The universal health care debacle: you will now be fined

As soon as I get disgusted with Republicans (not just for health care) and start giving the Democrats a new chance, they pull this. Wow. Those geniuses in the Democratic party want to fine those who already can't afford health care. If they go through with this plan, they minus well just hand the majority power back to the Republican party. I seriously doubt most Americans are against a public health plan to compete with private insurance, but eitherthe Republicans are getting in to Democrat's heads, or the Democrats were against the original plan to begin with (I'm starting to think it's the latter). The plan Obama wanted to pass originally was the most tolerable. Fining the people who can't afford health insurance is simply idiotic.

Your thoughts?

Considering a large percentage making more than 50K and some as much as 75K don't buy insurance....I don't see the problem. I doubt it would be enacted on the poor.LJS9502_basic

That is how insurance works. The more people join the lower the prices. I've no problem with that.duxup

If this is fining people who can't afford coverage, that's one thing... but if it's only fining people who can afford it but don't buy it, then that's worlds apart. That would pretty much just make it like auto insurance.

This is a good thing. It's so young healthy individuals can't cheat the system. If you can't afford insurance you will be subsidized.-Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="duxup"]That is how insurance works. The more people join the lower the prices. I've no problem with that.psychobrew

If this is fining people who can't afford coverage, that's one thing... but if it's only fining people who can afford it but don't buy it, then that's worlds apart. That would pretty much just make it like auto insurance.

GabuEx

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

If this is fining people who can't afford coverage, that's one thing... but if it's only fining people who can afford it but don't buy it, then that's worlds apart. That would pretty much just make it like auto insurance.

psychobrew

[QUOTE="psychobrew"][QUOTE="duxup"]That is how insurance works. The more people join the lower the prices. I've no problem with that.duxup

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

If this is fining people who can't afford coverage, that's one thing... but if it's only fining people who can afford it but don't buy it, then that's worlds apart. That would pretty much just make it like auto insurance.

psychobrew

I'm... not sure how that relates.

I would be willing to bet the farm against Congress passing a law fining people for not buying something that they can't afford. Especially considering that the poor tend to vote Democratic.

If this is fining people who can't afford coverage, that's one thing... but if it's only fining people who can afford it but don't buy it, then that's worlds apart. That would pretty much just make it like auto insurance.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]This is a good thing. It's so young healthy individuals can't cheat the system. If you can't afford insurance you will be subsidized.psychobrew

[QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="psychobrew"] You sure that works in the health care industry? I mean, there's already tons of people with health care and it's still way too expensive for people to afford (even if you're making $60,000 per year). I doubt signing up the rest of America will have much of an impact. Yes, they are supposed to reform the industry but I'll believe it when I see it, and if it does happen, it will just fall back in to dissaray in a few years. If these people could afford insurance, they'd already have it.psychobrew

[QUOTE="psychobrew"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

If this is fining people who can't afford coverage, that's one thing... but if it's only fining people who can afford it but don't buy it, then that's worlds apart. That would pretty much just make it like auto insurance.

I'm... not sure how that relates.

I would be willing to bet the farm against Congress passing a law fining people for not buying something that they can't afford. Especially considering that the poor tend to vote Democratic.

[QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="psychobrew"] How much do you think a legitimate unsubsidised health insurance plan costs?psychobrew

I highly doubt universal health care will happen.

So Car insurance should be optional?

[QUOTE="psychobrew"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]This is a good thing. It's so young healthy individuals can't cheat the system. If you can't afford insurance you will be subsidized.-Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="psychobrew"][QUOTE="duxup"] That depends on the plan (there are lots of plans), your age, health, who is buying it, etc.duxup

So Car insurance should be optional?

Meejoe27

It relates because even the middle class would have a hard time insurring their families if they can't get a subsidised plan through their employer. This is basically corporate wealfare for corporations.psychobrew

No, it's a recognition of how insurance works - the entire point of insurance is that most will not get out what they paid in. This is to make it so those who do incur bills covered by the insurance can foot them without going into bankruptcy. The more people who buy insurance, the less each individual will have to pay for insurance. And it's either that or foot a bill numbering in the tens of thousands of dollars all on your own if something bad does happen - which it really could at any moment.

