^ sorry too many typos (company's vs companies, etc)

The real way to discourage this is to make the company pay the government paid portion of the public insurance (have a private company rate it for a small fee, maybe the company(ies) who are providing stop-loss coverage to it as I'm sure the feds will want a stop-loss backup when they discover the costs are much higher than they realized) for each employee who has to use the public plan because the company doesn't offer a private plan. Of course they need to do this only to companies who offered it and dropped it after the public plan came out. But our politicians are too brain-dead and won't think of this.

@ag7433 - I guess the question is why don't companies do that right now? The reason companies offer insurance is to attract talent right? How well do you think that's going to work if they stop offering insurance to their employees just because there is a public option (that the person is going to have to pay premiums for)? Either those employers will have to offer insurance that's better, subsidize the employees premiums for the public plan, or offer a higher salary, otherwise that insurance isn't going to be much of a draw for employees is it?

I do agree with you that the penalty for not offering insurance to employees should be much higher than $150, and would add that they should perhaps have the option to pay the employees premiums into the public plan or something like that.

@Draugnar - I worded myself hastily but it doesn't change the meaning. Yes, they are masked racism by the right but it's not exclusive to the right. The ideas have infected southern whites regardless of political affiliation. Today at lunch the life-long Democrat I work for made the comment that times were much better when "a mexican or a n----- would get strung up in an ally if they acted improper" and the worst thing about our country now is "that people like me are going to be denied health care so it can be wasted on them." to which everyone else in the room just laughed.

That is "The South" in 2009. I hear it at work, I hear it from neighbors, and I hear it in public. We have ridiculously large numbers (as evidenced by the Town Hall meetings) of loud people that can direct and control national policy because they're being manipulated into acting against their own self interests based on fear of people with darker skin.

Should I assume everyone against Health Care that is white, is also racist? No, but I haven't met one yet except on the internet.

Since we're all volunteering information, I grew up a Republican in a family of Democrats, convinced my mother, and several aunts and uncles to vote for Bush in 2000. He broke every promise he made and grew government and dismantled liberties more than any President before him and in 2004 I registered Independent. I half-heartedly supported McCain in the primary but grew more open to Obama. Sarah Palin was the final terrifying nail in the coffin.

Are you going to share your name since you volunteered mine? (Thank you for the blog visit by the way!)

This is where we differ: I believe that helping the majority of people even if it lets a few moochers through the cracks. I also believe that strict measures aimed at going after those moochers, like in your food stamp and welfare example, hurt only the people who are legitimately trying to get by. The con-artists and the scammers will always find a way to exploit the system but if trying to stop them damages the innocent it is unacceptable to do so. This is exactly equivalent to my belief that it's worth letting 10 criminals go free on a technicality if it keeps only one innocent man out of prison.

My single mother raised three kids, worked two jobs, and made under $20,000 a year after my father left. There were times we had religious and government assistance via food stamps and welfare. I couldn't go to college even though I had the scholarships and needed to start working right out of High School. I busted ass to get where I am. Now own my own home at 24, 760 credit rating, have no debt other than my mortgage and live pretty comfortably.

I wouldn't have been able to get here without my mother being a "Welfare mom". People like my mother would have been caught up in the quest to stop the people you gave an example of (who are in the minority!) and I might not have had that chance.

Furthermore, the only people who get punished by going after the people who abuse the system are the children involved. By denying assistance to the abuser you are condemning the children into a life cycle repeating the failures of their parents because they are never given the chance to be better.

+1 to this being an excellent debate, I agree.

Now, since apparently I write novels, on to Healthcare Reform...

Both of your criticisms are completely logical but do not directly apply to the current situation. Under the current plans if you currently have Private Insurance you will NOT be able to switch to Public Insurance. They call it the "Firewall", I think it is bullshit but it's to protect the Private Insurance companies. Apparently this is a battle they're passing off for us to have another day once the Public Insurance proves itself, in that respect I agree with it.

