|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 7:10 pm Post subject: Reform With No Public Option |
 |
|
Article here.
| Quote: |
After days of secret talks, Senate Democrats tentatively agreed Tuesday night to drop a government-run insurance option from sweeping health care legislation, several officials said, a concession to party moderates whose votes are critical to passage of President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.
Majority Leader Harry Reid refused to provide any details at a mid-evening news conference where he told reporters a "broad agreement" had been reached between liberals and moderates on the controversial issue.
With it, he said, the end is in sight for passage of the legislation that Congress has labored over for months.
In place of a government-run plan, originally designed as a way of forcing competition on private industry, officials said the Democrats had tentatively settled on a private insurance arrangement to be supervised by the federal agency that oversees the system through which lawmakers purchase coverage. Additionally, the tentative deal calls for Medicare to be opened to uninsured Americans beginning at age 55, a significant expansion of the large government health care program that currently serves the 65-and-over population. |
So much for health care reform. Federal oversight is a needlessly complicated route to take in this situation, and it's unlikely to produce solid results. Far better to simply force insurance providers to play reasonably by giving people a viable alternative to them. A non-profit, non-taxpayer funded, competently run public option is actually far more in line with free market values than government regulation, and in this case I think it would produce better results too.
Democrats are making a big mistake. Far better to do nothing than to take the route they're taking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I AGREE.
With all of the compromises to appease Republicans...it is looking LESS like reform...and more like MANDATORY purchasing of overpriced skyrocket high insurance rates required by law to purchase.
The 'no denial of anyone' also means that insurance companies will increase rates to all new high levels, and we all thought they were already insanely expensive.
SNOW...the 'good Republican' because she will go with 'healthcare reform' is way in deep in the sack with insurance companies...and this denial of public options will really LINE the POCKETS of insurance companies from the current 'insane levels' to 'madly insane levels'.
I wonder how much money she is getting from the insurance industry for this one...she'll be set for life if she can keep it off the table, and still pass this 'reform' thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 8:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There's also the CLASS Act, which the Concord Coalition opposes:
| Quote: |
The CLASS Act would establish a voluntary public
long-term care insurance program, ostensibly financed by
beneficiary premiums, that would be open to any active
worker (in the Senate bill) or any active worker and his
nonworking spouse (in the House bill). Cash benefits
would be payable after a five-year waiting period to participants
with a substantial cognitive impairment or at least
two to three ADLs�that is, limitations on activities of
daily living such as dressing, bathing, or cooking. The
primary purpose of the program is to assist with homecare
expenses, but benefits could also be used for institutional
care. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 8:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Later in the article...
| Quote: |
In his comments to reporters, Reid said the emerging compromise "includes a public option and will help ensure the American people win in two ways: one, insurance companies will face more competition, and two, the American people will have more choices."
It wasn't clear what he meant by a "public option," the Medicare expansion or a fallback in case private insurance companies declined to participate in the nationwide plan envisioned to be overseen by the Office of Personnel Management. One possibility was for the agency to set up a government-run plan, either national in scope or on a state-by-state basis. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Reid and Obama and others DO want the 'public option'. But Republicans DO NOT...and the few that are willing to let this healthcare 'reform' (and that term is used very loosely) is SNOW (a Republican and holding the most power on the Republican side of this debate) demands NO public option. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 1:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Political reality strikes again.
Any reform is better than no reform. A half a loaf is better than no loaf. Change in politics is incremental. Now that the nostrums are out of the way...
The part of the (possible) plan that appeals to me is the lowering of the Medicare age limit to 55. In a couple of years we can go back and lower it again, then again. This may be the slippery slope to single payer. Hurray!
My sister was called into the superintendant's office last spring and told that after 35 years of teaching, her services would no longer be required because funding for teachers with that much experience just wasn't available anymore. Her husband is a private contractor (remodelling houses), so was covered under her insurance. Since June, they've been living without insurance and are in their late 50's. They will be covered under this proposed reform. It sounds like a good deal to me--there are far more people in the 55-64 age bracket than would have been covered in the public option plan that was being considered.
Utopia aside, something is better than nothing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
Any reform is better than no reform.
|
Any reform that actually improves the system is better than no reform. Things like forcing all American citizens to purchase insurance from private insurance companies or else pay a fine are not reform. Nothing about this bill as it stands reforms anything. The public option was the reform, and it was a compromise in the first place. Democrats are no longer compromising. Rather, they're selling out.
