Please explain to me

[doucanoe]

Originally Posted by Boreas

You mean the House bill? As much as I admire my fellow former Baltimorean and current Bay Area resident, I don't think she wrote the House bill all by herself.



This only tells me that Members are eligible, even if there's a means test they don't meet. I think that's a good thing. If Members join a public plan, that gives them "skin in the game". That can only ensure that the plan will be a good one.

John

It tells me just what it states. Congress "May" participate but are not required to do so. Unlike the rest of us that "Shall" or "Must" under penalty of law.

I have been trying to upload the document in its entirety but 3.3 MB seems to be a bit of a undertaking for this computer. I believe it is HR 3962 but I can't get it to open enough to see if thats correct.

RC

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by doucanoe

SEC. 330. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, Members of Congress may enroll in the public health insurance option.

So, they can enroll in the public option. Uh. Okay. So can you. So can I. No one has to. You don't. They don't. I don't. Sounds to me like they were making clear that they're not doing exactly what you're accusing them of doing.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by doucanoe

It tells me just what it states. Congress "May" participate but are not required to do so.

NOBODY is required to enroll in the public plan.

Unlike the rest of us that "Shall" or "Must" under penalty of law.

Wrong. The plans stipulate that we all "Shall" or "Must" procure insurance but it doesn't tell us we have to enroll in the pubic plan. We "May" do that if we can pass the means test and if we need assistance with the premiums we can apply for that as well. On the other hand, we "May" buy insurance on the open market if we so choose.

Just so you know, by the way, I have some problems with the individual mandate. I'm not sure the government has the right to require anyone to purchase health insurance.

I don't buy the oft repeated justification that we all have to buy car insurance. We don't. We have to buy it if we want to drive but we have the option of not driving and, therefore, not buying auto insurance.

Of course, a single payer national health care system would solve all of this. You see that, don't you?

John

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

So, they can enroll in the public option. Uh. Okay. So can you. So can I. No one has to. You don't. They don't. I don't. Sounds to me like they were making clear that they're not doing exactly what you're accusing them of doing.

Yup! But I don't think you're right about your being able to enroll in the public plan. As I understand it (and if we even get a public option), it'll be means tested. I think you make too much money.

John

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Yup! But I don't think you're right about your being able to enroll in the public plan. As I understand it (and if we even get a public option), it'll be means tested. I think you make too much money.

John

I'll be surprised if the public option is something I'd want. And putting in barriers to entry probably address concerns that it will be an unfair competitor in the health care market. In fact, I'd suggest they're doing it wrong if I would want it. It should be geared for people who don't have any insurance now as an affordable option. I'm very fortunate that I've landed in a good place with good health insurance options.

[doucanoe]

Initially, yes. However, it appears that the door will be quickly closing that option as business provided health care is forced out of the picture by not being able to comply. The cost and tax burden of providing a comprehensive plan in accordance with the Bill will force them out of the game. Game over, your on the plan.

I guess I'm not as comfortable with your assumptions regarding Congress participation. I'm not sure how it was worded, but I would have to believe that their participation in Social Security may have been worded the same. They jumped right on board with that one also, didn't they.


RC

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

.... putting in barriers to entry probably address concerns that it will be an unfair competitor in the health care market.

I think that's the idea. As far as I recall they're talking about 150% of the official poverty level as the cut-off. But really, as long as the public option consists of a co-op arrangement where commercial insurers provide the coverage, I don't see the public option as a competitive threat at all. It's just a way to shovel millions of customers who are presently uninsured into their clutches.

In fact, I'd suggest they're doing it wrong if I would want it. It should be geared for people who don't have any insurance now as an affordable option.

But that's exactly what's being proposed. The rest is tinkering around the margins with restrictions on pre-existing conditions, rescission and the like.

We really need single payer national health care. As long as there are profits to be made in health care profits will be what motivate the industry and we're the losers.

John

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by doucanoe

Initially, yes. However, it appears that the door will be quickly closing that option as business provided health care is forced out of the picture by not being able to comply. The cost and tax burden of providing a comprehensive plan in accordance with the Bill will force them out of the game. Game over, your on the plan.

The tax penalties on employers comes into play only when they don't offer insurance to their employees. Some employers may decide it's cheaper to pay the penalty than to provide insurance but a properly executed bill would address that.

But see, I wouldn't be unhappy seeing employer-provided health care disappear. As it is now, a lot of us are hostage to our employers because we depend on them for insurance. If we quit we lose our insurance until 90 days into our new job (if we find one). Plus if you developed a medical condition during your previous employment it becomes a pre-existing condition under the terms of your new policy.

I guess I'm not as comfortable with your assumptions regarding Congress participation. I'm not sure how it was worded, but I would have to believe that their participation in Social Security may have been worded the same. They jumped right on board with that one also, didn't they.

You're thinking Congress wrote participation in Social Security in as optional for themselves and mandatory for everyone else? But you're just guessing now and just assuming impure motives at every turn. I'm not that cynical.

Why guess, though? Why not check? I can almost guarantee you that you're wrong.

John

[doucanoe]

I'm all for Health Care Reform but it would be nice to have the truth. You don't, I don't. I don't believe that anyone in Congress has even read the damn thing by most accounts. Yes, that leaves me a touch cynical. I think you should be also.

There is always a bit of truth on all sides of the story and there is also no way of quickly determining which truths are more relevant. Also, at what cost to the individual are we signing up for. I do know one thing however, If we march down the current path presented there is no turning back. That might sit well with some of you also but not for me.

I'm sure you are correct about the SS thing (language wise) but the end result will be the same. The money and power elite make the rules that only the Serf's are required to play by. Do as I say and not as I do is the battle cry of the Ruling Class.

How many of these incompetent but power/wealth hungry pricks are showing up for "work" in a Prius do you figure?


How's that for cynical

RC

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by doucanoe

How's that for cynical

RC

Excellent!

John