Skip to main content

Speaker Pelosi and Henry Waxman just made the announcement to reporters. From Huffpo

But evidently the house bill is complete and ready to be voted on by August to meet the president's timeline. It mentions that taxes would be increased on the rich to pay for it and that employers and individuals would be required to purhcase it. It also says insurers could not be exluded for pre-existing conditions.

Sorry for the short diary, there just isn't much more information available yet.

UPDATE I
Huffington post article does mention public option,not explicitly by name but by description HT to NU FAN for pointing it out

House Democrats readied legislation Tuesday that imposes penalties on employers who fail to provide health insurance for their workers and on individuals who refuse to buy it, part of a sweeping effort to overhaul the nation's health care system.

The bill, to be debated in committee beginning later this week, would require insurance companies to offer coverage, without exceptions or higher premiums in cases of pre-existing medical conditions. It also would allow the government to sell insurance in competition with private firms, a provision that has sparked objections from Republicans and even some Democrats

Update II
Have renamed Breaking back into title as it is still a breaking story.

Originally posted to Phil In Denver on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 12:52 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (29+ / 1-)

    "crush in it's birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government" -Thomas Jefferson

    by Phil In Denver on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 12:52:53 PM PDT

  •  maybe you could have waited... (13+ / 0-)

    ...until you had more information?

    Just a thought.

    You are entitled to express your opinion. But you are NOT entitled to agreement.

    by DawnG on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 12:53:34 PM PDT

  •  Did you even read the article you linked to? (23+ / 0-)

    It also would allow the government to sell insurance in competition with private firms, a provision that has sparked objections from Republicans and even some Democrats.

    The legislation would set up a new government-run health insurance program to compete with private coverage. The plan's payments to medical providers such as hospitals and doctors would be keyed to the rates paid by Medicare, which are lower than what private insurers pay.

    Eventually, all individuals and employers would be offered the option of joining the public plan. The insurance industry says that would drive many private insurers out of business.

    They tortured people to get false confessions to fraudulently justify our invading Iraq.

    by Kaili Joy Gray on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 12:55:36 PM PDT

    •  now if only someone... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Angry Mouse, mdmslle

      ...would write a diary about that.

      You are entitled to express your opinion. But you are NOT entitled to agreement.

      by DawnG on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 12:58:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's a breaking news article (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Gemina13, math4barack

      it was not all in there when I first saw it.

      "crush in it's birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government" -Thomas Jefferson

      by Phil In Denver on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:07:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  From what I understand (0+ / 0-)

      Subsidies for the public option only apply up to 400% FPL, which is $88,000 for a family of four.

      Not good enough. Especially if there is an individual mandate to buy insurance in the bill.

      I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

      by eugene on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:27:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Why isn't that good enough? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        slinkerwink, Gemina13, math4barack

        I'm very near the top of that range myself, I can afford to pay for health insurance right now, even if not employer subsidized. This would mean I would get a subsidy I don't even need. I see no reason why that range should be any higher.

        "crush in it's birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government" -Thomas Jefferson

        by Phil In Denver on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:30:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Take yourself out of the picture (0+ / 0-)

          Two Californians with $45,000 incomes each, and with two kids, would not qualify for subsidy. Yet that income isn't nearly enough to live on in much of CA, even if one rents and keeps other expenses low.

          The reason this will be a very big problem, though, is that there is an individual mandate in the bill. What that means is the middle class, which feels squeezed right now as it is, will not benefit from the subsidies but will be convinced by Republicans that their taxes have gone up anyway.

          This has the makings of political disaster.

          I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

          by eugene on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:55:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not sure I buy that (0+ / 0-)

            I live in the Washington DC area now, just about as expensive as some of the pricier areas in California. I don't see a lot of difference except that our property taxes are MUCH higher here.

            I'll take myself out of the picture and put in a hypothetical person but still the mathematics does not change. But right now there is a bigger problem, this bill won't kick in fully until 2019. Worse than the 7 year triggers.

            "crush in it's birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government" -Thomas Jefferson

            by Phil In Denver on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:59:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

              •  It's hard to tell (0+ / 0-)

                I'm not a lawyer so I read interpretations. Could not make heads or tales of the legalese in the bill itself. Some are saying there is some kind of evaluation period. Check a couple posts upthread, there are some links to the bill and some interpretations, I'm not really sure what to believe.

