Does ObamaCare outlaw private insurance?
posted at 8:47 am on July 16, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Investors Business Daily’s editors quickly read through the actual legislation of the House health-care reform bill looking for hidden time bombs — and they found a doozy. On page 16 of over a thousand pages of text, they discovered a clause that essentially locks people into their current plan, and locks everyone out of any other plan. Well, presumably the public plan will be an exception:
When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.
It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of “Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage,” the “Limitation On New Enrollment” section of the bill clearly states:
“Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day” of the year the legislation becomes law.
So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won’t be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.
Surprise! You can, as Obama promised, keep your current coverage — as long as it remains available. However, if your employer stops offering health-care benefits, or if you buy it privately and your insurer cancels your plan, you can’t just pick up another private plan. Enrollments will be closed as of the first day the bill becomes law.
That will have the effect of forcing millions of people into the public plan whether they want it or not. Even worse, if insurers get barred from attracting new customers — which this clause outlaws — then they will eventually see their rolls drained, thanks to the natural flow of the market as employers drop plans and skip the expense of offering medical insurance. It won’t take long at all for insurers to exit the market and leave the field for just the public plan, which will automatically get the customers of each individual insurer as they close up shop.
Does this bill outlaw private insurance? Literally, no, but in practical terms, it makes it an endangered species and creates an American single-payer system by default.
It has to pass first, though, and Blue Dog Democrats say they’ve seen enough:
Centrist Democrats are threatening to oppose their party’s healthcare legislation unless House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) accepts changes that make the bill more to their liking.
Seven Blue Dogs on the House Energy and Commerce Committee have banded together to draft amendments that they’ll co-sponsor in the committee markup, which starts Thursday. Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), the Blue Dogs’ point man on healthcare, says if those changes aren’t accepted, they’ll vote down the bill.
“We cannot support the current bill,” Ross said. “Last time I checked, it took seven Democrats to stop a bill in Energy and Commerce.” …
Blue Dogs think the bill fails to do enough to reduce healthcare costs, jeopardizes jobs with a fee on employers that don’t provide health insurance, and would base a government-run healthcare plan on a Medicare payment system that already penalizes their rural districts.
Michelle has the names to call this week to encourage them to vote against this bill.
Update: Instapundit gets this feedback from a reader:
Investor’s Business Daily did not continue to read the bill to page 19. “Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan. ”
It does not outlaw individual private coverage – you can still buy the plan on the Exchange where they will compete with the public option, not be replaced by it. The advantage of the Exchange, is that the coverage no longer has one of the problems of individual coverage – skyrocketing premiums should you become ill.
Well, that may address the issue, but price-fixing premiums means insurers can’t cover the costs of the risk they assume. Either the insurers will have to start with higher premiums to cover their costs, or they will go out of business when usage increases and premiums remain fixed. Forcing insurers into price-fixing schemes only adds another step to their extinction.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 3 4 5 6 Next »
Jonknee,
I still want some help in understanding the below logic:
Legal mandate phasing out of x=allowance of x
Also:
What does the word public mean to you in this instance? There is only one federal government. Who or what do you think they’ll be competing against?
anuts on July 16, 2009 at 1:29 PM
First of all, Medicare is not an insurance company. You’re comparing apples and oranges. Second, because Medicare deals with the elderly, their expenditures are significantly higher than those of a private insurance company.
As a result of those higher expenditures for medical services, Medicare’s administrative costs percentage-wise are lower. But it’s certainly not a function of Medicare being more efficient. It’s because they spend so much more money taking care of sick elderly patient than your typical medical insurer does. I deal with Medicare and private insurers every day, and I’ll tell you flat out that Medicare is way less efficient than private insurance plans are.
eyedoc on July 16, 2009 at 1:35 PM
This is all subject to change, but the bill as stated does many things. Including:
1) It changes the regulation rules for health care
2) It grandfathers existing plans in so that you can keep your plan
3) It states that after the law is enacted new policies are required to meet the new rules
4) A public plan meeting all of the new rules will be started
So they are phasing out plans that don’t fit the new regulation, if they didn’t do that what would be the point of new regulation? (Here are new rules, but you don’t have to follow them.) They are making an exception though for existing plans since people are [rightfully] nervous of change. So if you’re happy, keep it. If you’re not, get one of the new plans that follow the new rules.
