Isn’t the CBO run by one of those Hamilton Project(meaning Pete Peterson) guys? Pete Peterson would just as soon as let the plebes rot in the streets.

It seems to me that Wyden’s claim that his plan would raise $129 Billion for the government can mean only one think – we get soaked for another $129billion plus whatever the vouchers cost.

The “cost of the vouchers” is the same as the cost of the employer provided health insurance to the employer.

That seems a natural part of allowing people to have the choice of another health care plan if they DON’T want to keep their present insurance.

With private insurance premiums in excess of $700b annually, it would not be surprising if closing a loophole in the current bill that allows companies to duck out on paying the full amount of negotiated benefits might save somewhere around $20b/yr.

Captain Renault rules: Shocked, shocked….

Actually, reading the report, the $192b is from the governments reduced exposure via private health care tax exemption due to $360b in cost containment (remember, these are 10 year frames, so roughly $36b/year, or something like 5% cost containment).

The CBO tends to underscore cost containment, so the full CBO rating could well be substantially less than $192b unless there some “backup” revenue measure to give the cost containment more solidity than a health-industry-owned “independent” analysis.

Just watched video.

I do not like Kent Conrad. At all.

so now we’re getting legislation based on messages between texting buddies?

What?!
Jon, I hope that you are able to find time to follow up on this because on the surface (catching up late on a Saturday night), the idea that CBO didn’t cost out the ENTIRE proposal does not make any sense.

IMHO, Cantwell pulled the rhetorical rug right out from under the GOP on several issues: state’s rights (she leaves health cost negotiations with the states), and she also covers one huge group of economically distressed Americans. BUT her proposal does not cover everyone!

Why on earth would CBO fail to score the voucher portion??
Because it’s like failing to account for millions of Americans!

And Wyden’s approach would close up a lot of loopholes that currently nothing else covers (since Rockefeller’s amendment didn’t pass).

In other words, Cantwell’s amendment was progress, but still leaves millions of people uninsured.

Wyden’s amendment covers millions of additional Americans AND ALSO opens up competition and choice to every single American.

So why on earth would the CBO not fully, completely, backward, forward, and upside-down make sure that they provided every iota of information about the Wyden plan…?!

Something here simply does not add up.

Who doesn’t want Wyden’s amendment to pass?

Jon, One question. Isn’t the Lewin Group a subsidiary of United Health? If so, how can you refer to them as “independent?”

Yes the Lewin group is owned by United Health, I’m using independent to mean completely seperate from the CBO or the Government. I did not say by the independent lewin group. Just that the analysis was independent from the one CBO did. sorry if anyone missed the difference.

And to Readeroftealeaves

I do plan to look into this more completely. For the CBO to have not scored what many policy experts consider the most important amendment. To have the CBO lie to Wyden and tell him it was scored, than by some strange “some how” for Kent Conrad to get a text message at 2 in the morning saying the CBO messed up. Well lets just say I’ve never heard of anything like this happening to something so high profile.

If it is purely a mistake on CBO’s part it is so big someone should be fired.

The mistake by the CBO was very convenient.

Wyden’s amendment had been in the queue from the start. Baucus made him wait until the very end of the mark up, and the wee hours of the morning, to bring it up. Dead last, even though others were allowed to bring up new amendments, amended amendments, amendments that were not scored (Cantwell) and everything else, ahead of Wyden.

Baucus treated him dismissively. Clearly he had wanted to Wyden to withdraw it all along. Wyden was able to make his case. Bingaman and Kerry argued against it. Then, conveniently, the counsel couldn’t answer questions because she didn’t have the analysis in front of her. Then, it was discovered, via a cell phone call/text, that it wasn’t scored completely after all, even though Wyden submitted it in full.

The whole thing was a disgrace. And nobody had to go on the record with a vote on it.

Why vouchers why not just show proof your a citizen like a drivers license to a hospital and then the Dr bills the government or private insurance company vouchers seem like an unnecessary step.
Also everytime someone says vouchers I think it will be a bad idea.