                "crush in it's birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government" -Thomas Jefferson

                by Phil In Denver on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:11:22 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  evaluation period<->trigger? (0+ / 0-)
                  •  None of that sounds good (0+ / 0-)

                    Eval period? Some stuff doesn't kick in until 2019? Sure, the details matter, but I can't see any detail that would make either one palatable.

                    I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

                    by eugene on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:28:00 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Cover up... the REAL MODEL for public option (0+ / 0-)

                      The real model for public option is the high risk pool and even when heavily subsidized, they lose money like crazy.

                      The problem with the government admitting that- (although MANY OTHERS have said repeatedly that Obama WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SAVE MUCH MONEY WITH THE FEW AND INADEQUATE THINGS HE SAYS WILL)  is that then we have to seriously start looking at single payer, or give up on affordability.

                      Description by the National Association of State Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans (NASCHIP) "What is a Risk Pool"
                      The board contracts with an established insurance company to collect premiums and pay claims and administer the program on a day-to-day basis. Insurance benefits vary, but risk pools typically offer benefits that are comparable to (MORE EXPENSIVE) basic private market plans -- 80/20 major medical and outpatient coverage, a choice of deductible and co-payments. Maximum lifetime benefits vary by state from as low as $350,000 (thats way too low) to $2 million. (thats still too low in the case of a really serious illness)
                         
                         * Generally, (once one is qualified to join by uninsurability elsewhere) there are no exclusions. However, risk pools do have waiting periods for coverage of pre-existing conditions to make sure individuals pay for continual coverage and the program can operate financially sound. Without waiting periods, the concern is that too many people could forego paying for insurance until they had a high cost claim, and the programs could not function financially. However, under the federal portability legislation, people who have had continuous coverage in the group market, not broken by more than 63 days, can access coverage in risk pools without any waiting periods. (in reality many of the state risk pools are perennially bankrupt or on the edge of bankruptcy.. some have long waiting lists, even though they are very expensive- check with your local state office for your situation. In Oregon, they have a lottery. If you win, you can pay $2000 a month for high risk insurance!)
                           
                         * Risk pool insurance generally costs more than regular individual insurance, but the premiums are capped by law in each state to protect the individual from exorbitant costs. The caps range from as low as 125 percent of the average (for COMPARABLE private coverage) in some states, up to 200 percent of the average or more in other states. Most states offer coverage at less than 150 percent of the average.
                           
                         * All state risk pools inherently lose money and need to be subsidized. While the individuals in risk pools pay somewhat higher premiums, roughly 50 percent of overall operating costs need to be subsidized. Subsidy mechanisms also vary from state to state -- some states assess all insurance carriers, HMO's and other insurance providers; others provide an appropriation from state general tax revenue; some states share funding of loss subsidies with the insurance industry using an assessment of insurance carriers and providing them a tax credit for the assessment, or other states have a special funding source, such as a tobacco tax, or a hospital or health care provider surcharge.
                           
                         * It is important to note that risk pools are not created expressly to serve the indigent or poor who cannot afford health insurance. Risk pools are designed to serve people who would not otherwise have the right to purchase health insurance protection. The indigent can access coverage through state medical assistance, Medicaid or similar programs. However, some state risk pools do have a subsidy for lower income, medically uninsurable people.
                           
                         * For information about your state, see "States That Have Risk Pools" or contact your state insurance department.

                      Unemployed people can't afford COBRA, so how will people be able to afford the COBRA-like premiums of public option? And what about the underinsured?

                      by Andiamo on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 05:05:05 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  In much of CA (0+ / 0-)

              $90,000 can provide a middle class lifestyle -- but I think eugene's concern, which I share, is that health insurance is so expensive that it'll hugely impact people right around that subsidy line who are already feeling pretty squeezed. I wish there were a better way to link the subsidy to cost of living in different areas, but that would become incredibly complicated. Here in Sacramento, $90,000 is solid, but in the bay area, I could see having that kind of income and having to potentially pay out of pocket for insurance being a pretty major burden.

              I'd also like to see the subsidy raised for people approaching the 400% line -- on FDL, it looks like they're capping out-of-pocket expense at 11% for the higher-income subsidized folks. That's a pretty decent hit. I'm not sure how that interacts with the employer mandate, though, it's worth noting. And, of course, a lot depends IMO on whether the overall costs can be brought down, too. It's why having the public option, open to all, is a line in the sand for me (and many of us).

