IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Double dribbling and walking with the ball are against the rules.

Quote:

Double dribbling and walking with the ball are against the rules.

once again Okie provides indepth analysis of international macro-economics.

Senate healthcare bill draws skeptics, opponents
By Donna Smith and John Whitesides Donna Smith And John Whitesides Tue Oct 27, 8:16 pm ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) " A healthcare reform bill with a government-run insurance option faced an uncertain future in the Senate on Tuesday, with many centrist Democrats uncommitted and Senator Joe Lieberman strongly opposed.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid's decision to include a government-run "public" option in the Senate bill failed to sway about a dozen moderates who said they wanted more details before making their decisions.

Democrats said Reid was still short of the 60 votes needed to overcome procedural hurdles and pass a bill with a public option, which has become one of the most contentious issues in the debate on President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.

The healthcare bills in the Senate and the House of Representatives aim to rein in costs, expand coverage to millions of uninsured and bar insurers from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions or dropping coverage for the sick.

Health insurer stocks rallied on skepticism that a government-run plan, seen as detrimental to the industry, would win passage. That view was fueled by Lieberman's comments.

Lieberman, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, said he would not join Republicans on a procedural vote to block the healthcare bill from coming up for debate, but would be willing to block a final vote on the plan if it remained unchanged.

"I don't support a government-operated health insurance company that will end up costing the taxpayers a lot of money," he told reporters.

Key Senators React To Lieberman's Fuzzy Public Option Logic
Brian Beutler | October 28, 2009, 9:32AM

One of the most puzzling things about Sen. Joe Lieberman's opposition to the public option is that he says it's based in a belief that a new government "entitlement" will end up being a large burden on taxpayers. In fact, the public option will be paid into (i.e. not subsidized like an entitlement) and the vast consensus among experts, partisan and non-partisan, is that a public option will save the government lots of loot. Moreover, they conclude that the bigger the plan is, the more money it will save.

Yesterday, I asked Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Lieberman's Connecticut colleague Chris Dodd (D-CT) what they thought of Lieberman's backward thinking.

Singing the praises of her preferred 'trigger' solution, Snowe said "[triggers] obviously can have a maximum impact...certainly, not as comparable to a full public option and what they want, but on the other hand what you're doing with the public option is basically crowding out the private sector, because of the government's, you know, inordinate advantage in the market place."

I asked her how this view of the public option squares with Lieberman's view that the public option will break the government's bank. After all, if it's driving premiums down so low that insurance companies go out of business, it's clearly saving the government--which will be subsidizing insurance plans--significant amounts of money.

"No," she said. The issue, she added, was that the public option "drives the industry out."

"I believe in, to the extent possible, to allow the private sector to provide a solution," Snowe said.

So what about a public option proponent like Dodd. What are his thoughts on Lieberman's policy eccentricities?

"Joe and I are good friends," Dodd told me, "and there's a difference on this and that's certainly his right to express it.... I'm disappointed we're not in agreement on this, but that happens from time to time on issues."

He did acknowledge the consensus on the public option: "I believe it brings down costs, I think it's going to save money as well," Dodd said. "And so I'm still hopeful that before we complete this process there'll be a lot more support for the public option, possibly even a good colleague and friend from Connecticut."

Lieberman's argument is that the public option will need significant infusions of government money to survive. But here's how Delaware Sen. Tom Carper described the plan under consideration by Senate health care principals.

The public option, he said, must "have to retain earnings, create a retained earnings pool, so that if they run into financial problems later on the financial needs of the plan could be met by the retained earnings, not by the federal government."

Oh well.

Who's going to subsidize the unemployed, midle-income without enough flex in their budget, and the poor? The money has to come from someplace - doesn't it? It usually mean taxpayers, and our deficit is already growing too high too fast. Is there a limit to the federal deficit?

The rich will pay a surtax
Companies which don't offer health-care plans will pay a surtax
So-called 'cadillac' insurance plans are going to be taxed

You may be right, and your explanation SOUNDS reasonable.

But from what little I have read and heard, the new taxes and fees would start almost immediately.
Why should anyone pay new taxes or fees for a program that wont exist for 3 years?
And what guarantee is there that those new fees and taxes will be saved for those new programs, instead of being used for something else?

At least part of the reason the taxes start immediately is the sunsetting of the Bush tax cuts in 2010 - something that will happen automatically.

Quote:

At least part of the reason the taxes start immediately is the sunsetting of the Bush tax cuts in 2010 - something that will happen automatically.

Which will RAISE taxes and add money to the govt treasury.

So, why add more taxes on top of that?

And you didnt answer the second part...what kind of gaurantee is there (I havent seen or heard of one), that those new taxes and fees wont get spent on someones pet project, instead of being saved for their intended purpose?