Interesting now your convincing me this is a very good idea.

To have the CBO lie to Wyden and tell him it was scored, than by some strange “some how” for Kent Conrad to get a text message at 2 in the morning saying the CBO messed up. Well lets just say I’ve never heard of anything like this happening to something so high profile.

I smell Rahm

Cokie Roberts is wearing her hair, Early Elvis style today.

Why didn’t the CBO do the analysis on the voucher piece? Cynical mind that I have will refrain from further comments.

NelsonAlgren October 3rd, 2009 at 3:47 pm 1
Isn’t the CBO run by one of those Hamilton Project(meaning Pete Peterson) guys? Pete Peterson would just as soon as let the plebes rot in the streets.

I don’t understand all the legislative language, but I get the sense that what CBO scored was Wyden’s bill, after it had been marked by the chairman. So someone’s fingerprints are on this, other than CBO’s. Is that possible?

This looks very bad for CBO.

That text message should have been sent to Wyden first.

Jane, any thoughts as to “what” happened? Anyone interviewing Wyden?

Is “Elmendorf” Villagese for “the fix is in”?

CBO is screwing health care by refusing to estimate effects on cost containment;
“A report from the Institute of Medicine, which advises the federal government on health care, will counter “stingy” estimates from the Congressional Budget Office”

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/…..9dX4NiJ714

CBO’s role in health care seems to be the equivalent of lobbyists for the insurance industry at this point. Real advocates need ton use a better or at least detached body to get real figures.

CBO director Douglas Elmendorf is an acolyte and coauthor of Martin Feldstein.
Buyer beware…oops, it’s too late, isn’t it.

i have decided i do not trust rahm and, like his predecessor before him, am wondering how well served this president is by his advisers? what is this man’s, we pinned so much hope on, strategy and what does he really believe? i am deeply saddened to have such doubts.

What a long, strange trip it’s been for Wyden’s plans. This amendment is just the most recent in a string of his proposals that have been monkey-wrenched from all sides.

I have in front of me two mailers from last May. The one that supports Wyden’s plan is paid for by “America’s Pharmaceutical Research Companies and FamiliesUSA” [an industry front group]. The one that says “STOP Wyden’s Health Plan” is from the Oregon AFL-CIO — organized labor. They claim his plan would take away our current health care, tax our benefits, and (this is true) provide no public option.

Subsequent to this, Wyden addressed these objections with his Free Choice Amendment. To no avail.

I have written to Wyden several times this year, asking him to support a public option, and include it in his proposals. While his amendment was only a partial fix, it would have been far better than the odious MaxTax, with middle-class back-breaking insurance premium payments mandated, and no public option. And organized labor helped us get here.

That’s my view, from down here in this rabbit hole.

so obama managed not to equivocate in his support of chicago’s bid. so we know it’s possible: why doesn’t he step up and fight for the public option, instead of merely indicating that it’s his preference? what does it mean that his clearest declaration in the last several months isn’t about torture prosecutions, or removing DADT, or supporting the public option, but instead a fly-by declaration of support for an olympic bid.

this is a “teachable moment” about his priorities.

obama apologists, let me guess: this is the job he begged us to let him do, and now we’re supposed to make him do it? oh, and i thought his reasoning against torture prosecution was that it would be a POLITICAL DISTRACTION from important issues like health care reform. SO it turns out obama sits on his ass while the right wing stirs up all manner of ludicrousness, hemming and hawing, refusing the fight for the public option. absolutely shameful, and you’re kidding yourselves if you think we don’t see right through you.

I am wondering where is the president in all this. If I know his advisers are unreliable, how can he not know? Unless they are telling him what he wants to hear.

Norske has a theory about Rahm I can’t do it justice but still it must be noted that Rahm’s last big win was NAFTA putting Rahm on something is kind of like asking Greenspan about the economy.

