White House to Abandon Public Option?

[The Yosemite Bear]

of course a true lolbertarian will suggest we bring back child labour in order for those children to stop parasiting of the government.

[ArmorPierce]

Didn't you know? If people in a society don't like child labor, the free market will regulate itself.

[Lusankya]

Lusankya, except only 155 million Americans or so are workers, the rest are either dependents of their families or the state.

What's that got to do with anything?

I'm going to take a guess and say the other 135 million don't pay taxes yet still count towards those covered by universal heath care.

I'm well aware of that, but that is an issue encountered in every country. Unless someone can show me that the US has a significantly lower proportion of its population in the workforce than other OECD countries, then any argument along the lines of not everyone being a taxpayer is a load of bunk.

It also doesn't change the fact that Shep overestimated the extra money required by a factor of four. In fact, since the figures I have are from 2004, if we assume that inflation is 2% per annum and that government healthcare spending in the US has increased to match inflation during that time, then the US would already be spending that $2952 that Shep insists that they need to do. In today's dollars, they were already doing that 5 years ago.

[MKSheppard]

It also doesn't change the fact that Shep overestimated the extra money required by a factor of four.

Um, what?

I used an average of all the prices for this example Bobalot posted, leaving out the US of the average for obvious reasons

[PeZook]

I'm well aware of that, but that is an issue encountered in every country. Unless someone can show me that the US has a significantly lower proportion of its population in the workforce than other OECD countries, then any argument along the lines of not everyone being a taxpayer is a load of bunk.

It means that any extra money to be raised by the government in order to pay for health care, has to come from the pockets of the workforce. You can't calculate the amount raised by simply multiplying the total population by 200$, since 145 million have no way of paying that 200$.

And yeah, it's exactly the same in other countries, that goes without saying.

[Darth Raptor]

God fucking forbid we cut into the bloated War Department's budget.

[Lusankya]

Yes, and the average that you came up with was only $200/capita less than the 2004 public funding for US healthcare. Since the US population is about 300 million, that means that for public healthcare spending to reach your magic number, then spending only has to increase by 200x300 million. Which is 60 billion. Which is about a quarter of 244 billion. $244 billion being the amount of extra money that you (wrongly) thought that the US government would have to come up with to provide everyone with UHC. So you know - your numbers are four times off. Because four times 60 is 240, which is close enough to 244 that nobody care. If you type 244/60 into google (or a calculator) it will give you an answer close to 4, because 244 (your number) is approximately four times greater than 60 (the correct number).

I hope that is clear enough for you.

And if I'm not mistaken, that graph there shows the total healthcare spending for each of those countires. So the US, in 2004 spend more public money on healthcare than Finland, Ireland, Italy, Japan and the UK did in total. Had you bothered to look at my PDF, you would know that public healthcare funding in Finland is 76.6% of total spending ($1772 per capita), in Ireland 79.9% of the total ($2074), in Italy 75.1% of spending ($1722), in Japan 81.5% ($1832) and in the UK 86.3% ($2164).*

The US has the world's fourth largest public healthcare spending. That is to say, if it adopted the public healthcare policy of any country other than Luxembourg, Norway or Iceland, then its public healthcare spending would decrease.


*Some of these numbers might seem off, because I'm using the numbers from the PDF that Shep didn't read rather than from the graph, which obviously contains fewer big words that might be difficult to read.

[Lusankya]

I'm well aware of that, but that is an issue encountered in every country. Unless someone can show me that the US has a significantly lower proportion of its population in the workforce than other OECD countries, then any argument along the lines of not everyone being a taxpayer is a load of bunk.

It means that any extra money to be raised by the government in order to pay for health care, has to come from the pockets of the workforce. You can't calculate the amount raised by simply multiplying the total population by 200$, since 145 million have no way of paying that 200$.

And yeah, it's exactly the same in other countries, that goes without saying.

I wasn't talking about money raised. I was talking about money required to provide $2952 worth of healthcare to every person in the country. I never mentioned taxes once in my post. It was all about healthcare expenditure which doesn't change based on the number of people in the workforce. People still need healthcare even if they're not part of the workforce.

[PeZook]

I wasn't talking about money raised. I was talking about money required to provide $2952 worth of healthcare to every person in the country. I never mentioned taxes once in my post. It was all about healthcare expenditure which doesn't change based on the number of people in the workforce. People still need healthcare even if they're not part of the workforce.

Ah, right. I misunderstood you, then.

You know, the funny thing is: even assuming Shep's 244 billion figure is correct, it means every working American would have to find about 1570 dollars per year to pay for his government provided health care.

I checked, and the only policy I could get for that price is total crap (and even then, it would only cover me). Again, assuming Shep's calculations are correct, if I lived in the US, the government could provide comprehensive health care for everyone in my family for less than I'd have to pay for a totally shit policy.

