POTUS releases 8 principles of health insurance reform

[Ban Hammer 13,677]

Unless we decide to mandate a few years of military service (or other form of national service) for all 18 year olds, I think it's entirely appropriate to allow for the possibility of some dependents starting college late, going part time and taking longer to finish, moving on to graduate school, etc.

why not just cover them until they are 35, just to be sure

IMO 4 years of undergrad + 2 years of grad school is just about right. That's 24.

Fact is the best jobs these days require a Master's degree. We should be facilitating it, not putting up barriers.

not everyone goes to grad school.

I know, but many do. And those with the academic aptitude to do so ought to be facilitated, not obstructed.

so we can tax them at a higher rate!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Graduate degree holders usually earn higher than their undergraduate degree peers. So we already do, it's called the income tax.

[HAL 9000 96]

Graduate degree holders usually earn higher than their undergraduate degree peers. So we already do, it's called the income tax.

Communist.

[natty bumppo 297]

if you're still in college at 26, you may be doing something wrong.........

Not necessarily. I entered college at 22 and graduated at 28. Takes some time to get an M.A.

some of us got ours while in the military.

some of us even had a real j.o.b.that offered insurance while going through college.

[GaryC 7]

I joined the Navy at 18 so I was out at an early age. If this is the complete scope of the reform then I could support it. It fixes the worst part of medical insurance. Just as long as there is no public option then let them do this.

[mawilson 2,133]

I joined the Navy at 18 so I was out at an early age. If this is the complete scope of the reform then I could support it. It fixes the worst part of medical insurance. Just as long as there is no public option then let them do this.

How about 50 public options, run by individual states with some federal funding - the so-called "co-ops"?

[GaryC 7]

I joined the Navy at 18 so I was out at an early age. If this is the complete scope of the reform then I could support it. It fixes the worst part of medical insurance. Just as long as there is no public option then let them do this.

How about 50 public options, run by individual states with some federal funding - the so-called "co-ops"?

Sure, I would go for that. This should be addressed at the state level.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I joined the Navy at 18 so I was out at an early age. If this is the complete scope of the reform then I could support it. It fixes the worst part of medical insurance. Just as long as there is no public option then let them do this.

How about 50 public options, run by individual states with some federal funding - the so-called "co-ops"?

Sure, I would go for that. This should be addressed at the state level.

Seems that the compromise will have a mix of all the options being debated - state run co-ops, national public option (not based on medicare rates) and private insurers. To me, one of the core issues - the fee-for-service compensation model - is the one thing that isn't being addressed. This is where a lot of the waste occurs. I hope that this is being captured in some form in the final bill.

Pelosi told Capitol Hill reporters that she is OK with language instructing the health and human services secretary to negotiate reimbursement rates for doctors and hospitals under a government-run health care option.

The idea is a key concession to conservatives worried that a public plan would have an unfair advantage over private insurers if it is allowed to tie its hospital and doctor payments to lower Medicare rates. Video Watch Dr. Sanjay Gupta's take on a timeline for the health care overhaul »

Conservative opponents of the public option have maintained that a not-for-profit plan would have a competitive advantage over private insurers and eventually would wipe them out.

The provision is "not my preference," but "it meets the test of having an effective public option," Pelosi said.

"I am for the strongest possible public option" to keep private sector "honest" and reach the goal of universal coverage, she added.

...

In addition, the agreement calls for the creation of state-run health insurance cooperatives to compete with a public health insurance option and private insurers.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

I joined the Navy at 18 so I was out at an early age. If this is the complete scope of the reform then I could support it. It fixes the worst part of medical insurance. Just as long as there is no public option then let them do this.

How about 50 public options, run by individual states with some federal funding - the so-called "co-ops"?

Sure, I would go for that. This should be addressed at the state level.

I haven't been too shy in my support for reform of the health care system. These 8 principles sound pretty reasonable, and the co-op idea as well.

It is interesting to see what sorts of profits insurance corporations have generated over the last few years.

United Health Group 2007 through 1st Quarter 2009 profits: better than 8.5 Billion combined

WellPoint generated 3.345 Billion in profit in 2008 alone

Aetna generated 1.1 Billion in 2008 alone

Perhaps there is room to shave some profit before fleecing the insured flock?

[mendeleev 68]

I especially like children being covered through age 26. Some insurance companies already do that, but most do not.

are they really children at that age?

.... sometimes yes.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I joined the Navy at 18 so I was out at an early age. If this is the complete scope of the reform then I could support it. It fixes the worst part of medical insurance. Just as long as there is no public option then let them do this.

How about 50 public options, run by individual states with some federal funding - the so-called "co-ops"?

Sure, I would go for that. This should be addressed at the state level.

Would you be supportive of allowign states to voluntarily group up and form larger co-ops with larger pools?

The problem with the state-co-op idea is that while it will work like gangbusters for states with large populations (say, California), it won't work well at all for Alaska or North Dakota. Those pools will just be too small and won't have the leverage the California co-op will.

To that end, one of the 'solutions' proposed has been to allow states to group together and form larger co-ops. For example, 1 co-op for all the Great Plains states (of course, the states have to agree to group together - I don't see why they wouldn't).

Edited July 31, 2009 by w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r

[natty bumppo 297]

I especially like children being covered through age 26. Some insurance companies already do that, but most do not.

are they really children at that age?

.... sometimes yes.

mentally ...

[HAL 9000 96]

I joined the Navy at 18 so I was out at an early age. If this is the complete scope of the reform then I could support it. It fixes the worst part of medical insurance. Just as long as there is no public option then let them do this.

How about 50 public options, run by individual states with some federal funding - the so-called "co-ops"?

Sure, I would go for that. This should be addressed at the state level.

Seems that the compromise will have a mix of all the options being debated - state run co-ops, national public option (not based on medicare rates) and private insurers. To me, one of the core issues - the fee-for-service compensation model - is the one thing that isn't being addressed. This is where a lot of the waste occurs. I hope that this is being captured in some form in the final bill.

Pelosi told Capitol Hill reporters that she is OK with language instructing the health and human services secretary to negotiate reimbursement rates for doctors and hospitals under a government-run health care option.

The idea is a key concession to conservatives worried that a public plan would have an unfair advantage over private insurers if it is allowed to tie its hospital and doctor payments to lower Medicare rates. Video Watch Dr. Sanjay Gupta's take on a timeline for the health care overhaul »

Conservative opponents of the public option have maintained that a not-for-profit plan would have a competitive advantage over private insurers and eventually would wipe them out.

The provision is "not my preference," but "it meets the test of having an effective public option," Pelosi said.

"I am for the strongest possible public option" to keep private sector "honest" and reach the goal of universal coverage, she added.

...

In addition, the agreement calls for the creation of state-run health insurance cooperatives to compete with a public health insurance option and private insurers.

Hope so too. Did you catch that report on Blue Dog Democrats getting HEFTY campaign contributions from big pharma and big insurers?

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

The problem with the state-co-op idea is that while it will work like gangbusters for states with large populations (say, California), it won't work well at all for Alaska or North Dakota. Those pools will just be too small and won't have the leverage the California co-op will.

Exactly.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The problem with the state-co-op idea is that while it will work like gangbusters for states with large populations (say, California), it won't work well at all for Alaska or North Dakota. Those pools will just be too small and won't have the leverage the California co-op will.

Exactly.

The irony is it's the small states that tend to want the state-based co-ops. Let 'em have it for now, the economics of it all will convince them to form larger groups in time.