Kennedy committee releases health plan

Posted: Thursday, July 02, 2009 3:16 PM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: Congress, Economy

From NBC's Ken Strickland
Details on some of the most contentious elements of health-care reform were released today by one of Senate committees drafting the bill.

The Senate Health Committee unveiled its plan for a public/government insurance program to compete with private insurers. And it also detailed the "play or pay" provision that would require companies to provide insurance coverage to their employees or pay fees to the government.

Today's announcement, while significant, provides only a few new pieces in what has become a giant health-care reform puzzle. Several outstanding issues remain -- chief among them total cost of reform and how you pay for that cost. Votes are at least weeks away, and bipartisanship on major elements remain elusive.

Here are the outlines of what the committee released today. (This is the committee chaired by Ted Kennedy, but temporarily run by Chris Dodd.)

Video: As President Obama pushed hard again on Wednesday to overhaul America's health care system, battle lines were being drawn over how he'll pay for a government insurance plan without raising taxes. NBC's Savannah Guthrie reports.

The Public Option (officially called "Community Health Insurance Option")
-- run by the Department of Health and Human Services
-- government loans provide start-up cost, but would eventually become self financed through premium payments
-- would follow the same rules as private insurance for things like defining benefits, consumer protections, and setting premiums "that are fair and based on local cost"
-- doctors would not be under obligation to participate in the public option
-- doctors payment rates -- negotiated by HHS Secretary -- would be "no more than the local average private rates, but could be less."

Employer Play or Pay: ("Shared Responsibility of Employers")
-- companies that do not offer "adequate coverage" to full time workers would pay an annual fee of $750 per employee
-- companies that do not offer coverage for part-time workers pay $375 per employee
-- firms with less that 25 employees would be exempt from fees
-- companies most cover 60% of the cost of the monthly premiums to avoid fees

The Congressional Budget Office estimates the cost of the committee's bill at $611 billion over 10 years. (But because the Senate Finance Committee holds exclusive jurisdiction of other areas of health-care reform -- like Medicaid expansion -- that cost estimate is incomplete.) The panel also cites CBO figures that show 97% of American would have insurance coverage.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

Even though I am NYS employee, my health coverage sux! UnitedHealthCare...the worst of the worst! I would welcome a public option if it were better than the horrible Empire Plan administered by UnitedHealthCare!

pat huntington ny (Sent Thursday, July 02, 2009 3:24 PM)

The Democrats are at the point now where if you can't provide facts, then provide lies. Make stuff up, say the savings will occur in 2015, and say the costs will be a tenth of what they really will be. Anything to drag this turkey of a bill through Congress and on to Obama's desk.

Cole Weathers, Kansas City KS (Sent Thursday, July 02, 2009 3:24 PM)

why you post these threads first read i don't understand. you don't bother posting comments on the other threads. wtf?

wtf? (Sent Thursday, July 02, 2009 3:25 PM)

I like the new language of the health care bill. "Force businesses to do this", "Force people to to do that". Nothing like giving everyone choices, as long as they choose to do what the government tells them to do, then everything will go smoothly.

Btw, this is exactly why HillaryCare tanked in '93.

John Force (Sent Thursday, July 02, 2009 3:27 PM)

Darn - for a minute there I thought I was going to get health care from work. But our office is less than 25 employees - so no go. My health care monthly amount is the same as the mortgage and college loan costs. How long will I exist paying for all of this and what will be the first to go? Health care of course. So when I go to the hospital and unable to pay, your premiums will go up to cover me and all the other poor folks that can't pay. Make you happy??

Are you happy now? (Sent Thursday, July 02, 2009 3:28 PM)

-Thoughts on Hijacked Names-
It seems to me that most of the hijacked names turn up attached to very biased content, generally opposing the original posters views, including generally self deprecating comments. This is peculiar, as most of us are very aware of a regular’s views (including the spurious poster) so it couldn’t be to fool anyone (Bad Chihuahua endorsing Obama or Feisty Redhead agreeing with Cantor). I suppose that it could be to fool the “casual” reader, but why bother? For better or worse, this site is a community and it looks as if most of us are playing to that community. That said, some folks do enjoy “stirring things up” and perhaps fake posting is an amusing diversion for them. I do not believe that it is very effective (it is far too obvious) so I tend to read it and move on.
Worse than hijacked names are the constant posts from “subject driven names”; In general, these tend to be more vitriolic rant type posts, contribute nothing, and have far greater likelihood of being from just a few posters. They often pop up in groups. This is even more peculiar. It does take some effort to keep up in here and I believe that these posters are not only taking that time, but are spending the effort to post the rants. For the life of me, I do not understand why they do that, but there you are. You know, every community has crazy winos (and you know who you are) as well as productive members, but you know, sometimes it is hard to embrace a smelly wino, even if he is a part of the community :-)

Sam - NE TN (Sent Thursday, July 02, 2009 3:28 PM)

60 votes. No excuses. Harry had better grow a pair.