Now, of course, as has been said, this will definitely require other reform as well to make it actually have a substantial effect - for one thing, 70% of those who go bankrupt through medical bills actually did have insurance, but one that refused to cover their bills due to their evaluating it as a pre-existing condition - but it's just better for everyone if everyone has health insurance for the above reason.

[QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="psychobrew"] Great, give me numbers. Even plans for young, healthy people are overly expensive. Plans can easily cost $13,000 per year. Even if you make $60,000, that's not affordable.psychobrew

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="psychobrew"] How are young healthy people cheating the system? Most young healthy people can't afford insurance to begin with.psychobrew

[QUOTE="psychobrew"][QUOTE="duxup"] There are a lot of plans, yeah I've shopped for and bought individual insurance ;) If you'd like to do that you can as well as I can.duxup

[QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="psychobrew"] How much did you pay and what was covered (also list deductibles)? I want to see numbers.....psychobrew

[QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="psychobrew"] How much did you pay and what was covered (also list deductibles)? I want to see numbers.....psychobrew

Because as I said, because they are cheating the health care system, and everyone who actually is responsible and buys insurance, whether through their employee or on the individual market, pays more as a result. And everyone needs insurance. The government, and more importantly, we as a society, shouldn't allow or encourage people to "play the odds" with their health, because God forbid someone who is uninsured gets serious sick or injured - their lives will be ruined - not from anything medical, but from all the debt.

-Sun_Tzu-

So then we should allow the government to control our lives? Not allowing people to "play the odds" would be exactly that. The article itself acknowledges that the plan proposed by the Democrats would require massive fees and taxes on the health care industry. All of which would, in turn, hike the price right back up despite the supposed savings from more people being covered. If this should come to pass then, given the assumed comparative inexpense of the government plan, more people would want to switch to that in order to save money, in which case the private insurers must raise their rates to provide a profit for their stockholders. That's an admittedly simple view of a market economy. The fewer people buying a good or service in a competitive market, the higher the price will be. After all, corporations will only produce so much of a given good or service without producing a profit.

[QUOTE="psychobrew"]It relates because even the middle class would have a hard time insurring their families if they can't get a subsidised plan through their employer. This is basically corporate wealfare for corporations.GabuEx

No, it's a recognition of how insurance works - the entire point of insurance is that most will not get out what they paid in. This is to make it so those who do incur bills covered by the insurance can foot them without going into bankruptcy. The more people who buy insurance, the less each individual will have to pay for insurance. And it's either that or foot a bill numbering in the tens of thousands of dollars all on your own if something bad does happen - which it really could at any moment.

Now, of course, as has been said, this will definitely require other reform as well to make it actually have a substantial effect - for one thing, 70% of those who go bankrupt through medical bills actually did have insurance, but one that refused to cover their bills due to their evaluating it as a pre-existing condition - but it's just better for everyone if everyone has health insurance for the above reason.

Bleh. I believe in survival of the fitest. It works well in the animal kingdom, and actually helps species survive.....;)

I'd rather take my chances and risk bankruptcy -- I'm practically there now anyway due to this recession. That risk sounds really good compared to spending $13,000 a year in insurrance (which would put many in bankruptcy anyway). Seriously, who can afford it? Even when I made a decent living before the recession started, there was no way I could have purchased a $13,000 policy.

Say goodbye to small business and self employment.

[QUOTE="psychobrew"][QUOTE="duxup"] For me? When I bought it I was paying something like 3600 a year. It was a very limited plan though. Mostly just one MD visit a year covered and coverage for large health issues. Basic MD visits were like $20. Thankfully I never had to test any of the other coverage. I don't doubt it is MUCH more now.-Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

Because as I said, because they are cheating the health care system, and everyone who actually is responsible and buys insurance, whether through their employee or on the individual market, pays more as a result. And everyone needs insurance. The government, and more importantly, we as a society, shouldn't allow or encourage people to "play the odds" with their health, because God forbid someone who is uninsured gets serious sick or injured - their lives will be ruined - not from anything medical, but from all the debt.

