Give the Health Care Industry the one thing they really fear

[grantcart]

Turn Medicare into a fully operational player in the market place.

Think of the Post Office.

Medicare buy ins. Individual, Family and Employer Plans. Undercut the private companies in the market place and still generate enough margin to fund subsidies for lower income.

Remember when the French went around the world warning of the downside of the War in Iraq?

They were dismissed and patronized.

Dr. Dean is performing the same function. He is the President's best friend at this point. If this passes and the Democratic Party is wed to the Health Care Industry we will be tagged with every HC Company screw up for the next 8 years.

Every $ 50,000,000 CEO bonus, every denied claim, every increase in premium, all the work of the Obama administration.

Step back and let it go. Pass an expanded Medicare bill through Reconciliation instead.

Give the Health Care Industry the one thing they fear - Government competition.

[Jackpine Radical]

1. Give them more than competition. Give them extinction.

Pass Medicare for All.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

2. Agreed... but there's a big if involved

I agree with you that we should drop this if we would then pursue something better via hardball legislative tactics.

But I doubt we would do so in practice.

But maybe.

[grantcart]

6. I suspect that if the Progressive Caucus even brought this up

then we would find a limited public option to be highly acceptable to several members of the Senate who now oppose it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

9. Exactly right

If obstructionists were faced with the very real probability that sweeping reform, that would actually provide strong across the board competition to private insurers, was the alternative certain to become law to the compromises that they now are still opposing, those rejected compromises would suddently be looked at in a very different light.

[goclark]

3. Sounds good to me grantcart

:yourock:

[grantcart]

17. thanks and Merry Christmas friend

[Triana]

4. They won't do that. Makes too much sense and doesn't satisfy their greed

and the greed of the insurance companies.

Money rulz and whoever has it makes the rulz. (and that's not us, generally speaking).

[janx]

5. "He is the president's best friend at this point."

Without a doubt!

[grantcart]

20. tks janx

[Cha]

7. Thanks grant for your

reasoned analysis.

Do you not think the White House knows it would be tied to this?..besides the fact that the president wanted the Public Option.

[grantcart]

21. thanks Cha

[ipaint]

8. The stock market would take too big a hit.

Their bought and paid for congress isn't about to let that happen. Neither are most in the comfortable middle classes who are advocating for health insurance reform which rations quality according to class.

[grantcart]

10. The stock market would go up by 4-6%

The cost of health care is a bigger factor in the manufacturing of a car than the steel or plastic that goes into it.


It would have a revolutionary impact on manufacturing by reducing their direct labor costs by around 10%


The health care industry is a very small part of the stock market, the rest of the industries that benefit from it would enjoy not only lower costs but more certainty in longterm costing - a critical barrier to adding jobs.

[ipaint]

13. The medical industry is a big part of the market.

And any real reform would include strict regulation, real bargaining on the cost of care and control over excess profit. That would mean the medical segment of the market tanks. Not only would that be a sign that the government intends to put people before medical industry profits it would be a signal to every other big business on the corporate welfare teat that things are actually changing. There goes the rest of the criminal enterprises wall street.

There can be no real reform in any area because it opens the door. Once people get a taste of power over corporations the banks will be in a world of hurt.
Right now both the political right and left have people convinced they are powerless in the face of corporate control. Hence the "must accept crumbs" philosophy. I don't see that changing to save a million lives a year never mind 45,000.

[andym]

11. There is no way a public option or Medicare expansion will get through this Congress

by conventional means-- thanks to Lieberman. They will need to use reconciliation. But they also need the regulations/subsidies from the current deficient bill. So, they need to pass part I to get part II (public option/medicare expansion). But they will need pressure from Dr Dean and like-minded individuals (for example, voters like us) to actually make the attempt to get part II later.

[grantcart]

12. Actually they don't need the rules and subsidies from the current bill

I am suggesting that all efforts to regulate health care cease and simply work on expanding Medicare.

Let the people see the contrasting services available, one supported by DEMs and one supported by the Republicans.

Let the industry run their plans exactly the way that they want.

Pass a reconciliation bill that expands Medicare.