The public plan will quite literally compete because all insurance plans will have to follow the same rules. It will not get any subsidies and by law has to earn its keep. It even has to pay back the money used to start it. All subsidies go to citizens who get to choose where they use them. It’s quite similar to school vouchers, but this time some Democrats are alright with it.
jonknee on July 16, 2009 at 1:36 PM
jonknee on July 16, 2009 at 1:40 PM
Thank goodness Rush just reported this . . . maybe, just maybe, Fox will pick it up. Not going to rely on anyone else in the MSM to report it, though. This should be a deal killer if enough people hear about it.
reallyfive on July 16, 2009 at 1:44 PM
What, exactly, do you think a subsidy is? It’s funds from the Feds. How it’s spent (on public, private, food, air, water, whatever) is irrelevant. It’s a check from the Feds (your tax dollars) to pay for something they could not otherwise afford.
Come on dude. At least pretend to be honest here, okay?
lorien1973 on July 16, 2009 at 1:44 PM
You still don’t get it. The public plan will be cheap. So cheap that many businesses will dump their employee coverage forcing employees to get the public plan because private will be too expensive. This is also payback to unions. Unions will dump their costly health care coverage onto the taxpayer.
Why will private be too expensive? Because the government just drove clients from private to public.
Didn’t you ever watch that video of all the public officials stating outright that the plan is to destroy private insurance?
darwin on July 16, 2009 at 1:45 PM
But the public plan itself is not subsidized, some of its customers may be subsidized themselves but that’s completely different. The public plan could be completely taken out of the bill and the cost would be about the same.
An analogy… There are plenty of people on food stamps, but that doesn’t mean Kroger is federally subsidized. If the government owned a grocery store and let everyone shop there and it by law had to charge at least what it costs to run it wouldn’t be federally subsidized either–even if people with food stamps shopped there. As long as you can shop anywhere there is fair competition.
Why would the public plan be cheap? By law they would have to charge premiums high enough to cover all claims (they have to pay for themselves!). The same coverage that all other insurance plans have to provide. It should be priced very similarly, but if the gov’t is so inefficient at everything it should be priced higher.
jonknee on July 16, 2009 at 1:51 PM
LOL. That’s a keeper, for sure!
Here’s a more proper one.
People have a choice to shop and Kroger or Government Cheese Shop.
Kroger, being a corporation, has to abide by normal accounting measures to keep costs in line.
Government Cheese Shop (GCS), not bound by such plebian restrictions, is partially funded by taxes from people who do not shop at GCS – which deflates the cost to the shoppers (even though in reality costs are higher). GCS also gets to hide expenses it incurs in various parts of its other enterprises (Government Motor Store, Government Investment Hut) to make it seem costs are lower as well.
So while GCS gets to publicly say “hey our cheese in 25 cents cheaper then Kroger” when you add it all up, it costs $2 more. Hence the myth that Medicare’s overhead is only 3% (as reported everywhere) while its actual overhead is closer to 30% – not including fraud (and the fact that medicare has that cool side benefit of raising medical costs for those who aren’t on medicare as well).
So let’s play with real analogies.
GCS also has the power to regulate the costs of Kroger (by mandating margins and what it can sell, to whom it can sell it to, and how it sells it). So, it creates a naturally uneven playing field. Where it pits itself in unfair competition with a private company.
See how it works? Or did you want to continue this dishonest game?
lorien1973 on July 16, 2009 at 2:03 PM
The public plan will be heavily subsidized by the US taxpayers because it won’t pay corporate income taxes and it won’t need to raise capital like private insurance companies do. For these reasons alone there is no possible way that private insurers will be able to compete. Plus the public plan can cut premiums as low as needed in order to drive private insurers out of business, and suck up enough tax revenue to keep it operating while it does so.
You can’t really believe general tax revenue isn’t going to go into the public plan’s coffers right? Do you honestly believe that Medicare brings in enough money in premiums to operate as a self-contained entity? If that were true, Medicare would not be technically insolvent like it is.
eyedoc on July 16, 2009 at 2:03 PM
The government can be as inefficient as it wants. The government has no money, therefore no incentive to be efficient. Every penny comes from you and me … they’re not efficient? Just raise taxes.
Watch the video.
darwin on July 16, 2009 at 2:04 PM
You’re right in that it doesn’t need to make a profit (but has to just slightly), but incorrect about paying for capital. That’s outlined in the bill, they will borrow $2B to pay claims out before premiums come in and will have to repay that money over 10 years.
The public plan as outlined by the bill must also pay its own way, it can’t cut rates and suck up any tax revenue. It has to match premiums to costs.
Medicare isn’t comparable, it’s not an insurance program.
