So when does Congress dump THEIR private insurance?

[petegz28]

Since Pelosi seems to want to lash out at insurance companies and call them "villans" and Obama wants to lay the blame on them as well....when will these people dump their private options to participate in whatever plan is passed?

I think Pelosi, Obama, Reid, Emmanuel, Hoyer, Durbin and the rest of the Dems pouding for this should have a primetime television newsconference to dump their private insurance and sign up for the new plan.

[Chief Henry]

When the Royals win there 2nd World Series Ring.

[wild1]

They're still wealthy. They can bypass the system you serfs must use and pay for good quality service.

[bobbymitch]

Watched the health reform markup committee hearing and obviously they voted no along party lines. 38 dems to 21 repubs.

Why would congressional elitists want to wallow at the same trough as the common folk?

[banyon]

Congress has a public plan, so I would guess the answer would be never.

Maybe "when will the Republicans b*tching about public care get off the taxpayer dole and start paying for their own plan" is what your thread should have said?

[petegz28]

Congress has a public plan, so I would guess the answer would be never.

Maybe "when will the Republicans b*tching about public care get off the taxpayer dole and start paying for their own plan" is what your thread should have said?

Sure...sure....

[Ultra Peanut]

Erm, the best public option would be to offer what Congress gets to the rest of the nation.

They're still wealthy. They can bypass the system you serfs must use and pay for good quality service.You do realize that this is the basis for the argument against single-payer, right?

"Sure, the middle-class and lower are FUCKED, but if you have money you can see a doctor whenever you want!"

[wild1]

Erm, the best public option would be to offer what Congress gets to the rest of the nation.

You do realize that this is the basis for the argument against single-payer, right?

"Sure, the middle-class and lower are ****ED, but if you have money you can see a doctor whenever you want!"

They can still go to another country, like some Canadians do.

[banyon]

They can still go to another country, like some Canadians do.

Or some Americans for their drugs?

[Ultra Peanut]

They can still go to another country, like some Canadians do.Or they can just, y'know, never go to the doctor even when they're sick because they can't afford to pay for treatment and already owe tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills.

[petegz28]

Or some Americans for their drugs?

What do you think the reason is for drugs being cheaper in Canada?

[petegz28]

Or they can just, y'know, never go to the doctor even when they're sick because they can't afford to pay for treatment and already owe tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills.

life's a bitch

[sparkky]

the elite ruling class rarely subject themselves to the same rules and regs they pass for the lowly masses.

I've always thought for their health care they should be required to use the VA just like the vets. if it's good enough for those that are sent in harms way, it's good enough for those that send them there.

[banyon]

What do you think the reason is for drugs being cheaper in Canada?

Cartel-like price fixing by the pharmaceutical industry.

[petegz28]

Cartel-like price fixing by the pharmaceutical industry.

How about you're wrong???

US Drug makers spend all the money on R&D thus the additional costs Canadian re-distrubtors (for lack of a better term) do not incurr.

[banyon]

How about you're wrong???

US Drug makers spend all the money on R&D thus the additional costs Canadian re-distrubtors (for lack of a better term) do not incurr.

It's the same drug and the same seller, just different prices for different countries.

There is no costs savings to the "redistributor" and even if there were, why is it fair for the pharma company to ask us to subsidize the foreign drugs?

[petegz28]

It's the same drug and the same seller, just different prices for different countries.

There is no costs savings to the "redistributor" and even if there were, why is it fair for the pharma company to ask us to subsidize the foreign drugs?

sure there are cost savings...tons.

Secondly...you should take that up with your legislators regarding trade policies.

I understand what you are saying..I just think you are off base with a lot of it.

[RaiderH8r]

Congress has a public plan, so I would guess the answer would be never.

Maybe "when will the Republicans b*tching about public care get off the taxpayer dole and start paying for their own plan" is what your thread should have said?

Congress does NOT have a public plan. I have covered this. Congress has the Federal Employees' Health Benefit Plan which lets members choose from a pool of private plans from fee for service plans to HMOs to PPOs. The federal employees' employer (the gubment) pays for those plans like any other employer does in America. It is gov't paid for health care in the sense that gov't is their employer and their employer is paying for their health care but it is NOT a gov't run system.