Let the people choose.

Private Health Insurance would be dead in 5 years.

But it wouldn't pass because if this became a serious proposal the health care industry would pass the House bill in a NY minute.

[andym]

14. It's not a bad idea,

although it has the following drawbacks:

a) many of the 30-40 million(?) uninsured can't afford Medicare without subsidies
therfore, a1) pre-existing conditions will kill many who can't afford Medicare

b) even among the insured, 600/month/individual (no family plan) is not affordable

c) they'll have 5 years which may not be enough time to put the insurers out of business.


so, it will help get single-payer, but millions (especially the poorest who would have gotten the subsidies will have to wait)

vs
advantages:

a) single-payer sooner
b) people who can afford it will get superior coverage
c) if it is made it slightly more expensive than how much Medicare actually costs, the additional money from younger healthier people could stabilize Medicare

You may be correct that this is the best way to go.

[grantcart]

15. if we allow that mine is a fantasy proposal then it will have more not less money

for subsidies.

In addition to the savings, including the savings on negotiating prices on drugs, that are designated to go to subsidies my plan allows that Medicare would go after employer plans.

Currently Medicare has a medical loss ratio of 97% and the health insurance industry is 65%.

Medicare could offer comparable product to private companies 20% lower than the private plan and still create a profit of 12% this money would offer a substantial pool for subsidies.

More over Medicare would be able to generate even greater savings on a larger economy of scale and even greater savings.

All of the heads of private insurers, for example, probably take home something in excess of a billion dollars. The guy that runs medicare probably takes home less than a million.

There would be other indirect revenue increases. Because it would reduce direct costs there would be lower employer costs and higher profits = higher tax yield. Also it would become cheaper to employ people and that would increase employment and decrease unemployment both of which would add to medicare and governemnt incomes while reducing government expenditures.

But if that was not enough then add another 3% to the top 3% income earners and we now have a real subsidy.

[midnight armadillo]

27. Pffft.

"There is no way a public option or Medicare expansion will get through this Congress by conventional means-- thanks to Lieberman."

You forget that the 60 vote majority is the Senate's own rules, which can be changed by the majority party in the Senate.

Reid could also take Lieberman up on his dare and make him start talking, not just symbolically filibustering, but actually Mr-Smith-Goes-To-Washington style filibuster. When Lieberman's aging prostate kicks in and he has to pee for 45 minutes, debate resumes.

[andym]

30. It's complicated and ambiguous-- here's a recent article

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/394085


"The Senate rules of the 111th Congress require that 67 votes are needed to change the rules again during the session. But there is little question that a majority can set the rules of the body (just as they do in the House) at the beginning of a Senate term. In fact, constitutionally, 51 Senators could probably change the rules during the term as well."

So, in the beginning of a session, they can change the rules by vote of a majority. During this session they need 67 votes by their own rules, but there is nothing in the constitution that blocks them from even changing rules during the session. It's only whether they feel they can break their own rules.

But they can always use the "nuclear option" --
You can see my post about this here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=53913&mesg_id=54620

They probably won't do this however, because they would be afraid of what would happen if Republicans came back in office.

[Waiting For Everyman]

16. K&R n/t

[grantcart]

25. Thanks for Everyman

[cliffordu]

18. Kandr...This thread makes too much sense - we must keep it kicked until

it dies of boredom

[dave29]

19. I like.

:)

[ProgressOnTheMove]

22. It can get through budgetry reconciliation no set up costs, it's the sensible thing to do.

[grantcart]

26. Well if its that sensible it has no chance lol

[goclark]

23. K and R

[grantcart]

24. Well goclark your kind of fiesty tonight!!

[cliffordu]

28. What happened to relaxing??

Kicked

[Ikonoklast]

29. Let Medicare compete with every other insurance plan for customers.

Let them enter the marketplace, and let the people decide which plan suits them the best.

K&R.

[goclark]

31. Like this idea

[grantcart]

32. exactly think of the post office thats what they do

[Mithreal]

33. K&R maybe they'll shame the HC CEOs to spend their bonuses on patients