Jon, your third paragraph needs a little tightening. Very difficult to read as is, and not up to what I usually expect on the front page.

kind of like asking Greenspan about the economy.

which Stephanopolous just did, had to laugh when Greenspan dissed the stimulus, so to admit unemployment extension was very good for the economy, claims the stimulus is different stuff from unemployment. what liars.

Jon, thank you for the response (sadly, I’m on early am on a Sunday to track this whole health care conversation).

Agree with klynn@18: why didn’t Wyden get the text, rather than Conrad — although the fact that Conrad is Chair of the Sen Budget Committee would help explain why *he* rec’d the 2 am text, it doesn’t look good from where we sit.

allen@19: the fix would be in if so many of us weren’t paying attention, but even over the weekend talking with acquaintances it is clear that more in my area are losing benefits and coverage by the week. My sense is that plenty of people are paying attention, which means that **if** a fix is in the public will be in an uproar once they figure that out. Keep reading Jane daily!

joannenelson@11: yes, ‘disgrace’ is a good description on something this fundamental to the larger US economy, and this critical to the lives of all of us. It’s not as if Wyden whipped this little item out at the last instant; they’ve had week.

saltinwound@17: your point that we’d want to know whether CBO was looking at Wyden’s original amendment, or elsea pasted-up version given to CBO who was trying to put in a fix is mighty interesting. Perhaps Jon Walker can find out…?

BruceMcF@3,5: you seem quite knowledgeable; hope you’ll expand on your explanations in a Seminal Diary.

Jon, thanks for tracking this.
It’s just not making sense that this could happen to Wyden and unfortunately it makes CBO look dreadful.

While his amendment was only a partial fix, it would have been far better than the odious MaxTax, with middle-class back-breaking insurance premium payments mandated, and no public option. And organized labor helped us get here.

As I’ve been following this, and using Howard Dean’s Rx for Health Care as my basic document (along with personal conversations with care providers).

The fundamental issues are cost and coverage, but to improve those two of the key obstacles are:

– lack of genuine competition among providers.
Cantwell’s addresses this for only one segment of the population; Wyden addresses this problem for every, single American. Which is why his amendment is so important (along with Rockefeller’s).

– lack of portability (by which I mean that if you lose your job, or switch employers, then you can’t take your health care package with you), and Wyden’s plan also addresses that problem.

Which makes it strange that the CBO has bungled the analysis.
And it also makes it strange that Wyden wasn’t allowed to bring it up until nearly 2 am.

It’s possible that there are innocent explanations, but given the fact that there are reported to be 6 healthCo_Pharma lobbyists for every Congresscritter, unfortunately it ‘looks suspicious’ and that is extremely regrettable.

Please forgive my total ignorance, but how to vouchers relate to private health insurers and their profits? Would the ability to take these vouchers into an exchange amount to $ going into the pockets of private insurers? I’m not opposed to that in principle, but does it really solve anything if there isn’t real competition with a public health insurance option?

well of course the insurance cartel doesn’t want Wyden’s amendment to pass.

The idea is an employee could use a voucher for the amount the employer pays for insurance anyway and use it to select a different insurer — and among the choices would be the public option. That scares the insurance cartel.

And why shouldn’t they be scared? Their “product” not only sucks, it’s harmful. Nobody wants it. And the Wyden amendment gives people a way out.

Agreed why this is bad seems murky both from our and Rahm’s view I don’t know if this is good or not?

Thanks:)

– lack of genuine competition among providers.
Cantwell’s addresses this for only one segment of the population; Wyden addresses this problem for every, single American.

I wrote that Wyden’s amendent is only a partial fix because, as I read it, it does not address every American, only those people who already have health insurance through employers. And three years to cover all of those.

