Canadian Healthcare and the Public Option

[molecule]

give em what they want. mandate healthcare. make them pay for it or fine them. that's what's coming. can't wait till they get what they want.

[vinnie97]

Molecule, who is they? Those uninsured who are screaming for healthcare for all? I agree.

Johnny, what kind of competition is that? Trying to compete with an entity that is subsidized by taxpayers isn't what I call competition. If the insurance companies' current plans don't meet the guidelines of whatever is in that bill (which hasn't even been fully read by any lawmaker to my knowledge), their grace period *will* end. Businesses then have every right to make a fiscal decision with regards to what to do next. Pay a higher premium for governmental mandates (and higher taxes/fees passed on by insurance companies) and suffer the brunt economically (or pass it on to their employees) or stick with the public system.

This all sounds like a likely scenario to me....whether it *would* happen like this or not is another story but feeding big government's need for yet another power grab (this one under the altruistic guise of healthcare for all, which will cost all of us one way or another, when the deficit has already become unmanageable as is) isn't something that sits well with me.

If you want this so badly, you should demand that the lawmakers and representatives also utilize and pay into it.

[Deff Gordon]

funny that you are talking about stuff that lawmakers haven't read... when you haven't either.

[matt]

pretty sure a few more than zero have read it by now btw, lol

[vinnie97]

That's a little difficult when the documents of late haven't been made publicly available. Summaries and key points should be valid for members of the public. What also bothers me is the prospect of unrelated liberty-sucking legislation they're sneaking in simultaneously. Of course, by extension I need a tinfoil hat if I believe that, right?

[johnny861]

Originally Posted by vinnie97

What also bothers me is the prospect of unrelated liberty-sucking legislation they're sneaking in simultaneously. Of course, by extension I need a tinfoil hat if I believe that, right?

We agree on something! Speculation bothers me too!

[Deff Gordon]

Originally Posted by vinnie97

That's a little difficult when the documents of late haven't been made publicly available. Summaries and key points should be valid for members of the public.

what's bothersome is that you haven't been paying attention to it and have interjected randomness into it without knowing what they are working on.

[matt]

i have a great deck of slides from my vp of govt affairs. got them last week. im pretty sure he just made them up since no one has read the legislature though

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Deff Gordon

that was very much an issue and already brought up. won't happen. there will just be another choice for them to buy into. whether it's the non-profit company level or private insurance, that's up to them. they still will have to pay money into a plan. companies right now have the choice... again, your acting like they'll just stop. 1) it's tax deductible 2) attracts a better class of workers

You cannot claim that it, "won't happen." You can hope that and believe that but you cannot state unequiivocably that it won't. I didn't say it will... I said the path such an option sends us dopwn could well lead to those ends. I do believe it likely and there are members of congress who seek that as a specific goal.

It will be cheaper for ERs to pay the penalty for not providing than to provide insurance. That sends a trend in motion.

Yes, ERs will use insurance to attract better EEs. But not for basically fungible roles. They use it at the platinum level... not at the blue collar or office grunt level.

Lastly, government doesn't do anything more efficiently than private industry. It won't be better, cheaper and more available. That's wishful thinking.

Originally Posted by Deff Gordon

truth be told.. fewer companies are offering insurance because they just simply can't afford it.

Agreed. This will result in even fewer offering it.

Originally Posted by Deff Gordon

you're just looking at the far end of the spectrum of what could happen without looking at the middle area that would stop that.

I am. See above. You agreed that more ERs are not offering insurance. As it becomes cheaper to not offer it (pay the penalty) than to offer it even more will stop offering. That will drive up premiums even more as more people get on a public plan. And even fewer ERs will offer insurance. As I have noted, their are members of Congress who view this as precisely how to ease on in to universal healthcare.

Originally Posted by Deff Gordon

again, another assumption without looking at the middle ground that would keep that from happening. nobody said they would be lowballing, but the inflation rate right now for health care far exceeds any cost of living increase 10 fold. Insurance companies already set the price... you go get something done, the insurance companies already have a predetermined price for what they'll pay for that work. that's how it works right now. so... who said anything about lowballing? prices are already set. again, don't overlook what's already in place.

Of course insurance companies negotiate reimbursement rates. The government does too... sorta. But the gov't doesn't reimburse at the same rates as private insurance - they reimburse at a lower rate. If you prefer "lower rate" to "lowball" so be it but the fact is that providers rely on higher reimbursement rates from private insurers and cash payers to offset the hit they take w/gov't reimbursed care. The more government reimbursement patients they see the more they'll need to charge private/cash patients. That's an algebra you cannot escape. It also has the suspicious look of a self-fulfilling system. Add to that the claims of some Congressmen that this is their goal of how to get to universal healthcare and you get xian pretty concerned. .... and I haven't even touched the notion of the gov't being in direct control of a person's health care options to say nothing of the very lkarge segment of our economy it represents.

Originally Posted by Deff Gordon

again, the market will adjust. free market will reign. insurance companies aren't going to fold up and not sell products. they will create new ones that fit the market place. this is more of you looking way over at some extreme without taking into account the reality in the middle.

The reality in the middle is that businesses look to their bottom line. They will shed insurance for some employees right away. This will drive up premiums on those remaining. As premiums go up it becomes less and less attractive for ERs to provide insurance rather than pay the penalty excepting cases of highly sought after EEs. Those are far and few between.

You accuse me of over looking this vast middle but you presume that ERs won't shed cost for large swaths of EEs. That's a leap of faith I'm not prepared to make. There are vast swaths of EEs that are pretty easily replaceable that ERs won't need to offer insurance to in order to get them to accept employment.... especially if there is a gov't plan available that these people would have to buy to avoid paying a fine. They'll need the job to pay for either (the fine or the gov't option premium)

Originally Posted by matt

from a meeting i was in last week, i was told by a member of COA whose husband is a canadian citizen and goes to canada (from the us) for healthcare, you can get a secondary insurance in canada if you so choose. so you can pick your insurance.

Yes. True. A recent development that required a Canadian to take his case all the way to the Canadian Supreme Court. Prior to that private insurance was illegal in Canada.

Originally Posted by matt

pretty sure a few more than zero have read it by now btw, lol

"it"?

At last count there were five different bills including a new Baucus bill that was much more of an outline than an actual bill which the CBO didn't have sufficient information to analyze. That number may have been reduced recently but afaik there is no "it" to speak of yet.

Also, requests to have the final bill posted up on the net for 72 hours and printed and made available have run into opposition from the dems. That leaves one with the impression that this bill, effecting 1/6 of our economy is one they don't much want people to read before they vote on it.