Secondly, the costs will not be reflected in taxes except maybe for those who make over $250,000 a year (taxes on those people haven't even been raised yet as promised during the campaign) and even then, Obama has said that the Public Option will not be financed through taxes out of everyones paycheck. They're going to use Medicare Outlays (not benefits, big difference) to cover the costs but even that isn't final. They haven't decided how to pay for it all yet and it's all still open for debate and decision.

Shooting down Health Insurance Reform being sold right now based on speculation that it will kill Private Insurance or increase the taxes on everyone is just that, only speculation.

@ag7433 - "Re: 6 months to pick a dog for kids.. rushing health care."

Obama isn't creating a sound Health plan, he's been struggling to get Congress to do it but they've been dragging their feet and bickering about it like worthless sacks of shit. We have people arguing over if End of life counseling equates to Euthanasia and other ridiculous propaganda trails instead of a proper discussion over how it will be structured and how it will work.

People are blindly against reform at a time when nothing is set in stone and we have the power to shape the plan and influence how it is formed. Instead people would rather scream at each other in Town Halls.

PS - I'm really happy to see the discussion getting into specifics of what is and isn't a good idea, and not simply "reform is good vs. no! reform is bad!"

Real quick (gotta run catch the bus - I live as green as I can) - a quick web search will reveal lots about me, but My name is rob Bolin as many on this forum saw when I asked Chrisp to do a search on me sometime back.

@Hibiskiss - "We have people arguing over if End of life counseling equates to Euthanasia and other ridiculous propaganda trails instead of a proper discussion over how it will be structured and how it will work.

People are blindly against reform at a time when nothing is set in stone and we have the power to shape the plan and influence how it is formed. Instead people would rather scream at each other in Town Halls."

Agreed! This is one reason I've enjoyed this discussion so much. People are actually debating what insurance should look like, rather than just making absurd statements about fictional "death panels" or any other such nonsense.

@DrOct - I'm a bit ashamed to admit that I'm pretty surprised. I misjudged several people and this is the only place that discussion has been reasonable. I started off on the wrong foot because I was expecting to hear about all that bullshit here like I have been every single day everywhere else and that is my bad. I guess I should have figured that this is a Diplomacy website so people typically will be more likely to engage in proper debate.

I never really read these forums much before this thread.

Hibiskiss, there's a difference between a 'welfare mom' and a mother on welfare. Just like even though my kid plays soccer, it doesn't make my wife a 'soccer mom'. Those terms mean more than just the description of the words.

(To put it another way, when you hear the term 'soccer mom', do you just figure its a woman whose kid plays soccer, or is it more than that?)

@ag
>Toby, you don't get it. By adding a public plan to compete with private plans, it is basically allowing each private company to ditch offering a private plan.

What are you talking about?

Whatever ‘it’ I may or may not ‘get’ has nothing to do with this. All that I'm responding to is the bogeyman of free public health care, which may be found in some bills in Congress but not in any that has a chance of passage. On the contrary, the commentators today are wondering whether *any* public option will survive the Senate (my guess for now is yes). None of this has anything to do one way or another with the incentives that private companies have.

But as for those incentives … why the hell is your company offering health insurance in the first place? Right now, the fine for offering no insurance is ZERO, so why do you think that a $150 fine will give them incentives to NOT offer insurance? If the public plan is there, then that gives them one more option (if they're allowed to pay the premiums for the public plan). If their employees would rather pay for the public plan themselves, then your company doesn't have to pay at all (which is why many large companies like GM have a soft spot for national health care), but the odds of that aren't good.

Obviously, the existence of a public plan, if it is any good, will provide competition for private plans, just as much as a new private plan would. The government is under no obligation to preserve the economy in a static state; that's the sort of protectionist blather that one normally hears from big unions instead of so-called fiscal conservatives. If the private health insurers are regulated and legislated out of business, then that's bad, because it gives people fewer options. But if they go out of business because the public plan is better, then that's good!

Sorry for getting a bit snippy there. It's just so sad to see the only halfway-decent proposals in Congress getting cut down over fears of socialism, that I hate to see them get cut down out of sympathy for the established industry too. It looks like we're only going to get nothing but a regulatory and bureaucratic mess, which honestly is what I expected all along, but it's still sad to see it in action.