That's a pretty good deal, if you ask me, and that's discounting the fact that you guys already spend enough, the funds are just distributed in a really, really fucked up way.

[Lusankya]

Ghetto edit:

Yes, and the average that you came up with was only $200/capita less more than the 2004 public funding for US healthcare.

[Lord MJ]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090906/ap_ ... e_overhaul

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration's bottom line on a government health insurance option blurred Sunday as White House officials stressed support but stopped short of calling it a must-have part of an overhaul.

As President Barack Obama prepares for a Wednesday night speech to Congress in a risky bid to salvage his top domestic priority, no other issue is so highly charged. Obama's liberal supporters consider the proposal for a public plan to compete with private insurers do-or-die. Republicans say it's unacceptable. It's doubtful the public plan can pass the Senate.

White House political adviser David Axelrod said Obama is "not walking away" from a public plan. But asked if the president would veto a bill that came to him without the option, Axelrod declined to answer.

The president "believes it should be in the plan, and he expects to be in the plan, and that's our position," Axelrod told The Associated Press.

Asked if that means a public plan has to be in the bill for Obama to sign it, Axelrod responded: "I'm not going to deal in hypotheticals. ... He believes it's important."

The biggest challenge Obama faces in his prime-time address is to take ownership of health care legislation that until now has been shaped by political conflicts in Congress. Lawmakers return this week from a summer break that saw eroding public support for an overhaul and contentious town hall meetings in their districts.

The idea of a public plan has become a symbol for the reach of government in a revamped health care system. Supporters say it would give workers and their families similarly secure benefits as older people now get through Medicare, while leaving medical decisions up to doctors and patients. The plan would be offered alongside private coverage through a new kind of purchasing pool called an insurance exchange. At least initially, the exchange would be open to small employers and people buying coverage on their own.

Insurers say they could never compete against the price-setting power of government. Employer groups warn it would undermine the system of job-based coverage.

A public option — or government plan — has come to mean different things to different people. Some say it could be a public trust and independent of the government: nonprofit co-ops could serve as a check on insurance companies. In its original form, supporters envisioned a Medicare-like plan in which the government pays the bills. But it would be financed through premiums paid by beneficiaries, not taxpayer dollars.

While there's strong support for a public plan among House Democrats, the votes appear to be lacking in the Senate.

Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, a swing vote on health care legislation, said the only way a public plan should be included is as a last resort. The government option would only be rolled out if after a few years, private insurers have failed to increase competition and restrain costs.

"If somehow the private market doesn't respond the way it's supposed to, then it would trigger a public option, or a government-run option," Nelson said on "State of the Union" on CNN. "But only as a fail-safe backstop."

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, who joined Axelrod in a one-two administration punch on the Sunday talk shows, said the president believes a government plan would be "a valuable tool." But Gibbs danced around the question of whether it has to be in the final legislation.

"We're not going to prejudge what the process will be when we sign a bill, which the president expects to do this year," he said on ABC's "This Week."

The uncertainty over the administration's position isn't new. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said last month that a government alternative to private insurance is "not the essential element" in revamping the system to guarantee coverage for all and try to curb unsustainable costs.

On Friday, during a call with prominent liberal House members, Obama refused to be pinned down on the public plan, a participant told The Associated Press. "It was unclear as to whether the public option is on or off the table," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

Independents who helped propel Obama to the presidency are increasingly skeptical about his direction on health care. Unsubstantiated allegations that the legislation would promote euthanasia grabbed headlines last month. But beneath such controversies, voters appear most concerned about the scope and costs of the bill — around $1 trillion over 10 years. Obama has said he won't sign a bill unless it is fully paid for and doesn't add to the deficit.

[SirNitram]

Nelson feeling the heat, even if he lives in an alternate reality where it's OK for him to have socialized healthcare, but no one else.

And.. Obama's maybe not being explicit on this must be done? Gosh, I'd worry, but the Senate HELP bill, the tri-commitee House Bill, you know, the vast majority of bills to be consolidated, and the only ones passed and not just hopes and figments of Baucus' stupidity, all have... A robust public option.

But the media is twisting the story to their liking, so everyone pay attention to the shiny object.

[Junghalli]

I don't get why we should worry so much about whether insurance companies will be able to compete. If they can't compete doesn't that just mean they're providing shittier service and we're just watching the free market work its magic? It sure doesn't seem to me like the government would have an incentive to deliberately drive them out of business; I'd think if anything logically they'd want the public option to be as little used as possible because everybody who's in private insurance is somebody who's not consuming the government's resources in that particular way, freeing up that tax revenue to be used for other projects. Is there anything I'm missing here?

