Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
Therefore those are 40 million potential PUBLIC customers.

Perhaps. Feel free to cite how they will automatically be customers of the public plan.

Um...isn't this whole thing a hideous failure if they aren't?

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
As for your other claim about "strangling the private industry."

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
....this bill will strangle the private insurance industry from various incentives and penalties (taxes) to employers and citizens alike.

Which you'll cite for us now, right....?

Already cited before. Companies who do not provide the public plan will be taxed 2, 4, 6, or 8% payroll tax.

Uhh... no. Again, your claim is shockingly off-base, considering the actual bill text you've tried to cite (page 150 ... actually pages 144-150 from what I can tell). There is absolutely nothing there that states that employers have to "provide the public plan."



So far, neither one of your rationales for "strangling the private industry" seems to pose the problems you claim. Sadly, your understanding of the bill doesn't even seem sufficient enough for you to be close to making such dire pronoucements.

SEC. 313. EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS IN LIEU OF COVERAGE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—A contribution is made in accordance with this section with respect to an employee if such
contribution is equal to an amount equal to 8 percent of
the average wages paid by the employer during the period
of enrollment

8% for large companies, reducing to 6, 4, or 2% based on the size of the company

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
So far, neither one of your rationales for "strangling the private industry" seems to pose the problems you claim. Sadly, your understanding of the bill doesn't even seem sufficient enough for you to be close to making such dire pronoucements.

SEC. 313. EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS IN LIEU OF COVERAGE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—A contribution is made in accordance with this section with respect to an employee if such
contribution is equal to an amount equal to 8 percent of
the average wages paid by the employer during the period
of enrollment

8% for large companies, reducing to 6, 4, or 2% based on the size of the company

Yeah... you tried citing that already.

Congratulations ... you've established that the contribution will be 2 - 8%. Now, go forth and cite what conditions will cause the contribution to be needed.


Hint: The answer is not, "the company refuses to 'provide the public plan.'"

We've exhausted quite a few of the potential problems, and I appreciate people informing me and others of things we might not have known.

Pretty much the only thing left to discuss is the economics of it all. Members of both parties are arguing that America cannot afford to do this, and that it will drive up the deficit. But the administration says that it is "deficit neutral".

What do you guys think?

My take -- we already sold the country to the banks. How many billions did they get? Or is it trillions now? Do we even KNOW? So hell, what's a few billion to healthcare, or cash for clunkers, or whatever. We're quibbling about the pennies left in the jar.

Quote: Original post by Promit

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
Therefore those are 40 million potential PUBLIC customers.

Perhaps. Feel free to cite how they will automatically be customers of the public plan.

Um...isn't this whole thing a hideous failure if they aren't?

Not exactly sure what you mean ... but, I'll guess that you're getting at whether it would be a failure if the 40 million uninsured were to stay uninsured. Yes, that would make this whole thing rather pointless.

However, getting them insured still does not mean that they will necessarily end up with the public option. It's theoretically possible that any low-income subsidies will be usable even with a (qualifying) private insurer. So, at the very least, for Chris to back his claims, he would have to show that low-income subsidies are restricted to be used only with the public option.

From there, it'd solidify his case, if Chris were to show how nearly all of the current uninsured are low-income people (which we already know is not true). Some of the current uninsured are financially well-off, and could very well choose a private insurer ... which, as I stated, is pretty much the opposite of "strangling the private industry."

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
Certainly someone in this country that does not pay taxes shouldn't be allowed healthcare coverage.

So much for children and the infirm!

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
Democrats read the bill explicitly, trusting in their party and the government to make sound decisions for their health and well-being.

Republicans read the bill implicitly, noticing that the bill gives the government more control over their health and well-being.

That seems to be the central debate. I don't think it's fair to call Republicans (not all of them at least) "fear-mongers" for reading the bill this way, it's just a fundamental difference in trusting the government.

Democrats don't trust the government to make their decisions for them. That's Republican stereotyping. When Republicans say that the bill will kill old people it's fear mongering no matter how you slice it. Obamacare will put seniors "to death," says Foxx, Gohmert Trades Ideas With Conspiracy Theorist, Says Obama Health Plan Will ‘Absolutely Kill Senior Citizens’, Palin accuses Obama of pushing Medicare 'death panel' And then there's Rush Limbaugh comparing Obama to Hitler while claiming that the health care reform logo is a thinly disguised salute to the Third Reich. Where is the Republican with the fortitude to stand up to Limbaugh?

