Why they fear a public option plus your rep's health plan.

[flamin lib]

Part I: Why do they fear a public insurance plan?

We keep hearing that a pubic option will be far too expensive, can’t possibly work because it’s run by the Government and that it will kill the private sector health insurance industry. Leaving aside that if 1 & 2 are true then 3 is a non sequitur, how might a public, i.e. government run, insurance program be different than the private one we now have.

It’s accepted by Democrats and Republicans alike that Medicare spends 30% less on overhead expenses than private insurance companies and 92% of Medicare patients rate the care as good or excellent. What’s the difference between Medicare and private insurance?
Private insurance companies spend a lot of money on advertising, mostly to steal profitable customers from each other, as they don’t really want anyone who isn’t currently insured. Medicare doesn’t. Medicare doesn’t have to return a profit, private firms do. Take United Health Group, the largest insurance company in the U.S. Their net profits were up 155% last quarter to $889 million (extrapolated to a year that’s $3.5 billion). Not bad for the middle of a recession, huh? Then there’s executive compensation to contend with. Can’t find current numbers, but in 2005 the CEO of Health Care Group got $123 million. I can only assume it’ll be more this year after such an increase in profits. The head of Medicare in the same year made a little less than $150k. Risk management is also an expense. Private insurance companies maintain a small army of claims administrators whose job it is to comb through incoming medical bills looking for exceptions to coverage. Medicare is pretty cut and dried; if your doctor prescribes it and it’s not classified as experimental it’s covered. The last major expense that the private industry has that Medicare doesn’t is lobbying and that expense has gone up a LOT since Obama and the Democrats began talking about health care reform. $1.4 million a day is the current rate of spending.
These are all legitimate expenses for any company doing any sort of business in the private sector. There is nothing wrong with any of them; they aren’t illegal, immoral or even fattening as far as I know. My only question is, is this the way you want to see the money you or your employer spend to protect you from massive expenses due to illness used?
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/In-the-Literature/2009/May/Meeting-Enrollees-Needs.aspx Medicare poll
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=abd4iQ80hr_M United Health profits
http://healthcare-economist.com/2006/02/14/united-health-ceo-earned-1248-million-in-2005/ UHC ceo pay
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/05/AR2009070502770.html Lobby expenditures
Part II, What does your representative have for health care?
The Federal Health Insurance program is a pool of many different plans offered by the private insurance sector. Because the federal government is the largest employer in the United States the pool, which determines the risk to the insurer and is the largest factor affecting the premium rate, is correspondingly large. Exactly what any individual plan is can’t be determined as it varies from state to state and coverage to coverage. In Texas there are 28 different plans with monthly premiums ranging from $300 to $1200. The amount the insured pays also varies from a low of 35% to a high of 90% with the government picking up the rest. Coverage ranges from no deductable, no co-pay, no limit to what most of us insured through our employers currently have. They can also take advantage of Health Savings accounts like we can and pay out of pocket expensed in pre-tax dollars.
This is very much like what Obama and the Democrats plan for everybody; one giant pool of everybody in the country and negotiate costs with any insurance company that wants to participate plus add a public insurance option. Other reform changes include: no pre-existing conditions, no single illness or lifetime caps, no rescission as long as premiums are paid and no premium or coverage discrimination based on sex, current health, risks or location. One premium for any “community” with age of the community the only factor which isn’t a big deal because Medicare covers the elderly.
http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/planinfo/index.asp Federal health plan
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/07/29/obama_to_offer_eight-point_arg.html?wprss=44 reform changes

[Common Sense Party]

1. You have to do the numbers, and I don't see how they will add up.

How many people are paying INTO Medicare right now? About 170 million working Americans.

How many people are receiving money FROM Medicare right now? Only about 46 million. (And the program is heading for insolvency as it is.)

So let's do what many suggest: Let's give EVERYONE Medicare.

How many people will be paying INTO Medicare once health care reform passes? Still the same number of 170 million Americans, 99% of whom have been told they won't have to pay any more.

How many people will be receiving benefits FROM Medicare once reform passes? 300 million Americans. Right? We're trying to cover everyone.

So, when you have 6.5 times the number of people taking benefits FROM the system (even though most of them are healthy, that doesn't matter much) and the same number of people paying INTO the system, how will overall costs possibly go DOWN?

[mmonk]

2. You can have a medicare plan with different numbers.

First, you are not considering the fact that medicare patients are a high risk pool that uses the system more than a twenty something working male for instance. Second, medicare patients pay for the uninsured as well through local taxes to subsidize indigent care. Single payer, for instance, would have a higher payroll tax reduction and matching employer rate than medicare, so therefore, I would assume the payroll deduction amount would go up as well. If it can work somewhere else, what would prevent it from working here?

[Common Sense Party]

3. Haven't we been told our taxes WON'T be going up to pay

for single payer? Right now FICA taxes are at 15.3%. What will they go up to once the single-payer plan is implemented?

I'm not saying it CAN'T work here. I'm just saying the numbers are being fudged, and it will cost us more.

[mmonk]

4. 3.3% for employee and employer but you won't have a deduction for medicare anymore

so that would be subtracted

[Common Sense Party]

5. Who's going to pay for Medicare?

[mmonk]

9. There won't be any need for medicare anymore.

[flamin lib]

7. It doesn't cost more in 37 countries that have it.

It's not a cost increase, it's a cost shift. Shift from current premiums, out of pocket, medicare and medicaid to regular taxes.

A cost shift would result in a DECREASE in what the economy (that's you) currently pays for health care.

Oh, only a small plus: Nobody dies for lack of care.

On the other hand we can cut taxes and let everybody not covered die in the street.

[lefthandedlefty]

11. What percentage of your income goes for insurance?

[flamin lib]

6. I'd rather everybody here die than my taxes go up.

$2.2 Trillion every fucking year. That's what comes out of our economy in the form of Medicare, Medicaid, Private insurance premiums and out of pocket expenses. That's twice as much as the most expensive government run plan on earth.

It isn't increasing the cost, it's shifting the cost.

Wrap your head around that!!!!!

[Laelth]

8. Very informative. Thanks. k&r n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[Octafish]

10. The Healthcare Lobby is more powerful than Congress.

When the majority of We the People want Single Payer and Congress says, "No can do," we have a problem.

Thank you for an excellent post flamin lib.