tycoonmike

So then we should allow the government to control our lives? Not allowing people to "play the odds" would be exactly that. The article itself acknowledges that the plan proposed by the Democrats would require massive fees and taxes on the health care industry. All of which would, in turn, hike the price right back up despite the supposed savings from more people being covered. If this should come to pass then, given the assumed comparative inexpense of the government plan, more people would want to switch to that in order to save money, in which case the private insurers must raise their rates to provide a profit for their stockholders. That's an admittedly simple view of a market economy. The fewer people buying a good or service in a competitive market, the higher the price will be. After all, corporations will only produce so much of a given good or service without producing a profit.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="psychobrew"] And that's for an individual, right? Any prescription bennefits? $3,600 is alot of money, and when you add your family members it's going to be way more than any middle class person without insurrance can afford.psychobrew

What's the difference between forcing people to buy healthcare versus just going with a single-payer system and taking it out via taxes?

Why does someone need to sit between me and my doctor and make a profit?

The the government shouldn't control our lives, and it is quite the stretch to suggest that an individual insurance mandate is anything of the sort. It's about as much "control" and police and the fire dept. An individual mandate protects peoples lives. Are you suggesting that an individual mandate + a public option is worse than just an individual mandate? And are you suggesting that a public option would RAISE private insurance premiums? That makes zero sense. And who gives a damn if the private insurance companies don't make as much in profits? No way should people go without insurance just because it might take away from private insurance profits, especially considering the fact that tens of thousands of people in the U.S. die every single year just in the name of those same exact profits.-Sun_Tzu-

Yes I am, because if it is as inexpensive as the Democrats claim it will be and can still provide a similar level of health care as the private insurers, it's better than even money that people will switch to the government plan, thereby RAISING the premiums of those still on private health care. That's business: the fewer people buying a good or service in a competitive market means a higher price for those who still buy that product. Yes, people die because of those profits, but like it or not that's business. They are in the business of risk assessment. I don't like it anymore than you do, to be sure, but like it or not we will not be able to afford the worst case scenario: every single man, woman, and child in America being under a government-run health care plan. You cannot honestly say to me that, if given the choice between a government plan on the cheap and an equivalent, yet more expensive, private plan you would choose the private plan.

Would you rather have people defaulting on even basic plans they cannot afford and then dying? Who would you blame then, the company or the idiotic regulatory committees that would, and will, come about because of the plan given in the article? Yes, it is sad that tens of thousands die in the name of those profits. More people may mean smaller premiums in the short, but it means in the long run far more payouts from the company to those people who are covered, which will induce the companies to increase their rates to keep above a certain profit margin. That's capitalism, and no amount of altruism will change it.

And yes, I am suggesting a public option plus a private option is bad. It isn't competitive. An option funded by the money we are forced to pay the government, our taxes, will inevitably have a massive advantage over a choice where you can choose to buy into their coverage. You're already paying for the public option, so why should one bother to pay for a private option? It would create a government controlled monopoly over the health care industry.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]The the government shouldn't control our lives, and it is quite the stretch to suggest that an individual insurance mandate is anything of the sort. It's about as much "control" and police and the fire dept. An individual mandate protects peoples lives. Are you suggesting that an individual mandate + a public option is worse than just an individual mandate? And are you suggesting that a public option would RAISE private insurance premiums? That makes zero sense. And who gives a damn if the private insurance companies don't make as much in profits? No way should people go without insurance just because it might take away from private insurance profits, especially considering the fact that tens of thousands of people in the U.S. die every single year just in the name of those same exact profits.tycoonmike

Yes I am, because if it is as inexpensive as the Democrats claim it will be and can still provide a similar level of health care as the private insurers, it's better than even money that people will switch to the government plan, thereby RAISING the premiums of those still on private health care. That's business: the fewer people buying a good or service in a competitive market means a higher price for those who still buy that product. Yes, people die because of those profits, but like it or not that's business. They are in the business of risk assessment. I don't like it anymore than you do, to be sure, but like it or not we will not be able to afford the worst case scenario: every single man, woman, and child in America being under a government-run health care plan. You cannot honestly say to me that, if given the choice between a government plan on the cheap and an equivalent, yet more expensive, private plan you would choose the private plan.