Reading the bill implicitly -- is that code for making things up? Reading in things that aren't there in order to scare people? Republican leaders make a slippery slope argument (Statement by House GOP Leaders Boehner and McCotter on End-of-Life Treatment Counseling in Democrats’ Health Care Legislation) and snicker as their cohort stretch the argument to it's illogical conclusion. If Boehner and McCotter were truly interested in reforming health care, per the advice of Frank Luntz, they would have offered changes to the bill to protect seniors. They would be fighting for a bill that explicitly forbids pressuring seniors to sign end of life directives. They would be fighting for a bill that explicitly "excludes counseling about the supposed benefits of killing oneself." Instead, they're more interested in killing the bill outright. Their true task is to protect the profits of their contributors in the health insurance industry. Check it out for yourself at opensecrets.org, or check out this reporting: Health care interests step up donations to Congress. Some Democrats are on the take too: Blue Dogs Receive More Health Industry Backing Than Other Democrats, Blue Dogs Fill Their Bowls with Cash.

[Edited by - LessBread on August 10, 2009 4:05:01 AM]

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
...Members of both parties are arguing that America cannot afford to do this, and that it will drive up the deficit. But the administration says that it is "deficit neutral".

What do you guys think?

We can easily afford it.... though even I'm dubious about whether it's currently deficit neutral. However, I have very little problem with seeing my taxes raised if it would largely improve the system.

I certainly don't give a crap about paying an extra $2000 a year in taxes, if it saves me from paying the $4,000 that might otherwise be shelled out to insure my family.

True, a good number of the uninsured can afford insurance, but don't buy it. But the number of people that would be compelled to get insured by the government's incentives, AND that want to pay considerably more for private insurance, would be small.

Quoted

Two economists working at the National Bureau of Economic Research concluded that 25 to 75 percent of those who do not purchase health insurance coverage “could afford to do so.”

Nearly 10 million (9.7) of the 45.7 million uninsured are “not a citizen.”

More than 17 million of the uninsured make at least $50,000 per year

8.4 million make $50,000 to $74,999 per year

9.1 million make $75,000 or higher

25 percent of the uninsured already qualify for government health insurance programs.

CBO analysis found that 36 million people would remain uninsured even if the Senate’s $1.6 trillion health care plan is passed.


Kind of makes you wonder why we are going through so much of an effort to cover what appears to be a smaller number than we are being told. Obviously the system in place needs change, but this plan is going to change many people's lives for a relatively small number of people who are citizens that cannot afford healthcare currently.

Here is a decent article on why everyone is wrong

I agree with the author of this article, that we need to create an exceptional American system that is somehow free of "perverse incentives" instead of adopting mediocre ideas from other countries.

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
True, a good number of the uninsured can afford insurance, but don't buy it. But the number of people that would be compelled to get insured by the government's incentives, AND that want to pay considerably more for private insurance, would be small.

You kinda just made up those assertions.

Firstly, there are a few decent reasons to consider private insurance. And moreover, the entire point of the public option is to ensure that the rates of private insurers are competitive.

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
Kind of makes you wonder why we are going through so much of an effort to cover what appears to be a smaller number than we are being told. Obviously the system in place needs change, but this plan is going to change many people's lives for a relatively small number of people who are citizens that cannot afford healthcare currently.

Whether people could theoretically afford insurance or not, is almost not even relevant. Pretty much everyone (who doesn't die an sudden death) eventually needs medical care, so the fact that so many people are uninsured is a problem regardless of their financial status. So, if it was only about insuring poor people, then perhaps you'd be right. As it stands though, that'd be a fairly narrow view, when the problems are pretty wide-ranging. Problems include:
A) healthcare costs are rising faster than wages, even for those who do buy their insurance;
B) the large possibility that insurance rates are not competitive;
C) the fact that profit motives subject individuals to largely insurmountable legal barriers;
D) there are significant information asymmetries in trying to understand plan coverage;
E) the nation's productivity is likely suffering significant impact from lack of preventative medicine,
etc