Obama drops the public option for health care

[Magox]

We've also established that their administrative costs are 20%. We've also established that their profits are up 400% in the last decade. We've also established that they used to spend 95 cents per dollar for care and now it's 80, that's because their administrative percentage has skyrocketed. Cut them to 15-16% and their profit margins aren't quite so thin.

No, I disagree, administrative costs are not 20%, unless you encompass government payments, claims processing, provider support, marketing and consumer services along with it.

 

According to the Wellpoint/ Blue Cross Blue Shield Study only 3 % of all costs go to Profits. Also in that study, "administrative" costs, which would include profits and everything I just mentioned would account for 13% of total costs.

 

http://www.wellpoint.com/pdf/Premium%20Cost%20Drivers.pdf

[John Adams]

The government isn't going to subsidize the public plans (except perhaps to get the thing started, which is what they are going to do with the co-op idea, too). The plans have to pay for themselves, they can't just suffer losses and the government picks up the tab. The only subsidies from the government goes to individual tax payers and small businesses to help them pay for the required coverage.

 

I am still laughing at this! I know you're in show biz but who do you write for? Stewart? Leno?

[Kelly the Dog]

No, administrative costs are not 20%, unless you encompass government payments, claims processing, provider support and marketing, consumer services along with it.

People using that 20% figure are counting all of that in "administrative costs". And again, the co-op figures are reportedly around 12% and the Medicare figures are around 4%.

[IDBillzFan]

I agree with LA Billz, we need more effective tort reform. This is clearly where the problem lies.

I think tort reform deserves consideration and attention, but I don't think it's a panacea. I also think we should also consider national competition for health care coverage instead of just statewide competition. Again, not a panacea, but a way to reduce costs. And there are other things we should consider LONG before we ever let ourselves get tangled into another government-sponsored program.

 

On a side note, it appears this weekend's trial balloon of dropping the public option popped just like all the others that the WH floats to gauge opinion. Obama sends out his people to float ideas on the weekend, everyone reacts on Monday morning, and by Monday afternoon, the WH says "Hey, it was just an idea." This should come as no surprise as Obama has stated earlier that reform "must include" a public option. I highly doubt he plans to stray from that committment. He probably just wanted to feel out the far left, who quickly and obviously came out today and said "No public option, no health care reform."

 

If their weekend trial balloons weren't so entertaining, they'd be about as welcomed as another prime time press conference.

[IDBillzFan]

I am still laughing at this! I know you're in show biz but who do you write for? Stewart? Leno?

But he's right. The government won't pick up the tab on the losses. The taxpayers and small businesses will, but "the government" won't.

[GG]

The post office example that Obama used was actually a very good one. UPS and FedEx do very well competing against a totally government run plan by providing a little better service for a little more money.

 

It is a perfect example, since the postal service is far from self-sustaining and continues to command greater subsidies, even after cutting services, staff and locations. Now, apply that example to healthcare, which costs infinitely more and ask if any elected official will be more ok with a public health plan that will need to cut services, staff and locations.

 

Which brings us back to the starting point. It is a very good intention to lower the cost of healthcare and make he industry more efficient and open to more participants. But good intentions should not distract from the reality that most of the proposals will drain the financial resources with little accountability.

[KD in CA]

I'm personally in favor of tort reform, although it hasn't really worked the way it was expected to so far, in CA or TX or FLA or any of the other places that did it.

 

The post office example that Obama used was actually a very good one. UPS and FedEx do very well competing against a totally government run plan by providing a little better service for a little more money.

 

And how much money goes down the USPS sinkhole every year while they steadfastly refuse to undertake any meaningful cost cutting?

[Magox]

I think tort reform deserves consideration and attention, but I don't think it's a panacea. I also think we should also consider national competition for health care coverage instead of just statewide competition. Again, not a panacea, but a way to reduce costs. And there are other things we should consider LONG before we ever let ourselves get tangled into another government-sponsored program.

 

On a side note, it appears this weekend's trial balloon of dropping the public option popped just like all the others that the WH floats to gauge opinion. Obama sends out his people to float ideas on the weekend, everyone reacts on Monday morning, and by Monday afternoon, the WH says "Hey, it was just an idea." This should come as no surprise as Obama has stated earlier that reform "must include" a public option. I highly doubt he plans to stray from that committment. He probably just wanted to feel out the far left, who quickly and obviously came out today and said "No public option, no health care reform."