Your analogy is flawed from the start, the public plan is not funded by taxes. It’s funded entirely by premiums. There is $2b in seed capital to pay out claims before premiums come in, but that is required to be paid back. Have you read the bill? Page 116 is where the public plan details start.
jonknee on July 16, 2009 at 2:10 PM
Government providing two BILLION dollars to fund a quasi-public competitor in the marketplace instead of working with private insurers. It doesn’t matter if it is required to be paid back, fact of the matter is that this is nothing but hijacking healthcare. You are a stupid ass to argue otherwise.
highhopes on July 16, 2009 at 2:12 PM
Is this Ocialism?
It feels like plain ol’ communism to me.
Squiggy on July 16, 2009 at 2:13 PM
The federal government is not allowed to just pick an industry and “compete” with the private sector. That is the most asinine idea ever. Tell me where in the Constitution it says that the federal government should be “competing” with private corporations. If you can’t find where the Constitution gives the federal government that power, then shut the f#ck up, already. You are a total moron who would be more at home in a place like Switzerland than in the US. Leave already.
progressoverpeace on July 16, 2009 at 2:13 PM
I’ve watched the video and also read the bill where it details what the public plan would be. If the government really is inefficient no one has anything to worry about–the public plan will fail to attract customers.
Would you be in favor of this bill without a public plan? What’s the real issue for you?
jonknee on July 16, 2009 at 2:13 PM
You are a retard, aren’t you? The bill contains tax increases to fund it. Small businesses are penalized if they don’t provide insurance – a tax that goes to the funding. 5.4% surtax on the rich to fund it. Etc etc etc. If you are going to lie, at least don’t be so bald faced about it, okay? It’s not interesting.
Creative idiocy may get you somewhere with some people, but it doesn’t with me. K?
lorien1973 on July 16, 2009 at 2:16 PM
The government already insures millions of people, your argument is one from another century. Where I live the government insures millionaires’ mansions. It’s not really competition though because they charge less than it costs.
I have just as much of a right to be in this country as you, I’m sorry you don’t see it that way. It speaks to your character more than mine, but it’s still sad to see.
jonknee on July 16, 2009 at 2:17 PM
Fannie and Freddie for health insurance. Great idea, knee-brain. You morons won’t be happy until the US is a smoldering pile of ash.
Switzerland called and said that they were disappointed that you weren’t on the last flight. They are eagerly awaiting your arrival. Bon voyage. Ciao. Ta ta. Don’t call us.
progressoverpeace on July 16, 2009 at 2:17 PM
A pertinent, especially to your earlier claim, regulation is the phasing out of any and all existing private policies. Nothing about that process resembles competition.
How benevolent of them. The point you seem to be missing (with regards to your claim that this doesn’t outlaw private insurance) is that they have the monopoly on laws (only one federal government). They will have the monopoly on policies. The page 16 language calls for phasing out of all other policies. That is an explicit removal of the free market on an industry wholesale.
Again, the public plan is designed to remove competition. A federally mandated law will phase out existing individual plans. Companies dedicated to this kind of service dry up.
Are you for real? Do you not know what entity we’re talking about?
No. In fact, it is school vouchers in reverse. The voucher program was designed to give individuals choice for their subsidy. This takes choice away from individuals.
anuts on July 16, 2009 at 2:17 PM
Then why the proposed surtax on higher incomes to help pay for it, per Rangel and Pelosi? What about the discussions on taxing employer-provided plans to help pay for it?
ICBM on July 16, 2009 at 2:17 PM
As a result of those higher expenditures for medical services, Medicare’s administrative costs percentage-wise are lower. But it’s certainly not a function of Medicare being more efficient. It’s because they spend so much more money taking care of sick elderly patient than your typical medical insurer does. I deal with Medicare and private insurers every day, and I’ll tell you flat out that Medicare is way less efficient than private insurance plans are.
eyedoc on July 16, 2009 at 1:35 PM
****************************************************
Just reading some of the comments. I understand that Medicare contracts with many insurance companies that write the Medicare Advantage Plans. The government(Medicare) as of 2 years ago or more, pays them 12,000 a year & they handle everything. So, quite naturally this keeps Admin. costs down for Medicare. Just a thought.
bluefox on July 16, 2009 at 2:18 PM
Why do you resort to name calling? Try facts, it’s more convincing. The cost of the bill is entirely related to subsidies that can be used for whatever insurance plan you want–private or public.
If the bill contained no public plan the price would be nearly identical.
jonknee on July 16, 2009 at 2:19 PM
Because the bill mandates universal coverage. The money is required to pay for the insurance for people who can’t afford it. The citizen can choose their own plan, be it a private or public one.