What? George asked Greenspan about the economy? Why not ask Herbert Hoover with a Ouja board I bet their answers are the same! Can nobody on the news say Keynes! Has Keynes been blackballed from mention by the Corporate Media kind of like comparing Viet Nam and Afghanistan?

and among the choices would be the public option

Ok, but seeing how it’s not a sure thing that we’re going to get a public health insurance option…

Seems like you’re skipping ahead of an important point that hasn’t yet been resolved.

I’d be 101% in favor of vouchers AFTER we have public health insurance in place.

CBO independant like the Credit Ratings Agenecies are independant for the financial sector.

Bad news. Time to investigate.

Actually, getting a proven wrong economist to comment could be very valuable in providing a watermark on where is the obviously wrong answer, so we can go in the opposite direction. Greenspan dissing the stimulus is an excellent indication that it’s the absolutely right policy, as Stiglitz and Krugman already have said.

Btw, I finally sent my letter to the White House yesterday. First time I ever wrote to a President! And, to those of you who might remember a couple of days ago that I originally drafted a ridiculously long letter, you’ll be happy to know that I did manage to get it down to less than 250 words without losing anything of what I wanted to say.

Today, I’m going to send Grayson a letter too.

At least 2 letters to Pelosi, 2 letters to Reid, 1 letter to Boehner, 2 letters to Lamar Alexander, 1 letter to Corker, 1 letter to Congressman John Duncan, 1 letter to Grayson, and a letter to the White House in one week… NOT TOO BAD!

As you write each other here and keep each other informed, please remember to send letters to our representatives and other assorted people in power.

Conrad “giving the employers the option” ” the voucher piece my analyst tell me does have the risk of undermining the pool”

Who are Conrad’s “analyst”?

How does one get on any of these plans for a voucher if you are self employed?

Wyden’s plan is a good one and seems like our best bet for actual savings for both the government and the individual. I watched every minute of the hearings so I could see how it was received and as far as I’m concerned, there was dirty pool from the beginning. Waiting until the very last minute and then “discovering” an error by the CBO. If anyone believes this, I’ve got a bridge…….

I’ve studied the finance committee bill and cannot find anything but a feast for insurance companies.

I’ve got Fixed “News,” Faux “News,” CFM (ClusterFoxManipulation) on now.

The last story was “Is there an an effort to take away your guns?” and the story coming up will be “Is it Christian to support health care reform or to oppose it?”

Conrad claiming that his message was just minutes ago from Phil Ellis “yes all we scored is giving employers the option we did not score the voucher piece…that is directly from Phil Ellis”

Conrad should have been required to show Wyden that message just as you would be required to show a document to back up ones claim

The voucher is for use on the exchange if you want a health plan different from what your employer offers. Your employer would provide the voucher for use on the exchange. A self employed person could buy directly from the exchange at large pool rates. That saves a bundle.

Example: my current insurance premium, $1,000 per month; under the finance committee bill, the same policy would cost $1,886 per month. Under the Wyden plan, being able to access the same coverage at large group rates, my premium would be $390. Due to my income, I qualify for a government subsidy under the finance committee bill and I would definitely need it. Under the Wyden plan, I could pay for my own and have money to spend on other things.

You tell me which one’s better.

Jon Walker,

Is anyone following up on this here at the Lake?

This “mess up” may reveal quite the backstory to everything going on irt health care and the PO.

And a, “Ooops, we were so bogged down with health care we ooopsed, ” is not goign to cut it.

How does one get on any of these plans for a voucher if you are self employed?

Short answer: we don’t with Wyden’s plan.

A self employed person could buy directly from the exchange at large pool rates.

I don’t see this in Wyden’s plan. Am I missing something?

Thanks for the explanation.

How in the hell do you afford to pay 1000 a month and then also qualify for a “government subsidy”?

I have not been able to afford to buy insurance for 30 years on a self employed income. Just rolled the dice. Never had anything catastrophic have never taken a dime from the state or federal system. Paid all taxes, state, federal.

Have only been to see a Doctor 2 times in 22 years.