 

If their weekend trial balloons weren't so entertaining, they'd be about as welcomed as another prime time press conference.

I am not sure how much national competition would help, I'm thinking not too much. The answer lies in the profit margins and the costs related to health insurance. What would more competition do to an industry that has an average profit margin of 3%?

[Kelly the Dog]

And how much money goes down the USPS sinkhole every year while they steadfastly refuse to undertake any meaningful cost cutting?

 

A lot. The point is simply that it doesn't drive out private competition.

 

Another thing that doesn't get mentioned is that if you work for a decent sized or large company/corporation, that company isn't allowed to enroll you or any employee in the public plan. It's only open to individuals and small businesses.

[IDBillzFan]

A lot. The point is simply that it doesn't drive out private competition.

Oh, good. So as long as they're not driving out private businesses, then I'm all for adding a new government program that will become a mismanaged sinkhole for increased taxpayer dollars.

 

Another thing that doesn't get mentioned is that if you work for a decent sized or large company/corporation, that company isn't allowed to enroll you or any employee in the public plan. It's only open to individuals and small businesses.

The company isn't allowed to enroll you in the program, but the company isn't forced to provide employees health care either, so by not offering new employees health care, the result is a whole bunch of "individuals" eligible for the public plan.

[Kelly the Dog]

On a side note, it appears this weekend's trial balloon of dropping the public option popped just like all the others that the WH floats to gauge opinion. Obama sends out his people to float ideas on the weekend, everyone reacts on Monday morning, and by Monday afternoon, the WH says "Hey, it was just an idea." This should come as no surprise as Obama has stated earlier that reform "must include" a public option. I highly doubt he plans to stray from that committment. He probably just wanted to feel out the far left, who quickly and obviously came out today and said "No public option, no health care reform."

 

If their weekend trial balloons weren't so entertaining, they'd be about as welcomed as another prime time press conference.

Actually, he's always said it must include an option to provide competition, and that he himself prefers the public option. The White House has always provided wiggle room on that issue.

 

I am really surprised at the lack of insight and understanding of the main stream media on what the White House is doing. DC Tom had it right over the weekend, the Congress makes the bill. Howard Dean explained what is really going on this morning and it's what I was telling a bunch of people over the weekend, too.

 

Although it's impossible to know with any certainty, I would bet a lot of money this is what happened...

 

1] That was a trial balloon, probably to see how much it pissed off the progressives.

 

2] The White House was very concerned that everyone was talking about "the public plan" and "government takeover" and "death panels" and avoiding the first 3-4 major priorities of the reform. So they want to appear willing to take the co-op option instead of insisting on the public option which will just rile people up more.

 

3] The WH really wants the Senate Finance Committee to pass a bill in their committee. The hold-up has been the public plan. So they are now saying "Fine, we don't have to have a public plan" in the bill, knowing they are not going to get one from the Republicans or the Blue Dogs on that committe. But all the WH wants is a bill to pass so it can go to the full House and full Senate, and without this committee agreeing on a bill the WH can't go forward.

 

4] The House and the Democratic leadership still want the public plan and they aren't budging.

 

5] When all is said and done, the Senate is going to try to pass a bill. They are going to find that no matter what, no Republican is going to sign on (maybe 1-2 but I doubt it). When push comes to shove, they are going to say !@#$ it, we can't get a bi-partisan bill so we're going to get what we want and will make one bill and pass it on reconciliation with the 51 votes needed instead of 60.

 

6] It's possible, but doubtful IMO, that the co-op plan will take shape and the Senate can find 60 votes and enough Democrats could sign onto that idea right now if the rest of the bill wasn't watered down. I doubt that will happen but it might. It's also possible but doubtful that the WH and Democratic leadership can convince the Blue Dogs to vote on a bill with a public plan and get 60 votes but I doubt that, too.

 

Ultimately, late this fall, there is going to be one bill, it's going to pass by either 60 or 51+ votes, and it's very likely going to have a public option in it or a very strong co-op option.

