On 10/26/09 8:37 PM, jps wrote:
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:52:49 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"H the wrote in message
m...
latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-naw-healthcare-reid27-2009oct27,0,4995758.story
latimes.com
Senate healthcare bill to include public option, Reid says
The majority leader says states would be allowed to opt out of the
government-sponsored insurance plan.

By Noam N. Levey

1:34 PM PDT, October 26, 2009

Reporting from Washington

Fueling the push for a new government insurance plan, Senate Majority
Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said today that his chamber's healthcare bill
would include a compromise that would create a nationwide public option
but give states the right to opt out.

"The public option is not a silver bullet, [but] I believe it's an
important way to ensure competition and to level the playing field for
patients with the insurance industry," Reid said. "Under this concept,
states will be able to decide what works for them."

Reid sent the proposal to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to
be analyzed today, a key step before he can bring a bill to the floor for
debate.

His decision does not settle the debate roiling Democratic ranks over how
to create a government plan that would give consumers who don't get
coverage through their employers an alternative to plans offered by
commercial insurers.

The "opt-out" compromise is still two votes shy of the 60 Reid needs to
overcome a Republican filibuster, according to a senior Democratic aide on
Capitol Hill who requested anonymity when discussing the plan.

And while Reid expresses a preference for the opt-out proposal, others
continue to push for an alternative, known as a "trigger," that would
establish local public options around the country only if commercial
insurers did not provide affordable plans to consumers.

That scenario is being championed by Sen. Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, the
only Republican to vote for the healthcare reform measure approved by the
Senate Finance Committee.

With a 60-40 voting majority, which includes two independents who caucus
with Democrats, Reid has to hold all his members or pick up Republicans to
head off a filibuster.

Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D- San Francisco) are advancing
separate healthcare bills in the Senate and House, which would have to be
reconciled later this year before they are sent to the White House for
President Obama's signature.

But Pelosi indicated Friday that the opt-out alternative could be included
in a reconciled bill.

For now, House Democrats are poised to pass a bill that would create a
nationwide government plan, although there is still disagreement about how
much such a plan should pay doctors, hospitals and other medical
providers.

Liberals, including Pelosi, favor a proposal that would link those
payments to the existing Medicare program, which often pays providers less
than commercial insurers. Proponents believe such an arrangement would
save money and help drive down costs.

But many conservative Democrats, particularly from rural areas where
Medicare typically pays less, want the government plan to negotiate its
rates with providers, as commercial insurers do.

Pelosi hopes to settle those differences in time to unveil a bill later
this week, according to her office.


Unfortunately, he's still angling to include a bogus trigger or a state
opt-out.

Hey, if the Red States want to keep winning at being the least
educated and unhealthful, they're going to have to turn it down.

Mark Sanford had the right idea. Turn down that stimulus money.



If some few red states want to opt out, that'll be the utter end of the
GOP in those states.

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:09:20 -0400, H the K
wrote:



If some few red states want to opt out, that'll be the utter end of the
GOP in those states.

Yep. Good Dem play.
If they really have the balls to get it.
Ain't done yet.
What's important to a lot of people is job mobility.
Me for instance.
Since we can't ensure that either one of us can get a job that offers
a health care policy, the wife stays where she is.
Might convince her to move to Florida with a new insurance regime.
Though I must say there are other reasons for staying put, including
family, seasons, and plain old inertia.
She says a number of people at her work - the ones that don't use the
ER for health care - are there only for the health policy.
Job market and wages might undergo quite a bit of change.
Could invigorate the economy.
But then maybe Florida will opt out.
Their choice, given state rights and all.
hehe.

--Vic

On 10/26/09 9:36 PM, Vic Smith wrote:
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:09:20 -0400, H the K
wrote:



If some few red states want to opt out, that'll be the utter end of the
GOP in those states.

Yep. Good Dem play.
If they really have the balls to get it.
Ain't done yet.
What's important to a lot of people is job mobility.
Me for instance.
Since we can't ensure that either one of us can get a job that offers
a health care policy, the wife stays where she is.
Might convince her to move to Florida with a new insurance regime.
Though I must say there are other reasons for staying put, including
family, seasons, and plain old inertia.
She says a number of people at her work - the ones that don't use the
ER for health care - are there only for the health policy.
Job market and wages might undergo quite a bit of change.
Could invigorate the economy.
But then maybe Florida will opt out.
Their choice, given state rights and all.
hehe.