The letter I’m going to send to Grayson today reads in part: “We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to effect REAL health care reform, and your efforts will help ensure that we do not waste it!”

I just sent a contribution to FDL Action to help us make as much of an impact as possible NOW for a public health insurance option.

https://secure.firedoglake.com/page/contribute/PublicPlan

That last minute message to Conrad was mysterious? Has anyone verified the exact message?

Now the White House is leaking that Obama is secretly lobbying for the public option. How many believe for a New York minute this is true?

How stupid do they think progressives are?

I actually think that Obama is personally for a single payer system. Trying to play Insurance company hardball is another ball game all together. Obviously

I have been following the senator’s statements and proposals. None have the public option Jon. None. Capital N. He always equates health care with insurance, and I would expect you to realize, insurance is not health care. It is rationing, recission and profit. It doesn’t have a damn thing to do with health except how to minimize it.
That is what our senator has been offering up. An insurance company solution.
He is better than the gang he votes with, yes. But is he for a public health care option, NO, emphatically, NO. He has said it isn’t possible, doable, and worse.

I do hope you go to the core of his statements on this matter rather than these votes in the senate committee that was meant to kill the public option from day one?

I said nothing about a public option in this story. This story is at best only slightly connected the the issue of a public option.

Not every story about health care reform is about the public option.

As a side note, I don’t know how you can claim he is not for a public option. I think his support has been very weak, but Wyden did vote for both public option amendments in committee.

Oh, thank you for that comment!

Here’s my understanding:
– if you are already happy with your insurance, you keep it
– if you want to take your employer-alloted sum out onto a larger, public exchange, you can do that
– those who don’t have health care through employers go onto the exchange to purchase their own; however, I thought that a certain income level received subsidized care the first few years (and this covers ONLY a basic plan through the exchange)

Was I mistook?

I completely fail to understand the obsession with providing “choice” for consumers amongst for-profit health insurance providers.

They have a fiduciary responsibility to take as much of my money as possible, and give back as little as they can legally get away with. All of them are that way, so my being able to choose amongst a bunch of substitutable goods, which are all bad, doesn’t really improve my situation at all.

Then further there’s the fact that using risk-pooling to organize funds means that a competitive market is actually antithetical to getting the best average insurance for the lowest average price, because it fractures the size of the pools, and induces a bunch of frictional inefficiency between providers.

Ron Wyden is a healthcare policy wonk, only insofar that we consider a wonk to be someone who constructs pointlessly large edifices of dubious nuance to do little more than tinker at the margins of the status quo.

Wow, l watched as much as I could but it is **definitely not the same** as watching from start to finish. I hope you took notes.

I cannot find any other coverage of this story. All links come here. I’d stay on this story. Minuse some curious links to the Club For Growth.

Y B secret about it? Y not go public with it and use that pressure to actually effectuate it? This is more rahmbama games.

Z

Ron Wyden is a healthcare policy wonk, only insofar that we consider a wonk to be someone who constructs pointlessly large edifices of dubious nuance to do little more than tinker at the margins of the status quo.

I think that you misunderstand Wyden’s commitment — not that I know him, but we all know people who know people; six degrees of separation, and all…

The part that you are missing in the approaches taken by Wyden, Rockefeller, and Cantwell** is their focus on an exchange, which is a process by which you introduce a negotiator into the process at the front end. The only healthCos who can enter the exchange are those who meet the standards and requirements set up by the exchange.

That means that there is actual competition in health care (yes, I hope that you were sitting down to read that).

Also, Rockefeller proposed a cap of 10% of all healthCo budgets to cover combined marketing, exec pay, bonuses and other ‘incentives’ for healthCo profiteering. In other words, if 90% of all health care dollars were actually spent in health care delivery activities, then only a max of 10% would be left over for ‘profit’.

So why insult those in Congress who are working hard to try and fix things?
Wyden’s bill would open up a whole new system, and that’s why the fact that he was not allowed to bring it up until nearly 2 am, and then CBO didn’t provide full and complete analysis is very suspicious to some onlookers.