Would you rather have people defaulting on even basic plans they cannot afford and then dying? Who would you blame then, the company or the idiotic regulatory committees that would, and will, come about because of the plan given in the article? Yes, it is sad that tens of thousands die in the name of those profits. More people may mean smaller premiums in the short, but it means in the long run far more payouts from the company to those people who are covered, which will induce the companies to increase their rates to keep above a certain profit margin. That's capitalism, and no amount of altruism will change it.

And in no other developed country do tens of thousands of people die at the mercy of insurance companies. No where else in the developed world does anyone go bankrupt because of medical costs. And yet the U.S. is wealthier than many of those same developed countries.

Anywhere else, the deaths of tens of thousands of individuals would be rightly referred to as genocide. If in the U.S. that genocide is called "capitalism", I'll gladly advocate for it to be stopped.

And yes, I am suggesting a public option plus a private option is bad. It isn't competitive. An option funded by the money we are forced to pay the government, our taxes, will inevitably have a massive advantage over a choice where you can choose to buy into their coverage. You're already paying for the public option, so why should one bother to pay for a private option? It would create a government controlled monopoly over the health care industry.

tycoonmike

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]The the government shouldn't control our lives, and it is quite the stretch to suggest that an individual insurance mandate is anything of the sort. It's about as much "control" and police and the fire dept. An individual mandate protects peoples lives. Are you suggesting that an individual mandate + a public option is worse than just an individual mandate? And are you suggesting that a public option would RAISE private insurance premiums? That makes zero sense. And who gives a damn if the private insurance companies don't make as much in profits? No way should people go without insurance just because it might take away from private insurance profits, especially considering the fact that tens of thousands of people in the U.S. die every single year just in the name of those same exact profits.-Sun_Tzu-

Yes I am, because if it is as inexpensive as the Democrats claim it will be and can still provide a similar level of health care as the private insurers, it's better than even money that people will switch to the government plan, thereby RAISING the premiums of those still on private health care. That's business: the fewer people buying a good or service in a competitive market means a higher price for those who still buy that product. Yes, people die because of those profits, but like it or not that's business. They are in the business of risk assessment. I don't like it anymore than you do, to be sure, but like it or not we will not be able to afford the worst case scenario: every single man, woman, and child in America being under a government-run health care plan. You cannot honestly say to me that, if given the choice between a government plan on the cheap and an equivalent, yet more expensive, private plan you would choose the private plan.

Would you rather have people defaulting on even basic plans they cannot afford and then dying? Who would you blame then, the company or the idiotic regulatory committees that would, and will, come about because of the plan given in the article? Yes, it is sad that tens of thousands die in the name of those profits. More people may mean smaller premiums in the short, but it means in the long run far more payouts from the company to those people who are covered, which will induce the companies to increase their rates to keep above a certain profit margin. That's capitalism, and no amount of altruism will change it.

And in no other developed country do tens of thousands of people die at the mercy of insurance companies. No where else in the developed world does anyone go bankrupt because of medical costs. And yet the U.S. is wealthier than many of those same developed countries.

Anywhere else, the deaths of tens of thousands of individuals would be rightly referred to as genocide. If in the U.S. that genocide is called "capitalism", I'll gladly advocate for it to be stopped.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]The the government shouldn't control our lives, and it is quite the stretch to suggest that an individual insurance mandate is anything of the sort. It's about as much "control" and police and the fire dept. An individual mandate protects peoples lives. Are you suggesting that an individual mandate + a public option is worse than just an individual mandate? And are you suggesting that a public option would RAISE private insurance premiums? That makes zero sense. And who gives a damn if the private insurance companies don't make as much in profits? No way should people go without insurance just because it might take away from private insurance profits, especially considering the fact that tens of thousands of people in the U.S. die every single year just in the name of those same exact profits.-Sun_Tzu-

Yes I am, because if it is as inexpensive as the Democrats claim it will be and can still provide a similar level of health care as the private insurers, it's better than even money that people will switch to the government plan, thereby RAISING the premiums of those still on private health care. That's business: the fewer people buying a good or service in a competitive market means a higher price for those who still buy that product. Yes, people die because of those profits, but like it or not that's business. They are in the business of risk assessment. I don't like it anymore than you do, to be sure, but like it or not we will not be able to afford the worst case scenario: every single man, woman, and child in America being under a government-run health care plan. You cannot honestly say to me that, if given the choice between a government plan on the cheap and an equivalent, yet more expensive, private plan you would choose the private plan.