--Vic


There are a lot of Americans who are trapped in their jobs by the
economy and by the vagaries of obtaining health insurance at a new job.

If Reid and Pelosi pull off a decent health care/insurance reform bill
with no votes from the GOP, that party will be even further up the creek
than it is now. It also seems possible that our creaky economy is really
beginning to make a turn for the better. The GOP can only succeed in the
face of failure. If there isn't failure, and if the GOP is seen to have
virtually nothing to do with the recovery, it should be interesting
politically.

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:49:04 -0400, H the K
wrote:


There are a lot of Americans who are trapped in their jobs by the
economy and by the vagaries of obtaining health insurance at a new job.

If Reid and Pelosi pull off a decent health care/insurance reform bill
with no votes from the GOP, that party will be even further up the creek
than it is now. It also seems possible that our creaky economy is really
beginning to make a turn for the better. The GOP can only succeed in the
face of failure. If there isn't failure, and if the GOP is seen to have
virtually nothing to do with the recovery, it should be interesting
politically.

I don't think either the D's or R's have a clue about how to bring the
jobs back.
Which is to penalize companies sending jobs over the borders and
encourage (yep, subsidies) companies who generate jobs here.
That means I can buy a washing machine, refrigerator or TV
that is made in the U.S.A. Et cetera.
Most other countries do this, but their govs aren't whores of Wall
Street and/or kumbaya one-world liberalism.
The economy works trickle-up. Always has.
But don't hold your breath.

--Vic

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:06:22 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:49:04 -0400, H the K
wrote:


There are a lot of Americans who are trapped in their jobs by the
economy and by the vagaries of obtaining health insurance at a new job.

If Reid and Pelosi pull off a decent health care/insurance reform bill
with no votes from the GOP, that party will be even further up the creek
than it is now. It also seems possible that our creaky economy is really
beginning to make a turn for the better. The GOP can only succeed in the
face of failure. If there isn't failure, and if the GOP is seen to have
virtually nothing to do with the recovery, it should be interesting
politically.

I don't think either the D's or R's have a clue about how to bring the
jobs back.
Which is to penalize companies sending jobs over the borders and
encourage (yep, subsidies) companies who generate jobs here.
That means I can buy a washing machine, refrigerator or TV
that is made in the U.S.A. Et cetera.
Most other countries do this, but their govs aren't whores of Wall
Street and/or kumbaya one-world liberalism.
The economy works trickle-up. Always has.
But don't hold your breath.

--Vic

Wall Street Liberalism?

It's Wall St. Capitalism that doesn't give a **** about the welfare of
its fellow citizens.

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:07:41 -0700, jps wrote:


Most other countries do this, but their govs aren't whores of Wall
Street and/or kumbaya one-world liberalism.
The economy works trickle-up. Always has.
But don't hold your breath.

--Vic

Wall Street Liberalism?

It's Wall St. Capitalism that doesn't give a **** about the welfare of
its fellow citizens.

And/or.
There are many free-trade liberals who think that the if the price of
joblessness here is "lifting up" the Mexican or Chinese peasant,
that's a fair trade.
Right in line with the Wall Street pukes who see also see that as
fine, for reasons of lower wages enhancing "shareholder value."
Of course I think they're all full of ****.
They live in fairyland, since most have never worked with their hands
producing real goods, and still don't realize that the money party is
over and it's time for Americans to get back to work.
But they'll come to their senses as the economy continues to tank.
Or be brought to their senses by tar and feather.
Just my opinion, gently told.
Man, I miss my factory jobs. Maybe a little boring compared to some
work, but finishing a shift with clear head and a sense that I
contributed something to the real world made that worthwhile.
Kept me in good shape too, ready to go to another job and play two!
Wouldn't mind trying it again.
Die with grease on my hands and a smile on my face.
......Nah.

--Vic

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:49:24 -0400, wrote:



I don't believe Florida would opt out but you might see a lot of the
relatively healthy center of the country where they have a low
uninsured rate anyway.
Unfortunately that pool of healthy people will not be there to balance
the coasts in the public company.

