A co-op with a trigger and regulation of the insurance industry...

[BluegrassDem]

Still unacceptable? Would you rather not have any bill at all or would this be satisfactory?

[Eric J in MN]

1. No public option then no mandates.

People shouldn't be forced to give money to private health insurance companies.

That would make them powerful enough to get regulations repealed.

[debbierlus]

3. I agree. No one should be mandated to purchase their crap

[BluegrassDem]

4. Well a co-op is not run by the insurance industry

Not that I think it's a great idea, but it's not private insurance.

[Oregone]

12. "but it's not private insurance"

If its insurance purchasing co-op, it would be private insurance, yes.

[Oregone]

6. Gotta agree. All this regulation stuff can be done without mandates

Damn, why don't they just separate the bills? Putting through a lot of the regulations wouldn't have met too much resistance because it would of been non-convoluted and hard to defend opposition.

If they want to provide mandates later, they should offer the public something viable to balance it out.

Im amazed that they think anything less than 1000 pages at once and provisions all over the board is inadequate

[Hello_Kitty]

11. People talk about how we're so unyielding on the public option

Yet it seems that the mandates are the most non-negotiable part of this plan. How did that happen?

[Oregone]

16. How did it happen? Clever smoke and mirrors

Its so obnoxious when people accuse others of being against banning pre-existing condition checks and lifetime maximums, and that shit, if you oppose the overall legislation. That stuff could all be passed on its own with little controversy (and probably little noise). Its like they pinned it to the mandates to hide them and manipulate people into lending support.

The mandates are really the over-riding, most significant part of the legislation (and people are finally noticing). The public option is but a gimmick to tone down the mandates and balance them. Everything else is in there to guilt you into supporting the bill at any cost.

[Hello_Kitty]

18. And a lot of people, including many right here on DU

Think that the uninsured are responsible for most of the high cost of health care. The highest estimates are that uninsured people add about 8% to the average premium. 8% isn't insignificant but it's no justification for the level of animosity I see toward people without insurance here. Mandates are to many on the left what tort reform is to the right - something they believe will magically reduce their premiums to nothing if it were passed.

[Oregone]

21. Where did you find that 8% figure?

I wasn't aware of that.

While the regulations are great, without a fully accessible, affordable, subsidized public insurer that is allowed to negotiate at Medicare rates, there is simply no significant cost-control in the bill. And why isn't that a main concern? How can the US remain competitive, and not bankrupt, if they continue to pay 2X per capita, what other industrialized nations pay?

Most of the cost-control seems very much conjecture to me (keeping people out of the ER, preventative, keeping insurers honest--that 8% may account for some of that). But if you want real numbers, we know that a single-payer program just north of the US saves 15.6% overhead (in 1999) over the US private system. That would be $350-$400 billion a year, instantly (not to mention, universal affordable coverage).

The mandate isn't significant enough in cost saving, and will still result in 37 million uninsured. If the Democrats aren't going to balance it with something significant (Medicare-lite), why bother with it? It could also be disastrous in certain conditions.

[Hello_Kitty]

22. I agree.

Here's where I got the 8% figure. http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/24/cost-shift-uninsured/

[FormerDittoHead]

13. Oh. I like that. Nothing more to add. n/t

[Oregone]

2. Start from scratch

[BluegrassDem]

7. So we'd wait until after the 2010 elections when we'll have less Dems?

Nothing will happen next year cause nothing happens during election season. After 2010 we'll likely have less Dems, so how will that make health care more passable?

[Oregone]

17. When did I say wait?

I said start from scratch. Today. Now.


Next year? Fuck. How long did it take to pass the Patriot Act? Some people forget recent history quite easily.

[KansDem]

5. As the Repubs have demonstrated...

Anything that's regulated and be de-regulated. In a hurry... It all depends on how much the thing being regulated that wants to be de-regulated wants to pay...

[Milo_Bloom]

8. No bill is far better than that.

[BluegrassDem]

15. So the status quo is better than something?

So we as a country would have to wait another 25 years?

