Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Olberman leads with Lieberman, and Wyden makes the case that the bill is bad.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 07:09 PM
Original message
Olberman leads with Lieberman, and Wyden makes the case that the bill is bad.
WTF?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 07:11 PM
Response to Original message
1. Wyden is talking about expanding the pool in public option
He is opposed to opt-out because it will leave a large pool of people that are sick, unemployed, or under employed, that won't be able to get insurance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. He needs to begin making a case for expanding a public option instead of distorting it.
He needs to stop trying to sell that bullshit amendment.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. It is not a bullshit amendment
and the House opposes opt-out, opt-in, and triggers because they are designed to subvert the public option.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. In my view
it's a bullshit amendment



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Well, we hardly ever share the same view about anything
so there is nothing new there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. Wasted time
Some posters wont be happy unless the public option is watered down to irrelevance and everyone is fucked by mandates, all in the name of bipartisanship
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. You have spent a lot of time arguing for a bill you clearly don't understand, and conceded that it
may not be necessary.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Its an amendment, not a bill
Edited on Tue Oct-27-09 07:48 PM by Oregone
And you've spent a lot of time suspiciously fighting against something that is benign at worst (if its redundant), and potentially very beneficial (if the public option is exclusive). And do not even start with anyone's "understanding" of the proposal until you address your own.

In the coming days, we will all know what the "firewall" is and how exclusive the exchange will be. Wyden still has a great idea of having the employer contributions follow the workers, and become cash incentives in many cases

I await nothing more than a quote or link in lieu of a thoughtful response.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. "benign at worst " It's useless, and the unions are right to oppose it. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. If its useless, then can you please explain your vehement opposition?
Edited on Tue Oct-27-09 07:53 PM by Oregone
A useless amendment would result in a null effect.

Even if EVERYONE qualifies as an "EXCHANGE ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUAL" in the final bill (suggests redundancy), it is useful for redirecting the current employer portion of their benefits to their exchange choice.

PS. Thanks for the quote. Got a link this time?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. It's a recipe for fraud, and language in the exiting bills go further in opening the exchange.
Wyden needs to quit distorting the bills just to push his amendment. Period.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. This is an AMENDMENT
Edited on Tue Oct-27-09 08:08 PM by Oregone
How can the existing bills go further than something that adds more inclusiveness to them? Your statement can ONLY be true if this firewalls the exchange further. You are either confused or lying.

Yes or no....do the existing bills allow all workers to opt right into the exchange if they choose to (despite what their employer does)?

Honestly, you haven't really given any valid explanation how "fraud" will exist in this system. The ONLY place the vouchers can be used is on the publicly ran exchange (or they will be forfeited for the employer healthcare). The government will know the value of the voucher and how much was spent. Its not rocket science. Where is that claim coming for? Where is the proof?

I expect crickets. Please surprise me with an thoughtful response to my actual questions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. "You are either confused or lying...I expect crickets." Or you are in denial
Transition to the Free Choice System

Year 1— People who are currently in the individual market plus small employers with up to 25 workers and the uninsured have access to the exchange.
Year 2-- Add employers with up to 100 workers to the exchange.
Year 3 – Open exchanges to all employers.

Offset – The Lewin Group has estimated that the Free Choice proposal would reduce national health spending by $360 billion over the next 10 years and this reduced health spending would reduce the amount of revenue foregone through the health tax exclusion by $129.8 billion over that 10-year period. Thus, the amendment should raise revenue. It should complement and enhance the “stick” provided by the excise tax on high cost plans by providing a “carrot” to encourage selection of low cost, high value plans.

PDF

If the exchange is open to everyone from day one, why does it limit participation to employers with up to 25 workers? The individual market includes people who opt out of their employer coverage for various reasons, which they can do now, and the current bills also state participation by people in the individual market, e.g., the self-employed.

In fact, the HELP bill exchange is available through employers with up to 20 workers in year one, and the House bill is up to 50. Even Baucus' bill opened the exchange to employers with up to 50 employees.

If Wyden has a plan that opens the exchange to all on day one, he needs to produce it and have it scored.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. I think you are confused
You keep mixing up opening up the exchange for EMPLOYERS vs EMPLOYEES.

Yes or no....do the existing bills allow all workers to opt right into the exchange if they choose to (despite what their employer does)?

A yes or a no suffices.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Yes, and Wyden's plan still limits employer access more than Baucus'
Sec. 201. Establishment of Health Insurance Exchange; outline of duties; definitions. Establishes a Health Insurance Exchange under the purview of the Health Choices Administration that will facilitate the offering of health insurance choices. The Health Choices Commissioner establishes a process through which to obtain bids, negotiate and enter into contracts with qualified plans, and ensure that the different levels of benefits are offered with appropriate oversight and enforcement. The Commissioner also facilitates outreach and enrollment, creates and operates a risk pooling mechanism, and ensures consumer protections.