This bill changes from a questionable reform bill to a pure insurance industry handout if the publically owned, non-profit insurance option is dropped from it.
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| The part of the (possible) plan that appeals to me is the lowering of the Medicare age limit to 55. In a couple of years we can go back and lower it again, then again. This may be the slippery slope to single payer. Hurray! |
To be honest, Medicare itself is a pretty badly implemented system. Medicare should not become our single payer system. If we're to have a single payer system, it needs to destroy and replace Medicare. Medicare is not a sustainable system.
Look at what's happening here. Young people -- who are more often healthy and in far less need of medical insurance -- are being forced to purchase it from private companies, and older people -- who need insurance more and have more medical problems -- are being taken in by the government instead of forcing private companies to take them on. This is a recipie for insurance industry profits, nothing more.
The fact that so many left-leaners are willing to be apologetic for this nonsense is precisely why it occurs. Democrats should be scared of losing their seats over this, but they're not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VanIslander
Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Location: Geoje, Hadong, Tongyeong,... now in a small coastal island town outside Gyeongsangnamdo!
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Any reform that actually improves the system is better than no reform. |
Indeed.
And as Politics is the art of the possible, finessing a compromise is the only way to getting anything passed it seems.
Do the Democrats have the numbers to ram through any legislation they want? Can they afford to wait until after the midterm elections to get something done? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| VanIslander wrote: |
| Do the Democrats have the numbers to ram through any legislation they want? Can they afford to wait until after the midterm elections to get something done? |
Yes, they do have the numbers required to ram through legislation. Unfortunately, a portion of their caucus consists of sell-outs, so they can't effectively take advantage of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hater Depot
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
But they could if they hadn't decided in 2005 that pointlessly blocking two judicial nominees was more important than eliminating the filibuster.
Current Democratic leadership is a victim of its own commitment to the dysfunctional rules of the Senate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
Look at what's happening here. Young people -- who are more often healthy and in far less need of medical insurance -- are being forced to purchase it from private companies, and older people -- who need insurance more and have more medical problems -- are being taken in by the government instead of forcing private companies to take them on. This is a recipie for insurance industry profits, nothing more.
The fact that so many left-leaners are willing to be apologetic for this nonsense is precisely why it occurs. Democrats should be scared of losing their seats over this, but they're not. |
You are SO on the money.
Yep, that's exactly what I'm seeing. FORCED by LAW to purchase overpriced private insurance. Everyone MUST be insured, therefore all rates MUST rise.
So, we're basically about to get seriously screwed. There is NO reform whatsoever. I also read in the news today that the PUBLIC OPTION is completely off the table, and not going to happen.
Democrats however seem quite pleased that although they lost that, the Medicare thing assists those from 55-upward.
---------
As a long-term supporter of healthcare reform...and knowing healthcare was already a major disaster...it seems it will quickly become much worse.
The major compromise is a major mystery. Obviously Republicans want NO part in this whatsoever...yet Democratics are compromising EVERYTHING that is essential to reform. WHY? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hater Depot wrote: |
But they could if they hadn't decided in 2005 that pointlessly blocking two judicial nominees was more important than eliminating the filibuster.
Current Democratic leadership is a victim of its own commitment to the dysfunctional rules of the Senate. |
I agree. Both parties are ultimately short-sighted in this regard. They support obstructionist rules while they're in the minority, and then suffer when they regain the majority because of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think the public option is dead, regardless:
Forcing everyone to get overpriced insurance will create a desire to reduce costs in the system... which should produce either a good nationwide not for profit system, or a government plan later on.
Including more people in medicare reinforces healthcare as a human right... this should trickle down to the rest of the population and people will want it expanded more and more. And once it's there it isn't going to get rolled back.
I think government healthcare is only a matter of time for the US. Botched reform may actually speed it up; at least this reform hasn't stopped it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
I don't think the public option is dead, regardless:
Forcing everyone to get overpriced insurance will create a desire to reduce costs in the system... which should produce either a good nationwide not for profit system, or a government plan later on. |
Or tax credits to continue feeding the purely parasitic insurance industry it's profits without actually reducing -- and in fact, probably increasing -- healthcare spending.
I think you're right that some day, America will get there. We should be getting there now, though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
