Conquer Club

or

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bill.

This will be a record of how many times we have explained to Nobunaga and thegreekdog that health care reform as proposed in House Resolution 3200 is not, in any way, changing the system to a single-payer (federal-backed insurance only) system.

Please inform me if I have missed any that were explained, or if I missed a post (likely during my hiatus) that did not receive an explanation. That way I can respond to it and then post a link to it here.

Thank you.

1. This is the first time the gov-only option was brought up by Nobunaga. At this point, I was only loosely familiar with the bill and gave what I would consider a weak, but fact-based, answer. It gives information about the plan for an exchange and explains the clause as applying only to private insurances being grandfathered into the system. It does not outlaw new plans. PLAYER57832 contributes to this as well.

1a. Nobunaga requests clarification. PLAYER offers it.

2. A few pages later, we have thegreekdog requesting an explanation on the same clause. Next post, Nobunaga says nobody is nice enough to have explained that page to him. My initial, justifiable response. PLAYER's response. thegreekdog one-ups Nobunaga by giving an actual response that can be defended or refuted. I give information regarding how a federal exchange would work as well as an attempt to have an outside source explain it. PLAYER gives her response to thegreekdog's response. Interesting aside: NightStrike gives an opinion I don't find horribly repulsive in the next post or so. Then I rant and rave about bipartisanship. Worth a chuckle on my part.

3. Nobunaga requests an explanation for exact same page of the bill. I don't know if he has argued this on multiple sites, or if he just forgot that we already explained it to him, but this makes the third time in the same thread. PLAYER is kind enough to explain it again with a little more detail to boot.

4. Here we have thegreekdog giving his view on the public part of the bill with no response. His ideas aren't referencing anything specific, so I can't say that I'm up to trying to work out where he's getting his info from, but I might go back and give him an answer eventually since I have a hunch it's about the same damn page we've been talking about.

4a. thegreekdog gives his opinion, says he's tired of arguing about it. I indicate I understand the sentiment. Nobunaga feigns ignorance?

Again, if I've missed anything, let me know and I'll update this post. Also, if we have explained it to other people, give me a heads-up and I'll include it as well.

Wow, that must have taken a lot of time and work. Gj though.

I did in between bits of getting quotes for car insurance, so it wasn't a complete waste of time.

... National Insurance Exchange!

... How come nobody mentioned this before?

... Anyway, how is this exchange going to work and what is the role of the Fed? I wish to know this so I can sleep more easily at night.

... (only about 50% sarcasm here).

... As if this had anything to do with health care or insurance. But I'll play along.

...

Nobunaga wrote:... National Insurance Exchange!

... How come nobody mentioned this before?

... Anyway, how is this exchange going to work and what is the role of the Fed? I wish to know this so I can sleep more easily at night.

... (only about 50% sarcasm here).

... As if this had anything to do with health care or insurance. But I'll play along.

...

I did! Twice! In-bill the second time! Pg 72; sec 201!

This is brilliant. It did seem odd that the same wrong information was constantly being brought up, I somehow didn't notice it was the same two people over and over again. I honestly thought this was just what FOX viewers had been made to believe.

Frigidus wrote:This is brilliant. It did seem odd that the same wrong information was constantly being brought up, I somehow didn't notice it was the same two people over and over again. I honestly thought this was just what FOX viewers had been made to believe.

See... this is the kind of stuff I don't understand. I never referenced Fox News. I don't watch Fox News (to be fair, I don't watch any news). I don't go to Foxnews.com (or whatever the relevant website is).

Further, I don't understand how QUOTING THE ACTUAL BILL is equal to "the same wrong information." I mean, I'm quoting the actual bill. And no one has yet responded to the assertion that the bill's language + government = one health insurance provider.

Finally, good work Neoteny. If someone could just explain why I'm wrong, using actual language from the bill, I'd probably be satisfied. Rhetoric from the president or Congress or some website isn't really going to convince me; call me pigheaded.

thegreekdog wrote:

Frigidus wrote:This is brilliant. It did seem odd that the same wrong information was constantly being brought up, I somehow didn't notice it was the same two people over and over again. I honestly thought this was just what FOX viewers had been made to believe.

See... this is the kind of stuff I don't understand. I never referenced Fox News. I don't watch Fox News (to be fair, I don't watch any news). I don't go to Foxnews.com (or whatever the relevant website is).