** And possibly Schumer, although I’m not completely clear about that point.

Was I mistook?

I don’t think you were. It’s just that Wyden’s amendment doesn’t address those who don’t have health care through employers. They/we are addressed elsewhere (and inadequately, IMO).

Then further there’s the fact that using risk-pooling to organize funds means that a competitive market is actually antithetical to getting the best average insurance for the lowest average price, because it fractures the size of the pools

And continues the practice of risk underwriting, as is evident in the high costs of the high-risk pools for mandated auto insurance.

I think he is trying to wink wink us so (when his real actions leave it out) “Gee I tried” This has been h is style with the Gays and the civil libertarians; spread the word that he is sympathetic then do noting. Want to be he will fold on the war too?
Yes indeed RhamObma games. I am sick of it.

It is rationing, recission and profit. It doesn’t have a damn thing to do with health except how to minimize it.

oldtree, this may be true in your experience, but it is not true for everyone in the U.S.

Just yesterday, I was talking with a friend who has coverage through a managed care system in Washington State called Group Health. She now has to fill out a ‘Wellness Profile’, and if she does not do it, she’s charged an additional $400 annual fee. She found it to be a wonderful tool, and one that focuses on lifestyle habits and she felt gave her a great focus about some things that she’d like to change in her habits the next 6 months (in her case, more leafy greens and a daily 20 min walk).

This is now becoming an essential part of her ‘health care’ coverage, and allows her to have a good, upbeat conversation with her doc. She choses what SHE wants to focus on and it also gives her a good overview of the good things she is already doing.

That’s a paradigm shift.

Recently, TIME magazine did a cover article on the Cleveland Clinic and it’s approach to health care that was a nice overview of a completely different approach to health care: helping people lower their blood pressure, get their blood sugar under control, and focus on adapting their cooking habits of their ‘favorite foods’ to make changes at the margins that over time improve their health and help them feel better.

These are ‘wellness models’ and IMHO Wyden’s approach, as well as Rockefeller’s would move this idea forward for all Americans.

the argument between Wyden and Conrad seemed to be focused on vouchers. Who gets them. Employee or employer.

Nothing about the government “public option”

where did you read this about the White House leaking that Obama is secretly lobbying for the public option?

Okay, as I understood Wyden’s proposal, I think of it like this (too bad I can’t show a diagram in my comment!):

Right now, we have a bunch of dots.
Think of each dot as ‘an employer’.
If you are in a dot, you can’t get out of it; you are stuck in your ‘employee dot’.
That means there is no competition, because you cannot chose anything else.
Because there is no real choice, these healthCos have bought each other up and morphed into mega-corporations with obscene profits.
And they have more ‘clout’ than even GM, or Microsoft, or AT&T, or even the largest companies in the nation.
These healthCos also have more clout than docs, hospitals, or care providers.

Wyden is saying the healthCos should not have all the power.
To break their power, you have to break their monopolies.
To do that, you need to create an exchange.

The exchange means that the healthCos can’t keep everyone (even Microsoft and AT&T) stuck in their own, powerless little dots because it introduces competition into the equation — at the federal level. But the part that I’m not entirely clear about is whether any individuals are left out by gaps in income levels that may not qualify to be automatically entered into the exchange.

Cantwell comes at the problem of monopolies by having the states be the key negotiators in the exchange; that demolishes the GOP bleating about ’state’s rights’. While still introducing a factor to deal with monopolies. But a lot of people (income levels, middle class) are not covered under Cantwell’s proposal – and she admitted that; she said it was only a foothold, and by no means a complete solution.

It would be comical to see the GOP arguments if the implications were not so serious.
I swear that Kyl, Grassley (who’s pathetic), Lincoln, and Crapo have not yet seen a monopoly they wouldn’t curry favor with — very embarrassing to watch. But also quite eye-opening.