[Magox]

Actually, he's always said it must include an option to provide competition, and that he himself prefers the public option. The White House has always provided wiggle room on that issue.

 

I am really surprised at the lack of insight and understanding of the main stream media on what the White House is doing. DC Tom had it right over the weekend, the Congress makes the bill. Howard Dean explained what is really going on this morning and it's what I was telling a bunch of people over the weekend, too.

 

Although it's impossible to know with any certainty, I would bet a lot of money this is what happened...

 

1] That was a trial balloon, probably to see how much it pissed off the progressives.

 

2] The White House was very concerned that everyone was talking about "the public plan" and "government takeover" and "death panels" and avoiding the first 3-4 major priorities of the reform. So they want to appear willing to take the co-op option instead of insisting on the public option which will just rile people up more.

 

3] The WH really wants the Senate Finance Committee to pass a bill in their committee. The hold-up has been the public plan. So they are now saying "Fine, we don't have to have a public plan" in the bill, knowing they are not going to get one from the Republicans or the Blue Dogs on that committe. But all the WH wants is a bill to pass so it can go to the full House and full Senate, and without this committee agreeing on a bill the WH can't go forward.

 

4] The House and the Democratic leadership still want the public plan and they aren't budging.

 

5] When all is said and done, the Senate is going to try to pass a bill. They are going to find that no matter what, no Republican is going to sign on (maybe 1-2 but I doubt it). When push comes to shove, they are going to say !@#$ it, we can't get a bi-partisan bill so we're going to get what we want and will make one bill and pass it on reconciliation with the 51 votes needed instead of 60.

 

6] It's possible, but doubtful IMO, that the co-op plan will take shape and the Senate can find 60 votes and enough Democrats could sign onto that idea right now if the rest of the bill wasn't watered down. I doubt that will happen but it might.

 

Ultimately, late this fall, there is going to be one bill, it's going to pass by either 60 or 51+ votes, and it's very likely going to have a public option in it or a very strong co-op option.

I agree, that this may be the plan.

 

But first things first.

 

When you say progressives, you mean the liberal locotoads like Pelosi?

 

Secondly, I do believe they will ultimately have to go the reconciliation route, if they have the balls to do it. The opposition will be more fierce than what we have all ready seen. It will get nasty, and it will ultimately be political suicide for some of the politicians that vote for it, specially the one's who got elected in the republican leaning states.

 

Things are going to get ugly, and we will see some major protests through out the country. Let's not lose sight of the fact that over 65% of independent voters are against the health care plans that are being proposed.

 

I don't believe they will have the balls to go the reconciliatory route if they can't sell it to the public, and as of right now, they are doing a miserable job of convincing the public that this is the best way to go.

[IDBillzFan]

I am really surprised at the lack of insight and understanding of the main stream media on what the White House is doing.

You can blame the WH for that. They are so far off message right now, I'm quite honestly pretty surprised. But make no mistake, when a group a people lacks the insight and understanding of something, it's almost always because it has not been explained to them well.

 

Ultimately, late this fall, there is going to be one bill, it's going to pass by either 60 or 51+ votes, and it's very likely going to have a public option in it or a very strong co-op option.

If they force this through, especially via the 51+ votes, when most Americans are against it, the Democrats will get their asses handed to them in 2010. And the bluedogs that Emmanuel lined up will be toast when their time is up.

[Magox]

Interesting article from WSJ

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...1198077270.html

 

Cost is probably the biggest objection. When Mr. Obama first proposed his overhaul, he justified it on the grounds that it would bring costs down. Now the Congressional Budget Office says costs are likely to go up. So what does the president do? He calls the CBO director onto the Oval Office carpet—a virtually unprecedented White House intrusion into a nonpartisan congressional institution.

 

“President Obama says that both sides agree we need to lower costs, promote choice and provide coverage for every American,” says Grace-Marie Turner, president of the Galen Institute, a free-market health-care think tank. “But he never confronts the simple fact that the measures he’s supporting achieve none of those goals. Instead of debating, the White House attacks anyone who raises a question.”

 

The first paragraph I highlighted is interesting in itself.