Yes, this is what I thought. FOX just does a very good job of disseminating misinformation, and it's quite popular amongst conservatives, so it's usually one of the first places I turn when I see something that makes me raise an eyebrow. Sorry about labeling you, but this particular blanket assumption has been right more than wrong in the past.

thegreekdog wrote:

Frigidus wrote:This is brilliant. It did seem odd that the same wrong information was constantly being brought up, I somehow didn't notice it was the same two people over and over again. I honestly thought this was just what FOX viewers had been made to believe.

See... this is the kind of stuff I don't understand. I never referenced Fox News. I don't watch Fox News (to be fair, I don't watch any news). I don't go to Foxnews.com (or whatever the relevant website is).

Further, I don't understand how QUOTING THE ACTUAL BILL is equal to "the same wrong information." I mean, I'm quoting the actual bill. And no one has yet responded to the assertion that the bill's language + government = one health insurance provider.

Finally, good work Neoteny. If someone could just explain why I'm wrong, using actual language from the bill, I'd probably be satisfied. Rhetoric from the president or Congress or some website isn't really going to convince me; call me pigheaded.

If you could be kind and tell me which part of the bill you're quoting, I would be happy to go over it and give you my take on it.

This is from my post in the original socialized healthcare discussion:

Here's a link to the bill - http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

The relevant language is under Section 102 (I highlighted the language I thought was particularly relevant), which states:

"(a) Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage Defined - Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of esablishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term "grandfathered health insurance coverage" means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:

(1) Limitation of New Enrollment -
(A) In General - Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1"

There's some other stuff under limitation of new enrollment, but I think it's pretty clear that if you lose your Y1 private health insurance coverage post-Y1 you can't enroll in a new private health insurance plan. Perhaps I'm missing something?

Americans are judged rather harshly for their supposed lack of understanding of irony. I just wanted that out there. Working on a reply.

Neoteny wrote:Americans are judged rather harshly for their supposed lack of understanding of irony.

I suppose I fit into that group. Although, because I don't understand what irony you're referring to, I can't be sure.

thegreekdog wrote: "

There's some other stuff under limitation of new enrollment, but I think it's pretty clear that if you lose your Y1 private health insurance coverage post-Y1 you can't enroll in a new private health insurance plan. Perhaps I'm missing something?

You are, though I don't have time to seek out the relevant sections right now.

The essence is that those refer ONLY to the old type policies. As a lawyer, I am sure you have seen "grandfather" type clauses in virtually every type of legislation that institutes a change. To use a simple, non-controversial example (for the benefit of the non-lawyers reading this), if the building code changes you don't have to tear down your house or business if it complied with the law at the time it was built (usually), BUT if you build something new or are making significant changes to your old building, then you need to bring everything up to the code in force at the time.

OK, so in healthcare, the idea here is that insurance companies would be required to offer new policies that meet the new definitions. People would also have a choice of choosing a public plan -- not a "free" plan as so many insist, but a plan with a premium. It will be public insurance, not public direct health care.

The old private plans will be allowed to continue as they do now, with the ability to cancel you whenever THEY wish, refusing to cover pre-existing conditions, etc. The NEW plans will have to cover pre-existing conditions, have to take everyone, etc.

I will leave it to Neoteny, etc. to go into more detail. I am fighting a cold and just don't have the energy right now.

First off, there are sort of two issues here. The first is that the government keeps telling people they get to keep their private insurance, which is misleading because they don't get to keep their private insurance if they lose their job and, by entering into the network, they aren't keeping their private insurance, they're getting a new, different kind.

To fast-post what I feel will be Neoteny's response, I have read the insurance exchange language. I don't feel comfortable that the rules for public insurance on the exchange will be the same as the rules for private insurance on the same exchange. My reasons are manifold:

By the language of the bill, the private insurers are included under one section, the public option in another section. The only reason for this is that there are different rules that apply to each category. I guess that part of this bill rubs me the wrong way.