              Implementation seems to peak in 2013 with the creation of the public health option, expansion of  Medicaid to 133% of the poverty line, and new mandates for employers to either provide coverage or pay into the system. Here's the outline I'm looking at.

              •  $50,000 in the Bay Area is just enough to (0+ / 0-)

                survive on.. and that was several years ago..

                Any less than that, things start breaking..

                thats for a single person, NOT a couple..

                certainly not a family..

                In New York, its even higher..

                Unemployed people can't afford COBRA, so how will people be able to afford the COBRA-like premiums of public option? And what about the underinsured?

                by Andiamo on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 03:59:00 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  But the minute you get sick- (0+ / 0-)

          those uncovered costs will kill you.

          For example, every time you go to a doctor, there is a large chunk of money, sometimes it can be over a thousand dollars for a minor problem, that insurance doesn't cover. YOU SOON REALIZE THAT YOU CAN'T GO TO THE DOCTOR FOR CERTAIN KINDS OF THINGS- the things you really SHOULD

          Unemployed people can't afford COBRA, so how will people be able to afford the COBRA-like premiums of public option? And what about the underinsured?

          by Andiamo on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 05:09:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  So what is the truth of the matter. Is the Public (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nick Zouroudis

    Option in it or not?

  •  from the AP (7+ / 0-)

    The bill, to be debated in committee beginning later this week, also would require insurance companies to offer coverage, without exceptions or higher premiums in cases of pre-existing medical conditions. It also would allow the government to sell insurance in competition with private firms, a provision that has sparked objections from Republicans and even some Democrats.

    "Presidents place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution. They don't put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."

    by Feliks on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 12:56:04 PM PDT

    •  So, when does it start.. (0+ / 0-)

      They will jack prices up for everybody, or leave the market where the law applies.

      Which might be a good thing..

      But, I think the chances of this happening the way people seem to think it will approaches 0%

      THERE ARE THINGS THAT LEGISLATORS CAN'T CHANGE EVEN IF THEY WANT TO

      Unemployed people can't afford COBRA, so how will people be able to afford the COBRA-like premiums of public option? And what about the underinsured?

      by Andiamo on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 04:02:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Doesn't say it's not there (3+ / 0-)

    Update:

    It also would allow the government to sell insurance in competition with private firms

    (AP) Clumsy code for public option?

    If man could be crossed with the cat, it would improve man,
    but it would deteriorate the cat. / -9.5, -7.0

    by Amayi on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 12:56:05 PM PDT

  •  I think is it there. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PhillyGal

    If there is no public option, what the hell are they going to tax the rich to pay for?

    We confused "Yes We Can" with "Yes We Will."

    by rf7777 on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 12:58:31 PM PDT

  •  Delete this. Misinformation (0+ / 0-)

    Come on... this isn't helping.

    Thinking men cannot be ruled. --Ayn Rand

    by Wisper on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 12:58:37 PM PDT

  •  Great! Now it is officially on the Table. Let's (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ferg, Gemina13

    see if how many Kongress Persons dare try and take it off.

  •  Bull Crap (11+ / 0-)

    I watched the announcement on CNN.com/live and they mentioned the Public Option multiple times.  Waxman at least 3 times that I can remember - even in reference to the Blue Dogs.

    Demographics do not equal destiny.

    by dr fatman on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 12:59:59 PM PDT

  •  The bill's up at TPM and explicitly mentions a (5+ / 0-)

    government run option to compete with private insurance. Not sure how much clearer the legislation could be...

    When Republicans win, everyone else loses.

    by skigrl84 on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:03:20 PM PDT

    •  yeah, it's in there. (4+ / 0-)

      I'm on Twitter so if you'd like to follow my tweets, please do!

      by slinkerwink on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:08:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But there are DOUGHNUT HOLE PROBLEMS (0+ / 0-)

        "AFFORDABILITY CREDITS Effective 2013, sliding scale affordability credits are provided to individuals and families between 133% to 400% of poverty. That means the credits phase out completely for an individual with $43,320 in income and a family of four with $88,200 in income (2009)."

        And they will probably be very low for people near the top of that range.. SO WHAT, SPECIFICALLY WILL THE PREMIUMS BE?

        "Premiums: The sliding scale credits limit individual family spending on premiums for the essential benefit package to no more than 1.5% of income for those with the lowest income and phasing up to no more than 11% of income for those at 400% of poverty."