Mark, Columubs, OH (Sent Thursday, July 02, 2009 3:29 PM)

"The Congressional Budget Office estimates the cost of the committee's bill at $611 billion over 10 years. (But because the Senate Finance Committee holds exclusive jurisdiction of other areas of health-care reform -- like Medicaid expansion -- that cost estimate is incomplete.)"

Let me complete it for them- multiply by 5 then you will have a more accurate estimate of the true cost.

They can't cover the Medicaid/Medicare/Drug giveaways now. How will they pay for this?

Higher taxes and roaring inflation are on the way people. Make no mistake.

Pete Roleum, Detroit, MI USA (Sent Thursday, July 02, 2009 3:31 PM)

Insurance King (Sent Thursday, July 02, 2009 3:32 PM)

Do I get this right? Companies can now drop employee health care for the penalty of $750 per year? How many companies will be offering health care after 6 months of this?

The example of the Post Office and Fed Ex/UPS is also true. When I'm at work they insist I use Fed Ex or UPS for their quality and tracking. For personal use I use the PO because they're cheaper but the quality and waiting are not the best. I think that sums up what the public option will be like. However, considering there will only be private insurance for executives I'd better get used to it.

Alan, NJ (Sent Thursday, July 02, 2009 3:32 PM)

ANY government run health plan is trouble with a capitol T.

If the premiums are considered low, there won't be much coverage. The higher the premiums, the better the coverage, BUT, with Obama at the helm, you can't trust this plan at far as you can throw it.

OBAMA is a walking deception. A con artist giving America his middle finger. A figure of a mouse not to be trusted with anything, much less your health.

Wake the hell up.

Monkberry Moon (Sent Thursday, July 02, 2009 3:32 PM)

And of course, no tort reform. Thanks Barack, Chris and Ted!

Trial Lawyers Association (Sent Thursday, July 02, 2009 3:33 PM)

There is no room for "bipartisanship" when 39 of 40 Senators of the Party of No are already against the public option. Americans are already fully aware that the current "private option" means health insurance for the healthy and has managed to already ration health care by excluding those who need it.

Mark, Columbus, OH (Sent Thursday, July 02, 2009 3:33 PM)

I like the fact that a cheat like Chris Todd is determining the health consequences of both me and my family. I don't see what could go wrong with that.

Larry Neumann, Reno, NV (Sent Thursday, July 02, 2009 3:34 PM)

Another day, another bill, another million jobs lost.

Keko R., NYC (Sent Thursday, July 02, 2009 3:35 PM)

Truth is you can not buy enployee coverage for 750.00 per year. Most business could cut expenses by paying the 750.00 penatly and not provide health care coverage.

TEC-spring-TX (Sent Thursday, July 02, 2009 3:36 PM)

From another post...

>>>Jawillie- I provided the source. I do not understand the laziness involved in providing 'links'.

no joe, no bo, nj (Sent Thursday, July 02, 2009 1:47 PM)
==========
Or perhaps you're simply afraid that if someone were to read the same sources you read, they may come up with a different conclusion and offer a legitimate counterargument. Or worse, they may discover that you merely cherry-pick your facts to support your own opinions, which works well with the facts-challenged righties you preach to.

You used to be one of the more respectable righties here. I didn't usually agree with you, but your arguements used to make some level of sense. But now it seems your postings are merely a step above the other trained Limbaugh-Zombies that post here. What a shame.