The determination of premiums is left to the special commissioner. Apart from not trusting (I know, my own issue) government officials, the private companies must deal with both the premium as set out by the special commissioner AND that they need to make some income to satisfy shareholders. On the other hand, the public insurance "company" must only deal with the premium as set out by the special commissioner, and is not beholden to satisfaction of shareholders. Further, the public insurance "company" effectively takes money from the people its insuring, the people the private insurers are insuring, and the private insurers themselves to help offer competitive premiums. This smacks of being unfair on its face, and I have no doubt that it will be used in an unfair manner, especially when people start to lose their grandfathered private insurance.

The result of the grandfather clause and the network will be only a public option for health insurance.

Required reading: Text of entire Sec. 101 by page number. 16 - 19. I put some effort into translating the actual tabs. My biggest beef with bill formatting is that it's done in such a way that it's impossible to look up at the top of a section without going back five pages. It makes it difficult to look at the whole thing with an eye for comprehending its entirety. I worked damn hard to remove those numbers. Please use this in other forums so I can pretend my work is going to some good. My interpretation of the entire section will be in the next post, I see you guys posting as I'm previewing, so I'll take those into account as well.

16
SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.

(a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
---(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—
------(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.
------(B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PERMITTED.—Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day.
---(2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR CONDITIONS.—Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1.

17
---(3) RESTRICTIONS ON PREMIUM INCREASES.—The issuer cannot vary the percentage increase in the premium for a risk group of enrollees in specific grandfathered health insurance coverage without changing the premium for all enrollees in the same risk group at the same rate, as specified by the Commissioner.
(b) GRACE PERIOD FOR CURRENT EMPLOYMENT BASED HEALTH PLANS.—
---(1) GRACE PERIOD.—
------(A) IN GENERAL.—The Commissioner shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan years beginning after the end of the 5-year period beginning with Y1, an employment-based health plan in operation as of the day before the first day of Y1 must meet the same requirements as apply to a qualified health benefits plan under section 101, including the essential benefit package requirement under section 121.
------(B) EXCEPTION FOR LIMITED BENEFITS PLANS.—Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to an employment-based health plan in which the coverage consists only of one or more of the following:

18
---------(i) Any coverage described in section 3001(a)(1)(B)(ii)(IV) of division B of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (PL 111–5).
---------(ii) Excepted benefits (as defined in section 733(c) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974), including coverage under a specified disease or illness policy described in paragraph (3)(A) of such section.
---------(iii) Such other limited benefits as the Commissioner may specify.
------In no case shall an employment-based health plan in which the coverage consists only of one or more of the coverage or benefits described in clauses (i) through (iii) be treated as acceptable coverage under this division
---(2) TRANSITIONAL TREATMENT AS ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE.—During the grace period specified in paragraph (1)(A), an employment-based health plan that is described in such paragraph shall be treated as acceptable coverage under this division.
(c) LIMITATION ON INDIVIDUAL HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE.—

19
---(1) IN GENERAL.—Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan.
---(2) SEPARATE, EXCEPTED COVERAGE PERMITTED.—Excepted benefits (as defined in section 2791(c) of the Public Health Service Act) are not included within the definition of health insurance coverage. Nothing in paragraph (1) shall prevent the offering, other than through the Health Insurance Exchange, of excepted benefits so long as it is offered and priced separately from health insurance coverage.

... Damn, I learned more on this one page than in the 5 (or was it 6?) previous threads on this topic.

... Thanks, all.

...

Also, I can go into the Exchange too, if we want, but I'm going to go into page 16 for what I hope is the final time on this forum. I'm going to break the section down into discrete parts, such that if there is a disagreement, we can focus in directly where the issue stands.

Sec102a wrote:If you have insurance you can keep it (grandfather it), but

Sec102a1A wrote:After the first day of Y1, the insurer cannot offer that plan to anyone else. This is the part that catches people. But it does so unnecessarily. Let's carry on.

Sec102a1B wrote:Children or other dependents are not applicable to the previous subparagraph. So, if you're still on it, your kids can be too. No issues.

Sec102a2 wrote:The insurance issuer cannot change the plan after day 1 of Y1 (that you can't change your old plan is a sticking point, but I don't think it's a major one because the exchange will have all the new plans your insurer is offering) except

Sec102a3 wrote:If they are fucking with your premium, they have to f*ck with everyone's premium who has the same plan in the same risk group. I'm not 100% sure why this is, but I would hazard a guess that it's to keep the insurance companies from doing anything too silly to try to take advantage of some part of the system. I'm willing to be educated on this, but I don't think it applies to our issue at hand.