If the public plan didn’t exist in this bill the total cost would remain the same.
jonknee on July 16, 2009 at 2:22 PM
I give jonknee an extra point or two for tenacity…
But, if I were the one paying him that $11+ an hour to be a shill for the Obamacare Program, I’d be asking for my money back.
I subtract a few points for his being unable to apply logic (and facts and real analysis) to a problem that is plain as day in front of us. Even a growing number of Dems in Congress are having a come to Jesus moment right now…they’ve just read portions of the Bill…and apparently not everything in Obamaland is all wonderful and rosy anymore.
Obama wants free health care for everyone except those who earn too much…and these will be punished for being so successful. it is a question of fairness. What’s your’s is mine….Uncle Frank taught well…that’s where the real indoctrination about rick folks and the poor downtrodden masses began
Since January every major spending bill and committment to larger spending…none have met the guarantee Obama issued…will be available to the public at least five working days prior to vote, will be discussed openly, before any vote is called for…
If Obama is soooo correct and this Health Care Bill is sooo vital to the future of all of America…why does it have to be passed before the August recess? What’s the rush? Everybody gonna get deathly sick in August? Alien viruses comin’ down from Neptune to infect all of us?
Table the damn thing…or kill it outright. Make the authors if this p.o.s. and those who support them explain paragraph by paragraph in detail, with facts and real figures not unicorn numbers…and then connect the dots and see who is pushing this travesty and how much they are gonna get for their efforts…Soros Universal International Insurance Syndicate? Obama Guaranteed Life of Chicago? The Pelosi Plan, Ltd.? Reid’s Snake Oil and Traveling Show?
I want full accountability…and the rule of law applied…and I want it now.
coldwarrior on July 16, 2009 at 2:23 PM
Whoops, forgot to address your point. I think they decided taxing businesses would be more toxic than taxing the top earners. It’s contentious either way, I’ll give you that.
jonknee on July 16, 2009 at 2:24 PM
In what universe? Dimension? Time Warp?
coldwarrior on July 16, 2009 at 2:25 PM
You don’t say …
I’m still waiting for you to point to where the federal government is empowered, in the Constitution, to just pick an industry and “provide competition” for private companies. And don’t give this “another century” crap. I want the Constitutional basis, and if you don’t have it, then STFU.
And, quite frankly, people like you have no business in any civilized society, since you attempt to do nothing but destroy them. Except for Switzerland. You would be a great boon to the Swiss nation and they are anxiously awaiting your arrival. Now, scat, dirtbag.
progressoverpeace on July 16, 2009 at 2:25 PM
Right. Social Security is supposed to pay it’s own way also, and we see how incredibly well that works. The problem is you actually believe and trust the government even though their track record running social welfare programs is abysmal. I can’t help you with that.
I know, I already said Medicare isn’t an insurance company. And the public plan won’t be an insurance company either. It’ll essentially be like a gigantic expansion of the Medicare program. And when the premiums and the expenditures don’t match (and they won’t) tax revenues will make up the difference, just like they do with Medicare, Social Security etc.
eyedoc on July 16, 2009 at 2:26 PM
Jonknee, might want to check this out.
coldwarrior on July 16, 2009 at 2:26 PM
Why wouldn’t it? The cost is for health care subsidies given to people who choose their insurance provider. If there’s no public plan they would choose a private plan.
jonknee on July 16, 2009 at 2:26 PM
ICBM on July 16, 2009 at 2:27 PM
It’s under the collectivist umbrella of isms for sure. However, just like the administration’s firing of CEO Wagoner this squarely falls under fascism.
Yes, I said it.
anuts on July 16, 2009 at 2:28 PM
Read it already thanks. Perhaps you didn’t? The cost is again entirely related to the subsidy, not the public plan.
If there is no public plan the subsidy would be required to go to a private plan. The expensive part of this bill is the mandate to have insurance, not the public plan.
jonknee on July 16, 2009 at 2:29 PM
No, it does not. The public plan could be launched with no subsidies given to people and the subsidies could be given to people with no public plan. They don’t require each other.
Again, it’s a lot like food stamps. Only this time the government wants to own a grocery store that is effectively non-profit (but has to pay its bills). Anyone is free to shop there and it will compete with all other grocery stores selling the same products for about the same price.
jonknee on July 16, 2009 at 2:32 PM
An unConstitutional mandate at that.
Where is the money for the subsidy coming from? And why would a citizen be required under law by government to subsidize another citizen, from a Constitutional Law standpoint?
coldwarrior on July 16, 2009 at 2:32 PM
No. Government.
Nearly every problem we have is attributable to government intrusion. The less government, the better.