[Oregone]

19. You'll have to wait forever if this is the best they can do

Because this isn't real reform anyway. This nation will continue to go bankrupt paying profits and overhead on insurance. This system will keep the 15.6% additional overhead the US has above Canada on the insurance end, the 10% extra doctors must charge to compensate for out-sourced or on-site billing, and the other wastes that are thrown away at fee-per-service rates that are not thoroughly negotiated. The US spends 2X as much as other industrial nations, per capita, on health care, and there would be nothing there to challenge that and reduce costs. The entire health of the nation, economic and physical, would be left in dire straights be inadequate reform.

[Better Believe It]

25. Without a public option open to everyone the current system will collapse and ....

the door will be open to Medicare for All.

The people will demand it.

[Milo_Bloom]

28. Only if they pass this monstrosity w/o a public option.

If you pass a crap bill, such as this is w/o the public option... health care is taken off the table for at least 25 years.

HOWEVER, if nothing passes, we can actually revist it in a few years.

[high density]

9. The trigger is insanity

To propose such a thing one has to accept that something is indeed wrong with where we are currently. We then wait for a bad situation to get even worse before we enact a solution with teeth to start fixing it. It just kicks the issue needlessly down the road a few years, and by that time the Repukes hope they'll have the political power to truly block it.

[vi5]

10. I've said all along....

..if we don't get a public option or single payer now, but the bill does include heavy, enforced regulation of the health insurance industry including not denying people for pre-existing conditions, not dropping coverage if someone gets sick, limiting the percents that premiums can be raised, etc. then I will support that and be happy about it.

But if it doesn't include regulation of the industry, doesn't give people a credible public alternative, AND mandates that people buy coverage....well then if Democrats vote for that then my days as a democrat are over.

[daleanime]

14. The best I've heard about co-ops...

is that they might help, triggers are just a license for insurance companies to continue raping people with a time limit?


:hurts:

[subterranean]

20. A trigger for co-ops? Why even bother?

The only trigger that would be worthwhile is for a strong public option or Medicare for All. I haven't heard anyone talking about a trigger for co-ops, but I think that's a terrible idea. Why? Because even if private insurance does a poor enough job that the trigger gets pulled, the best we could hope for then would be ineffective co-ops that would be no threat to the insurance companies and would take years, or maybe even decades, to get established.
If the choice is between that and a bill with private insurance only and no trigger, I'd choose the latter.

[Bluenorthwest]

23. No mandated, forced purchase of private products. Period.

They want a mandate on individuals, they must have a strong, openly available, actually affordable public plan that does not pad anyone's wallet by force of law.

[area51]

24. A trigger is absolutely unacceptable.

What, 273 deaths per day / 100,000 deaths per year aren't enough of a trigger for you? That's how many people are dying now due to lack of healthcare.

There is a better way. And the insurance industry wouldn't be put out of work. They can still sell insurance for things like facelifts, etc., and they can branch out into auto, life, home, etc. insurance.

[trudyco]

26. Is the idea of triggers for weak Dems to vote for sweeping change

without it looking like they did? Basically they cater to the Health Insurance industry but if the trigger is pulled (I assume something automatic happens) then the weak Dems can say it isn't their fault.

Is that the idea?

[polichick]

27. As Sirota and Maddow pointed out the other night, triggers are just another way...

...of killing something ~ the trigger that would allow us to purchase drugs from other countries, once they were deemed safe, has never been pulled.

And co-ops wouldn't be large enough to create competition.

[grantcart]

29. completely unacceptable

coops without a trigger unacceptable

regulation of the insurance industry is not going to happen in the American setting where the Health Care Industry literally has 1000 lobbyists undermining us in the small print.


Not any bill at all would be fine


Make it the central issue in the next election and run straight at the Republicans.


PS I have news for you this country is filled with 85% of the population that may love their doctor but absolutely hates their insurance provider.