Let's take Mr. Shelby's, Mr. Graham's, Mr. Baucus's, Mr. Bayh's, Mr. Boehner's, Mr. Cantor's, Ms. Landrieu's, Mr. Daschle's, Mr. Kerry's, Ms. Cantwell's (etc.) taxpayer funded "public-option, single-payer" Health Insurance Care away from them (and their families) and force them to buy the private, for-profit Health Insurance (that they adore) out of their own pockets..no taxpayer, no government subsidies, "socialistic" Health Care for them, EITHER!!..., ..see just how wonderful the for-profit Health Care Industries really are...when they (or a loved one) end up with an life threatening illness such as cancer, possible terminal heart disease, AIDS, M.S...etc.

Zach, I have been anxiously awaiting TPM's attempt to do just what you are starting. We need to nail the Senators, who are standing in the way of what we constituents want, to the wall with the facts about their own acceptance of near bribery payments from insurance companies. Without that information widely disseminated the public will accept the argument that we have competition among insurance providers.

Health insurance is a racket. Perhaps the RICO statutes would be one approach to this problem. And, while we are at it, lets open up Senator Feinstein's husband's investment portfolio to see what is driving her. California is a community property state, so anything her husband owns, she also owns.

As an actuary, here's what I fear will happen with the public option: the public option will just become solely a pool of people with pre-existing conditions.

If insurance companies have even the slightest bit more liberal underwriting rules than the public option -- i.e., insurance companies are allowed to charge more for pre-existing conditions and/or age, etc. and the public option is not, or the the public option is required to accept and renew everyone while insurance companies are not -- then the public option becomes a pool solely for people with preexisting conditions, and either the public option becomes unaffordable, or the taxpayers subsidize the public option of people with pre-existing conditions. Meanwhile, insurance companies profit from having a much lower risk population.

[This, if we remember correctly, is what the Clinton administration feared would happen if the Breaux/Thomas Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare "premium support" (a.k.a. voucher) proposal were adopted. Insurance companies would cherry-pick healthier Medicare recipients while traditional Medicare would be stuck with only the sicker patients, and would become unaffordable to most seniors.]

If insurance companies have indentical underwriting rules as the public option, won't the public option and insurance companies have similar administrative costs? If that's the case, then how would the public option substantially lower prices?

The goals of this health care reform shouldn't be about whether or not there is a public option or whether or not everyone has a choice of doctor. Here's what the goals should be (and where our energy should be focused):

1. Insurance companies should not be able to deny or refuse to cover certain pre-existing conditions based on health status.

2. Insurance companies should be required to accept and renew all applicants (unless the applicant misses a payment, etc.), and only be able to charge higher premiums based on zip code, family size, and age, and charge higher premiums by age by a limited amount.

3. Everyone should have access to a minimum amount of health insurance -- regardless of health status.

4. No American should be required to pay more than a certain amount of out-of-pocket expenses. Annual and lifetime benefit limits should be removed.

... the public option will just become solely a pool of people with pre-existing conditions.

You might want to throw in temp workers and, of course, all of Wal*Mart's employees.

Health Care Costs in YOUR State

An interactive map lets you see how much the Big Insurance Monopoly Market is costing you

http://www.healthreform.gov/index.html

One sure thing: if the insurance and drug company lobbyists are heavily involved in writing whatever new health care legislation is passed, it will increase their profits, at the expense of other citizens. After all, that is what the lobbyists are paid to do.

Another thing Zach needs to monitor/research is how those lobbyists are "helping" the various Senators. Sorry Zach, maybe Josh can get you a staff of interns to help with all of this.

Between the Insurance companies' territorial monopolies (first) and then your employer's decision on which of those few companies to offer to you, there's AT LEAST TWO corporations between you and your doctor as it is now.

I say: Eminent Domain: buy up all the stock in all the companies, create one board with one agency CEO, and have them administer the payouts the same way private companies already administer the pay-outs on Medicare. They don't get any say on who's covered, either getting insureance or in getting service.