Would you rather have people defaulting on even basic plans they cannot afford and then dying? Who would you blame then, the company or the idiotic regulatory committees that would, and will, come about because of the plan given in the article? Yes, it is sad that tens of thousands die in the name of those profits. More people may mean smaller premiums in the short, but it means in the long run far more payouts from the company to those people who are covered, which will induce the companies to increase their rates to keep above a certain profit margin. That's capitalism, and no amount of altruism will change it.

And in no other developed country do tens of thousands of people die at the mercy of insurance companies. No where else in the developed world does anyone go bankrupt because of medical costs. And yet the U.S. is wealthier than many of those same developed countries.

Anywhere else, the deaths of tens of thousands of individuals would be rightly referred to as genocide. If in the U.S. that genocide is called "capitalism", I'll gladly advocate for it to be stopped.

OK, so they lower their prices. How do you suppose they'll do that? I can guarantee that in order to cut costs they won't do the sensible thing and cut out the bureaucracy. That's what makes the high executive jobs so cushy: they have inflated bureaucracies to do everything for them. Instead, they'll cut coverage, thereby driving more people away.

It's a no-win situation: either they cut costs by cutting coverage, thereby driving more people away, or they raise premiums, thereby driving more people away. You honestly think executives would be willing to cut into their own paychecks and cushions to keep their company afloat? If anything, the whole "bonuses for bankers" issue over the past several months should disprove that. Either way, the private insurers are screwed in the long run if there should arise a government-funded option.

Also we spend more than any other nation as a percent of GDP on health care and the costs and % keep rising. The issue of health care is an economic issue and won't be easy to fix, but certainly if left alone will be a larger economic burden than it is now.duxup

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

Yes I am, because if it is as inexpensive as the Democrats claim it will be and can still provide a similar level of health care as the private insurers, it's better than even money that people will switch to the government plan, thereby RAISING the premiums of those still on private health care. That's business: the fewer people buying a good or service in a competitive market means a higher price for those who still buy that product. Yes, people die because of those profits, but like it or not that's business. They are in the business of risk assessment. I don't like it anymore than you do, to be sure, but like it or not we will not be able to afford the worst case scenario: every single man, woman, and child in America being under a government-run health care plan. You cannot honestly say to me that, if given the choice between a government plan on the cheap and an equivalent, yet more expensive, private plan you would choose the private plan.

Would you rather have people defaulting on even basic plans they cannot afford and then dying? Who would you blame then, the company or the idiotic regulatory committees that would, and will, come about because of the plan given in the article? Yes, it is sad that tens of thousands die in the name of those profits. More people may mean smaller premiums in the short, but it means in the long run far more payouts from the company to those people who are covered, which will induce the companies to increase their rates to keep above a certain profit margin. That's capitalism, and no amount of altruism will change it.

tycoonmike

And in no other developed country do tens of thousands of people die at the mercy of insurance companies. No where else in the developed world does anyone go bankrupt because of medical costs. And yet the U.S. is wealthier than many of those same developed countries.

Anywhere else, the deaths of tens of thousands of individuals would be rightly referred to as genocide. If in the U.S. that genocide is called "capitalism", I'll gladly advocate for it to be stopped.

OK, so they lower their prices. How do you suppose they'll do that? I can guarantee that in order to cut costs they won't do the sensible thing and cut out the bureaucracy. That's what makes the high executive jobs so cushy: they have inflated bureaucracies to do everything for them. Instead, they'll cut coverage, thereby driving more people away.