Sec102b1A wrote:Employers have 5 years to change their plans to exchange-approved plans (as indicated in the previous section [101]) as well as benefits plans outlined in section 121 except

Sec102b1Bi-iii wrote:all this crap that's already in law.

The end of Sec102b1 wrote:Mixing and matching to meet the benefit requirements already in law as defined by Sec102b1Bi-iii is not acceptable, obviously. They must all be legal.

Sec102b2 wrote:Any transitional employer-offered plan that meets the benefits law is acceptable during the first five years

Sec102c1 wrote:Anything that is not grandfathered (as limited by 102a) must be offered through the exchange except

Sec102c2 wrote:for benefits that are priced separately from insurance coverage.

And that's it. There is nothing there that says we can't keep our insurance. We just can't modify it. That was for everyone else.

For tgd: I'm not sure what your issue is with the government telling people they'll keep their private insurance. If you lose your job you will obviously be losing your employer-based insurance eventually, and you will pick up a new insurance plan at your next job anyhow. But if you are on private insurance and if you lose your job and can't pay for the insurance so that it has to stop, you will be losing that plan, but even today if you stop an insurance plan, there's no guarantee that you'll get the same plan again when you have a job. It's not misleading because most people aren't going to be in that situation (unwillingly, anyhow). It may not be all-inclusive, but it's mostly-inclusive. Most people who want to keep their insurance will be able to do so.

As for the commissioner, I imagine he'll be an appointee... could be interesting... I've already noted that that bit is fuzzy on my end. I think that their goal is worthy, but I don't know that they've quite worked out the best way to go about doing it. Not only is he monitoring premium changes, but now they are going to be equal across the board.

As for the public and private being separate sections, one is a set of guidelines, and the other details exactly how something will be set up and operated. I don't have an issue with that so much. It's a matter of degree of involvement.

I also notice you taking the slippery slope perspective, which may be valid (and would prevent us from having to really go into depth with the exchange). But it's not something I see happening. I agree to an extent with the non-Americans who bitch and moan about us being more right than anywhere else. I think at this juncture, even if the changes in the bill are made, the American public is not going to vote for any plan farther left than this. Have a little faith in your comrades, for they aren't really socialist yet.

Also, not trusting the government to be fair is another valid criticism. I'm not familiar enough with the restrictions on them to defend that part of the bill. The goal of this thread was to pick on you guys for requesting explanation of sec102 so many times, when the bits most people (myself included) find to be issues are further down in the bill.

This fact also stemmed my rants about how Republicans can't read more than 20 pages of anything.

I'll try to address/agree with each of these in order:

Neoteny wrote:I'm not sure what your issue is with the government telling people they'll keep their private insurance. If you lose your job you will obviously be losing your employer-based insurance eventually, and you will pick up a new insurance plan at your next job anyhow. But if you are on private insurance and if you lose your job and can't pay for the insurance so that it has to stop, you will be losing that plan, but even today if you stop an insurance plan, there's no guarantee that you'll get the same plan again when you have a job. It's not misleading because most people aren't going to be in that situation (unwillingly, anyhow). It may not be all-inclusive, but it's mostly-inclusive. Most people who want to keep their insurance will be able to do so.

I agree completely with most of this (the first two sentences). If I have Plan A on Year 1, then I get fired (or quit) in Year 2, I don't have Plan A anymore. At that point, I chose between private plans B, C, or D (or maybe even A because it might be qualified for the exchange) and the public plan. At that point, I've lost my private insurance, which, as you say, would happen if there was no bill. My issue becomes, when choosing between plans B, C, or D and the public plan, I'm probably going to choose the plan that is cheapest or best fits my needs. I suspect that's going to be the public plan in nearly all cases. Ignoring the fact that I think this is a bad thing generally, the net effect is that I'm no longer really choosing amongst private plans.

In any event, I agree with most of your remaining points, excepting the comment on the exchange (obviously). My distrust of government, an American theory definitely, is not going to go away, so I'll try to keep it out of this discussion, except to say that when the government "competes" with private industry, the government always wins. Further, when the government provides a service, it's not done in the most efficient way (from a monetary or service perspective). Both of those are my opinions, obviously.