Republicans offered an amendment in Ways and Means to force all FEHBP members into whatever HR 3200 plan developed and it was beaten on a party line vote. Democrats do not want to be on their own plan.

Additionally there is language in the bill that exempts Union purchased health plans from the bill. Meaning if a union has a health plan its members can stick with it and be exempt from the rules and regs the rest of the country has to deal with. So, to recap, Congress critters and unions won't be on the plan the rest of us will have to endure.

Thanks for playing.

[RaiderH8r]

Erm, the best public option would be to offer what Congress gets to the rest of the nation.

You do realize that this is the basis for the argument against single-payer, right?

"Sure, the middle-class and lower are ****ED, but if you have money you can see a doctor whenever you want!"

FACK!!!! Bush tried that and it was beaten back by Democrats.

[banyon]

Congress does NOT have a public plan. I have covered this. Congress has the Federal Employees' Health Benefit Plan which lets members choose from a pool of private plans from fee for service plans to HMOs to PPOs. The federal employees' employer (the gubment) pays for those plans like any other employer does in America. It is gov't paid for health care in the sense that gov't is their employer and their employer is paying for their health care but it is NOT a gov't run system.

Republicans offered an amendment in Ways and Means to force all FEHBP members into whatever HR 3200 plan developed and it was beaten on a party line vote. Democrats do not want to be on their own plan.

Additionally there is language in the bill that exempts Union purchased health plans from the bill. Meaning if a union has a health plan its members can stick with it and be exempt from the rules and regs the rest of the country has to deal with. So, to recap, Congress critters and unions won't be on the plan the rest of us will have to endure.

Thanks for playing.

Choosing among providers is exactly what the current health care proposal suggests, so I'm not sure how that's a distinction wrt public/private and the Congressional plan. The government would administer the plan in both cases and the consumer would choose the provider. What is the distinction?

[RaiderH8r]

Choosing among providers is exactly what the current health care proposal suggests, so I'm not sure how that's a distinction wrt public/private and the Congressional plan. The government would administer the plan in both cases and the consumer would choose the provider. What is the distinction?

It is a distinction in that the plan is not gov't run, it is gov't paid for. There is a world of difference. Just because gov't is writing the checks doesn't mean they're administering the plan. They are cutting checks. Does your employer administer your health care plan? Unless you work for a health insurance company, probably not.

[Baby Lee]

Congress has a public plan

Yes, and what all those right wing extremists call their 'salary' is public assistance.

[wild1]

Or they can just, y'know, never go to the doctor even when they're sick because they can't afford to pay for treatment and already owe tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills.

Who?

[RaiderH8r]

Who?

They.

[wild1]

What do you think the reason is for drugs being cheaper in Canada?

Canada does not have the same silly regs around product liability that we have here in the US. The drugs also pass through a government price control system, which constricts industry profits, but by extension limits the funds those companies have available for investment in R&D. So you get cheaper prices on what's on the market today, but in trade you delay or prevent treatments from becoming available for things we can't treat today, or that we could treat better in the future.

That aspect hasn't hit Canada full force - they can game the system by reaping R&D benefits paid for by the profits from the United States, whre the industry is many times larger and many times more profitable. If the US government kills the golden goose, R&D will suffer for the entire world.

More generally, because of the prevalence of government payorship in the health care industry (by extension, pharmaceuticals) in the United States, the health care industry is cut off from the holistic self-healing nature of a free-market economy.

The health care industry is increasingly becoming its own economy, which is the root cause of the hyperinflation.

[bobbymitch]

More on the mark up. A repub offered an amendment to allow the government health plan to be an option under Obama care.

No surprise, Waxman shot it down.

[orange]

Health care reform: House plan could end some co-pays
By STEPHEN LOSEY
July 28, 2009

The biggest impact the health care reform bill pending in the House would have on federal employees’ health care plans is that it would end co-payments for preventive care by 2018. Scrapping those co-payments would likely mean higher premiums for enrollees in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. But experts can’t estimate how big those increases might be.