It’s showing up in today’s Google News Headlines linked to the Chicago Times; hit US Google News and you’ll see links.

Cleveland Clinic an amazing place. “Wellness models” a good thing.

But this being able to “shop” and “choose” is over rated. I have been watching and talking to some of our seniors the last few years in assisted living facilities and nursing homes. The choices just confuse the daylights out of them.

United Health seems to be the company that many of them have mentioned is quick to cut these seniors off of therapy asap. The minute they reach what the insurance companies call a “plateau”.

If you actually look at the fact that we have a ‘jobless recovery’, at the fact that the employment numbers are still down, and then you talk with some small biz people you will probably discover that health care costs impede new hires.

So without addressing health care costs for **employers**, you can’t really fundamentally get the economy back on track. That’s why I do not fathom Rahm’s role; but the worrying thing is that Rahm comes out of finance.

People in finance (who still have jobs) don’t actually engage with manufacturing processes.
Those in manufacturing have been raising flags about health care for a long time; and in that sector the economy is a problem.

The ‘economic numbers’ about how much money moves around seems to be coming primarily from the fact that things are still traded, so people who trade make fees. But the underlying productivity economy is not improving.

It can’t improve until health care is addressed.
Obama knows this.

This is also why the GOP wants to tank Obama; if they can tank health care the economy is going to be very shitty by 2012.

The choices just confuse the daylights out of them.

Yeah, part of what I’m not yet seeing is what I would call a ‘usability piece’ to this whole tableau.

If you have people who need to make decisions about complex things, they need assistance.
We all do.
Who buys a computer without asking questions of a sales person?

The exchange needs to employ people who make no money off WHICH plans are selected, but who can meet with people and explain their options to them. That would employ more people and that’s how you’d set it up to work well.

Or just call the people who set up Apple’s “Genius Bar” program.
Basically, if people could make an appointment then come to their local ‘healthCare Rep’ for an hour long orientation and discuss their personal needs, this would all go more smoothly.

The US government could learn a thing or two from watching Apple Computer.
(Not that I have opinions on anything ;-))

And yes, don’t get me started on UnitedHealthCare – smoke starts steaming out my ears…

I first heard it on CNN and MSNBC yesterday. It was the topic most of this morning on MSNBC with Alex what’s her naime. interviewing various pundits. Likely Googling it will give a print source.

Like your mental diagram. But if the employers are the dots and the employees are dots with in the larger dots. Who should get the “vouchers” if you were to go with what Wyden and Conrad seemed to be arguing about.

Would it be more competitive to give the “vouchers” to employers or the employees?

Conrad seemed to be saying that if you gave these “vouchers” to the “employees” that this would “undermine” the pool. Conrad went onto infer that younger employees would not spend the vouchers on insurance. At least that was my understanding of what he was saying. That would seem easy to deal with. Make the vouchers so that you can only use them to purchase insurance

If they are actually trying to create competition it would make more sense to me to give these “vouchers” to the “employees”

All of this “voucher” talk still seems to mean more profit for the insurance companies. Only playing into what Wendell Potter calls “The Insurance Industry Profit Protection and Enhancement Act”

And this voucher system would still leave someone like me self employed with no health insurance unable to buy in for a reasonable amount

President Obama doesn’t want Wyden’s bill to pass. He said that in the Oregonian some time back; said it was “too radical”.

The idea of Wyden as some kind of ‘radical’ from the state that has the Baker Stampede, and all those inland fairly conservative Ag producers is fairly comical, isn’t it ;-)))

My observations are certainly consistent with yours. Health insurance should have been ulinked from employers long ago. I don’t have a quick or politically possible route to what we need.

The fact is health care is not amenable to the market because. 1. It is and has been in most civilizations a human right. 2. It is simply either good enough or not.good enough. No such thing as Cadillac bypasses or mastectomies.
It only makes sense as a collective i.e.government responsibility. The only competition for shareholder corporations can come as to who can fool or cheat the consumer the most.. .

