Single Payer Suitors

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

There would be no "free national plan" as they would pay the 8% tax. The argument, which I believe is a valid argument, is that the cost of coverage under the private plans will increase faster than the government will increase the 8% tax...but the net result would be the same as you have suggested.-spence

Thanks for the civil response. I appreciate that. Although I knew the PLAN was not free (that's why I put it in quotes), I certainly deserved to be slapped down for suggesting it was. I had just begun to read the bill and am finding it to be a heavy plow. I did find your reference to the 8% tax on employers with annual payroll of over $400,00 who choose not to participate, and also a descending 6%, 4%, 2% tax on smaller payrolls of $400,000, $350,00, $300,000, and 0% tax on payrolls of $250,00 or less. Your reference to normalizing costs in order to "qualify" assured me that I correctly interpreted that Insurance companies had to meet standardized specs to be acceptable. Not only is the legaleze thick but you have to read sections of The Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, The Public Health Service Act--as in "A qualified health benefits plan may not impose any pre-existing condition exclusion (as defined in section 2701(b)(1)(A) of the Public Health Service Act or otherwise impose any limit or condition on coverage under the plan with respect to an individual or dependant based on any health status related factors . . ."--(take note, JohnnyD). I found it a bit jolting to read under the section "Retiree Reserve Trust Fund" this--"There are hereby appropriated to the trust fund, out of any moneys in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, an amount requested by the Secretary as necessary to carry out this section, except that the total of all such amounts requested shall not exceed $10,000,000,000"--nice number! I found reference to a start-up funding for the plan of 2 trillion dollars to be amortized and repayed in 10 years. Does that mean that monies collected by the PLAN will not only pay for medical costs but also repay the start-up fund? I will continue to try to read the thing, but it may take some time to digest. I agree that some of your suggestions would be better, but I fear they are too simple and sensible for politicians to implement. Also, they don't give them power or votes. So far, I am not seeing the need for a competing government plan. The Gov could just ram the PLAN'S regulations on the Ins. Cos. and force those who presently choose not to be insured to get insurance and provide another medicade type of insurance for the remainder of the presently, so called, uninsured. What's the need for a Government plan for the rest of us?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Your reference to normalizing costs in order to "qualify" assured me that I correctly interpreted that Insurance companies had to meet standardized specs to be acceptable.

Yes, this element in particular I find to be particularly counter-intuitive as it restricts the individual from making choices that might lower their personal burden and hence the liability of the entire system.

The progressives clearly consider 100% coverage and parity between plans to be critical success factors, but as presented to date these goals appear to threaten the entire system.

What needs to happen is before we draft a bill, both sides should hash out a document of common goals so we can at least agree on what improved health care could look like...then argue about how to get there.

I'm very concerned that the GOP is really going to screw this up. The party's only response these days seems to be to rile up the fringe, which isn't going to get them very far. The Dem's will pass a version of their bill anyway.

Republicans should present a simple 5 item list of principals on which to build a solution, good common sense stuff that the average person would agree with, and clearly articulate how these principals can enable a solution to the real issues. With the proper marketing they could force the Dems to rewire the DNA of the proposal.

This would take the debate into the mainstream where Democratic Congress people would feel very threatened in their home districts. Yes, there's some of this happening today, but as this thread clearly demonstrates, there's so much obfuscation and confusion few really know what the hell is even being proposed.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

What needs to happen is before we draft a bill, both sides should hash out a document of common goals so we can at least agree on what improved health care could look like...then argue about how to get there.

-spence

You nailed it, Spence.
This is one of the most important domestic issues we will ever face and the most expensive.
It needs the best minds and cooperation from both parties to make this the best possible plan for the uninsured.
Politics need to be put aside, and our representatives need to do whats best
for the American people.

Right now, it's if they can't explain all the facts they try to dazzle us with BS.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by justplugit

make this the best possible plan for the uninsured.

why does the federal government need to come up with a plan for the uninsured? it's established that many of the uninsured can afford health insurance and choose not to purchase it, many are illegal aliens, the actual numbers of involentary uninsure is quite small in comparison to those currently insured and happy with the current system, it has also been well established that this entire debacle/plan is nothing more than a trojan horse sent to put the entire health care system under the control of the federal government, many of the uninsured can be covered by relaxing all of the mandates state to state including allowing high deductible major medical policies which many states restrict or do not allow, I've had one for years...tort reform and loser pay as they have in England...emphasis on individual policies rather than large brokered deals...I refuse to accept the premise that healthcare is broken and the insurance companies are just greedy bastards which is the curent montra from the supporters....this is about creating a massive government entity and with it a direct revenue stream to fund bigger government...you can argue about and study the details but in the end this is simply a question of whether you want more government involvement in your day to day life and to a much larger extent, your children's lives as they will bear the burden of all of this, more government intrusion into your personal life and the decisions that you make and the government demanding more and more from you to pay for all of their intrusion into your life...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

The progressives clearly consider 100% coverage and parity between plans to be critical success factors, but as presented to date these goals appear to threaten the entire system.

Not only threaten the system, but call into question the need for a Public option to compete with the existing private insurance options. The National or Public Health Insurance will offer the same tier of plans--basic, enhanced, premium, or premium plus, and be under the same regulations and requirements as private insurance. In reading the bill, the Public plan just seems to be an extension of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and the private plans have to follow suit. The bill could be written, basically as it is, without the inclusion of the Public option. In effect, the private plans will be unpaid private contractors (unfunded mandates) for the Government.

Originally Posted by Spence

I'm very concerned that the GOP is really going to screw this up.

You mean the GOP is going to screw up the MESS?

Originally Posted by Spence

The party's only response these days seems to be to rile up the fringe, which isn't going to get them very far. The Dem's will pass a version of their bill anyway.

The GOP has been responding with their version of reform. I don't think the Party is riling "up the fringe." The rile is more extensive than you think and is only evident in the voice of what you call "the fringe."

Originally Posted by Spence

Republicans should present a simple 5 item list of principals on which to build a solution, good common sense stuff that the average person would agree with, and clearly articulate how these principals can enable a solution to the real issues. With the proper marketing they could force the Dems to rewire the DNA of the proposal.

Sounds simple enough. The Republicans, being so outnumbered, beleaguered, and lacking in political moxie, are probably not the vehicle for such a presentation. Where are the powerful, persuasive, and influential voices of the MAINSTREAM MEDIA when you need them?

Originally Posted by Spence

This would take the debate into the mainstream where Democratic Congress people would feel very threatened in their home districts.-spence

I think the loud riling of the fringe, if it keeps up, may scare those Congress people.