Letting states decline a government insurance plan could help unify congressional Democrats

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Louisiana

Louisiana Health Insurance Association

Phone 1-800-736-0947 or (225) 926-6245

First i have heard about this... i'll have to look into it...

Here's the link.

http://lahealthplan.org/

...850,000 Louisianans are uninsured, a staggering 20% of the state's population...

One hell of a plan leaving LA well below the national average of health insurance coverage.

What's the story now, lone Ranger? That the states have got this all covered? Texas on the list? Are you kidding me?

Nope. Just saying, the states will continue to try and do it "their way", rather than spent the money the way the Federal government dictates. California is a very Democratic state, and the home of Nancy Pelosi, but Sacramento does not let Washington, including Pelosi, run programs in California. We don't even participate in Medicaid, we have our own program, MediCal.

I don't know if any of the states our doing a good job, but if half the states have already tried, and failed, what makes you think a bunch of politicians and bureaucrats in D.C. are going to do any better?

I still say, if the Feds want to dictate it, let them run it, and, let them pay for it. Single payer is still the only viable solution.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Single payer is still the only viable solution.

We agree on this.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I still say, if the Feds want to dictate it, let them run it, and, let them pay for it. Single payer is still the only viable solution.

How are the feds going to pay for it?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I still say, if the Feds want to dictate it, let them run it, and, let them pay for it. Single payer is still the only viable solution.

How are the feds going to pay for it?

SEC. 211. OVERVIEW: FUNDING THE USNHI PROGRAM.

(a) In General- The USNHI Program is to be funded as provided in subsections (b) and (c).

(b) Annual Appropriation for Funding of USNHI Program- There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this Act such sums as may be necessary.

(c) Intent- Sums appropriated pursuant to subsection (b) shall be paid for--

(1) by vastly reducing paperwork;

(2) by requiring a rational bulk procurement of medications;

(3) from existing sources of Federal government revenues for health care;

(4) by increasing personal income taxes on the top 5 percent income earners;

(5) by instituting a modest payroll tax; and

(6) by instituting a small tax on stock and bond transactions.

HR 676

Edited October 25, 2009 by Lone Ranger

[Sofiyya 1,687]

That is not how they pay for it. They don't pay for anything. We do.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

That is not how they pay for it. They don't pay for anything. We do.

Well, we the people, and all that.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

That is not how they pay for it. They don't pay for anything. We do.

Well, we the people, and all that.

I'm against a single payer option. The government doesnt do much of anything well, and thats a demonstrable fact. That being a fact, I don't understand why a nanny state is such a turn on for some. It's like the national morality is based on lowering everyone to the least common denominator so we can all be wanting.

Edited October 25, 2009 by Sofiyya

[Dan J 277]

That is not how they pay for it. They don't pay for anything. We do.

Well, we the people, and all that.

I'm against a single payer option. The government doesnt do much of anything well, and thats a demonstrable fact. That being a fact, I don't understand why a nanny state is such a turn on for some. It's like the national morality is based on lowering everyone to the least common denominator so we can all be wanting.

The only reason why people like you can't see the goverment doing anything effectively is a self-fulfilling prophecy. There are many other countries who have been able to implement single payer system quite effectively.

Of course you will counter with the single instances of where those systems failed, often those failures are not unique to the system as they can also be found in the US system.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

That is not how they pay for it. They don't pay for anything. We do.

Well, we the people, and all that.

I'm against a single payer option. The government doesnt do much of anything well, and thats a demonstrable fact.

Well, it's actually a demonstrable fact that the government (Medicare) has done a much better job in terms of containing health care costs than the private insurance industry has.

Since 1970 Medicare’s average annual per enrollee growth rate of 9.6 percent is lower than the growth rate of 11.1 percent for private health insurers.4 On an annual basis this would not be a very great difference, but over thirty years this finding is important.

...

Exhibit 2 also illustrates that over the past three decades Medicare has been more successful than the private insurance industry has in constraining its per enrollee cost growth for personal health care. By 2000 Medicare’s index number for per enrollee costs was 1,544, compared with 2,176 for private insurance. In other words, by 2000 the index for the private market was 44 percent higher than the index for Medicare.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

That is not how they pay for it. They don't pay for anything. We do.