"You used to be beautiful, man." - Samuel L. Jackson in "Jackie Brown".

http://jawillie.blog.com

jawillie Philadelphia, PA (Sent Thursday, July 02, 2009 3:36 PM)

Sounds GOOD
I have more faith in a plan created by Kennedy/Dodd than one by Bachus/Grassley

We're moving in the right direction

It's important to remember that hte (flawed) projection for Health Care costs was:

$1.6 Trillion for 10 years

comapred to:

$1.8 Trillion for 10 years
For Bush's Tax Cuts for the Rich

$ 1.0 Trillion for the Iraq War

Compare the costs:

$1.6 Trillion for Health Care
$1.8 Trillion for Bush's Tax Cuts for the Rich
$ 1.0 Trillion for Bush's Iraq War

Which is money better spent ?
Which provides a sueful service ?
Which Heals people rather than killing innocents ?

OH !! I FORGOT !!
Conservatives DON'T WANT US to hold GEORGE BUSH ACCOUNTABLE !!
It's bad for Bush's SELF ESTEEM !!!

MSierra, SF (Sent Thursday, July 02, 2009 3:36 PM)

Are illegals covered in that 97%?

Jose, El Segundo CA (Sent Thursday, July 02, 2009 3:37 PM)

97% of American would have insurance coverage that is a start forget about the bipartisan love affair. Health care reform is what the people want.
************************************
Jawillie and the rest of my fellow Libs Happy 4th.
FR Happy 4th; let's all enjoy the fruits of our labor.

Whatever you do; forget about that stupid Hannity Tree.
Jawille,
I love my country even more so now because the hands that once picked cotton are now picking policies to make this a more perfect union.
Also Confucianism rationalizes a man cannot get rich watching his neighbor even if he watches him day and night.
I hope you all got the Hannity Liberty Tree joke. Hannity watches republican outdated figures. Ha Ha Ha!
-----------------------------------------------------
Eric
In Obama We Trust!
I think Fox news should lay off the race card especially those ugly suggestions Greta Van implied about Elvis was MJ’s mentor when everyone knows it was James Brown.
******************************************
Altona Roberterson, Atlanta
Anyone see The Reverend Al Sharpon grinding with a young lass during a dance at MJs celebration at the Apollo the other night?

Mercy!
*************************************************
Altona;
Umh, that was a LASSIE.
***************************************************8
Contessa Brewer what do mean Al Sharpton said they want to be like us as he bumped and grinded with a lassie got that (Altona). We all want to be like each other. Why do some black straighten their while some white wear dread locks. Oh and don’t forget the sun tan.
-------------------------------------
Math Guy (Sent Thursday, July 02, 2009 10:04 AM)
Beverly in Chicago - Well that’s what happened with tax revenues drive by the Bushwhacker. America lost trillions and can't pay her bills either.
Tax revenues increased after Bush's tax cuts. Thanks for playing though.

++++++++++++++=======+++++++++++++++++++++
Hey Guy
Can you back that up with some statistics?

Beverly in Chicago (Sent Thursday, July 02, 2009 3:39 PM)

I believe Barack Obama and Chris Dodd. When have they ever steered us wrong? (Hint: Will create 4 million jobs).

Terry Gullible (Sent Thursday, July 02, 2009 3:43 PM)

And of course, no tort reform. Thanks Barack, Chris and Ted!
Trial Lawyers Association (Sent Thursday, July 02, 2009 3:33 PM)

Why do we need tort reform? I don't see any problem with getting in to see a doctor. The real problem is that most doctors, due to the cost of medical school, are opting to go into specialized, high-earning areas rather than general practice. If tort reform was really necessary, wouldn't there be a glut of general practice doctors, where the med mal premiums aren't as high?

Just a thought (Sent Thursday, July 02, 2009 3:43 PM)

Any of you who don't like the idea of making changes to the healthcare system need to ask yourself how long the current system will last?

I am an employer most certainly headed in the direction of foisting more of the cost of my employees healthcare on them...every employer will be there in 5 years or less. Think co insurance costs in the neighborhood of your house payments.

Anyone currently whining about socialized medicine needs to STFU unless they are prepared to decline medicare and tricare for themseleves and their loved ones...talk about socialized medicine but none of you ever jumps out here into real america and buys private insurance...c'mon over if you dare

STFU Already (Sent Thursday, July 02, 2009 3:47 PM)

Mark, Columubs, OH: '...60 votes. No excuses. Harry had better grow a pair...'

Sorry !!
Teoll THAT to:

Evan Bayh (D-IN)
Ben Nelson (D-NB)
Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
Mary Landreiux (D-LA)

THERE's the problem

Thanks, Sam - NE TN
I've had my name hijacked numerous times
WHY ?
It seems so silly...

wtf?: '...why you post these threads first read i don't understand. you don't bother posting comments on the other threads. wtf?...'

