Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (76175)	12/11/2009 2:01:41 PM
From: tonto	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224718

"As the health care debate continues to grind on, the public option seems to be, once again, on the way out. Supporters have hailed the proposal as a way to introduce competition into the marketplace, while opponents have attacked it as socialized medicine and the first step toward rationed health care. Critics have also raised fears that it would invite so-called "death panels" that would euthanize unprofitable patients. Some further muddied the water with the specter of publicly funded abortions and the argument that governmental leaders and their staffs should be forced to use the same health care plan that they develop for the rest of the country. One of the latest options, which President Obama has endorsed, would extend Medicare benefits to people aged 55 to 64, in addition to the 65-and-over crowd that it currently assists. While this could be helpful for the millions of new Medicare enrollees, it's unclear how, exactly, it would benefit the rest of the country. The first problem is that it seems to help the group that needs help the least, while ignoring the group that needs help the most. While just over 16% of people aged 55 to 64 are uninsured, 38% of those aged 19 to 24 are uninsured, as are almost 32% of those aged 25 to 29. In fact, young adults aged 19 to 29 comprise 30% of the nation's uninsured and are the largest single age-defined cadre of uninsured. Often engaged in jobs that are low-paying and lacking in benefits, roughly 23% live in households that are below the poverty line, which means that paying out of pocket for insurance, much less health care, is a low priority. Ironically, younger people are also the cheapest to insure, which means that, for insurance companies, the 55-and-over Medicare option would be a massive gift. After all, as policy holders grow older, they require more care, yet continue to make the same insurance payments that they always have. Thus, on a price-versus-earnings basis, they become far less cost-effective. By shifting responsibility for older, pricier patients to Medicare, the current proposal would, effectively, stick taxpayers with the cost of caring for society's most expensive members, while giving insurers free rein to profit from younger, more cost-effective customers. And with fewer public healthcare options available, young consumers would be driven to buy insurance from private companies. The bright light at the end of this particular dark tunnel is the possibility of a national, non-profit insurance program that would be administered by the Office of Personnel Management. Given that the OPM runs the health care plan that is used by members of Congress and federal employees, this could be a promising option. At the very least, it would address complaints that members of Congress get a better deal on health care than the people who voted them in. And, while the term "public option" seems to be, once again, on the way out, this could inject a similar level of competition into the health care market. In fact, liberal stalwart Howard Dean has enthusiastically endorsed this alternative. Taken in concert, the extension of Medicare and the OPM healthcare option could offer something for everybody. However, given the continued intransigence of the health care lobby and its allies in Congress, it is still far too early to count on a happy ending."

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (76175)	12/11/2009 2:04:12 PM
From: Sedohr Nod	7 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224718

The idea is underwhelming at best, Obama & congress will not be satisfied until we lurch totally into equilibrium with the third world. Doctors Are Opting Out of Medicare Many people, just as they become eligible for Medicare, discover that the insurance rug has been pulled out from under them. Some doctors — often internists but also gastroenterologists, gynecologists, psychiatrists and other specialists — are no longer accepting Medicare, either because they have opted out of the insurance system or they are not accepting new patients with Medicare coverage. The doctors’ reasons: reimbursement rates are too low and paperwork too much of a hassle. nytimes.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (76175)	12/11/2009 3:04:58 PM
From: TideGlider	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 224718

Sticker Shock for Dem 'Deal' [Daniel Foster] Americans will face steep premiums under the government-negotiated private plans and massive expansion of Medicare at the core of Harry Reid's new "public option." A family of four making $54,000 would pay more than $825 per month for one federally-managed plan—that even after a $10,100 government subsidy. A 55-year-old couple buying into the Medicare expansion could pay $15,200 per year under the Reid plan, and it remains unclear how much if any of that cost would be subsidized. The Medicare buy-in would only be available to individuals 55-and-over, not younger family members, and it would be attached to premium and financing structures separate from the rest of Medicare, with no cap on out-of-pocket expenses. And these, alas, are only the direct costs of the bill. The NYT has the full story here, and you can track the latest on Obamacare at NRO On the News. nytimes.com