I would say this, the cost will probably be at least partly age-rated, so that younger people will get a lesser rate than us feeble oldsters.

My guess is that the class of people eligible for the public plan, in this iteration, would be a relatively healthy group. Sen. Wyden, who knows a lot about group health coverage, says just the opposite, based on his view that this group has received inferior health care to date, probably lives an unhealthy lifestyle, etc. I think he is probably mostly wrong, but if we wait til all the variables are constants, the time for reform will have passed.

A common attitude that develops from a habit of gettin’ something for nuttin’. It develops into a right.
Your right.

Any idea of what the monthly cost would be?

Will it function better than Medicaid? Will it be like having real coverage or still put one as a second class citizen and constantly having to renew one’s eligibility like for Medicaid????

This is insane. I stick with my notion that its gotta be all or nuthin’.

The goal would be to make the “premiums” for the public option sufficient to cover the claims plus overhead. One of the problems is that it is difficult–basically impossible–to set the premiums on an actuarially sound basis because no one has more than a foggy idea who will be signing up for it, whether the eligible population would be “good health risks” or “bad health risks”, etc.

My guess would be that they will be somewhat better risks than most because the uninsured–the eligible class–are generally younger adults. Age is the single most significant morbidity factor an insurer can identify w/o requiring exams for coverage.

According to my very confused understanding now is the Pub Op now something akin to Medicaid that is meant to cover those that have no cover and aren’t eligible for Medicaid and too young for Medicare??????

I grilled my retired school teacher sister on her health care cover under Medicare plus her AARP 0 a month supplemental. She has had some serious health issues and got to choose her doctors and had terrific care. Once on Medicare you have x amount deducted each month from So Sec check–still don’t know what that is.

Now what is goofy is all those years of having the great coverage teachers got as part of their benefits/salary package could have been going towards a single payer plan. Its all mad.

I admit I absolutely don’t know what the hell they mean now by a Pub Op.

From what Potter said the ins ind was smacking its lips with the idea that people HAD to get some sort of cover because it means now they are going to get millions of more customers at mostly the government’s expense because all these bills so far keep them in the mix just leveling their fees a bit, but they will get many more premium payments to fuck around with in risky investments.

That’s true, but Social Security and Medicare were/are open to all Americans and to many, it’s mandatory. The public option is only open to around 10%. I wonder how many Americans would support this public option if it wasn’t available to them. I think the Democratic Party is skating on very thin ice with such convoluted reforms.

On KOS, scroll down to
“Health Care Tuesday
by DemFromCT
Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 07:00:03 AM PDT” and it should work. The link here works fine using Firefox.

Also, this idea about 60% or more Americans supporting a public option is rather ambiguous to me, mainly because what do these people consider a “public option?” I’m not sure, but most would imagine it as some form of Medicare program for all. But from what I understand, these bills would exclude 90% of Americans from the public option. I’m not sure if most Americans are aware of that, though I haven’t read or seen all the polls. For me, what these bills do, call them what you want, is creating just another means-tested welfare program of some sort.

I hope that something can be done to lessen the burden on those within 125%-150% of the poverty line. Still, even if the burden remains as it is, and the other reforms we have been discussing are in the bill that is ultimately presented for passage in the Senate, I would urge a vote for it.

This process is extremely complex and painful. That fact does not weigh against the necessity for fundamental reform of the way we deliver and pay for health care. Rather, it underscores it.

The page comes up for a few seconds (the one going over the healthcare bill warning of its threat to low income famillites) then goes to error no matter how you link to it.

Its what I have been trying warn about. Thank you, Matt for digging for the dirt.

Excellent observations. A bill like the Baucus one mandating that every American find a way to get themselves covered [only in the private insurance sector] without (1) controlling health care costs and (2) providing some competition and choice for Americans is worse than no bill at all.

And, Mavis, I am hardly siding with Republicans. I am siding with progressives. The ones who pushed and refused to get on board until this latest Public Option option was reinstated– tho it still allows states to not allow it. But it was stubbornness that even put the Pub Op back into the mix.

You’re right. I was thinking the other day when seeing these bills with 900 to a 1000 pages how many loop holes were intentionally put in there for pre-existing conditions, cancellations of insurance, denial of converge and god knows else. Then you have this from KOS:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2962

And these people would be required to buy insurance, with the IRS acting as the enforcement agent? Could one believe the horror stories arising out of IRS enforcement action against them- garnishing their wages, seizing bank accounts? Obamacare could become Frankenstein’s monster. Obama and the Democrats would be blamed for it and rightfully so.

Yeah. That’s why we have a point. IT IS A PARTIAL VICTORY. That you can’t see that is beyond myopic – it’s total blindness.

Preventing insurance companies from issuing recisions will help people. Preventing insurance companies from denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions will help people. Instituting out-of-pocket spending caps will help people. Those who couldn’t afford care but will now receive assistance in buying care will be far better off. There are problems with the proposed bill, but there are real provisions that help real people (including me!). Additionally, many experts expect this bill to help with long term costs. Anna can continue to side with the Republicans by falsely claiming that the bill won’t help anybody or she can honestly acknowledge the benefits of this bill and then make a (frankly insane) tactical decision to oppose it.

According to my very confused understanding now is the Pub Op now something akin to Medicaid that is meant to cover those that have no cover and aren’t eligible for Medicaid and too young for Medicare??????

I grilled my retired school teacher sister on her health care cover under Medicare plus her AARP $100 a month supplemental. She has had some serious health issues and got to choose her doctors and had terrific care. Once on Medicare you have x amount deducted each month from So Sec check–still don’t know what that is.

Now what is goofy is all those years of having the great coverage teachers got as part of their benefits/salary package could have been going towards a single payer plan. Its all mad.

I admit I absolutely don’t know what the hell they mean now by a Pub Op.

From what Potter said the ins ind was smacking its lips with the idea that people HAD to get some sort of cover because it means now they are going to get millions of more customers at mostly the government’s expense because all these bills so far keep them in the mix just leveling their fees a bit, but they will get many more premium payments to fuck around with in risky investments.