        Right now, people are spending MUCH, MUCH MORE THAN THAT ON MEDICAL COSTS.. What about those who make more than 400% of FPL.. The problem with keeping insurance companies in the loop is that THEY TAKE SO MUCH OFF THE TOP AND PAY FOR SO LITTLE.. THEY CANNOT JUST CUT OFF LIMITS ON UNCOVERED COSTS - IF THEY MAKE THEM FOR THE VERY POOREST ONLY THEN THERE WILL BE A HUGE DOUGHNUT HOLE EFFECT WHEN PEOPLE MAKE ONE DOLLAR MORE THAN 400% FPL, like in Massachusetts. ALSO, from the beginning its been clear that the numbers didn't add up for people who were sick- people with chronic illness have a lot of co-pays - for example, obscenely expensive prescriptions and often, uncovered costs- those co-pays add up fast- also uncovered costs.. This is THE MAIN REASON THAT 101,000 people die unnecessarily in the US each year who would not die in civilized nations- People have to not be afraid to go to the doctor - People may OFTEN not be able to pay BOTH premiums and these costs- ALSO, if the care in network is substandard, it becomes a matter of life or death sometimes to get other care- many HMOs only have doctors in network who limit treatments - and patients find that they have to go out of network to get adequate treatment- or they stay sick forever-

        "Cost sharing: The affordability credits also subsidize cost sharing on a sliding scale basis, phasing out at 400% of poverty, ensuring that covered benefits are accessible."

        STUDIES HAVE SHOWN THAT CO-PAYS AND DEDUCTIBLES END UP COSTING MORE THAN THEY SAVE SPECIFICS ON CO-PAYS AND THINGS LIKE DRUG COVERAGE ARE ESSENTIAL HERE- IS THERE EVEN DRUG COVERAGE? Also, people who make more than 400% of FPL are REALLY HURTING NOW BECAUSE THEY STILL HAVE TO PAY HUGE PREMIUMS, often as much as a third of their income is just premiums, and then often, those policies don't cover much..

        " The Health Insurance Exchange administers the affordability credits in relationship with other federal and state entities, such as local Social Security offices and Medicaid agencies. CAP ON TOTAL OUT-OF-POCKET SPENDING The essential benefit package, and all other benefit options, limit exposure to catastrophic costs with a cap on total out of pocket spending for covered benefits."

        That COULD be very good, but somehow, I have to wonder, since without cost control it could be hugely expensive, DOES IT APPLY TO EVERYBODY IN A PUBLIC PLAN,or just those poor who also have managed to pay the premium, and NOT the slightly better off, OR EVERYBODY WHO IS INSURED? IF IT DOES, WHO PAYS FOR IT? Does this cap on total out of pocket apply to everyone, or just "on a sliding scale" to those within a certain range of FPL?

        "MEDICAID (SEE SEPARATE MEDICAID FACT SHEET FOR DETAILS) Effective 2013, individuals with family income at or below 133% of poverty ($14,400 for an individual in 2009) are eligible for Medicaid."

        After they have spent everything they have on bills? And is it still a loan against assets like a home?

        "State Medicaid programs would continue to cover those individuals with incomes above 133% of poverty, using the eligibility rules states now have in place."

        Sounds like it..

        Unemployed people can't afford COBRA, so how will people be able to afford the COBRA-like premiums of public option? And what about the underinsured?

        by Andiamo on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 03:45:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  AND OBAMA ALSO HAS WEIGHED IN SUPPORT OF THIS (9+ / 0-)

    on the record through a press release.  This is huge. Folks, the fight is on. Recommend Slinkerwink and NYCeve's pages.

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

  •  Timing (0+ / 0-)

    Via NYTimes

    The bill will prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, and will also require all Americans to obtain health insurance. But many of its key provisions, including the public insurance option, will take several years to kick in.

  •  Here's a LINK to the actual bill... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tommurphy, Losty, math4barack

    ...and summaries of its various elements: E&C Committee

  •  Any Specification on Small Size of Biz's That (0+ / 0-)

    would be excluded from mandate?

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:59:26 PM PDT

    •  Payrolls < $250K are exempt (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Losty

      then a penalty of 2% gradually rising to 8% as payroll increases to $400k if employer does not provide insurance.

      "crush in it's birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government" -Thomas Jefferson

      by Phil In Denver on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:02:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I read somewhere that only (0+ / 0-)

    97% coverage of the population is expected.