I'll post my final issue in another post because it's a different issue.

Edit - On the Republican comment I tend to agree with you, but I'd throw Democrats in there as well. Apart from you, I'm unaware of any conservative or liberal that posts on this website that has read any of the bill. I also am convinced that there may be only 4 membesr of Congerss who have read the bill.

From a "government control" perspective, think of it this way:

There are two major healthcare issues: (1) 40 million or more Americans are uninsured and (2) of those that are insured, many don't get adequate coverage.

What are the most efficient and logical solutions for these two problems?

Solution to 1 - Provide public health insurance for the 40 million or more Americans who are uninsured.
Solution to 2 - Pass laws requiring mandatory coverage.

My issue with the bill linked to and quoted from, above, is that, while it may solve these problems, it encompasses such a vast part of health insurance, that it does more than solve these problems. If the members of Congress wanted to solve the problem, why did they just not do solutions 1 and 2? I think, cynically, the answer is that the government wants to control these industry and have people reliant upon them for their healthcare. That is why I have an issue with that bill.

thegreekdog wrote:First off, there are sort of two issues here. The first is that the government keeps telling people they get to keep their private insurance, which is misleading because they don't get to keep their private insurance if they lose their job and, by entering into the network, they aren't keeping their private insurance, they're getting a new, different kind.

Its not misleading because there is no gaurantee at ALL that you can keep your insurance right now. Now, if you lose your insurance you get no gaurantee of any other coverage, except a short time of very high priced COBRA coverage or Medicaid if your income is low enough.

So, you get to keep your insurance under the same terms you have right now. Unfortunately, many people don't realize what those terms are and think they have some kind of gaurantee now.

I will leave the rest to Neoteny, again.

thegreekdog wrote:From a "government control" perspective, think of it this way:

There are two major healthcare issues: (1) 40 million or more Americans are uninsured and (2) of those that are insured, many don't get adequate coverage.

What are the most efficient and logical solutions for these two problems?

Solution to 1 - Provide public health insurance for the 40 million or more Americans who are uninsured.
Solution to 2 - Pass laws requiring mandatory coverage.

My issue with the bill linked to and quoted from, above, is that, while it may solve these problems, it encompasses such a vast part of health insurance, that it does more than solve these problems. If the members of Congress wanted to solve the problem, why did they just not do solutions 1 and 2? I think, cynically, the answer is that the government wants to control these industry and have people reliant upon them for their healthcare. That is why I have an issue with that bill.

This idea was floated. The biggest problem is this leaves too much of the decision of what does and does not get covered and how to cut costs solely in the hands of for profit insurers. And, when I say "for profit", I mean an industry that makes many, many times what any other insurer makes in any other country. They won't give up those profits willingly.


The public plan is necessary to serve as a bottom floor of coverage.

If you offer public insurance only to those who cannot afford it, then you get into the situation we have right now in Pennsylvania, where someone in a private business who makes over $100,000 in profit income (minus all the many deductions they are allowed), gets to buy a cheap and wide-reaching policy, while those of us making under $40,000 (the medicaid/reduced lunch level for a family of 4) have to get by with whatever our employers offer... even if it costs 3 times as much (no exaggeration), without counting co-pays and exclusioins. (forget eye and dental!).

I have mentioned in the past my son only qualifies because of ADHD, despite the fact that our income is low. Originally, that counted for little. Our insurance co-pays are fairly low, so we got less than $200 a year in government coverage. However, then he had to get his tonsils out -- would have meant a couple of hundred more in deductibles. The kicker is this fall when we found out he has to get over $1,000 in dental work. So, anyone who makes up to $200,000 gets covered for a reasonable fee. We pay more, get less from employer provided insurance and are not eligible for the state plan.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:From a "government control" perspective, think of it this way:

There are two major healthcare issues: (1) 40 million or more Americans are uninsured and (2) of those that are insured, many don't get adequate coverage.

What are the most efficient and logical solutions for these two problems?

Solution to 1 - Provide public health insurance for the 40 million or more Americans who are uninsured.
Solution to 2 - Pass laws requiring mandatory coverage.