Government’s job, is to protect us so we can live our lives as we see fit through our own efforts.
If government would revert back to that principle, the enormous restrictions relieved off the backs of business and people would usher in an explosion of production and progress.
Free people always have looked out for one another. Charity thrives in freedom.
Enslaved people look out for themselves, and in an age of more and more government intrusion, restrictions and handouts … looking out for number one has become priority.
I always tell my Senators and Congressman to just leave us alone. I tell them government has become our biggest threat, and to stay out of my life, and out of my pocket.
darwin on July 16, 2009 at 2:33 PM
But no overhead to worry about. Unfair trading practices such as this are illegal already.
coldwarrior on July 16, 2009 at 2:34 PM
This was debunked awhile back.
Medicare counts Personel costs, IT costs, Real Estate Costs, and even Energy (electricity) costs as seperate line items… the 3% is JUST what it takes to turnaround the paytment itself, and does NOT reflect all the other costs inherent.
Business accounting however shows ALL costs needed to administrate that program… personel, IT, real estate… everything…
So, this is a truley meaningless comparison.
Romeo13 on July 16, 2009 at 2:35 PM
So your best argument is that the public plan has no effect? I thought the argument was that the public plan “provides competition” thereby lowering costs for everyone and making it all cheaper.
You know, knee-brain, you’re not allowed to lose both sides of the same argument. You have to pick one to lose.
And I’m still waiting for the Consitutional basis for the feds “providing competition” by opening up their own company.
progressoverpeace on July 16, 2009 at 2:35 PM
They have all the same overhead, probably more since it’s government.
I think you guys are off base attacking the public plan, it seems like you should be attacking the mandate for everyone to have insurance.
jonknee on July 16, 2009 at 2:36 PM
Does government have to pay local, state and federal taxes on inventory and sales? If a private owner has major cost overruns, can he go to Congress and have them issue him credit or give him more money to cover costs?
coldwarrior on July 16, 2009 at 2:39 PM
I’ve got to hand it to you, knee-brain, that’s one of the silliest ideas I’ve ever heard in my life. What’s the federal deficit this year? “non-profit” … LOL. “but has to pay its bills” … ROFLMAO!!
progressoverpeace on July 16, 2009 at 2:40 PM
Both are totally un-Constitutional and un-American, but the public plan is designed to actually kill the private sector.
I packed you sandwiches for your flight to Switzerland. They know how to do health care, there, I hear.
progressoverpeace on July 16, 2009 at 2:41 PM
So what happens if the government can’t “pay the bills”? Deny coverage? That would be illegal, thanks to the mandate. I guess taxes would just have to go through the roof, huh? Or money will have to printed. Or debt will have to be accumulated …
Are you really as dumb as you sound?
progressoverpeace on July 16, 2009 at 2:44 PM
We’re against the whole idea. I hope you understand this has nothing to do with health care. It’s power, control of the masses, a pay back to unions and La Raza. It will never end. More and more restrictions will come from this … from telling you what you must eat, what your weight must be, no drinking, no smoking … but wait! Sex, it’s ok for everyone to have sex, including kids because the abortion industry has to make money too.
darwin on July 16, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Question: Does the Government pay taxes on itself?
Does the Federal Government pay taxes to States on money it makes in that State?
Does the Federal Gov pay SALES tax to anyone?
Does the Federal Gov pay Property Taxes?
Your “Public” plan, would have an unnatural adavnatage given to it beacuse of the Tax system itself, as Private Companies have the Tax burden, and it would not.
Oh, and your public plan will be able, by law, to DICTATE what they pay for procedures (its part of the plan too).
So, they have a TAX adavantage, and can dictate prices… Private companies won’t last long with those two advantages.
Romeo13 on July 16, 2009 at 2:44 PM
So, contrary to your assertion, it does require tax revenue to pay for the program. Correct?
ICBM on July 16, 2009 at 2:27 PM
No, it does not. The public plan could be launched with no subsidies given to people and the subsidies could be given to people with no public plan. They don’t require each other.
ICBM on July 16, 2009 at 2:45 PM
Do you not understand how non-profits operate? The public plan couldn’t run an extended loss (it would have to adjust premiums), but the profits aren’t sent home to investors or directors of the company. There are many non-profit health insurance companies already, research how they work.
jonknee on July 16, 2009 at 2:46 PM
And, knee-brain, when the money for the public plan runs out, rationing in the public plan will not be allowed by the courts with some idiotic “Equal Protection” argument, as the mandate will demand. So rationing will be forced on whatever private insurance is left, to equalize everyone.