Not sure about that since I haven't even seen the bill.
From what I've heard only those without employer based insurance will
be eligible.
I don't know that that pool is any less healthy than the rest.
Besides, another part of the bill is supposed to eliminate the
pre-existing condition cop out for all insurers.
Too early to say much really.

--Vic

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:23:13 -0400, wrote:



I agree with those who say there may be a huge pullback in the health
insurance industry. They will just stop writing insurance and the
employers will stop providing insurance.
I know everyone in favor of the government option say that is great
but we already saw that with homeowners in Florida and our rates
skyrocketed when "the public option" was the only one writing new
policies.
The legislature put caps on premiums and the insurers simply canceled
everyone. There were a few bridge companies that picked up some of the
policies but they are canceling people for the least little thing..

Different situation. You got insurance reserve requirements,
sensitivity to share prices (though State Farm is privately held),
and hurricanes.
Looks like it's still a mess down there. Big mistake capping rates
and driving them out.
I was still in the business then and my impression was the damages
versus reserves didn't justify the rate increases.
But with all those hurricanes hitting at once the insurance companies
got spooked.
But I won't stand by those impressions since I didn't look hard.
Maybe your state insurance commission did.
Remember the insurance business exists only to maximize profit.
They ain't your friend.
I'm still thinking that renting my home here and renting one down
there instead of buying is a good option.
Don't want to deal with that insurance.
I think if I bought down there it would be cash, and I wouldn't insure
except liability. Tricky, but it could work.
Much of home value is the land and contents anyway.
If the house doesn't get blown flat of float away, and the contents
aren't costly, it could work.
I bet many down there are doing exactly that.
So I would buy a beat up place above most flooding, get a crew in
there to retrofit hurricane ties and shutters, then furnish from the
goodwill store, pop a beer and relax.
Hey, relaxing is what Florida is for, right?
I'll try not to have any Chevys on cinder blocks in the front yard.
If I have a back yard, that is.
And no damn HOA.

--Vic

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:36:12 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:09:20 -0400, H the K
wrote:



If some few red states want to opt out, that'll be the utter end of the
GOP in those states.

Yep. Good Dem play.
If they really have the balls to get it.
Ain't done yet.
What's important to a lot of people is job mobility.
Me for instance.
Since we can't ensure that either one of us can get a job that offers
a health care policy, the wife stays where she is.
Might convince her to move to Florida with a new insurance regime.
Though I must say there are other reasons for staying put, including
family, seasons, and plain old inertia.
She says a number of people at her work - the ones that don't use the
ER for health care - are there only for the health policy.
Job market and wages might undergo quite a bit of change.
Could invigorate the economy.
But then maybe Florida will opt out.
Their choice, given state rights and all.
hehe.

--Vic

I don't believe Florida would opt out but you might see a lot of the
relatively healthy center of the country where they have a low
uninsured rate anyway.
Unfortunately that pool of healthy people will not be there to balance
the coasts in the public company.


I agree. I don't think Florida would opt out.

--
Nom=de=Plume

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:36:12 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:09:20 -0400, H the K
wrote:



If some few red states want to opt out, that'll be the utter end of the
GOP in those states.

Yep. Good Dem play.
If they really have the balls to get it.
Ain't done yet.
What's important to a lot of people is job mobility.
Me for instance.
Since we can't ensure that either one of us can get a job that offers
a health care policy, the wife stays where she is.
Might convince her to move to Florida with a new insurance regime.
Though I must say there are other reasons for staying put, including
family, seasons, and plain old inertia.
She says a number of people at her work - the ones that don't use the
ER for health care - are there only for the health policy.
Job market and wages might undergo quite a bit of change.
Could invigorate the economy.
But then maybe Florida will opt out.
Their choice, given state rights and all.
hehe.

--Vic

I don't believe Florida would opt out but you might see a lot of the
relatively healthy center of the country where they have a low
uninsured rate anyway.
Unfortunately that pool of healthy people will not be there to balance
the coasts in the public company.

It's a red herring. Who is going to "opt out" and still end up paying
half their income for the part of the country that doesn't pay any taxes
at all? Right...