  •  please put or link document when available - (0+ / 0-)

    thank you.

    Definitely worth a diary - this is fine.
    Hopefully, no diary police will come here, but if they do, ignore them.

    thanks for writing this- otherwise I would not have known! So, that's an example of why this is a good diary!

  •  Important MATH question, please read- (0+ / 0-)

    IS THIS A BAILOUT-

    WILL IT BE AFFORDABLE FOR PEOPLE?

    MANY people probably won't be able to afford it.

    I am wondering..

    Right now, MANY people are spending OVER A THIRD OF THEIR INCOMES ON HEALTH COSTS...

    the GOVERNMENT ALREADY PAYS 60% of all healthcare costs- including many of those of the sickest patients - Even though 3/4 of those declaring bankruptcy started out with health insurance - many of them don't manage to keep their insurance-because the uncovered costs literally kill them SO, the government ends up paying through Medicaid - which is cheap payment- but fairly efficient UNLIKE INSURANCE COMPANIES..

    BUT NOW..

    Unless they are going to reduce that THIRD OF EVERY HEALTHCARE DOLLAR that goes to INSURANCE COMPANIES...

    BY increasing the percentage of "the sickest" who have "insurance"  the share going to the INSURANCE COMPANIES is probably going to go WAY UP.

    Unemployed people can't afford COBRA, so how will people be able to afford the COBRA-like premiums of public option? And what about the underinsured?

    by Andiamo on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:48:36 PM PDT

    •  maybe this is a dumb question: aren't they (0+ / 0-)

      planning on subsidizing the cost for the poor ?

      I agree with your overall point-  

      It is far more efficient to not have to pay the advertising costs, administrative costs which private companies must incur.

      And Single Payer is the one way to make sure that everybody, including the poor, is covered.

      •  They need to subsidize the cost a LOT (0+ / 0-)

        for both the poor and middle class..

        OR THINGS ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO GET WORSE..

        What are they going to do to limit out of pocket costs, and limit uncovered costs?

        FOR EVERYBODY

        Unemployed people can't afford COBRA, so how will people be able to afford the COBRA-like premiums of public option? And what about the underinsured?

        by Andiamo on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 03:52:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, it's subsidized (0+ / 0-)

        Medicaid to people up to 133% of poverty line, insurance coverage progressively subsidized up to 400% (about $44,000 for a single person).

        I'm not clear on how that interacts with the employer mandates, for example, and I'd like to see subsidies go higher (in some parts of the country, $44,000 doesn't carry you that far), but there is subsidy of the poor and lower middle class.

        •  $44,000 is not lower middle class.. (0+ / 0-)

          its poor.. so poor that you can barely keep a roof over your head, on the coasts..

          Unemployed people can't afford COBRA, so how will people be able to afford the COBRA-like premiums of public option? And what about the underinsured?

          by Andiamo on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 04:07:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I live in CA (0+ / 0-)

            two of us on just about that, while I'm too sick to work. It's lower middle class here.

            In the bay area and in a chunk of socal, I agree with you that it's trickier, though I'm still not sure I'd characterize it as "poor". Depends on your point of view. I've lived in the bay area on less.

            •  Try to rent an apartment- you can't (0+ / 0-)

              a room, yes, but your name won't be on the lease..

              Unemployed people can't afford COBRA, so how will people be able to afford the COBRA-like premiums of public option? And what about the underinsured?

              by Andiamo on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 05:12:35 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  That said, (0+ / 0-)

            again, I would like to see the subsidies go higher. Cost of living varies pretty widely.

    •  this does seem to lead to increasing inefficiency (0+ / 0-)
  •  Is the individual mandate (0+ / 0-)

    penalty still 2% of AGI?

    8/29 changed everything Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -6.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.10

    by wsexson on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:55:17 PM PDT

  •  Is the Coverage for Abortion in the bill? (0+ / 0-)

    This may be a problem to pass the bill with some...

    Some of the Conservadems, and some Regular Dems won't vote for it if there is federal funding for abortions.  Regardless of the merits, this may be a problem to pass it..

  •  actuarial question - if private insurance (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Andiamo

    companies don't get to raise the price or deny an offer of coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, then is it not possible or likely that in many of those cases the cost of covering them will be more than the insurance company will make ?