AMEN !!
What up ??

Trial Lawyers Association: '...And of course, no tort reform. Thanks Barack, Chris and Ted!....'

Obama OFFERED Tort Reform as a compromise to the Republicans
He asked for a compromise on thier side ...... NOTHING
Tort Reform will probably get done....

But, IT SHOULDN'T unless the AMA offers to RECIND BAD DOCTORS LICENSES !!!
It's probably 5% of doctors who are responsible for 89% of the suits
Why can't we get rid of Bad Doctors (or Bad Lawyers, Accountants, Politicians, Teachers....) ?

That's the problem with most of these law suits
A doctor with sucessful suits against him or violations of the law simply moves to a different facility or state

FIX THAT !!

MSierra, SF (Sent Thursday, July 02, 2009 3:48 PM)

Dodds bill: "companies that do not offer "adequate coverage" to full time workers would pay an annual fee of $750 per employee"

Great. Thht means every company out there will deep six their coverage of a person/family asap seeing it costs about $8000 a year to group cover a family. This of course will put private insurers out of business in, ohh, about 6 seconds.

Of course there's that pesky thing about who is going to make up the difference between the two numbers. The pages in the bill that are supposed provide that information look to be quite blank.

Insurance King (Sent Thursday, July 02, 2009 3:32 PM)
-----------------------------------------------------
I get your point, but those same companies could drop health care coverage today without paying any fine.
Companies provide health care coverage as a benefit to attract good talent. Some may do it out of the goodness of their hearts, but I don't think there are many that fall into that category.

There aren't many details available yet, but presumably this isn't going to be free to everyone, only those in the lowest income groups. It certainly couldn't be free to all for $611B over 10 years! So if my company drops that plan and another company doesn't, that's the better place to work since I would have to pay the full cost of the "Community Health Insurance Option."

I don't see how the forces of competition really change at all with a public option.

Chris - IL (Sent Thursday, July 02, 2009 3:51 PM)

Nobody seems to want to deal with the gorilla in the room: From a purely financial standpoint, the most cost-effective way to deliver coverage is for everyone one to be in one big group plan. The insurance industry has known this for over a century.

Until we all, as a country, decide that there is no inherent reason that the health care must be a profit-making enterprise, we will keep failing with systems that rely on rewarding investors. If our forefathers had not decided that water was too important to leave up to "free markets", we would all have died from thirst decades ago.

JC from IA (Sent Thursday, July 02, 2009 3:51 PM)

And of course, no tort reform. Thanks Barack, Chris and Ted!

Trial Lawyers Association (Sent Thursday, July 02, 2009 3:33 PM)
--------------------------------------------------------
Wouldn't limiting the malpractice awards a jury of free American citizens just be another form of socialism? Is that any different than telling companies what they can pay executives or what interest rates credit card companies can charge?

Chris - IL (Sent Thursday, July 02, 2009 3:53 PM)

Employer Play or Pay: ("Shared Responsibility of Employers")
--Independent groups that I have looked at have almost unanimously proposed moving insurance from employer-based to more individuual based. This doubles down on employment based insurance, no (On the other hand, we do need to spread the cost around)? My main concern is that such a plan might kill large employers. Some of the manufacturing sectors that don't provide insurance, will now incur costs. (But I am more than open to the possibility that my concerns are unfounded--in this particular instance). My guess would be that Wal-Mart might pull back support for this plan.

-- firms with less that 25 employees would be exempt from fees
(Do illegal immigrants or undocumented workers count?)

Nicholas: Minnesota (Sent Thursday, July 02, 2009 3:55 PM)

first read wakie WAKIE

WAKIE (Sent Thursday, July 02, 2009 3:56 PM)

Hey John Force:

What do the people realy want?

Government regulation, no government regulation
Wall Street, Main Street
All of it, None of it

We sure know how to dend mixed messages to our congress men and women.

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio (Sent Thursday, July 02, 2009 3:58 PM)

[I like the new language of the health care bill. "Force businesses to do this", "Force people to to do that". Nothing like giving everyone choices, as long as they choose to do what the government tells them to do, then everything will go smoothly.
Btw, this is exactly why HillaryCare tanked in '93.
John Force]
--Forget '93, this is why her campaign tanked in the primaries. Every challenge was met with more government intervention. P-BO at least pretended he knew how the free-market worked (not that he is utilizing it as President).

[Dodds bill: "companies that do not offer "adequate coverage" to full time workers would pay an annual fee of $750 per employee"

Great. Thht means every company out there will deep six their coverage of a person/family asap seeing it costs about $8000 a year to group cover a family. This of course will put private insurers out of business in, ohh, about 6 seconds.

Of course there's that pesky thing about who is going to make up the difference between the two numbers. The pages in the bill that are supposed provide that information look to be quite blank.

Insurance King]
--Those are great questions. I hope those get answered before they try to pass this bill.

Dems are smart, because they know that if they pass a public option and it fails, then all they have to do is request more money for it. Once you give something to the American people, it is difficult to take away. Which might explain some of our current budget problems. CA especially, people vote for everything then nix on paying. What a great country (or as the Democrats like to pretend--Rome).

Nicholas: Minnesota (Sent Thursday, July 02, 2009 4:03 PM)

One more time-

it costs too much. We can't afford it. Period.

There are many things people 'deserve' but don't get. There are many things that people forego because of the cost. Now the government is going to mandate that they get these things, forcing our taxes up. As a bonus, because they could not possible raise taxes high enough to pay for it, as it would be political suicide, the debt will explode.

Take a look at public education in this country. Health care has the same issues; in fact, in polls, you see the same result. Majorities believe that schools are inefficient, do not teach, yada, yada. Asked about their own school system, and majorities think their schools are the exceptiion.

Likewise health care-majorities think the health care system needs to be overhauled, but vast majorities, (over 70% in each and every poll-look it up), are very satisfied with their own health care.

Why? Well, politicians keep telling them about the lousy schools, so they believe them. Politicians tell them about the lousy health care others get, so they believe that, too.

Unfortunately, they don't want to PAY for any of these things. They believe that the good fairy will come along, wave a magic wand, and 'poof'! health care reform at no cost will arrive.

I can only hope that the outcry from the cost will derail this disaster before it gets going. Obama seems to be an adherant of Lenin's philosophy-get them by the stomachs and genitals, and their hearts and minds will follow.

no joe, no bo, nj (Sent Thursday, July 02, 2009 4:06 PM)

American Socialists (Sent Thursday, July 02, 2009 4:07 PM)

More NO! NO! NO! from conservatives. What are their ideas? What plan do they have?

Some people just don't see that our current system is breaking down. They think everything is just fine. . .they must live very isolated lives. Or walk around with blinders on. Or choose not to care about the single mother of two kids, working full-time, who is unable to pay for insurance. She hasn't been to the doctor in six years because she can't afford to pay for a visit. To afford her company's insurance ($200.00/mo.), she'd have to take on another job. But that would mean paying for more childcare. It's a vicious cycle. Meanwhile, she suffers through days of pain from migraine headaches because she can't afford to go to the doctor to get her prescription for pain medication renewed. She makes too much to receive low-cost treatment from the county clinic (although her kids get care through the SCHIP). When I see her at church, trying to sing through the pain, I wonder what is wrong with our wealthy country. Why can't we figure out this puzzle?

This issue--health care reform--is not a Democrat or a Republican or a Liberterian issue. It's an American one. It's also an ethical one that can't be ignored.

Bethie in TX (Sent Thursday, July 02, 2009 4:08 PM)

Hey Guy
Can you back that up with some statistics?

Beverly in Chicago

Sure. Just go to google.com.

Math Guy (Sent Thursday, July 02, 2009 4:09 PM)

It's not serious reform if they don't take on the huge problem of trial lawyers who force doctors and other medical providers to jack up their rates to cover their ridiculously high insurance premiums. It's also not honest reform if it doesn't spell out to the american people that coverage for reproductive services means covering abortion which is the killing of innocent life. Lastly, First Read, you never covered the grilling of Robert Gibbs by Helen Thomas and the CBS reporter Chip Reid due to their feeling that the Obama team manipulates and controls the media and the town hall meetings. Add to that the fact that yesterday's dramatic hug from Obama to the cancer patient lady--she's actually a Dem worker who has moderated past health care reform town hall meetings....more staged "emotion" and manipulation by this administration. BUt of course you didn't cover it because it's not news to you unless it is positive for Obama or negative for conseratives. Well, at least you told us the "critical" news about Sarah Palin in Runner magazine. I'm glad you have priorities.

"Reform"???? and First Read lost credibility (Sent Thursday, July 02, 2009 4:12 PM)

[I get your point, but those same companies could drop health care coverage today without paying any fine. Companies provide health care coverage as a benefit to attract good talent.

Certainly couldn't be free to all for $611B over 10 years!
Chris - IL]
--I guess the problem to private insurance is that the public option would be like a safety net. If a private plan is dropped, it wouldn't necessarily hurt the employers' recruitments, because there is still a public plan out there. And paying the fine is cheaper than providing the private insurance. Thus, private insurance would suffer at the feet of the government.
--The problem with the $610 billion is that we haven't felt it yet--like we haven't felt the war or any of the stimuli.
(Your point about needing more details is right on, because right now, there are a lot of questions).

[Nobody seems to want to deal with the gorilla in the room: From a purely financial standpoint, the most cost-effective way to deliver coverage is for everyone one to be in one big group plan.
JC from IA]
--I'm going to go out on a limb and observe that that's probably the first time you've ever used the word 'financial'. I just don't know where to start, illogical!

Nicholas: Minnesota (Sent Thursday, July 02, 2009 4:15 PM)

Barack Obama just wants to be famous, quoted and remembered.

It's an insecurity issue.

Why you people elected him to lead this country I'll never know. Oh yeah, you were duped. That's okay, nobody's perfect.

Peter Percival Patterson (Sent Thursday, July 02, 2009 4:16 PM)

Jawillie-if I didn't want people to read these things for themselves, would I post the source and add 'don't take my word for it, read it yourself'?

I know you don't agree with my fiscal conservatism-no problem, I don't agree with your liberalism. I do not, though, accuse you of spouting Democrat talking points; nor should you accuse me of spouting radio show talking points. It would be impossible for me to do so-I only listen to sports talk radio, as I have said before. And, I do not try to rile you by posting some of what is said about your Phillies. Or, heaven help us, your Flyers, (who cannot beat my Devils).

So, if I cite a source that is easily found, what difference does it make if I, to use parentspeak, use my words, rather than post a link?

I notice that you gloss over the pertinent facts of my post, which was, NOBODY WANTS TO PAY FOR THIS PROGRAM. Also, that First Read, (which did not post a link), gave the barest of facts in an attempt to convince readers that the health care proposal was overwhelmingly supported.

no joe, no bo, nj (Sent Thursday, July 02, 2009 4:17 PM)

Thoughts on Hijacked Names-
It seems to me that most of the hijacked names turn up attached to very biased content, generally opposing the original posters views, including generally self deprecating comments. This is peculiar, as most of us are very aware of a regular’s views (including the spurious poster) so it couldn’t be to fool anyone (Bad Chihuahua endorsing Obama or Feisty Redhead agreeing with Cantor). I suppose that it could be to fool the “casual” reader, but why bother? For better or worse, this site is a community and it looks as if most of us are playing to that community.
------------------------------------------------------
Sam in TN, I appreciate what you're trying to say, but I think you might be taking this 'community' a little too seriously. It's one of the problems of the blogosphere. This site is like a group of imaginary friends-none of us know one another in real life, we feel a kinship with the people who share our views, but it's not exactly a substitute for human interaction. And it's one of the reasons why the political discourse in this country has gone downhill; there are a number of folks on here who I have a hard time believing would talk to their friends or family they way they spout off on here. When I come on here, I see the same people ALL THE TIME. For all we know, we're communicating with a bunch of sixth graders, pedophiles in prison or grizzled old shut-ins who are 95 years old and who've lost their fastballs two decades ago.

Elizabeth, Short Pump VA (Sent Thursday, July 02, 2009 4:18 PM)

I love the language here:

"doctors would not be under obligation to participate in the public option" but their pay "would be no more than the local average private rates, but could be less."

So, basically the government plan will offer lower premiums by offering lousy reimbursement to doctors like medicare, tricare, and medicaid do. Well, that and taxpayer money. Everyone will of course say "great rates!!!" and jump on the govt plan. Then EVERYBODY will be on the govt plan, so doctors will either have no patients or have to accept the govt plan. Hmmm....sounds like forcing to me. Further, nobody can get insurance for $750, so obviously the private sector will just "pay" rather than "play." Private insurance companies will go bust = more unemployment.

Problem is, when lotty dotty everybody is on a gov't plan, doctors will not be able to cover their costs to operate/buy equipment/pay for malpractice insurance, etc. Private practices will be a thing of the past....

READ BETWEEN THE LINES AMERICA!!! THIS IS SOCIALIZED MEDICINE COMING AT YOU!!!

Mike Weston, Miami, FL (Sent Thursday, July 02, 2009 4:34 PM)

To those commenting about the $750 fee per employee, it says IF companies do not provide adequate coverage, that company can be charged a fee. As it is right now, every employer can drop your coverage at a moment's notice--that's what "employer's discresion, subject to change" means. That's not new, it's in the language of your employer's plan. So, at some point in the future, we may all be facing the no insurance problem because employers are becoming less competitive with these costs. I just hope there's a public option available when it happens.

Jody, Iowa (Sent Thursday, July 02, 2009 4:38 PM)

Hey Guy
Can you back that up with some statistics?

Beverly in Chicago (Sent Thursday, July 02, 2009 3:39 PM)
-----------------------------------------------------
He can't back it up, because it isn't true!

2000 - 2,025B
2001 - 1,991B
2002 - 1,853B
2003 - 1,782B
2004 - 1,886B
2005 - 2,154B
2006 - 2,407B
2007 - 2,568B
2008 - 2,554B

So tax revenues to the US didn't increase until 2005. It is hard to say whether tax revenues would have been the same or higher without the tax cuts, but you can obviously see that the tax cuts produced an increased deficit until 2005.

Chris - IL (Sent Thursday, July 02, 2009 4:39 PM)

If we're going all the way, then lets go all the way.

American Socialists (Sent Thursday, July 02, 2009 4:07 PM)
--------------------------------------------------------
But we are not becoming a socialist nation. That is a rush talking point but completely untrue.

We have not NATIONALIZED banks as so many say. As the banks are becoming healthy, they are paying the money back and then the government is getting out of their business.

Yes we will own most of GM, but that is not unprecedented. In the 1970s we owned Conrail. It was a similar "bailout" and the end result was a stronger railroad that went private in the 1980s and ended government ownership.

By the way, our government has NOT told companies what they can pay executives. All President Obama has pushed is to force companies to perform a non-binding proxy vote. In other words, disclose full salary information and make it easy for shareholders to find the information.

And they have only changed credit card rules to prevent bait and switch type rate changes.

You don't have to agree with what President Obama and the Democratic congress are doing. But spouting nonsense about them being socialists eliminates any credibility!

Chris - IL (Sent Thursday, July 02, 2009 4:47 PM)

To Jody in Iowa:

Is the Govt plan a safety net we need, or is it the EXCUSE companies need to drop coverage and still be held as morally ok? No company wants to have some kid on the front page that is sick b/c they dropped health care. But, hey if Uncle Sam will be there, what's to stop them????

Mike Weston (Sent Thursday, July 02, 2009 5:13 PM)

Doctors now, under Medicaid, are paid lower rates. Let's remember that most doctors became doctors to help people. I know the physician I see takes poor patients and the elderly, those who have no insurance.

My dad saw many elderly, diabetics who needed their feet and legs examined at least twice a month. Medicare paid him 7 dollars a patient. Still, he felt a responsibility to people to uphold the oath he took as a physician.

Most large employers will not drop health care. One of the reasons people join large companies are the benefits, one being health care.

But a little competition will be good. I just received my new health care card with a book explaining what is and isn't covered. The not covered section is very very long. So even though I think I have good insurance, I may be in for a surprise if I ever get really sick.

What really made me gag was the bold statement that read: HealthNet is a for-profit company. That is the problem with our health care system. Your sickness takes from their profits, so you get dropped or don't receive coverage. Maybe a government plan will make this for profit companies consider just how much profit is too much.

Regardless, this health care reform, and I believe it will pass, is only a step in the direction of how we should care for each other. Denmark's system, both private and public, seems to be working well. Time had an article about countries and their health care.

What gets me is that the health of Americans should not be a political party issue. Those in Congress need to act like adults, and understand that if they represent the American people, than they need to put their own political agendas aside.

Anyone think that can be done?

Chandler W. (Sent Thursday, July 02, 2009 5:40 PM)

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=1985426