Healthcare Reform Thread

[Drake Tungsten]

Looks like the Dem push for healthcare reform is in trouble.

Dems reel on healthcare

Congressional Democrats and the White House are scrambling to regain their footing after a series of setbacks has stalled political momentum to reform the nation’s healthcare system.

Despite having a popular president in the White House and comfortable majorities in Congress, the Democratic rollout on healthcare reform has encountered significant bumps in the road.

A cost estimate hanging a $1 trillion price tag on an incomplete bill, salvos from powerful interest groups and great uncertainty among key Democrats on what will actually be in the legislation that moves through Congress have emboldened Republican critics.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dems-reel-on-healthcare-2009-06-16.html

I imagine the Dems will regroup and make an effective push for their healthcare reform legislation, but this gives me hope that they can be stopped.

[Ramo]

Probably is going to pass, but real cost control (i.e. the public plan) will probably be neutered by the conservative Dems.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle:

House Republicans presented a four-page outline of their health care reform plan Wednesday but said they didn’t know yet how much it would cost, how they would pay for it and how many of the nearly 50 million Americans without insurance would be covered by it.

http://www.rollcall.com/news/35940-1.html?type=printer_friendly

[Ben Kenobi]

Single payer is total crap. You don't want it.

[Ramo]

Republicans don't really believe that. Otherwise, they woudln't be afraid of insurance companies competing with a public option on an equal footing.

[Drake Tungsten]

A public option in no way competes with private insurers on an even footing.

[Ramo]

Only in the sense that empirical evidence suggests that it'd be cheaper, and by the magic of capitalism, consumers would flow to it. The only public option that's half-way plausible (i.e. not John Conyers' Medicare for All) would be funded by premiums, just like private insurance.

[Drake Tungsten]

It's no surprise that a public option would be initially cheaper when it can be subsidized by taxpayers who have private insurance. This won't be true once the private insurers are pushed out of the market, however.

[DinoDoc]

Wouldn't a public option enjoy unlimited access to the Treasury being an entitlement and all? How on earth would it compete with private insurers (who have to deal with things like risk and hedging against losses) on an even footing?

[Ramo]

It's no surprise that a public option would be initially cheaper when it can be subsidized by taxpayers who have private insurance. This won't be true once the private insurers are pushed out of the market, however.

Again. No public option that anyone is seriously contemplating would rely on tax revenues to fund itself. That might change after private insurance fails to compete in primary care.

[Drake Tungsten]

Again. No public option that anyone is seriously contemplating would rely on tax revenues to fund itself.

True; the public option as contemplated now will rely on borrowed money to fund itself. The use of tax revenues will come after the 2012 election.

[Ramo]

Only to the same extent that private insurance would be subsidized by the public deficits (albeit offset by spending cuts/tax increases over a ten year period).

[Ramo]

Drake, you can argue about proposals that have the slightest chance of passing, or proposals that only exist in the WSJ Op-Ed page and the Congressional Progressive Caucus. But it's the latter, have fun - I'm out.

[Drake Tungsten]

Don't be ridiculous. You and I both know that Ted Kennedy and other influential Dems want a strong public option.

[Ramo]

Sure. But that phrase doesn't mean what you think it does.

[Ramo]

Show me proof that Kennedy is pushing a public option funded by tax receipts.