    I have always wondered this and maybe I am completely missing something obvious, but :

    Let's say that I don't have coverage through my employer or my spouse's employer. And I want to buy health insurance. Why would I ? For what possible reason? It certainly would not be to reduce my current costs on health care. For the private insurance company would not offer me coverage at a price that was less than what they had to spend on me (e.g. prescription medications). They are, after all, in business to make money.

    So, the only possible motive would be to avoid having to pay catastrophic illness expenses all at once. And over time, the insurance company believes that they are making money off of you.

    Now, what will they do with more expensive people they must insure ? They can't deny them an offer of coverage; they can't raise their price of insurance. So, they must raise the cost of insurance for everybody.

    Or lose money.

    And none of these options work.

    So, they're done.

    What am I missing here ?

  •  Pre screening for income based on LAST YEARS INCO (0+ / 0-)

    people who made a lot of money in the previous year, even if their income had suddenly vanished since then, seem to be "pre-screened" out of eligibility.. at least they were in some of the other bills I saw..

    that's not acceptable or just..

    The "Public Option" vs. Single Payer Compared
    Single payer is the real change that they are trying to stop.
     Single-Payer"Public Option"
    Number InsuredUniversal Coverage for All Americans. (Automatic enrollment)Millions could remain uninsured or underinsured because of rules, limitations, missed payments, waiting periods, income too high, lack of affordability or uncovered costs. "Health reform may simply be a mandate to purchase insurance, with few if any changes to make it affordable for all". Public plan if it emerges will almost certainly be unaffordable for- or limited to- some groups, like the uninsured, only. i.e. "level playing field".
    CoverageCoverage for all medically necessary services. Improves quality of care for all Americans, rich and poor by putting patients needs first.Insurers continue to strip-down policies and increase patients' co-payments and deductibles. Drug coverage may be nonexistant or limited to generics or an arbitrary formulary. Government plan, if it survives, may be mandated to only offer insurance comparable in cost and quality to private insurers, not better!
    CostRedirects more than $ 350 billion in administrative waste to care; No net increase in health spending. Incease efficiency by merging Medicare, VA system, all others into new national entity. Drastically reduce billing infrastructure. Could act as stimulus, one study predicts 2.6M new jobs.Already acknowledged to increase health spending more than $ 1 trillion over 10 years. (Or $ 310 / year per person at current population levels.) Weak or no controls on cost increases. Insurance price increases keyed to age will continue to cause layoffs of Americans over 40. Families that miss payments due to uncovered costs will find themselves without coverage. Many formerly middle class families with even one sick member could experience sticker shock as health insurance premiums plus uncovered costs soar to a third, or even half of their income, or more. NO LIMITS on uncovered costs as a percentage of income while "insured".
    SavingsPrevents more than $ 350 billion in administrative waste. Further systemic savings achieved through negotiated fee schedules with physicians, global budgeting of hospitals, bulk purchasing of pharmaceuticals, transparent planning of capital expenditures, etc.Adds further layers of administrative bloat to our health system through the introduction of a regulator / broker 'exchange' to conceal inadequate affordability. Would save 101,000 or more lives currently lost in preventable deaths due to lack of access to needed care (compared to other industrialized nations.) Reductions in stress would improve health of Americans, reduce learning disabilities, and senior dementia, and reduce obesity.
    SustainabilityLarge scale cost controls (global budgeting, capital planning, etc.) ensure that benefits are sustainable over the long term. Proven track record on long-term cost reduction in many other nations around the globe.Uncontrolled costs ensure that any gains in coverage are quickly erased during economic slumps as government is forced to hike premiums or slash benefits. Like state high risk pools, high suceptibility to adverse selection will result in a sicker risk pool. Public option's lack of cost control means that it will be much more expensive. To saddle the public option with a "self sustaining" requirement will result in a death spiral.

    Unemployed people can't afford COBRA, so how will people be able to afford the COBRA-like premiums of public option? And what about the underinsured?

    by Andiamo on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 04:53:28 PM PDT

  •  ONLY THOSE WITH "affordability credits can choose (0+ / 0-)

    "Individuals with affordability credits can choose among the private carriers and the public option."

    Does that mean that individuals who make more than 3 or 4 times the FPL will be doomed to have to shop for individual insurance on the private market FOREVER- with no prohibition against their charging them whatever they want?

    THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS..

    Unemployed people can't afford COBRA, so how will people be able to afford the COBRA-like premiums of public option? And what about the underinsured?

    by Andiamo on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 05:42:26 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site