I mean, besides insurance companies shitting themselves at their revenue drying up and desperately working the Republican propaganda machine to make sure that doesn't happen.

[Qwerty 42]

I don't get why we should worry so much about whether insurance companies will be able to compete. If they can't compete doesn't that just mean they're providing shittier service and we're just watching the free market work its magic? It sure doesn't seem to me like the government would have an incentive to deliberately drive them out of business; I'd think if anything logically they'd want the public option to be as little used as possible because everybody who's in private insurance is somebody who's not consuming the government's resources in that particular way, freeing up that tax revenue to be used for other projects. Is there anything I'm missing here?

I mean, besides insurance companies shitting themselves at their revenue drying up and desperately working the Republican propaganda machine to make sure that doesn't happen.

I don't disagree with you in the slightest, but consider the mind set of libertarians: a government run business is different from a private business in that it is indomitable. It can drive down costs by having the luxury of consuming tax revenue and getting more favorable tax breaks, things that a regular, good-old-mom-and-pop insurance conglomerate can't compete with. In the mind of hard-line free marketers, this is a bad thing.

[J]

Latest update on the healthcare soap opera...

Yahoo news link

Fines proposed for going without health insurance

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 59 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Americans would be fined up to $3,800 for failing to buy health insurance under a plan that circulated in Congress on Tuesday as divisions among Democrats undercut President Barack Obama's effort to regain traction on his health care overhaul.

As Obama talked strategy with Democratic leaders at the White House, the one idea that most appeals to his party's liberal base lost ground in Congress. Prospects for a government-run plan to compete with private insurers sank as a leading moderate Democrat said he could no longer support the idea.

The fast-moving developments put Obama in a box. As a candidate, he opposed fines to force individuals to buy health insurance, and he supported setting up a public insurance plan. On Tuesday, fellow Democrats publicly begged to differ on both ideas.

Democratic congressional leaders put on a bold front as they left the White House after their meeting with the president.

"We're re-energized; we're ready to do health care reform," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., insisted the public plan is still politically viable. "I believe that a public option will be essential to our passing a bill in the House of Representatives," she said.

After a month of contentious forums, Americans were seeking specifics from the president in his speech to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday night. So were his fellow Democrats, divided on how best to solve the problem of the nation's nearly 50 million uninsured.

The latest proposal: a ten-year, $900-billion bipartisan compromise that Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., a moderate who heads the influential Finance Committee, was trying to broker. It would guarantee coverage for nearly all Americans, regardless of medical problems.

But the Baucus plan also includes the fines that Obama has rejected. In what appeared to be a sign of tension, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs pointedly noted that the administration had not received a copy of the plan before it leaked to lobbyists and news media Tuesday.

The Baucus plan would require insurers to take all applicants, regardless of age or health. But smokers could be charged higher premiums. And 60-year-olds could be charged five times as much for a policy as 20-year-olds.

Baucus said Tuesday he's trying to get agreement from a small group of bipartisan negotiators in advance of Obama's speech. "Time is running out very quickly," he said. "I made that very clear to the group."

Some experts consider the $900-billion price tag a relative bargain because the country now spends about $2.5 trillion a year on health care. But it would require hefty fees on insurers, drug companies and others in the health care industry to help pay for it.

Just as auto coverage is now mandatory in nearly all states, Baucus would require that all Americans get health insurance once the system is overhauled. Penalties for failing to do so would start at $750 a year for individuals and $1,500 for families. Households making more than three times the federal poverty level — about $66,000 for a family of four — would face the maximum fines. For families, it would be $3,800, and for individuals, $950.

Baucus would offer tax credits to help pay premiums for households making up to three times the poverty level, and for small employers paying about average middle-class wages. People working for companies that offer coverage could avoid the fines by signing up.

The fines pose a dilemma for Obama. As a candidate, the president campaigned hard against making health insurance a requirement, and fining people for not getting it.

"Punishing families who can't afford health care to begin with just doesn't make sense," he said during his party's primaries. At the time, he proposed mandatory insurance only for children.

White House officials have since backed away somewhat from Obama's opposition to mandated coverage for all, but there's no indication that Obama would support fines.

One idea that Obama championed during and since the campaign — a government insurance option — appeared to be sinking fast.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told reporters a Medicare-like plan for middle-class Americans and their families isn't an essential part of legislation for him. Hoyer's comments came shortly after a key Democratic moderate said he could no longer back a bill that includes a new government plan.

The fast-moving developments left liberals in a quandary. They've drawn a line, saying they won't vote for legislation if it doesn't include a public plan to compete with private insurance companies and force them to lower costs.

Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., who once supported a public option, said Tuesday that after hearing from constituents during the August recess, he's changed his mind.