Well, we the people, and all that.

I'm against a single payer option. The government doesnt do much of anything well, and thats a demonstrable fact. That being a fact, I don't understand why a nanny state is such a turn on for some. It's like the national morality is based on lowering everyone to the least common denominator so we can all be wanting.

The current healthcare system will continue to go bankrupt America, until the system is brought under control. The current system provides nearly unlimitted healthcare to all Americans, from the minute they enter the world of the living in the US, until the leave the world of the living in the US, whether they can personally afford it, or not. Proceedures are getting more expensive, not less, and each and every new life saving proceedure is expected to be available to everybody, regardless of any practibility.

Somebody has to be a gatekeeper to who gets access to what treatments. The person that pays for the treatment should be that gatekeeper. However, Americans do not seem to want insurance companies doing that on their own, they want doctors and patients to make more of those decisions, no matter the cost. So, insurance rates continue to go up.

The solution is obvious: Get rid of the insurance companies. Let the people pay for their healthcare collectively, and collectively, they can select the gatekeepers, to ration out who gets what. Medicare for everybody, more or less. Healthcare providers will just get 30% less than they are getting now for everything, rather than jacking the rates to the insurance companies. Instead of indigent healthcare having to be absorbed into the cost of doing business, the tradeoff is that providers get payment for those folks as well. Maybe, the system will break even, better that the current outlook.

Edited October 25, 2009 by Lone Ranger

[Sofiyya 1,687]

That is not how they pay for it. They don't pay for anything. We do.

Well, we the people, and all that.

I'm against a single payer option. The government doesnt do much of anything well, and thats a demonstrable fact. That being a fact, I don't understand why a nanny state is such a turn on for some. It's like the national morality is based on lowering everyone to the least common denominator so we can all be wanting.

The only reason why people like you can't see the goverment doing anything effectively is a self-fulfilling prophecy. There are many other countries who have been able to implement single payer system quite effectively.

Of course you will counter with the single instances of where those systems failed, often those failures are not unique to the system as they can also be found in the US system.

Hmm, I remnd you that we are talking about the USA. Other countries doing something right has no relation to the US doing the same thing right. And, it's certainly no self-fulfilling prophecy that the feds ** up social programs. That's history. People like me are taxpayers who have seen too much of our hard earned dollars go into failed programs.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

That is not how they pay for it. They don't pay for anything. We do.

Well, we the people, and all that.

I'm against a single payer option. The government doesnt do much of anything well, and thats a demonstrable fact.

Well, it's actually a demonstrable fact that the government (Medicare) has done a much better job in terms of containing health care costs than the private insurance industry has.

Since 1970 Medicare’s average annual per enrollee growth rate of 9.6 percent is lower than the growth rate of 11.1 percent for private health insurers.4 On an annual basis this would not be a very great difference, but over thirty years this finding is important.

...

Exhibit 2 also illustrates that over the past three decades Medicare has been more successful than the private insurance industry has in constraining its per enrollee cost growth for personal health care. By 2000 Medicare’s index number for per enrollee costs was 1,544, compared with 2,176 for private insurance. In other words, by 2000 the index for the private market was 44 percent higher than the index for Medicare.

Apparently, the feds don't agree with you. They are loking for ways to combat fraud in the Medicare system.

H.R. 27, The Medicare Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Act of 2009

H.R. 27 would amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to establish additional provisions to combat waste, fraud, and abuse within the Medicare Program.

http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_HR_27.html

[Sofiyya 1,687]

That is not how they pay for it. They don't pay for anything. We do.

Well, we the people, and all that.

I'm against a single payer option. The government doesnt do much of anything well, and thats a demonstrable fact. That being a fact, I don't understand why a nanny state is such a turn on for some. It's like the national morality is based on lowering everyone to the least common denominator so we can all be wanting.