My issue with the bill linked to and quoted from, above, is that, while it may solve these problems, it encompasses such a vast part of health insurance, that it does more than solve these problems. If the members of Congress wanted to solve the problem, why did they just not do solutions 1 and 2? I think, cynically, the answer is that the government wants to control these industry and have people reliant upon them for their healthcare. That is why I have an issue with that bill.

This idea was floated. The biggest problem is this leaves too much of the decision of what does and does not get covered and how to cut costs solely in the hands of for profit insurers. And, when I say "for profit", I mean an industry that makes many, many times what any other insurer makes in any other country. They won't give up those profits willingly.


The public plan is necessary to serve as a bottom floor of coverage.

So, what you're saying is that it would be harder to get this type of plan passed than the actual bill that was drafted? So, essentially, we're not doing what makes sense because of corporate interests? If this is true, it's a travesty and I'm pissed.

thegreekdog wrote:Edit - On the Republican comment I tend to agree with you, but I'd throw Democrats in there as well. Apart from you, I'm unaware of any conservative or liberal that posts on this website that has read any of the bill. I also am convinced that there may be only 4 membesr of Congerss who have read the bill.

Probably true. Most people haven't read the bill. I have to admit this is the first bill I've read to any substantial depth in my life, which is why I get so frustrated with people who harp on and on about stuff that's not in the bill. There are reasons to support it, and reasons to not support it, but the reasons I keep hearing from most people who aren't supporting the bill don't mesh up with, well, reality.

thegreekdog wrote:From a "government control" perspective, think of it this way:

There are two major healthcare issues: (1) 40 million or more Americans are uninsured and (2) of those that are insured, many don't get adequate coverage.

What are the most efficient and logical solutions for these two problems?

Solution to 1 - Provide public health insurance for the 40 million or more Americans who are uninsured.
Solution to 2 - Pass laws requiring mandatory coverage.

My issue with the bill linked to and quoted from, above, is that, while it may solve these problems, it encompasses such a vast part of health insurance, that it does more than solve these problems. If the members of Congress wanted to solve the problem, why did they just not do solutions 1 and 2? I think, cynically, the answer is that the government wants to control these industry and have people reliant upon them for their healthcare. That is why I have an issue with that bill.

Well, the libs have wanted to try something like this for awhile, and are going with a two birds, one stone concept. If the stone works, they're geniuses. If it doesn't, at least they tried, and it can only get so much worse.

thegreekdog wrote:So, what you're saying is that it would be harder to get this type of plan passed than the actual bill that was drafted? So, essentially, we're not doing what makes sense because of corporate interests? If this is true, it's a travesty and I'm pissed.

If only we could channel anger into change... I could get so much done...

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:From a "government control" perspective, think of it this way:

There are two major healthcare issues: (1) 40 million or more Americans are uninsured and (2) of those that are insured, many don't get adequate coverage.

What are the most efficient and logical solutions for these two problems?

Solution to 1 - Provide public health insurance for the 40 million or more Americans who are uninsured.
Solution to 2 - Pass laws requiring mandatory coverage.

My issue with the bill linked to and quoted from, above, is that, while it may solve these problems, it encompasses such a vast part of health insurance, that it does more than solve these problems. If the members of Congress wanted to solve the problem, why did they just not do solutions 1 and 2? I think, cynically, the answer is that the government wants to control these industry and have people reliant upon them for their healthcare. That is why I have an issue with that bill.

This idea was floated. The biggest problem is this leaves too much of the decision of what does and does not get covered and how to cut costs solely in the hands of for profit insurers. And, when I say "for profit", I mean an industry that makes many, many times what any other insurer makes in any other country. They won't give up those profits willingly.


The public plan is necessary to serve as a bottom floor of coverage.

So, what you're saying is that it would be harder to get this type of plan passed than the actual bill that was drafted? So, essentially, we're not doing what makes sense because of corporate interests? If this is true, it's a travesty and I'm pissed.

According to Ralph Nadar, that is the absolute truth. I think the situation is a bit more complex. And, I don't think even insurance executives are necessarily "evil" or any such, but I do believe they get easily blinded. But while insurers in other countries do make what most call reasonable profits, no one makes anything close to the profits made in US companies.

Like I said before, I know healthcare has to be limited. That's just a fact. It bothers me a lot more, though when those decisions are being made so executives can make billions every year (instead of mere millions or even just below a million).

Oh, I edited (added to) my comment while you were writing this.