It's a no-win situation: either they cut costs by cutting coverage, thereby driving more people away, or they raise premiums, thereby driving more people away. You honestly think executives would be willing to cut into their own paychecks and cushions to keep their company afloat? If anything, the whole "bonuses for bankers" issue over the past several months should disprove that. Either way, the private insurers are screwed in the long run if there should arise a government-funded option.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

And yes, I am suggesting a public option plus a private option is bad. It isn't competitive. An option funded by the money we are forced to pay the government, our taxes, will inevitably have a massive advantage over a choice where you can choose to buy into their coverage. You're already paying for the public option, so why should one bother to pay for a private option? It would create a government controlled monopoly over the health care industry.

-Sun_Tzu-

From the mouth of the Congressional Budget Office:

(You'll have to follow the link provided in the CBO Blog, it's a .pdf file)

Page Two:

According to CBO's and JCT's assessment, enacting H.R. 3200 would result in a
net increase in the federal budget deficit of $239 billion over the 2010-2019 period.
That estimate reflects a projected 10-year cost of the bill's insurance coverage
provisions of $1,042 billion, partly offset by net spending changes that CBO
estimates would save $219 billion over the same period, and by revenue provisions
that JCT estimates would increase federal revenues by about $583 billion over those
10 years.

How do you suppose they'll increase federal revenues by a half a trillion dollars? Tax hikes? Cuts to other, well-deserving programs? Cutting bureaucracy down? My bet is the first two. At what cost should universal health care come to when people realize just how expensive it is going to be for this country?

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Dude, no that's completely wrong. If people are leaving your product for another product due to price, why in the world would you raise the price of your product even further? What kind of incentive does that give your costumers to stay with your product? If there is shrinking demand for your product you do what any rational business man would do, and you would lower your prices. You don't exacerbate the shrinking in demand of your product by raising your prices - such an action would be suicidal. That's basic, basic econ 101.

And in no other developed country do tens of thousands of people die at the mercy of insurance companies. No where else in the developed world does anyone go bankrupt because of medical costs. And yet the U.S. is wealthier than many of those same developed countries.

Anywhere else, the deaths of tens of thousands of individuals would be rightly referred to as genocide. If in the U.S. that genocide is called "capitalism", I'll gladly advocate for it to be stopped.

-Sun_Tzu-

OK, so they lower their prices. How do you suppose they'll do that? I can guarantee that in order to cut costs they won't do the sensible thing and cut out the bureaucracy. That's what makes the high executive jobs so cushy: they have inflated bureaucracies to do everything for them. Instead, they'll cut coverage, thereby driving more people away.

It's a no-win situation: either they cut costs by cutting coverage, thereby driving more people away, or they raise premiums, thereby driving more people away. You honestly think executives would be willing to cut into their own paychecks and cushions to keep their company afloat? If anything, the whole "bonuses for bankers" issue over the past several months should disprove that. Either way, the private insurers are screwed in the long run if there should arise a government-funded option.

So how do you explain the scenario with the bankers? The executives there didn't care, so why should the insurance executives be more altruistic?

Why must we keep the private insurers? To give people a choice. As soon as the government starts to step in and outright refuses to give people a choice, or by making the choice so undesirable the average person goes along with what the government wants, the society becomes less free.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."- Benjamin Franklin

The essential liberty, in this case, being the freedom to choose what coverage one desires, whether public or private.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

And yes, I am suggesting a public option plus a private option is bad. It isn't competitive. An option funded by the money we are forced to pay the government, our taxes, will inevitably have a massive advantage over a choice where you can choose to buy into their coverage. You're already paying for the public option, so why should one bother to pay for a private option? It would create a government controlled monopoly over the health care industry.

tycoonmike

From the mouth of the Congressional Budget Office:

(You'll have to follow the link provided in the CBO Blog, it's a .pdf file)

Page Two:

According to CBO's and JCT's assessment, enacting H.R. 3200 would result in a
net increase in the federal budget deficit of $239 billion over the 2010-2019 period.
That estimate reflects a projected 10-year cost of the bill's insurance coverage
provisions of $1,042 billion, partly offset by net spending changes that CBO
estimates would save $219 billion over the same period, and by revenue provisions
that JCT estimates would increase federal revenues by about $583 billion over those
10 years.

