Healthcare Reform Thread

[Ramo]

Why is it going to cost 1.5 trillion+ over a decade and why is the House considering 600 billion in tax increases to help pay for it if the reforms being discussed don't require taxpayer funding?

Because "the reforms being discussed" is specifically the public option. That's the score for a plan that doesn't include any public option (and any realistic option would be deficit neutral wrt the rest of the legislation).

[Kuciwalker]

Seriously, can someone who isn't a douchenozzle parse what Drake posted, and find one iota about funding from the tax payer?

Yeah, RIGHT HERE:

The Weak Public Plan: This is what people are talking about when they refer to a "level-playing field." This incarnation of the public plan -- first proposed by Len Nichols at the New America Foundation and later echoed by Peter Harbage and Karen Davenport at the Center for American Progress -- would have no special advantages over private insurers. It couldn't use the low rates that Medicare sets or access taxpayer subsidies. [Implication: A strong public plan can use both!] It couldn't force its way into networks. It would simply be another insurer, albeit with different incentives than traditional insurers.

[Drake Tungsten]

Don't bother, Kuci.

[Ramo]

Yes. I repeat. Klein didn't say what you believe he did.

Christ, he described the "strong public plan." Right here:

The Strong Public Plan: This would be like Medicare for the rest of us. It could throw the federal government's weight around. It could negotiate deep discounts with providers. It could muscle its way into networks. Outside groups like the Commonwealth Fund estimate that it would save the average consumer 20 percent to 30 percent. That would give it a massive competitive advantage over private insurers, and would probably result in tens of millions of Americans dropping their current coverage and entering the public plan to save money. A variant of this was in the draft of Ted Kennedy's bill that was leaked last week.

Nowhere does it talk about taxpayer funding. If you want, you can look up what Kennedy has actually put out about the upcoming legislation.

[Kuciwalker]

Nowhere does it talk about taxpayer funding. If you want, you can look up what Kennedy has actually put out about the upcoming legislation.

Yes it does, in the previous paragraph.

HYPOTHETICAL: I am trying to explain to you how apples are different from oranges. I say "apples are often red" but neglect to mention that oranges usually aren't. QUESTION: From this, would you assume that I wasn't trying to imply that oranges are not often red?

[Ramo]

He was comparing apples, oranges, and pomegranates (the trigger option). He says that apples are red, but neglected to say the same about pomegranates. They're red too.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/06/health_care_reform_for_beginne_3.html

[Kuciwalker]

Why would the "trigger option" be taxpayer funded if the "strong option" wasn't?

[Ramo]

This isn't hard, people. Can someone show me Kennedy saying that he wants the public option to be funded by taxes?

[Ramo]

Why would the "trigger option" be taxpayer funded if the "strong option" wasn't?

What? Klein neglects to say that any realistic trigger option (i.e. Snowe's, which he mentions) is not taxpayer funded. The same is true for the "strong option."

[KrazyHorse]

Could you please explain to me what you mean by "weak" "strong" and "trigger" options?

I'm assuming that "weak" is as follows: optional buyin to Medicare coverage (or equivalent). Individual pays what (i.e. how is premium decided)? Overall, premiums must match additional cost to Medicare of treating additional individuals to avoid taxpayer funding of plan.

How do "strong" and "trigger" differ?

[Drake Tungsten]

Interesting...

Understanding the Kennedy health care bill

7. People from 150% of poverty up to 500% (!!) would get their health insurance subsidized (on a sliding scale). If this were in effect in 2009, a family of four with income of $110,000 would get a small subsidy. The bill does not indicate the source of funds to finance these subsidies.

http://keithhennessey.com/2009/06/08/kennedy-health-bill/

Of course, it doesn't specifically state that this subsidy will be paid for with tax revenues.

[Kuciwalker]

Why would the "trigger option" be taxpayer funded if the "strong option" wasn't?

What? Klein neglects to say that any realistic trigger option (i.e. Snowe's, which he mentions) is not taxpayer funded. The same is true for the "strong option."

So one or both of them is implied to be. Why would that one be the trigger option and not the strong option?

[Ramo]

Klein's breakdown is actually pretty good. Weak doesn't piggyback onto Medicare in negotation with medical providers; strong does. Trigger kicks in after a certain number of years if the private market fails to meet a certain set of metrics (i.e. cost control and coverage). Trigger is being pushed primarily by Olympia Snowe, and isn't catching much fire. Strong is being pushed by Senate liberals (i.e. Kennedy). A new idea being pushed by certain conservative Dems (i.e. Kent Conrad) is health care co-ops as a substitute for the private plan, which would resemble the weak plan in certain ways (i.e. lowering bargaining ability, smaller risk pools). All would be paid for by premiums, rather than being automatically covered by taxes.

[KrazyHorse]

Could we please stop the self-referential discussion and simply get a clear definition of the plans, as understood by Ramo?

After that we can figure out if they actually conform to reality.

EDIT: this is an xpost

[Ramo]

So one or both of them is implied to be. Why would that one be the trigger option and not the strong option?

I'm saying that it's neither, and that by your logic it would be both.