The current healthcare system will continue to go bankrupt America, until the system is brought under control. The current system provides nearly unlimitted healthcare to all Americans, from the minute they enter the world of the living in the US, until the leave the world of the living in the US, whether they can personally afford it, or not. Proceedures are getting more expensive, not less, and each and every new life saving proceedure is expected to be available to everybody, regardless of any practibility.

Somebody has to be a gatekeeper to who gets access to what treatments. The person that pays for the treatment should be that gatekeeper. However, Americans do not seem to want insurance companies doing that on their own, they want doctors and patients to make more of those decisions, no matter the cost. So, insurance rates continue to go up.

The solution is obvious: Get rid of the insurance companies. Let the people pay for their healthcare collectively, and collectively, they can select the gatekeepers, to ration out who gets what. Medicare for everybody, more or less. Healthcare providers will just get 30% less than they are getting now for everything, rather than jacking the rates to the insurance companies. Instead of indigent healthcare having to be absorbed into the cost of doing business, the tradeoff is that providers get payment for those folks as well. Maybe, the system will break even, better that the current outlook.

Rahm Emmanuel says dont let a good crisis go to waste. He is also good at creating crisis. Most people are not unhappy with their health care coverage or cost. Those who can't afford private insurance already have alternatives. The proposed plan that is bandied around will exempt several special interest groups, including Congress and federal employees - who depend on private insurance companies - so insurance companies are going t be propped up for their sake. Also, there will still be a substantial number of people who will remain uncovered. So, what is the point except to creep government further into 1/6th of the US economy?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

That is not how they pay for it. They don't pay for anything. We do.

Well, we the people, and all that.

I'm against a single payer option. The government doesnt do much of anything well, and thats a demonstrable fact. That being a fact, I don't understand why a nanny state is such a turn on for some. It's like the national morality is based on lowering everyone to the least common denominator so we can all be wanting.

The current healthcare system will continue to go bankrupt America, until the system is brought under control. The current system provides nearly unlimitted healthcare to all Americans, from the minute they enter the world of the living in the US, until the leave the world of the living in the US, whether they can personally afford it, or not. Proceedures are getting more expensive, not less, and each and every new life saving proceedure is expected to be available to everybody, regardless of any practibility.

Somebody has to be a gatekeeper to who gets access to what treatments. The person that pays for the treatment should be that gatekeeper. However, Americans do not seem to want insurance companies doing that on their own, they want doctors and patients to make more of those decisions, no matter the cost. So, insurance rates continue to go up.

The solution is obvious: Get rid of the insurance companies. Let the people pay for their healthcare collectively, and collectively, they can select the gatekeepers, to ration out who gets what. Medicare for everybody, more or less. Healthcare providers will just get 30% less than they are getting now for everything, rather than jacking the rates to the insurance companies. Instead of indigent healthcare having to be absorbed into the cost of doing business, the tradeoff is that providers get payment for those folks as well. Maybe, the system will break even, better that the current outlook.

Rahm Emmanuel says dont let a good crisis go to waste. He is also good at creating crisis. Most people are not unhappy with their health care coverage or cost. Those who can't afford private insurance already have alternatives. The proposed plan that is bandied around will exempt several special interest groups, including Congress and federal employees - who depend on private insurance companies - so insurance companies are going t be propped up for their sake. Also, there will still be a substantial number of people who will remain uncovered. So, what is the point except to creep government further into 1/6th of the US economy?

That is some of what is wrong with the legislation being considered. We are going to end up with a conglomeration of bad ideas in order to get enough votes so that Obama can sign anything just to end this chapter for a while, planning on making further adjustments down the road. The late Pat Moynihan said, any major legislation should pass with at least two-thirds of both the House and the Senate. To get that kind of consensus, you actually need to be legislators, not politicians.

Edited October 25, 2009 by Lone Ranger

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Another huge problem is that the Dims are holding off on implementing the program until Barry is either in his second term (fat chance!) or out of office so his admin is "safe" from the fall out they anticipate. They also expect to collect taxes and fees for the program ahead of time to make it appear that the program costs are lower than they actually will be.