How do you suppose they'll increase federal revenues by a half a trillion dollars? Tax hikes? Cuts to other, well-deserving programs? Cutting bureaucracy down? My bet is the first two. At what cost should universal health care come to when people realize just how expensive it is going to be for this country?

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Um, no, that's not true. Firstly, as I've already told you, the public option has no competetive advantage over private insurers, and I'll take the CBO's word over your's. Also, the public option isn't funded by tax dollars directly. It is funded by its customers, like any other insurer. Yes it will receive tax payer money in the form of subsidies from those who cannot afford insurance on their own, but that is only if said person wants to use the public option. In reality, much more taxpayer money is going to the private insurers than the public option in this health care plan.

-Sun_Tzu-

From the mouth of the Congressional Budget Office:

(You'll have to follow the link provided in the CBO Blog, it's a .pdf file)

Page Two:

According to CBO's and JCT's assessment, enacting H.R. 3200 would result in a
net increase in the federal budget deficit of $239 billion over the 2010-2019 period.
That estimate reflects a projected 10-year cost of the bill's insurance coverage
provisions of $1,042 billion, partly offset by net spending changes that CBO
estimates would save $219 billion over the same period, and by revenue provisions
that JCT estimates would increase federal revenues by about $583 billion over those
10 years.

How do you suppose they'll increase federal revenues by a half a trillion dollars? Tax hikes? Cuts to other, well-deserving programs? Cutting bureaucracy down? My bet is the first two. At what cost should universal health care come to when people realize just how expensive it is going to be for this country?

Simple: I can't. The only countries we could be compared to have a far smaller population than we do, thus ultimately spend far less on health care than we would have to by default. Hell, the nearest comparison, Japan, has less than one-half our population. I highly doubt we'd be able to reach a level of savings that most western European or Pacific rim nations are able to simply because of our larger population. Indeed if the ultimate conclusion should arise, that being everyone on the government system, I could guarantee it.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

OK, so they lower their prices. How do you suppose they'll do that? I can guarantee that in order to cut costs they won't do the sensible thing and cut out the bureaucracy. That's what makes the high executive jobs so cushy: they have inflated bureaucracies to do everything for them. Instead, they'll cut coverage, thereby driving more people away.

It's a no-win situation: either they cut costs by cutting coverage, thereby driving more people away, or they raise premiums, thereby driving more people away. You honestly think executives would be willing to cut into their own paychecks and cushions to keep their company afloat? If anything, the whole "bonuses for bankers" issue over the past several months should disprove that. Either way, the private insurers are screwed in the long run if there should arise a government-funded option.

tycoonmike

So how do you explain the scenario with the bankers? The executives there didn't care, so why should the insurance executives be more altruistic?

Why must we keep the private insurers? To give people a choice. As soon as the government starts to step in and outright refuses to give people a choice, or by making the choice so undesirable the average person goes along with what the government wants, the society becomes less free.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."- Benjamin Franklin

The essential liberty, in this case, being the freedom to choose what coverage one desires, whether public or private.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

From the mouth of the Congressional Budget Office:

(You'll have to follow the link provided in the CBO Blog, it's a .pdf file)

Page Two:

According to CBO's and JCT's assessment, enacting H.R. 3200 would result in a
net increase in the federal budget deficit of $239 billion over the 2010-2019 period.
That estimate reflects a projected 10-year cost of the bill's insurance coverage
provisions of $1,042 billion, partly offset by net spending changes that CBO
estimates would save $219 billion over the same period, and by revenue provisions
that JCT estimates would increase federal revenues by about $583 billion over those
10 years.

How do you suppose they'll increase federal revenues by a half a trillion dollars? Tax hikes? Cuts to other, well-deserving programs? Cutting bureaucracy down? My bet is the first two. At what cost should universal health care come to when people realize just how expensive it is going to be for this country?

tycoonmike

Simple: I can't. The only countries we could be compared to have a far smaller population than we do, thus ultimately spend far less on health care than we would have to by default. Hell, the nearest comparison, Japan, has less than one-half our population. I highly doubt we'd be able to reach a level of savings that most western European or Pacific rim nations are able to simply because of our larger population. Indeed if the ultimate conclusion should arise, that being everyone on the government system, I could guarantee it.