You and your ilk are destroyers of societies. This will not be forgotten.
progressoverpeace on July 16, 2009 at 2:48 PM
You research how government programs work and then get back to me. Moron.
progressoverpeace on July 16, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Yes, the public plan could be initiated without subsidies. That much isn’t amazing, there are tons of existing insurance companies without subsidies.
No, we can’t mandate you need to have health insurance without subsidies. That’s not amazing either.
This bill does them both. The first is designed to help control costs for the latter, but each could be done separately or without the other.
Read it, it’s not hard. Just takes some time.
jonknee on July 16, 2009 at 2:50 PM
Link please… I don’t know of ANY non profit INSURANCE companies or groups…
I know of many Non Profit PROVIDERS… but under the regulatory climate now I don’t think you can HAVE a non profit INSURANCE company.
Romeo13 on July 16, 2009 at 2:51 PM
The health care overhauls released to date would increase, not reduce, the burgeoning long-term health costs facing the government, Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf said Thursday. Hmmm!!
ICBM on July 16, 2009 at 2:51 PM
You realize this downward spiral into massive government control only has one outcome right? The government just continues to gain more and more control until it’s viewed as the enemy. Once that happens the end is near and we start from scratch … again..
darwin on July 16, 2009 at 2:54 PM
Blue Cross…non-profit health insurance company.
If it is doing so well..and has been since 1929, then why the need for government to compete with Blue Cross/Blue Shield?
Why not let BCBS expand to its hearts content…and take on the unwashed uninsured masses?
That’s more Constitutional than having government dictate who I can obtain insurance from and who I cannot, or tell me how much I can spend on my medical expenses and how much I cannot.
coldwarrior on July 16, 2009 at 2:55 PM
The cost estimate without a public plan is about 1 trillion dollars over 10 years. With the public plan, the estimate goes up to 1.6 trillion dollars over 10 years. Some say as high as 4 trillion dollars. So obviously the public plan involves more costs than just subsidizing health insurance for people who can’t afford it.
eyedoc on July 16, 2009 at 2:55 PM
Where did you get those figures? I didn’t see that in the CBO estimate.
jonknee on July 16, 2009 at 3:01 PM
Ouch….
Romeo13 on July 16, 2009 at 3:09 PM
I didn’t see it in the CBO estimate because it wasn’t there.
Http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10430/House_Tri-Committee-Rangel.pdf
You may have been thinking about the expanded medicaid plan, that adds cost but isn’t related to the public plan.
And as I said before, much (even most) of the subsides are expected to go to private companies:
jonknee on July 16, 2009 at 3:09 PM
Big news this afternoon, the AMA has come out in favor of the proposed bill. I’m surprised to say the least.
http://blog.healthcareforamericanow.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/715-house-hsr-letter_rangel-ama-endorsed.pdf
jonknee on July 16, 2009 at 3:12 PM
Call me melodramatic, but I can’t help the feeling that if this passes (and worse, if Cap-and-Trade passes with it), my country is gone. Truly, I feel that if socialism happens in America, then we have been invaded and conquered and I have nowhere to go to be free. It’s depressing.
Onward to the fight.
Animator Girl on July 16, 2009 at 3:12 PM
Why? The AMA are a leftist org and always have been.
I’m still waiting for you to point out the Constitutional basis for the federal government just opening up a company to “provide competition” to the private sector. It shouldn’t too difficult to find, if it exists.
progressoverpeace on July 16, 2009 at 3:17 PM
From the AMA link above… the sustainable rate formula was the one which dictated very low medicare reimbursment rates…
Payoff for the Doctors?
Romeo13 on July 16, 2009 at 3:23 PM
From this past February…
The salary and bonus paid to Cleve L. Killingsworth, chairman and chief executive of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, increased 26 percent last year, to $3.5 million, even though the health insurer’s membership declined and its net income fell 49 percent.
Nice profit from a non-profit.
coldwarrior on July 16, 2009 at 3:25 PM
jonknee, I’ve read your babble on here and believe that you have made an excellent arguement to license reproduction.
doginblack on July 16, 2009 at 3:29 PM
I think that the new government health insurance company should be called, The Federal National Secured Insurance Company – “Fannie Sick”.
progressoverpeace on July 16, 2009 at 3:30 PM
WI Rep Paul Ryan raised the issue today with House Ways and Means Committee: http://bit.ly/lraJk
karlant on July 16, 2009 at 3:41 PM
Why Government Can’t Run a Business
The Obama administration is bent on becoming a major player in — if not taking over entirely — America’s health-care, automobile and banking industries. Before that happens, it might be a good idea to look at the government’s track record in running economic enterprises. It is terrible.
