluses, which they have for most of their history, these monies do not go into federal revenue, either. Your assumption that they are being unfairly "propped up" in some way is completely false.

Any private company would have gone into liquidation long ago if they ran deficits like the USPS.

This is a pretty recent deficit, but it is not mismanagement that caused this current problem. A few years ago the USPS was forced by Congress and the Bush Administration to pre-pay the pension fund for postal workers, including those who were in the military, who arguably should normally be handled by federal dollars. This basically turned what was a surplus into a deficit, but no one is worried that the USPS will need a bailout, or go under anytime soon, as they can make some relatively easy adjustments and go back to running surpluses, as they have for most of their last 20-30 years or so.

They are also trying to deal with the steady rise of email and e-bills as replacements for first-class mail services, something any company, private, non-profit, or government-run non-profit, would have had to deal with right now. A private company would be no better equipped for this than the USPS.

Either way, the history of the USPS is actually quite stable, and having a deficit for a couple of years is not evidence of disaster. If that were the case, we would be permanently writing off Apple right now because they lost money during the mid-90s.

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

The public "option" is a mean to an end, single payer.

YouTube - SHOCK UNCOVERED: Obama IN HIS OWN WORDS saying His Health Care Plan will ELIMINATE private insurance

Read the bills. There is no single payer anywhere in the proposed bills. You are free to argue that it *may* make people more amenable to single-payer in the future, but as written, they are not a "means to an end" by any stretch of the imagination. There's no mechanism there to get to single-payer.

A old YouTube video is not a law. You are confusing what liberals hope for with what's actually in the bills as written. Of course we would like single-payer - there's nothing wrong with single-payer, it's one of the most efficient means of delivering health care and guaranteeing universality. But it doesn't follow that a watered-down public option is suddenly the same thing.

The truth is, conservatives are afraid of the public option not because they think it will fail, but because they know it will succeed! If it passes, and it works, and Americans see for themselves that the fear-mongering was all BS, they won't be willing to settle for a second-rate health system any more. And then what will you guys do?

The senate bill has a 40% surcharge on called "Cadillac Plans" along with "streamlining/cutting waste" and fraud from Medicare/Medicaid as part of the funding mechanism for the public "option", so people who haven't enrolled will be paying for it.

Wrong. The funding in the various bills is for expanding coverage to the uninsured, it has nothing to do with the public option, which is written to be self-financing. The public option is actually designed to save money, since with cheaper coverage than directly subsidizing private insurance for the uninsured, the federal government could save a significant amount of taxpayer dollars over the bills without a public option.

And your "40% surcharge" is bogus - this was taken from the widely debunked AHIP report, which was even admitted to be inaccurate by the company who commissioned it (Price Waterhouse).

[Chongo]

Someone forget to tell the AFL-CIO
AFL-CIO NOW BLOG | Proposed Health Care ‘Excise Tax’ a Tax on the Middle Class

The Senate Finance Committee’s 40 percent excise tax on so-called “Cadillac” health care plans would hit 37 percent of family health insurance plans and 41 percent of single plans by 2019, according to an analysis of the committee’s original health care reform bill conducted by the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT).

By 2015, according to this analysis, the excise tax would slam 24 million households, growing to 39 million households by 2019. Nearly one-third of middle-class households making between $50,000 and $100,000 would be affected by 2019.

According to a just-released Communications Workers of America (CWA) report on the JCT estimates, the excise tax-part of the health care reform legislation that the Senate Finance Committee passed on Tuesday, will have a dramatic effect on those plans forcing steep reductions in benefits, shifting costs to workers, and a significant increase in taxes on millions of middle-class families.

PwC statement -- Not so helpful for AHIP - Live Pulse - POLITICO.com

The article states doesn't say anything about the 40% excise tax being bogus.

The analysis concluded that collectively the four provisions would raise premiums for private health insurance coverage. As the report itself acknowledges, other provisions that are part of health reform proposals were not included in the PwC analysis.

Insurance market reforms and consumer protections that would raise health insurance premiums for individuals and families if the reforms are not coupled with an effective coverage requirement.
· An excise tax on employer-sponsored high value health plans. (AKA "Cadillac Plan Tax")
· Cuts in payment rates in public programs that could increase cost shifting to private sector businesses and consumers.
· New taxes on health sector entities.