Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General The fallout: Democrats rethinking health care bill

Well, if we could somehow restrain the lobbyists that have worked very hard over the last several decades to get their piece of the financial pie which they absolutely will not give up—perhaps. That is the reason this bill went from 5 pages to gawd knows how many. Simple would be nice, as would tossing the existing medical financing system. Do you really think there is a chance in hell of doing that with our bought and paid for politicians?

Who pays for that expansion?

My proposition? A VAT tax—say 4%, with some items excluded, which would pay for a fairly inclusive but basic single payer system that would cover all US citizens. The citizens who wanted more extensive coverage would be able to purchase additional private policies or pay for out of pocket to cover items excluded in the single payer package as is now available for current Medicare recipients . I truly believe the majority of Americans would support such a system.

Of course after the lobbyists, hysterics, media ravers, bloggers, and hired professional hit men got through ripping this proposal apart it would be difficult to ascertain what exactly would remain from the post legislative wreckage.

Well, it is both an expansion and a contraction: Expanded coverage, yes, but also a contraction of systems. The private system will not go away - and hasn't in other countries with universal coverage. The private insurance industry skims about 16%-18% of profits from the insurance pool annually. Health Insurance Industry Fudges Data To Downplay Its Astronomical Profits . That, by the way, already eliminates the 6-8% needed for "administrative costs" related to claims and premium processing. Insurance companies additionally deduct from net revenues sales, lobbying, and advertising costs before reporting profits. Why Is a Public Insurance Plan an Important Part of Health Reform? Just to give that some perspective, with an average of of 6% margin (which is itself misleading, but let's not get distracted), the top five health insurers earn profits of about $2 billion a year. An additional $4 billion is spent on "non-medically-related" administrative costs (sales, marketing, boondoggles, excessive executive salaries, etc.), which equates to $6 billion a year just from the top five. That would cover a lot of people. Expanding the premium pool would also add significantly to the budget (I don't have figures for that, but it is significant), and reduce per capita costs. Savings alone account for a significant portion of the "expansion."

Can we, just for a moment, stop with the propaganda and deal with facts? We cannot just assume that the insurance companies are hiding billions, even if we believe it. We cannot just assume that that money will get put back into the equation.

Your ship has sailed and is out of sight. As of today it is either a bipartisan solution or nothing at all. Pelosi doen't have the votes to pass the Senate bill, and any changes will force another Senate vote. How do you think Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln will vote this time? Even Olympia Smowe and Susan Collins won't cross the line this time. Snowe got beaten severely over her last vote and it won't happen again.

This is a very disapointing happening I am sure, but America doesn't want to change the current system and no matter how many stars the Dems wish upon, it ain't going to get done.

Thankfully! The Almighty-given right for private enterprise to make profits from denying health care will never be abridged!

Um, sorry, my friend, but what part of that wasn't fact? I was relying on information provided by the insurance companies in public filings. Hard to dispute that as facts - I think your kettle is too black to properly assess the condition of the pot. Well, let's see, does that relate to my argument? Hmmm.... no. What I am saying is, that health insurance companies drain more than $6 billion annually from money spent for health care in the United States. Personally, I think eliminating that from the equation is a good start, not that it is the be-all and end-all solution, but there is no value added to healthcare services by their participation in the process.

I may be talking policy, when you are talking politics, I grant you that. I don't believe the fight is over, and I think health care reform is still possible - well, maybe not, if the Supreme Court continues on its path toward fascism. I may agree that "Pelosi doen't have the votes to pass the Senate bill," although I may also not agree, and I would argue that a "bipartisan" solution is "nothing at all." The problem is that the Health Insurance industry has won another round. They are "too big" for the US to succeed.

Boy you can say that as many times as you want., well, there I think you are just totally wrong. In Polls, Much Opposition to Health Care Plan Is From Left. In poll after poll more Americans prefer reform, than the status quo. You may be relying too much on corporate reporting regarding poll numbers. Actual analysis of the polls indicate more support for reform than Republicans allege ( Health-Care Reform Is Popular. But the Bill Isn't. , because there is opposition to this particular bill, but only marginally. As Nate Silver points out, some of that opposition comes from those who think it doesn't go far enough. There has, however, been a concerted effort to skew perception of polls, as well as just plain skewed polls, so I can understand the confusion. What's Up With the Health Care Reform Polls?

Now, I can agree that it will be very difficult to reach any kind of a reasonable compromise if the GOP is included in the negotiation of a solution. Indeed, the GOP strategy since before Obama's swearing in is opposition to every item on the agenda. Every time Democrats have sought compromise they have been screwed. I go back to my suggestion that if the Democrats want to win in 2010, and 2012, they need to pass the Senate bill, and move on to jobs. Opposition to health reform will dry up in 6 months, except among the party faithful.

I think that estimate is way, way too low: Insurance companies collected about $817 billion dollars in premiums in 2009. Their Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) averages around 80%, which is the percentage of those premiums that actually went to pay for medical care. So they are consuming 20% or our premium dollars on "overhead". In contrast, Medicare's overhead runs under 5%. So just by expanding Medicare to cover everyone currently paying health insurance premiums would save us 15% of $817 billion, or $122 billion dollars!

And don't forget: Insurance company executives have already testified before Congress that they are not happy with an MLR of 80%. They want permission to go as low as 65%! That would cost us another $122 billion.

I know: $122 billion may not seem like much money, but if you add up 10 years worth (as opponents to HCR love to do) it comes out to 1.22 trillion dollars.

Thanks, PIA, for an even better way of looking at the numbers. We always underestimate how much we are being screwed by the big guys. Out of curiosity, do you have links for the figures? I'd like to use them.

Just a couple rhetorical questions:

Why was it so freakin' quick 'n easy seven years ago to figure out how to use taxpayer money to start a (still on-going) war that's been killing and injuring tens of thousand of people and tearing apart a small country...but so freakin' complicated 'n time-consuming to figure out how to use tax payer money to help its own citizens?

Is it possible the people in charge...regardless of who they are...don't give a rat's ass about anybody but themselves. Could that be it?