In 1913, for instance, thinking it was being overcharged by the steel companies for armor plate for warships, the federal government decided to build its own plant. It estimated that a plant with a 10,000-ton annual capacity could produce armor plate for only 70% of what the steel companies charged.
When the plant was finally finished, however — three years after World War I had ended — it was millions over budget and able to produce armor plate only at twice what the steel companies charged. It produced one batch and then shut down, never to reopen.
- more -
Joe Bloggs on July 16, 2009 at 3:45 PM
Other than the source of its premiums, Medicare is no different, economically, than a regular health-insurance company. But unlike, say, UnitedHealthcare, it is a bureaucracy-beclotted nightmare, riven with waste and fraud. Last year the Government Accountability Office estimated that no less than one-third of all Medicare disbursements for durable medical equipment, such as wheelchairs and hospital beds, were improper or fraudulent. Medicare was so lax in its oversight that it was approving orthopedic shoes for amputees.
Joe Bloggs on July 16, 2009 at 3:50 PM
Obama says people in charge of helping themselves.
“Heralding the NAACP for a century of courage and progress, President Barack Obama will come before the nation’s oldest civil rights organization Thursday with a message of shared responsibility: Government can help communities, but people are in charge of helping themselves.
Oh, really?
Then why the need for all the government intervention to “help” people?
coldwarrior on July 16, 2009 at 4:34 PM
What agenda does Investors Business Daily have exactly? Since they’re not going with this bill in lockstep with other media outlets that makes them the epitome of a far right wing outlet? Your logic is beyond erroneous, it’s morally repugnant because you’ve outed yourself as a lackey for the Messiah. You’re a mindless bot who rancorously thinks that repugnant putting this country in debt in the name of compassion is morally just. It’s not rancid, it’s also morally reprehensible. If you want to live in a Banana Republic go move to Venezuela, just don’t dismantle, MY country.
I think it’s time we’ve had a coup, just like Honduras. It’s like Thomas Jefferson said: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Cr4sh Dummy on July 16, 2009 at 4:35 PM
Hey, don’t give them any ideas!
Susanboo on July 16, 2009 at 4:40 PM
You don’t see how Investor’s Business Daily would not want more government regulation and competition in business? Health insurance companies make billions of dollars IBD customers. That’s no more exciting than Daily Kos being for the bill. The whole tone of their article is that they were looking for a gotcha. IBD was against the bill before they read it, which was my point. Well read the first 16 pages, their point was soundly refuted a mere 3 pages later.
Their analysis was simply wrong. Criticize it for what it actually is and does.
jonknee on July 16, 2009 at 5:25 PM
On average, health insurance companies realize about a 3% profit.
coldwarrior on July 16, 2009 at 5:28 PM
… And make billions of dollars like I said. Last year UnitedHealth banked $3b. Nothing wrong with that at all–it’s their duty to maximize value for their shareholders. They don’t want healthcare to be reformed, that was all I meant. They realize it’s coming and have made some concessions, but I haven’t seen a single health insurance company come out in favor of a public option. It’s no wonder, who would come out in favor of competition? My point simply being it’s no surprise that IBD wouldn’t want reform either. It’s against their best interest.
jonknee on July 16, 2009 at 5:48 PM
For just a moment, let’s divorce the discussion from “health insurance.” Now…what private company anywhere would ever come out in favor of having government set itself up as a competitor with unlimited access to revenue?
Now, back to health insurers. Why would any health insurer ever come out in favor of having government under bid them across the borad, and then be exempt from all taxes, local, state and federal, while at the same time, private health insurers have to factor in these same taxes across the board or find themselves in jail?
Lastly, because you are dense and I tire easily when dealing with such, where is it in the Constitution that government should be involved in any of this?
coldwarrior on July 16, 2009 at 5:56 PM
They wouldn’t, it’s obvious. As I said, it’s no wonder they haven’t come out in favor of the plan. You wondered why IBD could possibly have a bias and I explained–it’s not a popular thing amongst investors and thus IBD readers and staff. That’s all. I expect HMO’s to be against it. I expect IBD and WSJ to be against it. They got ahold of the bill to try and tear it apart. That was my point. (Oh and that they failed thus far–their complaint was factually wrong.)
jonknee on July 16, 2009 at 6:03 PM
Those numbers have been reported over the past week or so.
eyedoc on July 16, 2009 at 6:08 PM
[Is "ItsforDinner" aware that you have tacked your handle to their site?
