Skip to main content

View Diary: Daschle trying to kill the Public Option for UnitedHealth (79 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Read the bill. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gmb, NoMoreLies, lizard people

    There is prohibition against recission.  There are caps to annual fees.  There is a commission which would regulate rates (based on loss ratios).  

    But unfortunately, a lot of this is just tinkering with a broken system.  Without an alternative to cheaply involve another 40 million people in healthcare, the bill will just be a boondoggle for the healthcare industry.

    "In politics, what begins in fear usually ends in folly." ---- Coleridge

    by captainlaser on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 06:34:54 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Not really (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike, soms

      The Exchanges are where the consumers push the prices down against the Healthcare Industry.  The way the public option is structured now, you would get very marginal rate changes.  It wouldn't be that different.  

    •  Yeah yeah, read the bill. Which one are you (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gmb, corvo

      talking about? Which committee's, what changes are being made, other than public option by the 6? What exactly are people fighting for and against. What parts of it are both house and senate supported.

      I have heard numerous takes on this, and most say that it appears to be another give away to the Corporate execs, minus the public option that is.

      It seems like the recission prohibition is a common theme, but are there different approaches to this? How much latitude do the insurance companies get with this?

      Also, and I am not saying this in a snide way. If you say something like

      READ THE BILL, then supply a link to what you want me to read.

      •  It's not a "giveaway" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        soms

        If getting people health insurance and insuring people at a low rate (or if you're really poor, at no rate due to subsidies) is some sort of "bailout" then folks aren't paying attention.

        A "bailout" is when taxpayers give money to an industry with no chance of getting anything in return.  Here, we're getting insurance and our moral plank of insuring every American has insurance is finally met.  

        •  If the government is paying large sums of money (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          slinkerwink, NoMoreLies

          to insurance companies just for them to pick up people they don't want, I see that as a taxpayer giveaway. It seems like subsidy to a for profit organization to me. I would rather see the government force the corporations to take these people at lower rates, or provide the service itself.

          •  That's the idea (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            soms

            Do you have any idea what's in the reforms?  Honestly, good God man.  There is a cap on payments, where folks don't have to pay above a certain amount above pocket, I mean preventing from ANYONE from going broke on health insurance is a pretty big thing.  

            •  A cap on individual payments, how much money (0+ / 0-)

              do you think the government will be paying to the insurance executives to make up the difference?

              Good god, man? Whatever, thanks for your input

              •  Doesn't matter (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                soms

                At this point, we're helping folks from going poor and bankrupt, I can't see how you could argue that's a bad thing.

                •  If my choices are these: (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  NoMoreLies

                  A: Government just gives billions of dollars to insurance companies to cover everybody and gets screwed by them. Meaning waste, fraud, and abuse that comes with most of these enterprises (See Military Industrial Complex)

                  B: Government provides a public alternative that is reasonable and does not take  money away from Schools, bridge building, clean energy initiatives, etc... unnecessarily.

                  I think A is a bad choice and would vote against it.

                  •  How about? (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    soms

                    A:  Government insures 47 million americans have healthcare (regardless of those ramifications).

                    B:  Status quo.  

                    Here's what it's going to come down to (assuming there's no public option).  You're either insuring that 47 million americans will finally have health insurance completing a moral plank we've been fighting for, for SEVENTY YEARS or you refuse to provide money to the health insurance industry.  That's really all it is.  

    •  Obama hasn't endorsed (0+ / 0-)

      HR 3200 or the Senate HELP committee bills.  So we really don't know which details he really supports.

      11D chess, you know.  

      Private health insurers always manage to stay one step ahead of the sheriff - Sen. Sherrod Brown

      by Betty Pinson on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 07:47:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site