President Barack Obama has said health care reform is his highest domestic priority. And the health care reform bill, HR 3200, is the centerpiece of that effort. The bill would require all legal U.S. residents to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty. Also, employers would be required to offer a minimum level of insurance to their employees or contribute funds the government would use to pay for health care.

The bill also would create a public health insurance option. And it would set up a health insurance exchange — which, like FEHBP, would be a marketplace of insurance plans for individuals and small employers to choose from.

The reform bill could mean other consequences for the federal health care plan, say some experts like Dan Adcock, legislative director for the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association. Adcock said that after a reform bill is passed, the government may have to extend FEHBP coverage to seasonal or temporary employees — who are currently ineligible for the plan — or contribute funds to cover the cost of those employees’ insurance.

The bill currently does not open up FEHBP to the public, as was proposed during the previous health care reform effort in 1994. But Adcock said that could change. “Things can be very fluid,” Adcock said. “In this process, we could wake up one day and find interest in opening up FEHBP to nonfeds.”

If that happens, many thousands of older and sick people who can’t get coverage elsewhere would probably flock to FEHBP, Adcock said. And such a great influx of high-risk people would likely drive up premium costs, he said. “If nonfeds had access to FEHBP, we would insist they have separate risk pools for calculating premiums,” Adcock said. “That’s not getting much traction at this point, but we’re going to be watching this very closely.”

The reform bill would pay for health care in part by increasing taxes for individuals earning more than $280,000, or couples earning more than $350,000. Since basic pay for the Senior Executive Service is capped at $177,000, only feds with wealthy spouses — or a couple consisting of two highly paid SES members — are likely to see tax increases because of health care reform.

The other impact of a health care reform bill on feds is on how it affects rising health care costs. Obama argues reform is necessary to keep premium costs from spiraling out of control. FEHBP premiums increased an average of 7 percent in 2009. But some analysts say those promised savings won’t materialize.

“The bill as currently written doesn’t hold costs down,” said Walt Francis, a consultant who writes the annual Checkbook health care guide for federal employees. “It exacerbates the problem. It does good things; it’ll cover lots of uninsured people. But from the point of view of the federal workforce, there’s nothing in these bills to help [feds], and maybe something to hinder them in terms of the long term-effects.”

Douglas Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, told lawmakers earlier this month that HR 3200 would not hold down health costs over the long term. “We do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount,” Elmendorf said. “And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs. The curve is being raised.”

Francis said that if the bill fails to hold down health care costs, the status quo of premiums rising at two or three times the rate of inflation will likely continue.

NARFE’s Adcock said it may be too early to tell whether health care reform would be a bust or would yield cost savings. “The jury’s still out on what the long-run savings will be,” Adcock said. “When the CBO does projections, they’re educated guesses, and this is in a gray area. It doesn’t preclude it from happening. We’ll want to see the final bill” before coming to those conclusions.

But at least one lawmaker, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., fears that the health reform effort may have a more significant impact on the federal health plan. Issa, the ranking Republican member on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, on July 17 urged the committee’s chairman, Rep. Edolphus Towns, to hold a hearing to examine what impact health reform may have on the federal plan. Towns declined to, saying that any impact would be “limited.”

“There’s a lot of ambiguities here,” said Issa spokesman Frederick Hill. “Congress will be passing this bill with very uncertain changes for federal employees. There’s a move … to rush this thing through.”

The Office of Personnel Management declined to comment on how the bill might affect FEHBP.

Tell us what you think. E-mail Stephen Losey.

http://www.federaltimes.com/index.php?S=4204610

[banyon]

It is a distinction in that the plan is not gov't run, it is gov't paid for. There is a world of difference. Just because gov't is writing the checks doesn't mean they're administering the plan. They are cutting checks. Does your employer administer your health care plan? Unless you work for a health insurance company, probably not.

that's still not any different than the proposed plan which would be paid for by the government, but administered (in part) by private organizations.