Common practice for shills all across the net these days.]
Where exactly is the evidence that “their complaint was factually wrong.” Other than your insisting it is so?
coldwarrior on July 16, 2009 at 6:11 PM
June 26, 2009, 6:00 am
Is Health Care Reform Worth $1.6 Trillion?
By Uwe E. Reinhardt
Today’s Economist
Uwe E. Reinhardt is an economics professor at Princeton.
Like Captain Renault in “Casablanca,” who found himself “ shocked, shocked” to discover that there was gambling going on at Rick’s Café, moments before pocketing his cut of the evening’s gambling profits, Congress last week expressed “shock, shock” at what was already well known in policy wonkdom — namely, that a move to genuine universal health insurance coverage might easily entail federal budget costs of $1.6 trillion over the next decade.
There followed a scramble on the Hill to trim the proposed reform package, to keep its price tag below $1 trillion or so for the decade.
A price tag of $1.6 trillion seems immense if one contemplates the figure in the abstract. It is, however, only about 4 percent of the total cumulative health spending of $40 trillion, the amount government actuaries now project for the decade from 2010 to 2020. That is also less than the 6 to 7 percent that total national health spending has increased each year in the past decade.
And $1.6 trillion is only about 1 percent of the amount of G.D.P. that America can reasonably be expected to produce in the next decade (about $150 trillion to $170 trillion).
eyedoc on July 16, 2009 at 6:16 PM
The link is here:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/is-health-care-reform-worth-16-trillion/
eyedoc on July 16, 2009 at 6:16 PM
Considering I made the site, I think it’s OK with management.
Check out the update that Ed made to the post which is exactly what I noted out, their “problem” with page 16 is refuted on page 19. The CBO estimate itself says that 2/3 of the people who get subsidies will end up using them on private plans. That would be impossible if these private plans were “outlawed”.
jonknee on July 16, 2009 at 6:28 PM
Stick to dinner ware…play to your strengths.
coldwarrior on July 16, 2009 at 6:36 PM
Here’s the article saying ObamaCare may cost 4 trillion dollars over 10 years. What you can pretty much guarantee is that, like Medicare, it’ll cost way way more than the government says it’ll cost. Medicare now costs far beyond what it was estimated to cost.
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/06/16/report-kennedy-bill-would-actu
eyedoc on July 16, 2009 at 6:53 PM
So, its your contention that a company started with government money (under low to no interest).
Who will not have to pay taxes.
Who does NOT have to make a profit for its stockholders.
And is able to use LEGAL price controls and decide what part of bills it will pay…
Is NOT designed to drive other corporations out of that business?
Romeo13 on July 16, 2009 at 7:33 PM
Jonknee is attempting the Reid “Taxes are voluntary” argument.
He obviously does not understand the term “mandate”. Mandate means “required”. The plan requires everyone to pay, even if you “choose” not to have a medical insurance plan. That feature of the bill turns the “premium” into a tax, because you are “required” to pay it.
You cannot choose to not pay for ObamaCare. That means it’s a tax, just like FICA and Social Security taxes.
BobMbx on July 16, 2009 at 8:53 PM
Where is the link to this monstrosity?
Theophile on July 17, 2009 at 5:13 AM
I cant help but notice how jonknee is being entirely civil and fact-based while folks like progressoverpeace, highhopes, Lorien1973, doginblack, CR4sh Dummy, and coldwarrior (from page 5 alone) are responding with namecalling and such.
Some commenters, such as darwin, eyedoc, and Romeo13 are being civil, so I’m not claiming that it’s universal. But I think it’s worthwhile to notice how there are many more commenters jumping in with namecalling than there are folks who are willing to actually have an intelligent discussion.
This is especially relevent with the discussion of the tiered commenting system. Personally, I would go for (at minimum) an “ignore” feature. I know I would use it on folks whose rhetorical style includes ad hominem attacks.
orange on July 17, 2009 at 1:26 PM
Also, Tom Maguire doesnt believe this is anything to get upset about.
orange on July 17, 2009 at 1:29 PM
A touch off topic…but can somebody explain to me if this administration is actually doing things that are ‘unsound’ as far as the constitution goes, when do things begin to get challenged? Ive heard that tossed around for a few months now…but have not heard one challenge by anybody as to legality. Anyone?
TheVer on July 17, 2009 at 3:07 PM
A treasonous bastard like Obama should have his assets seized to pay for his spending. Dollar ONE should be taken out of Obama’s personal bank account. I’d love for someone to tell my why not.
marklmail on July 17, 2009 at 11:13 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 3 4 5 6 Next »