Sec. 202. Exchange-eligible individuals and employers. Defines who is eligible for participation in the Health Insurance Exchange including employers and individuals. In year one, individuals not enrolled in other acceptable coverage are allowed into the Exchange as well as small employers with 10 or fewer employees. In year two, employers with 20 and fewer employees are allowed into the Exchange. In subsequent years, the Health Choices Commissioner is granted authority to expand employer participation as appropriate, with the goal of allowing all employers access to the Exchange.

PDF

That's just one of the House bills.


A Health Insurance Exchange. The new Health Insurance Exchange creates a transparent and functional marketplace for individuals and small employers to comparison shop among private and public insurers. It works with state insurance departments to set and enforce insurance reforms and consumer protections, facilitates enrollment, and administers affordability credits to help low- and middle-income individuals and families purchase insurance. Over time, the Exchange will be opened to additional employers as another choice for covering their employees. States may opt to operate the Exchange in lieu of the national Exchange provided they follow the federal rules.

PDF


You could, of course, spit at your employer's offerings and go buy insurance on your own. But the individual insurance market is a scary place. You're on your own, so you have no bargaining power with insurers. Providers can simply refuse to sell you health insurance, or they can jack up your prices because of past illness. They can sell you a plan that's insufficient for your needs and that's thick with loopholes and technicalities. A favored trick, for instance, is to sell plans that don't cover any preexisting conditions: If you go to a doctor complaining of back pain, but it turns out you've felt back pain before, they don't have to cover any costs relating to the ailment.

The Health Insurance Exchange gives you another option. Unlike your employer, it will have a wide array of competing providers offering different plans with varying benefit levels, emphases and price tags. Unlike the individual market, insurers won't be able to discriminate based on your health history or your future risk. Plans will have to be certified as meeting a minimum level of comprehensiveness. Plans that routinely screw over members will lose customers to competing insurers.

The Health Insurance Exchange, combines the benefits of choice that are theoretically available on the individual market with the bargaining power and scale that's generally accessible only in large employers (and the exchange will, in theory, have more bargaining power than even the largest employers, as it will have a much larger base of customers). You also have a space to test out innovative ideas that might make the market better, like Sen. Jay Rockefeller's (D-W.Va.) insurance rating agency, or the public insurance option. You can standardize billing and payment methods and force the adoption of electronic medical records.

more


There are so many ways to push expanding availablity within the context of the existing bills, but Wyden is more interested in selling his bizarre plan.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. If any employee can quit their employer plan and join the exchange...
(which may not be the case at all--stand by for that text coming out)

Then that language would be redundant. Though, I have a feeling your "yes" will fizzle in the coming days...


BUT...you forget Wyden's idea to have the employer contribution follow the employer. That IS NOT in the existing bills.

Do you disagree with allowing employees that choose the exchange to take their employer health contribution with them, or do you simply think it should be done in "fraud"-resistant manner?

Straight answer...one or the other please

(I like to get you on the record, ya know) :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. "That IS NOT in the existing bills." Incorrect
Except it goes straight to the exchange.

Requires an offering employer to contribute to the Exchange for each employee who declines the employer’s coverage offer and enters the Exchange via the affordability test outlined in the act. The contribution is generally 8% of the average salary for the employer.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. "via the affordability test"
It will not, for every employee, take their employer's normal contribution and direct it towards the employee's exchange premiums.

Correct?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. If it's cheaper it will. You have asked so many questions that you didn't know the answer to maybe
you should take the time to become more familiar with the bills.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Maybe Im asking them to get your responses on record...
Edited on Tue Oct-27-09 09:56 PM by Oregone
To display your own lack of understanding, now and later. Im great at asking questions I already know the answer to.

LAST QUESTION...I promise:

In the current bills, will any employee be able to opt-out of their employer plan and into the exchange, and have their current employer's health contribution redirected directly to pay off their premiums

A *simple* yes or no is all I need
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
billh58 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 09:16 PM
Response to Original message
18. Like a tennis match...
:popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HopeOverFear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. LOL!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #18
24. I'll join you. I'm surprised I'm with Oregone/IndianaGreen on this one.
:toast: :popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-27-09 10:19 PM
Response to Original message
23. I didn't see that. I found that Wyden was saying the bill is lacking. He's right.
Don't get me wrong 10% is alot. But I do think that Reid needs to open it more and that's what Wyden is calling for. I don't see that as a put down to the PO, just a call to improve and also a call to us who want to be part of it to get proactive to force that hand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 09:05 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC