After all the fuss, govt health plan to cover few

Note in the article that there is a high probability that the current 
"public option" of ObamaCare will produce a benefit to the Insurance 
Industry.

Email your elected officials and ask them how much money they've 
accepted from the Insurance Industry during the last five years:
--Anyone can make their opinion known:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml
---


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091031/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_public_plan

After all the fuss, govt health plan to cover few
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – What's all the fuss about? After all the noise over 
Democrats' push for a government insurance plan to compete with private 
carriers, coverage numbers are finally in: Two percent.

That's the estimated share of Americans younger than 65 who'd sign up 
for the public option plan under the health care bill that Speaker Nancy 
Pelosi, D-Calif., is steering toward House approval.

The underwhelming statistic is raising questions about whether the 
government plan will be the iron-fisted competitor that private insurers 
warn will shut them down or a niche operator that becomes a haven for 
patients with health insurance horror stories.

Some experts are wondering if lawmakers have wasted too much time 
arguing about the public plan, giving short shrift to basics such as 
ensuring that new coverage will be affordable.

"The public option is a significant issue, but its place in the debate 
is completely out of proportion to its actual importance to consumers," 
said Drew Altman, president of the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. 
"It has sucked all the oxygen out of the room and diverted attention 
from bread-and-butter consumer issues, such as affordable coverage and 
comprehensive benefits."

The Democratic health care bills would extend coverage to the uninsured 
by providing government help with premiums and prohibiting insurers from 
excluding people in poor health or charging them more. But to keep from 
piling more on the federal deficit, most of the uninsured will have to 
wait until 2013 for help. Even then, many will have to pay a significant 
share of their own health care costs.

The latest look at the public option comes from the Congressional Budget 
Office, the nonpartisan economic analysts for lawmakers.

It found that the scaled back government plan in the House bill wouldn't 
overtake private health insurance. To the contrary, it might help the 
insurers a little.

The budget office estimated that about 6 million people would sign up 
for the public option in 2019, when the House bill is fully phased in. 
That represents about 2 percent of a total of 282 million Americans 
under age 65. (Older people are covered through Medicare.)

The overwhelming majority of the population would remain in private 
health insurance plans sponsored by employers. Others, mainly low-income 
people, would be covered through an expanded Medicaid program.

To be fair, most people would not have access to the new public plan. 
Under the House bill, it would be offered through new insurance 
exchanges open only to those who buy coverage on their own or work for 
small companies. Yet even within that pool of 30 million people, only 
1-in-5 would take the public option.

Who's likely to sign up?

The budget office said "a less healthy pool of enrollees" would probably 
be attracted to the public option, drawn by the prospect of looser rules 
on access to specialists and medical services.

As a result, premiums in the public plan would be higher than the 
average for private plans. That could nudge healthy middle-class workers 
and their families to sign up for private plans.

"The concern was that the public option would destabilize the bulk of 
private insurance, but in fact what Congress has fashioned is very 
targeted," said economist Karen Davis, president of the Commonwealth 
Fund. "It's not going to be taking away the insurance industry's core 
business."

It's unclear whether there are enough votes in the Senate for a public 
plan. The version that Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has offered 
would let states opt out, probably leaving a smaller plan than the House 
would want.

Insurers aren't buying the budget office analysis. Asked if it might 
soften that opposition, industry spokesman Robert Zirkelbach of 
America's Health Insurance Plans responded with a curt "No."

While a government plan might start out modestly, insurers fear that 
Congress could change the rules later, opening it up to all people and 
setting take-it-or-leave payments for hospitals and medical providers, 
instead of negotiating, as the House bill calls for.

For the same reason, employer groups also remain wary. Big companies 
don't want to lose control of their health care budgets and instead have 
the government send them a tax bill.

"That cost is going to come back to you one way or another ... and it's 
coming back in the way of taxes and liabilities," said Eastman Kodak's 
chief executive, Antonio M. Perez, speaking for the Business Roundtable. 
"We just don't believe that there are miracles out there."

If Congress passes a public plan that's not much of a sensation, 
Democrats might have reason to regret all the time and energy they 
invested in it.

No, contact those representatives who support this so-called "reform" and 
ask them how can they suport a woman's right to choose, and then turn right 
around and deny that choice to everyone else, when it comes to health 
insurance?  How can you rationalize why you don't want to force a woman to 
have a child, then turn right around and want for force everyone else to 
have health insurance?  Why would you support an invasion of our privacy? 
Why do you put such a low value on our freedom?  Why would you want to have 
us dependent on anyone but ourselves to provide for our owns needs?  Why not 
help us, help ourselves, rather than helping us?

"C.Tudor"  wrote in message 
news:4aeccd8d$0$28761$bd467cd0@news.dslextreme.com...
> After all the fuss, govt health plan to cover few
>
> Note in the article that there is a high probability that the current 
> "public option" of ObamaCare will produce a benefit to the Insurance 
> Industry.
>
> Email your elected officials and ask them how much money they've accepted 
> from the Insurance Industry during the last five years:
> --Anyone can make their opinion known:
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/
> http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
> http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml
> ---
>
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091031/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_public_plan
>
> After all the fuss, govt health plan to cover few
> By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer
>
> WASHINGTON – What's all the fuss about? After all the noise over 
> Democrats' push for a government insurance plan to compete with private 
> carriers, coverage numbers are finally in: Two percent.
>
> That's the estimated share of Americans younger than 65 who'd sign up for 
> the public option plan under the health care bill that Speaker Nancy 
> Pelosi, D-Calif., is steering toward House approval.
>
> The underwhelming statistic is raising questions about whether the 
> government plan will be the iron-fisted competitor that private insurers 
> warn will shut them down or a niche operator that becomes a haven for 
> patients with health insurance horror stories.
>
> Some experts are wondering if lawmakers have wasted too much time arguing 
> about the public plan, giving short shrift to basics such as ensuring that 
> new coverage will be affordable.
>
> "The public option is a significant issue, but its place in the debate is 
> completely out of proportion to its actual importance to consumers," said 
> Drew Altman, president of the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. "It 
> has sucked all the oxygen out of the room and diverted attention from 
> bread-and-butter consumer issues, such as affordable coverage and 
> comprehensive benefits."
>
> The Democratic health care bills would extend coverage to the uninsured by 
> providing government help with premiums and prohibiting insurers from 
> excluding people in poor health or charging them more. But to keep from 
> piling more on the federal deficit, most of the uninsured will have to 
> wait until 2013 for help. Even then, many will have to pay a significant 
> share of their own health care costs.
>
> The latest look at the public option comes from the Congressional Budget 
> Office, the nonpartisan economic analysts for lawmakers.
>
> It found that the scaled back government plan in the House bill wouldn't 
> overtake private health insurance. To the contrary, it might help the 
> insurers a little.
>
> The budget office estimated that about 6 million people would sign up for 
> the public option in 2019, when the House bill is fully phased in. That 
> represents about 2 percent of a total of 282 million Americans under age 
> 65. (Older people are covered through Medicare.)
>
> The overwhelming majority of the population would remain in private health 
> insurance plans sponsored by employers. Others, mainly low-income people, 
> would be covered through an expanded Medicaid program.
>
> To be fair, most people would not have access to the new public plan. 
> Under the House bill, it would be offered through new insurance exchanges 
> open only to those who buy coverage on their own or work for small 
> companies. Yet even within that pool of 30 million people, only 1-in-5 
> would take the public option.
>
> Who's likely to sign up?
>
> The budget office said "a less healthy pool of enrollees" would probably 
> be attracted to the public option, drawn by the prospect of looser rules 
> on access to specialists and medical services.
>
> As a result, premiums in the public plan would be higher than the average 
> for private plans. That could nudge healthy middle-class workers and their 
> families to sign up for private plans.
>
> "The concern was that the public option would destabilize the bulk of 
> private insurance, but in fact what Congress has fashioned is very 
> targeted," said economist Karen Davis, president of the Commonwealth Fund. 
> "It's not going to be taking away the insurance industry's core business."
>
> It's unclear whether there are enough votes in the Senate for a public 
> plan. The version that Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has offered 
> would let states opt out, probably leaving a smaller plan than the House 
> would want.
>
> Insurers aren't buying the budget office analysis. Asked if it might 
> soften that opposition, industry spokesman Robert Zirkelbach of America's 
> Health Insurance Plans responded with a curt "No."
>
> While a government plan might start out modestly, insurers fear that 
> Congress could change the rules later, opening it up to all people and 
> setting take-it-or-leave payments for hospitals and medical providers, 
> instead of negotiating, as the House bill calls for.
>
> For the same reason, employer groups also remain wary. Big companies don't 
> want to lose control of their health care budgets and instead have the 
> government send them a tax bill.
>
> "That cost is going to come back to you one way or another ... and it's 
> coming back in the way of taxes and liabilities," said Eastman Kodak's 
> chief executive, Antonio M. Perez, speaking for the Business Roundtable. 
> "We just don't believe that there are miracles out there."
>
> If Congress passes a public plan that's not much of a sensation, Democrats 
> might have reason to regret all the time and energy they invested in it.

"Jerry Okamura"  wrote in message 
news:uS5Km.18612$X01.10415@newsfe07.iad...
> No, contact those representatives who support this so-called "reform" and 
> ask them

why there's no health care reform in this bill. It's nothing but a 
government takeover of health care insurance.

Morton Davis wrote:
> "Jerry Okamura"  wrote in message 
> news:uS5Km.18612$X01.10415@newsfe07.iad...
>> No, contact those representatives who support this so-called "reform" and 
>> ask them
> 
> why there's no health care reform in this bill. It's nothing but a 
> government takeover of health care insurance. 
> 
> 

Just what the Party of No wants the mindless to regurgitate.

-- 

Islam Delenda Est

"Morton Davis"  wrote in message 
news:ZKqKm.129636$la3.101514@attbi_s22...
>
> "Jerry Okamura"  wrote in message 
> news:uS5Km.18612$X01.10415@newsfe07.iad...
>> No, contact those representatives who support this so-called "reform" and 
>> ask them
>
> why there's no health care reform in this bill. It's nothing but a 
> government takeover of health care insurance.
so ?

a cheaper set of crooks

"Morton Davis"  wrote in message 
news:ZKqKm.129636$la3.101514@attbi_s22...
>
> "Jerry Okamura"  wrote in message 
> news:uS5Km.18612$X01.10415@newsfe07.iad...
>> No, contact those representatives who support this so-called "reform" and 
>> ask them
>
> why there's no health care reform in this bill. It's nothing but a 
> government takeover of health care insurance.
>

That is a true statement.