Senator Kennedy - Healthcare reform proposal WILL include a public option!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat and chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, said yesterday that one key way to expand health-care coverage to the 46 million uninsured Americans would be through a new program run by the U.S. government.

...

Kennedy’s plan may go further than a proposal being drafted by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus. Baucus, a Montana Democrat, has said he is still weighing whether to include a government-run program in a measure and, if so, how it might be structured to attract Republican votes and industry support.

Baucus spokeswoman Erin Shields said in an e-mail that he is “working very closely” with Kennedy’s panel and that he is “confident they will be able to reach agreement on one package before it is considered by the full Senate this summer.”

...

Kennedy last week joined 27 other Senate Democrats in co- authoring a resolution calling for creation of a “public option” of government-run health insurance. Others included Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democratic leader in the chamber, and Senator Charles Schumer of New York, the third-ranking Democratic leader.

Some insurance companies, including Hartford, Connecticut- based Aetna Inc., argue that private corporations would be at a disadvantage under a plan that would, in effect, extend Medicare, the U.S. government health plan for the elderly and disabled, to more people.

...

Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, the finance panel’s top Republican, opposes including a government-run program.

Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the No. 2 Senate Republican leader and a member of the finance committee, this week said inclusion of any public program also would lose his support.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=home

[one...two...tree 2,762]

God bless Ted.

[JimandChristy 1,689]

Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat and chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, said yesterday that one key way to expand health-care coverage to the 46 million uninsured Americans would be through a new program run by the U.S. government.

...

Kennedy’s plan may go further than a proposal being drafted by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus. Baucus, a Montana Democrat, has said he is still weighing whether to include a government-run program in a measure and, if so, how it might be structured to attract Republican votes and industry support.

Baucus spokeswoman Erin Shields said in an e-mail that he is “working very closely” with Kennedy’s panel and that he is “confident they will be able to reach agreement on one package before it is considered by the full Senate this summer.”

...

Kennedy last week joined 27 other Senate Democrats in co- authoring a resolution calling for creation of a “public option” of government-run health insurance. Others included Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democratic leader in the chamber, and Senator Charles Schumer of New York, the third-ranking Democratic leader.

Some insurance companies, including Hartford, Connecticut- based Aetna Inc., argue that private corporations would be at a disadvantage under a plan that would, in effect, extend Medicare, the U.S. government health plan for the elderly and disabled, to more people.

...

Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, the finance panel’s top Republican, opposes including a government-run program.

Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the No. 2 Senate Republican leader and a member of the finance committee, this week said inclusion of any public program also would lose his support.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=home

Disadvantage, what disadvantage?

Edited May 29, 2009 by JimandChristy

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

God bless Ted.

and alcohol.

[AlHayatZween 2]

Some insurance companies, including Hartford, Connecticut- based Aetna Inc., argue that private corporations would be at a disadvantage under a plan that would, in effect, extend Medicare, the U.S. government health plan for the elderly and disabled, to more people.

Poor babies...

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Some insurance companies, including Hartford, Connecticut- based Aetna Inc., argue that private corporations would be at a disadvantage under a plan that would, in effect, extend Medicare, the U.S. government health plan for the elderly and disabled, to more people.

Poor babies...

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Some insurance companies, including Hartford, Connecticut- based Aetna Inc., argue that private corporations would be at a disadvantage under a plan that would, in effect, extend Medicare, the U.S. government health plan for the elderly and disabled, to more people.

Disadvantage, what disadvantage?

This would cut into their profitability. That disadvantage.

[JimandChristy 1,689]

Some insurance companies, including Hartford, Connecticut- based Aetna Inc., argue that private corporations would be at a disadvantage under a plan that would, in effect, extend Medicare, the U.S. government health plan for the elderly and disabled, to more people.

Disadvantage, what disadvantage?

This would cut into their profitability. That disadvantage.

So they will have less opportunities to deny sick people health care and they call it a "disadvantage"

Edited May 29, 2009 by JimandChristy

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Some insurance companies, including Hartford, Connecticut- based Aetna Inc., argue that private corporations would be at a disadvantage under a plan that would, in effect, extend Medicare, the U.S. government health plan for the elderly and disabled, to more people.

Disadvantage, what disadvantage?

This would cut into their profitability. That disadvantage.

So they will have less opportunities to deny sick people health care and they call it a "disadvantage"

Two things: First, for the insurance companies, it isn't about whether people receive healthcare it's about the profit they can churn out. Second, they know that their bloated apparatus' cannot compete with a public option unless they cut some fat and trim some profits. Naturally, they oppose that. Equally naturally, I couldn't care less what they want.

[mRx 16]

Would this public option mean that individuals would have the option to not participate, and therefore not have to help fund it?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Would this public option mean that individuals would have the option to not participate, and therefore not have to help fund it?

If one doesn't have the option not to participate, then it wouldn't be a public option but a public mandate. As for the funding, we're stripped of that option already or who do you think pays all these public health facility and ER visits by the uninsured today?

[justashooter 430]

isn't he dead yet?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

isn't he dead yet?

What a nice thing to say. You don't disappoint.

[mawilson 2,133]

Would this public option mean that individuals would have the option to not participate, and therefore not have to help fund it?

If one doesn't have the option not to participate, then it wouldn't be a public option but a public mandate. As for the funding, we're stripped of that option already or who do you think pays all these public health facility and ER visits by the uninsured today?

The problem is, we're paying for the insured as well. Medicare pays doctors 20% to 30%

less than private plans, on average. When the government limits Medicare/Medicaid payments

to doctors and hospitals (aka "keeping the prices low"), who do you think makes up the difference?

That's one well-kept secret the government doesn't want you to know.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Would this public option mean that individuals would have the option to not participate, and therefore not have to help fund it?

If one doesn't have the option not to participate, then it wouldn't be a public option but a public mandate. As for the funding, we're stripped of that option already or who do you think pays all these public health facility and ER visits by the uninsured today?

The problem is, we're paying for the insured as well. Medicare pays doctors 20% to 30%

less than private plans, on average. When the government limits Medicare/Medicaid payments

to doctors and hospitals (aka "keeping the prices low"), who do you think makes up the difference?

That's one well-kept secret the government doesn't want you to know.

One could argue that the insured pay higher prices also because the doc needs to keep additional staff around to handle the insane amount of private insurance red tape.

The one's that get charged the most, however, are the uninsured.