A territorial monopoly (the whole U.S.) leading to consolidation of duplicative clerical work, computerization to eliminate other clerical work, and reduction in costs through economies of scale: what's not for a Republican to like?

When your knee deep in cash from pharma and all its surrounding influence you will say anything to keep the status quo. And when you as a senator have the best in healthcare "options" you are not likely to kill the thing that keep you going.
Aren't Americans entitled to their healthcare options as well? Why are we being forced to by a Cadilac when they could by the Chevy?

"profits at ten of the largest publicly traded health insurance companies rose 428 percent "

That is not a rationally useful percent because 2000 could have been an almost zero-profit year. More useful percents would be

percent return on equity and percent return on revenues (premiums and investment income).

Thanks for this. The MSM is so bought and paid for that most are no longer serving the people but instead just their employers. Something's got to give there.

We desperately need leadership in our fight for single payer healthcare. Someone outside of WA that will see it through no matter how long it takes and help us to focus our energy and speak to WA with a more unified voice. With leadership we can be well organized and have a louder voice against the huge money and power we must confront.

"the best health care system the world has ever known."

What a crock. The guy is delusional. I live in France. The health care system here was recently rated the best in the world I believe by the WHO. I go to the doctor anytime I am sick. There are private practices everywhere in every neighborhood. I my case, I walk 30 seconds to get there. For my visit, I pay €22 out of pocket, giving them my "Carte Vitale", my national health insurance card. Roughly 90% is reimbursed by the state directly into my account, the rest by my "mutuelle", sort or a top-up insurance company. Then, I take my prescription to the pharmacy. Anything medically necessary is reimbursed nearly 100% by the state. Sometimes I have to pay 6 cents or something.

Why are GB and Canada always derided as bad examples of the single payer system? It works here in France, as it does in those countries. Maybe if people actually studied the system here, they would find how genuinely fair and humane it is. You never have twisted debates about healthy people being forced to pay for the sins of unhealthy people.

Nothing's perfect, but we have a lot to learn from the Europeans. Many are afraid to look, for one reason or another.

"If insurance companies have indentical underwriting rules as the public option, won't the public option and insurance companies have similar administrative costs? If that's the case, then how would the public option substantially lower prices?"

No profit motive? If 15 to 20% is considered "normal" profit, as it is with regulated utilities, then by having a public option be non-profit, you already reduce those "administrative costs" by 15 to 20%.

I'm also assuming executive pay would be significantly lower at the "public" health insurance entity. Good pay, of course, but not the kind of obscene pay you see at for-profit health insurers.

Shorter Rightwing arguement against government-run health care reform:

It's so complicated, bureaucratic, inefficient and expensive that it will put private health insurers out of business!

health concerns of citizenry ruins the 'marketplace'?
the fact that people like Shelby don't even see the insanity of this
shows just how conditioned we/they have become.
we/they are so far inside the bubble we/they can't even see
how distorted it has become.

public health is not part of the marketplace.
the marketplace has run amok in this areas well as a few others.

I'd be interested in knowing what portion of each of those "health care" contributions is from insurance companies.
The reason I mention this is that the NPR attempt to identify health care lobbyists and attach dollar figures to people in the audience at a Congressional hearing failed to distinguish between those lobbyists who work for profit-making health insurance companies who want to keep the system as much the same as possible so they can keep making their profits, and those lobbyists who work for organizations like the American Cancer Society who really want health reform and coverage for everyone.
Not all lobbyists are equal. I worked for a child advocacy organization for many years and we lobbied hard (and won) for the CHIP program and for keeping Medicaid safe. But our lobbyists made a fraction of the salary of the lobbyists for the profit-making health industry.

the idea that the health system is this country is the best in the world is a lie and a joke.

in fact it stinks and must be dumped.

but i dont expect anything from a paid off congress and dumb citizens.

SAME STORY ... MONEY BUYS VOTES ... DISGUSTING!BAR LOBBYISTS FROM CONGRESS PERMANENTLY

Harnessing public anger at corporate greed to the overwhelming public demand for universal coverage seems like a potent combination, maybe even enough to move the United States Senate.