@ toby and the others: Pllease don't be the ignorant academic type. Are you really honestly questioning why a company would continue to offer health care benefits even though it is expensive?

Why do they do it now?

You will lose your labor force, your staff, your talent, your management, your competitive edge. People make companies profitable. If they do that, they will have a huge monthly turnover, no productivity, and nobody that will invest themself in the company since they will look to get out as soon as possible.

No, ag, we're suggesting that companies will offer health care later for EXACTLY THE SAME REASONS that they offer it now.

If the government provides free health care, then that incentive goes away, of course. But the government is not likely to offer free health care, not with what's up in Congress now. The best that we'll get is that the government will subsidise health insurance (through the public option) for poor people, who are mostly people who don't get health care from their employers now. (And then there will be that $150 fine, although I agree that that won't be significant next to the cost of providing insurance.)

Some States, such as California, already subsidise health insurance (through private insurers) for the poor. As California is nearly bankrupt, you can bet that they'll drop this if the federal government offers the same amount. In that scenario, there will be no change in incentive for companies in California to offer health care whatsoever (except that little fine, which goes the other way).

@Xapi and all - Companies offer health plans now to recruit quality employees. If the public plan is there and they can offer to pay the premiums for the employees, then they have no reason to play 8-10K per year for a private plan and ask their employees to pick up another 1000-1200 a year to boot. Offering to pay the public plan's premium will be the new recruitment strategy and will be what puts the private InsCos out of business.

@ Draugnar:

That will only work if premiums for the public plan are cheaper than premiums for the private plan. And that will happen in one of three ways:
1) the public plan is subsidised (not likely except for the poor, given how Congress is acting);
2) the private plans are strangled by regulations that don't apply to the public plan (possible but also not likely now);
3) the public plan is better and outcompetes the private plans (which in that case deserve their losses).

I do expect (if a public plan gets in there at all and starts to become popular) that (1) will eventually apply to more and more people, but I don't believe for a moment that will happen so quickly as to shock the economy. The privates plans will just go out of business slowly over time. That is not exactly a good thing, but it's not the horror scenario that leaves thousands of insurance company employees out of work in a bad economy.

Following this argument, it looks like a lot of the strands of debate generally come back to one of two questions: "Does the current system work?" and "What would happen if we changed it?"

It's certainly debatable in terms of what would happen if we changed it, but I do want to point out that the current system, regardless of your own personal experience in the hospital, on the phone with an insurer, paying bills, etc. may have been, does NOT work. The reason is that it is making our healthcare costs increase at a rate greater than inflation or GDP growth - which means that, left unchecked, it would ultimately cost more than we could possibly afford to pay for our healthcare system. This means it doesn't work.

I have a sense that in this debate, both here and throughout the country, people are getting far more wrapped up in the question of "do I like this specific plan?" rather than "what needs to be done?" So here's my challenge to people who are skeptical of this reform plan. Choose one of the following options:

1) Accept the medical bills and say that you're willing to see, at some point, the entire US GDP go towards healthcare - i.e., cut all forms of consumption, capital investments, etc. other than those related to healthcare. Want to buy new clothes? Too bad - you need to pay for your pills.
2) Propose a better way to control the costs associated with the healthcare system.

As we increasingly come to expect medical care to make up for our bad habits (a drug can lower your cholesterol so you can eat crap), you can get your stomach staples to reduce weight, we get our knees replaced because our morbidly obese bodies, etc, as we come to expect medicine to fix all these human caused (contributed to) problems, wouldn't you expect medical care to increase as a % of our income?

Today's news looks like Obama is backing from a public health plan, and will focus on on insurance reform/competition.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/16/town-halls-having-impact-white-house-bends-health-care-provision-face/

It just goes to show the power of the Right-wing media to demonize and scare the simple minded. The minority of people loudly protesting at these Health Care town halls do not represent Conservative values and I don't associate myself with them in the slightest.

They do not even have political beliefs beyond being flattered all their lives that they are somehow wise. FOX news and talk radio personalities have summoned up a fear of "the other" in these people and through their limited life experiences they can be directed like a weapon against anything. Thus, they're now being directed like a mindless horde against the Democratic agenda.

