LATimes: Mandate Minus PO = Increased Health Costs And Budget Deficits

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 10:11:20 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

If ConservaDems and Blue Dogs really are into cost controls as they claim, and are really worried about budget deficits as they claim, then they should demand a public option. Via FDL, the LATimes reports:

[Congress'] reluctance to control premium costs comes despite the fact that they intend to require virtually all Americans to get health insurance, an unprecedented mandate -- long sought by insurance companies -- that would mark the first time the federal government has compelled consumers to buy a single industry's product, effectively creating a captive market. "We are about to force at least 30 million people into an insurance market where the sharks are circling," said California Lt. Gov. John Garamendi, a Democrat who served as the state's insurance commissioner for eight years. "Without effective protections, they will be eaten alive."

Soaring premiums coupled with millions of new customers forced to buy policies would likely mean higher costs for taxpayers to cover government subsidies for lower-income families and individuals. They could also mean bigger bills for people who get benefits.

(Emphasis supplied.) How's that for a campaign theme in 2010 - "Vote Dem - We Made Sure Insurance Companies Screw You."

Speaking for me only

< Iran Reported To Have Covert Nuclear Facilities | Reviewing The Bidding On Health Insurance Cost Control >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

LATimes: Mandate Minus PO = Increased Health Costs And Budget Deficits | 3 comments (3 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

There was an opinion piece (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 10:43:53 AM EST

with writing similar to this in the Seattle Times yesterday. Reading the comments, I couldn't believe how many "good libruls" accused the author of being RIGHT WING.

I told them to read the Baucus plan.

It's hard to believe that it's a real possibility (none / 0) (#1)
by Faust on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 10:17:35 AM EST

But it seems to be.

It is a real benefit to the Dems (none / 0) (#3)
by MO Blue on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 11:06:21 AM EST

that most Democratic voters, even those who say health care is an important issue to them, are too busy to pay attention to what is actually going on with this legislation. They only hear "no more preexisting conditions" and think all things great and wonderful are going to happen.

We have Democrats willing to pass mandates without price controls. Which as stated in the LA Times article will be harmful to the people needing health care and add to the deficit.

We have Democrats voting down an amendment to eliminate the dough nut hole in Medicare Part D savings seniors thousands of dollars a year and providing an additional $50 billion in government savings. Why? Because of a secret WH deal with PhRMA. FDL

We have Democratic Senator Carper defending the WH deal on the Senate floor. (Of course, the WH is denying that any deal was made.)

And what PhRMA agreed to do through those negotiations is to pay about 80 billion dollars over 10 years to help fill up half the donut hole.
...
I'll tell you -- if someone negotiated a deal with me and I agreed to put up say, 80 dollars or 80 million dollars or 80 billion dollars and then you came back and said to me a couple of weeks later -- no no, I know you agreed to do 80 billion and I know you were willing to help support through an advertising campaign this particular -- not even this particular bill, just the idea of generic health care reform? No, we're going to double -- we're going to double what you agreed in those negotiations to do. That's not the way -- that's not what I consider treating people the way I'd want to be treated. FDL

So rather than eliminating the thousands of dollars that seniors have to pay for prescription drugs each year and reducing the deficit, it is more honorable to trade that for an ad campaign supporting the idea of generic health care reform. We get screwed every which way. We get to pay more for drugs than we have to by allowing PhRMA to overcharge for dual eligible Medicare/Medicaid seniors. We have a larger deficit than necessary and we get to pay for ads which will be included in the price of prescription drugs.