[DC Tom]

Cost is probably the biggest objection. When Mr. Obama first proposed his overhaul, he justified it on the grounds that it would bring costs down. Now the Congressional Budget Office says costs are likely to go up. So what does the president do? He calls the CBO director onto the Oval Office carpet—a virtually unprecedented White House intrusion into a nonpartisan congressional institution.

 

That's because the CBO neglected to consider the "Ranibow-Farting Unicorn" factor of "Hope" and "Change We Can Believe In".

 

Now tap your heels together three times and say "There's no place like Sweden."

[IDBillzFan]

That's because the CBO neglected to consider the "Ranibow-Farting Unicorn" factor of "Hope" and "Change We Can Believe In".

 

Now tap your heels together three times and say "There's no place like Sweden."

I was actually surprised there wasn't more noise made about the WH calling the CBO director in for a meeting.

[Kelly the Dog]

You can blame the WH for that. They are so far off message right now, I'm quite honestly pretty surprised. But make no mistake, when a group a people lacks the insight and understanding of something, it's almost always because it has not been explained to them well.

 

 

If they force this through, especially via the 51+ votes, when most Americans are against it, the Democrats will get their asses handed to them in 2010. And the bluedogs that Emmanuel lined up will be toast when their time is up.

 

The polls are way, way off on these issues. Right now, the public and the independents are against it strongly. But that is because people don't understand it. When pollsters start adding stuff in the questions, would you like to see this or that, would you be in favor of this or that, the popularity goes way up.

 

The White House does need to do a much better job of explaining itself, and what the plan will actually look like. They need to have a plan first though and that must be done by Congress. The opposition has done a much better job of demonizing the plan than the supporters have done explaining what it will be like. I will also bet that the public will be a lot more in favor of it than they are now by the time it gets passed and they understand better what is there and what isn't there.

[IDBillzFan]

The polls are way, way off on these issues. Right now, the public and the independents are against it strongly. But that is because people don't understand it. When pollsters start adding stuff in the questions, would you like to see this or that, would you be in favor of this or that, the popularity goes way up.

 

The White House does need to do a much better job of explaining itself, and what the plan will actually look like. They need to have a plan first though and that must be done by Congress. The opposition has done a much better job of demonizing the plan than the supporters have done explaining what it will be like. I will also bet that the public will be a lot more in favor of it than they are now by the time it gets passed and they understand better what is there and what isn't there.

If you could bottle and sell that optimism, you could pay for a universal health care all by yourself, and have enough left over to save the Post Office.

[Kelly the Dog]

I was actually surprised there wasn't more noise made about the WH calling the CBO director in for a meeting.

The White House is arguing, and the CBO agrees with them, that there is no way to measure a lot of savings that will take place in the mid term and long term based on various provisions in the bills. Since they can't put a figure on it, because there isn't any model for it, they just ignore it. So the White House thought the findings were not reflective of what the final cost or final savings would be. The CBO understands it and agrees, but they still can't measure what could or will or might or might not be saved, so there isn't anything they can do about it.

[Taro T]

The polls are way, way off on these issues. Right now, the public and the independents are against it strongly. But that is because people don't understand it. When pollsters start adding stuff in the questions, would you like to see this or that, would you be in favor of this or that, the popularity goes way up.

 

The White House does need to do a much better job of explaining itself, and what the plan will actually look like. They need to have a plan first though and that must be done by Congress. The opposition has done a much better job of demonizing the plan than the supporters have done explaining what it will be like. I will also bet that the public will be a lot more in favor of it than they are now by the time it gets passed and they understand better what is there and what isn't there.

Well, you and the Dems pretty much are betting that the public will like it better by the time it gets passed. Because if they don't, '10 definitely becomes a single issue race, and '12 could very well be dominated by it as well. Aren't a lot of the provisions of "the plan" (no, what plan's on second, who's plan's on 1st, I don't know, 3rd base) supposed to kick in in '13. If they are, that could backfire on Obama if he's spending '11 & '12 trying to keep the Repubs from overturning his healthcare triumph of '09.

 

The interesting question to me in the scenario where the public believes the healthcare reform got railroaded through becomes is the public frustrated enough w/ both parties that a 3rd (or even a 4th) party actually becomes viable. My gut feel is no, but I hope I'm wrong there.