Obama has said all along that a public option is not essential to the bill but he is under the illusion that saying it now will soften the opposition. What he fails so miserably in realizing is that the people protesting are not protesting the public option and once it is not off the table they wont stop there.

The Right-wing media and their corporate lobbyists will then direct this weapon against every last part of the bill dismantling as much as they can and in the end none of the Republicans in Washington will vote for it anyway. Whatever remains of the bill will then be pinned entirely on the Democrats and they will be left to take all the credit for everything left after the corruption.

After this bill they'll direct it at the next item on the agenda to damage the Administration as much as they can in hopes of rising to power and becoming elected again. Democrats never learn and if they can't pass the agenda items that they were voted in on with such massive mandates and control of both the House and the Senate what will they be able to pass?

I saw this woman yelling at Arlen Specter, speaking not about the issue, but hyperbole and histrionics, saying 'what you are doing is evil and I don't want this country to turn into Russia.' I would have loved for Specter to say, OK, tell me what POLICY fears you have, not the abstract, but what it is that we could do that frightens you and HOW it would turn this country into Russia.

I would love to see whether these frightened patriots really understand what they are suggesting.... Whether they understand the economic and political factors that make people fear that this country could turn socialist. Don't get me wrong, I could see an educated person making an argument that would make some logical sense. I just want to see if the protesters who are so 'frightened' can.

They had that woman on MSNBC and interviewed her. When asked if her taxes would be raised and if she made more than $250,000 a year she replied that she had no idea because her husband handled all the bills (dot dot dot...). When asked why this issue made her politically active and why she didn't become politically active leading up to the war in Iraq she said that war is no big deal and we've always been at war so it wasn't as important: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKwgV8PAAYE&feature=related

These people can't make that argument because they do not know, they are afraid because the Glenn Becks and the Rush Limbaughs tell them to be afraid. It's embarrassing as a country and for the actual conservatives in this country because it damages the perception of conservative ideas in the public mind over the long term.

Real conservatism is almost dead in this country and these people are on the vanguard of destroying it.

I don't think they are really frightened about this only issue. I think it's just the cumulation of all the changes and spending that's occured. It has a feeling (especially for the right wing) of total freefall without any control or outlet.

Personally, I think the conflict is great and prefer the struggle. The least dramatic change is the best. The US government was set up to gridlock itself to avoid sweeping public opinion and current trends (by either side).

Ag, "I think it's just the cumulation of all the changes and spending that's occured."

What changes are you referring to?

I'd still like the answer to this question, from anyone who thinks that because your healthcare costs rise every year, that proves the system doesn't work.

"As we increasingly come to expect medical care to make up for our bad habits (a drug can lower your cholesterol so you can eat crap), you can get your stomach stapled to reduce weight, we get our knees replaced because our morbidly obese bodies, etc, as we come to expect medicine to fix all these human caused (contributed to) problems, wouldn't you expect medical care to increase as a % of our income?"

@ag7433 - What changes, there has been no spending greater than the previous administration? The majority (1.2t of the 1.8t 2009 budget) is leftovers that will take some time to clean up.

@Dingle - I agree that it is a major contributor, that and drug marketing. Drug companies should not be able to market their drugs to the public over television as it only serves to create hordes of self diagnosers who want this drug or that drug. Too much of our medical care and education is focused on treating the problems instead of preventing them. Proper nutrition isn't taught widely in schools or at least it wasn't in mine and parents can be even worse!

I'd like to see something like tax credits for businesses that provide gym memberships to employees or higher taxes on unhealthy foods (or the reverse on healthy food) to encourage people to eat better. I think someone mentioned that in this thread also.

I don't know how that would affect costs but it's impossible to get fat eating healthy foods, but healthy foods are more expensive than bags of chips and pastries. I haven't put any thought into this idea but perhaps there is some way to encourage people to live healthier without being overly aggressive about mandating it.

Sadly a lot of people think it's the AMERICAN way to be a fat piece of lazy shit.