[Hydrae]

Congress does NOT have a public plan. I have covered this. Congress has the Federal Employees' Health Benefit Plan which lets members choose from a pool of private plans from fee for service plans to HMOs to PPOs. The federal employees' employer (the gubment) pays for those plans like any other employer does in America. It is gov't paid for health care in the sense that gov't is their employer and their employer is paying for their health care but it is NOT a gov't run system.

Republicans offered an amendment in Ways and Means to force all FEHBP members into whatever HR 3200 plan developed and it was beaten on a party line vote. Democrats do not want to be on their own plan.

Additionally there is language in the bill that exempts Union purchased health plans from the bill. Meaning if a union has a health plan its members can stick with it and be exempt from the rules and regs the rest of the country has to deal with. So, to recap, Congress critters and unions won't be on the plan the rest of us will have to endure.

Thanks for playing.

I haven't had the time to follow this as closely as I like but I think you have misspoken in relations to unions. I believe it is a case of the new plan not changing their current CBA. However, when the CBA runs out (5 years max I believe I have heard) it will have to be reworked with the new plan in mind.

I have no problem with this approach. We are not giving the unions a break, we are allowing them to honor their contracts as currently written.

[bobbymitch]

I haven't had the time to follow this as closely as I like but I think you have misspoken in relations to unions. I believe it is a case of the new plan not changing their current CBA. However, when the CBA runs out (5 years max I believe I have heard) it will have to be reworked with the new plan in mind.

I have no problem with this approach. We are not giving the unions a break, we are allowing them to honor their contracts as currently written.

Hydrae - you are correct. This was covered in Waxman's markup committee discussion.

[Ultra Peanut]

Who?My mother, for starters.

You know how many times I've had to fucking FORCE her to go to the emergency room when she's had some kind of potentially-serious issue? Is it a panic attack (because she couldn't afford her anxiety medicine), or is it a stroke? GUESS WE'LL WAIT AND SEE because she's too ashamed to go to the ER.

And when she gets to the ER, they check to make sure she's not dying right that moment and tell her to go see her PCP. That's great, except she doesn't have one and has a wonderful time getting in to see anyone as someone who doesn't have insurance or scads of cash to toss at them.

She's needed some pretty routine tests to see whether or not she has ulcerative colitis for months. She hasn't been able to fork up the dough for them, so she hasn't gotten them.

I hope you proponents of the Great American System™ get to watch a loved one slowly become unable to fucking function on a regular basis because preventative care is out of their price range.

[Hydrae]

Or they can just, y'know, never go to the doctor even when they're sick because they can't afford to pay for treatment and already owe tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills.

I think gender reassignment bills are voluntary. ;)

[Ultra Peanut]

I think gender reassignment bills are voluntary. ;)http://j.photos.cx/roastbeefheehee-450.jpg

[Reaper16]

Who?
Are you fucking kidding me? Do you even live in America? Holy fuck.

[patteeu]

Choosing among providers is exactly what the current health care proposal suggests, so I'm not sure how that's a distinction wrt public/private and the Congressional plan. The government would administer the plan in both cases and the consumer would choose the provider. What is the distinction?

You should ask a democrat on the Ways and Means committee since they're the ones who most clearly don't want to be rolled into the new plan that *they* are creating.

[Hydrae]

I received an e-mail from my congresscritter (John Carter, now you can find out where I live :) ) that had a few "facts" at the end of it. I found it interesting that there was an amendment proposed in comittee that would force Congress to use the new public health care. It was defeated 21-18 with all of the Republicans voting in favor of it. Pretty telling in my opinion (please note that I do not claim either party).

CLAIM: "This isn't about me. I have great health insurance, and so does every Member of Congress."

FACT: In early July, Democrats on the House Ways & Means Committee voted to defeat an amendment offered by Rep. Dean Heller (R-NV) - by a vote of 21-18 - to require all members of Congress to get insurance through the government-run plan - proving Democrats do not think the government-plan will provide quality health care. Republicans voted unanimously in favor of the amendment, believing if it is good enough for the American people, it should be good enough for members of Congress.