But the public option appears the closest, giving time for insurance companies and pharma to find other ways to create profit as we move to single payer. (Can you imagine the savings once we do” One form, one predictable set of criteria for testing and treatment, predictable payment, etc?)

link?

that was part of why the auto industry came tumbling down.

The vouchers need to go to the employees, and that’s how I understand Wyden’s bill.
The vouchers would be usable **only** for health care coverage, and not for anything else.

Then the Exchange (as I understand it) has authority and clout to negotiate coverage plans.
Which means, there’d be a cop on the beat.
Currently, it is run by very well-dressed, affluent gangstas.

Oh, I completely, wholeaheartedly agree with you that health care, by its nature, does not belong in a market.

Markets are good for allocating specific, optional goods: cars, diamond rings, shoes.
They are not at all good in allocating health care wellness programs.

You don’t go pick up a ‘quarter pound of health’ at the local shops, so why on earth we have them in a ‘for profit’ system simply shows how our entire ‘American’ economic beliefs are fundamentally flawed and — at this point, are almost certainly being used against us by money-laundering fiends. But I digress….

The only way to move out of the ‘for profit’ model we’ve had, where healthCos generate profits based on ‘transactional costs’ (each prescription payment they process, each lab fee they process, each physician diagnosis they process) is to move to a wellness model.

The wellness model is NOT based on transactional fees.
It has to bring overall costs down by focusing on ‘wellness practices’ that cover the whole range of human activities — and it produces far better outcomes over time for a population. Which is why it’s the model going forward.

But to get there, we have to break up the monopolies that healthCos have in American life.
It’s about economic wellness.
But it’s also about personal ‘wellness’ – it’s a much healthier model for everyone, at any age, no matter what their preexisting conditions may be.

(The thing is, it does require far better information coordination, and that’s why you create a whole new bunch of jobs related to medical IT. My spouse gets results about his blood tests via his email, because his provider network has heavily invested in online information. If he is routed to a specialist, they can call up all his prior tests, meds, etc. So it improves diagnostic information greatly, which then improves health outcomes.)

As is obvious from this thread, I’m pretty passionate about this whole nexis of topics.

So Conrads argument that the “employees” receiving the “vouchers” instead of the “employers” was weak.

Conrad said “his analyst” reported that this would undermine the pool. Wonder who the analyst are that he refers to?

Oh yeah

“well-dressed affluent ganstas”

Here it is: http://www.chicagotribune.com/…..9667.story

Figured it’d come from a Chicago area newspaper. How many contacts do you think the dcl’s dynamic duo of deceit, the pope of hope and his chi-town sidekick emanuel, have in chicago?

This is probably partially in reaction to the damaging narrative that comes from obama going to copenhagen while the health care debate was raging on in this country. They are in full spinning mode right now … not that they are ever out of it.

Z

ealth insurance should have been ulinked from employers long ago.

Absolutely, It’s the simplest most effective way to fix things. And most fair for all Americans. Fatal mistake not to start there.

thanks for the link

Why are you citing the Lewin Group?

edit: Nvm, I see you corrected yourself, but there’s still a problem: Why is the Lewin Group’s analysis credible now, but not when they estimate how many people will be pushed out of private insurance?

I am with you all the way. Yes wellness and wholeness is as much or more of a part than drugs and all the rest.

And yes an economic philosophy that incites and inflames desires to have access to something other people don’t is really immoral as well as bad your your health.

I’m citing the lewin group because Wyden cites it. I’m also citing it because I can not find another full analysis of the amendment.

I have my issues with the Lewin Group, but the main point is not that they are right, it is just to show how huge the mistake by the CBO was. We are not talking millions we are talking hundreds of billions.

We are not talking millions we are talking hundreds of billions.

Keep reminding us, Jon.
We need to really stay focused on this stark fact.