"If House leadership presents a final bill that contains a government-run public option, I will oppose it," Ross said.

House Democrats are considering a fallback: using the public plan as a last resort if after a few years the insurance industry has failed to curb costs.

Obama's commitment to a public plan has been in question and lawmakers hoped his speech to Congress would make his position on that clear.

Baucus is calling for nonprofit co-ops to compete in the marketplace instead of a public plan.

An 18-page summary of the Baucus proposal was obtained by The Associated Press. The complex plan would make dozens of changes in the health care system, many of them contentious. For example, it includes new fees on insurers, drug companies, medical device manufacturers and clinical labs.

People working for major employers would probably not see big changes. The plan is geared to helping those who now have the hardest time getting and keeping coverage: the self-employed and small business owners.

I'm sure levying new fees on the healthcare & pharmaceutical companies will do wonders for making healthcare more affordable, and I'm sure those people who can't afford insurance will be able to pay a hefty fine for being poor. Jesus, could they possibly come up with a more retarded plan?

[SirNitram]

It's Baucus, J. His bill got to K Street lobbyists before the White House. 'Nuff said.

[Darth Yoshi]

Goddamn, that's retarded. You're too poor to buy health insurance, so we'll fine you? What? If you're going to mandate everyone buy health insurance under threat of fining, why not just skip the middleman and include it with income taxes? Then everyone will have a minimum basic standard to fall back on. Fucking morons.

[PeZook]

I think I've read one iteration of the bill that contained price controls on insurance premiums, though. Is that still going to be in?

If you follow Holland and mandate that private insurers have to cover <insert procedure list> and offer a basic insurance package with the above included for no more than <insert affordable price> and have to accept anyone regardless of pre-existing conditions, it should work out OK.

Of course, the fine thing is completely retarded anyway. Hey, let's put the poor further in debt with punitive fines!

[Vendetta]

Goddamn, that's retarded. You're too poor to buy health insurance, so we'll fine you? What? If you're going to mandate everyone buy health insurance under threat of fining, why not just skip the middleman and include it with income taxes? Then everyone will have a minimum basic standard to fall back on. Fucking morons.

But... But.. Socialism.

[SirNitram]

I think I've read one iteration of the bill that contained price controls on insurance premiums, though. Is that still going to be in?

Both the Senate HELP Bill and the House Bill have that. And all three(Those two and Baucus' bad farce) include subsidies up to 100% for the poor.

[Pablo Sanchez]

It's Baucus, J. His bill got to K Street lobbyists before the White House. 'Nuff said.

In a sane political party Harry Reid would have hauled him into his office and broken his arm the moment he announced his intention to exclude 75% of committee from the negotiation in a favor of processing involving representatives of no state more populous than fucking Iowa. Meanwhile he's been publicly humiliated by Chuck Grassley on repeated occasions as the Senator from Iowa says he doesn't intend to vote for Baucus's bill no matter what is in it, yet Max continues to negotiate with the guy, which is just fucking bizarre. What do you say to that guy the next time you meet at the table? "Well Chuck, in spite of what you said in public about how you were playing me and none of your negotiations are in good faith, why don't we get back to work?" The only way I can justify that in my own head is by assuming that Baucus himself is acting in bad faith and doesn't even want his own bill to pass. If anybody can think of another way to explain it, I'm all ears.

How somebody can be such a cunt and not get in trouble with the rest of the Senate is just beyond me. Baucus's complete asshattery might actually be good, because this kind of behavior gives everybody a reason to completely ignore his version of the bill in conference.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Salon.com Story

Guess I spoke a little soon; back from a vacation and finally waking the fuck up, Baucus has said that he'll have "Finance Committee" bill with or without the support of the Republicans in the Gang of Six. I put "Finance Committee" in quotes because it will basically be a bill that he made up himself and will just submit it to a vote before the committee, as if his extended and ultimately useless delays aren't going to force them to vote for his piece of shit bill in the interests of speed anyway. Baucus is such a fucking schlemiel. Even if at long last he was able to scrape his feeble brains together and realize that he's been utterly duped, it still took him a long fucking time and his bill will still fucking suck, so thanks for being a retarded loser, Max. Let's all look forward to our future years of a feckless cretin in charge of one of the most important Senate committees.

[Darth Yoshi]

Goddamn, that's retarded. You're too poor to buy health insurance, so we'll fine you? What? If you're going to mandate everyone buy health insurance under threat of fining, why not just skip the middleman and include it with income taxes? Then everyone will have a minimum basic standard to fall back on. Fucking morons.

But... But.. Socialism.

That's essentially what's being proposed anyway. At least with government health insurance you'd get something out of it, rather than shell out money for some nebulous undefined thing.