Senate committee approves health care plan

[garbon]

Also, I like that everything is historic now. Such heady days, indeed.

[garbon]

won't blow up deficits because those people are already being treated for illnesses in emergency rooms with bills being footed largely by state and local governments.

Sounds like they already have healthcare then. Problem solved.

[BuddhaRhubarb]

Is there any real reform here or just a bunch of money being put into the pockets of insurers?

It's definitely real.  Elimination of screening is a huge deal, and so is introduction of mandates.  I also wouldn't assume that money would flow into the pockets of insurers, they could take it in the ass big time if this goes wrong.

that would be terrible. Not. If anyone deserves an ass-raping or three it's Insurance companies.

Yes, those fatcats are rolling in the dough with their whopping 3.3% profit margins. 

:rolleyes. Yeah they're hurting.

3.3%  this year when no one can afford to make premiums. wow go figure. but a company's history means nothing right? it's only value is this quarter and maybe next. sure. gotcha.

[alfred russel]

won't blow up deficits because those people are already being treated for illnesses in emergency rooms with bills being footed largely by state and local governments.

Sounds like they already have healthcare then. Problem solved.

Or not, because they don't have access to all parts of the system. Plus people that don't get health insurance through their employer are in a real bind--they have to pay a lot for coverage if they can get it at all.

[garbon]

Or not, because they don't have access to all parts of the system.

Everyone can't have access to everything.

[Alatriste]

The problem is that social insurance is incompatible with a competetive private insurance industry.  Pregnant women need to be covered, but what insurance company in their right mind would offer to do it when it would obviously be a huge money loser?  It's very hard to reconcile the social insurance goal with the need to earn profits and not be out-competed, and IMO it's a fool's errand to try.

Not so. We have social insurance and a competitive private insurance industry. IMHO what you certainly can't have is private firms providing social insurance. There is a basic incompatibility in the objectives.

[alfred russel]

Or not, because they don't have access to all parts of the system.

Everyone can't have access to everything.

But everyone can have access to a primary care physician.

[The Larch]

The problem is that social insurance is incompatible with a competetive private insurance industry.  Pregnant women need to be covered, but what insurance company in their right mind would offer to do it when it would obviously be a huge money loser?  It's very hard to reconcile the social insurance goal with the need to earn profits and not be out-competed, and IMO it's a fool's errand to try.

Not so. We have social insurance and a competitive private insurance industry. IMHO what you certainly can't have is private firms providing social insurance. There is a basic incompatibility in the objectives.

Obviously our private health insurance companies are either devilishly cunning or have made a pact with Satan, because it is very well known that public health systems annihilate every other possible actor in the health sector. [/sarcasm]

[KRonn]

So this plan went  as written for the Congressional Budget Office to do the math. Came out with some savings. But that's with cutting lots of waste from Medicare, which has never been done and won't happen now. The bill may just cut Medicare funds which will exacerbate that program, which is already broke, and only pays a portion of costs to doctors. As  a result many docs don't take Medicare patients, and/or pass costs on to other patients where they can. If the govt could actually fix/reform Medicare that would actually, maybe, save money. But the last time reform was tried, or any time, the other political party cries foul! I think the Repubs tried last time and got slammed by the Dems for tossing old people out on the street. And I think that was just to slow the rise in costs, not to actually cut anything. Now we're being made to believe that some kind of real reform is going to happen,  out of this mass of a mess of a bill, and that will cover some of the costs of the new bill? That's a sham and we all know it.

The new bill will cost at least double what the projection is, as usual with these bills.
The CBO did an analysis on what they were given but it's not what is going to be the case in reality.

What about changes in Pharmaceutical costs? Nothing said about that. In fact, it appears that the drug companies have been given a pass and so have pretty much been quiet about these reform attempts.

Nothing to address tort reform, which is outrageous. Doctors pay huge insurance amounts which adds to costs.

Then in any event, this current bill will be so changed, added to, taken from and taken apart, that we'll wind up with a mess trying to please everyone, if we do get a final bill passed. In fact, I feel that a thousand page bill will have enough vagueness and flexibility in it to allow for all sorts of new committees, spending, laws, and more to be made up as we go on.

I've been supportive of reform of health care but the direction this has all been going is too much, too expensive, and too messy. Most of all it still doesn't seem to curb costs, which is one of the biggest factors after insuring those who have no insurance. As for covering those without insurance, the proposed bill apparently only covers some of those? I also wonder what's going to be added on to buy the votes of reluctant legislators.

[DGuller]

The problem is that social insurance is incompatible with a competetive private insurance industry.  Pregnant women need to be covered, but what insurance company in their right mind would offer to do it when it would obviously be a huge money loser?  It's very hard to reconcile the social insurance goal with the need to earn profits and not be out-competed, and IMO it's a fool's errand to try.

Not so. We have social insurance and a competitive private insurance industry. IMHO what you certainly can't have is private firms providing social insurance. There is a basic incompatibility in the objectives.

That's what I meant, you can't have private insurance industry in a social insurance business.  Obviously I didn't mean that private car insurance should go as well.

[garbon]

But everyone can have access to a primary care physician.

Clearly not.

[derspiess]

because it is very well known that public health systems annihilate every other possible actor in the health sector.

It would certainly happen here, for the most part.  There might still be some luxury-type insurance companies that survive, of course, but most of us would end up on de gubmint plan.  If a government-run plan can (and undoubtedly will) operate at a loss indefinitely *and* has the power to set all the rules, what other outcome could there be?

[BuddhaRhubarb]

because it is very well known that public health systems annihilate every other possible actor in the health sector.

It would certainly happen here, for the most part.  There might still be some luxury-type insurance companies that survive, of course, but most of us would end up on de gubmint plan.  If a government-run plan can (and undoubtedly will) operate at a loss indefinitely *and* has the power to set all the rules, what other outcome could there be?

Why? In Canada we have Gov. healthcare (which I pay the exact same rate as anyone else in my province (I have to pay or pay US prices for shit) making far more than me. I could have all the Private Insurance I wanted to. (I don't because I'm poor) Big Insurance does just fine not competing with gov. healthcare but complimenting it in Canada. But I gues that could never work in the US because...?

[Admiral Yi]

Why? In Canada we have Gov. healthcare (which I pay the exact same rate as anyone else in my province (I have to pay or pay US prices for shit) making far more than me. I could have all the Private Insurance I wanted to. (I don't because I'm poor) Big Insurance does just fine not competing with gov. healthcare but complimenting it in Canada. But I gues that could never work in the US because...?

You both are saying the same thing.  Niche market private health insurance.

Quick poll: do you say "neesh" or "nitch?"

[Admiral Yi]

Just learned that the Senate Finance version does *not* include an employer mandate, which is pretty huge.