Why can't we have free choice?

Dylan ,TERM LIMITS for Congress

Because the people setting the prices on everything (including their own level of profits) do not want anything changed. It took tens of millions of dollars to get the industry shaped to their liking. They see all of these bribes as an investment in their line-of-business. A bankrupt Nation is just a cost of doing business.

Why? Because the oligarchy says so and the puppets in D.C. will do as they are told. Now get back to work, the CEO needs a new yacht.

The political answer to these problem is term limits and also limiting lobist from bribing our representatives,we have to prosecute all people who take money and vote laws to screw the very own people who voted them in.We have to have Dylan expose all these guys for what they are,Dylan your 100% right and I'm with you all the way to Washington ,you have the real answer the problem is we have to many crooks in power with lobist money to support those interest and neglecting the people.Insurance companiesn have ton of horrors stories nobody has heard,we have to expose these crooks who are ruining our country.Competition is a beatiful thing,why are they so scare of it,because they make more money without it.

A wise person will recognize that career politics has ruined many a idealistic new politician. The system wears down all barriers created by ethic minded people. When these guys can STOP A VOTE designed to give us the right to choose, FREE MARKETS are no longer here. Capitalism? Communism? What's the difference, when our leaders choose to shut off our voices? Ya think "one and done" is the answer? Let's see if they will let us vote on THAT one.

To begin to talk about the Health Insurance Reform currently happening on the hill, we should examine the players and their stakes in the decisions made from this bill. You have the House and Senate congressmen which are worried about the mid-term election. Then we have the Insurance industry, the corporations, small businesses, and the unions. I would mention the public, but their interests are supposed to be represented by the Congressmen (we’ll see how that goes). Each has their own vested interests in the making of this bill and we will see how different aspects proposed would affect each. This is a non-inclusive and non-extensive exploration, but a jump off point.

There is the exchange that is being presented. This is a non-issue for almost all players. It would force more into the system and allow the insurance industry to reap higher profits from this mandate. With this we are guaranteed higher premiums because everyone must participate and Insurance Companies cannot refuse people on preexisting conditions. Corporations do not like this because they must then pay for all employees to have health insurance. This will allow them to bargain for lower rates per person, but with the increase they will have to pay more out of pocket. Unions are unaffected by this as they already cover all union members’ insurance.

So we move onto the public option. Once again, in the form presented it most greatly affects Corporations. Small businesses can’t afford and do not have to provide insurance to their employees meaning that their employees will receive tax subsidies and will be able to join the exchange. The corporations are looking at a possible loss of tax subsidies to supply insurance to their employees as well as losing their pre-tax exemption on the cost of health insurance for their employees. This also allows the insurance companies a way to shed risk through raising premiums. We need to clarify this point more. Companies normally negotiate for a group rate for health insurance to lower price. Let’s call this lower price X. The regular price of this policy is price Y. What will occur with the exchange and the public option is the premiums will be raised on both X and Y. By raising premiums and costs of the insurance industry, the company can claim it can no longer afford to cover the cost for the employees. This will place the lower-income employees in a position to shop for insurance in the exchange while receiving money from their company and tax subsidies. How much the company will have to cover is dependent upon the size. Either way, to cover those part-time employees will increase Corporate costs, as well as any others to be covered. The insurance companies will set it high enough to maintain profits off of those still able to get it while weighing the risk shed by the premium hike and the risk of over-growing the public option in the exchange. This is fine with Unions as it does not affect their costs.

On to the interstate exchange option; the only person (aside from the public) that might benefit from this is corporations and unions after their current contracts run out. With a larger variety of choice, the exchange, unions and corporations would all eventually be able to setup better deals for their employees, making for lower rates. A problem that could be found with corporations is them having to increase wages because of declining costs of benefits. This one really sticks it to the insurance companies.

Lastly would be to remove the insurance from the employer based system, covering those that are in transition. This is hated by everyone because insurance companies have fewer deals (especially if the exchange is in place) and no real way to shed cost if a strong public option is then added that is open to everyone. Companies have to increase wages due to losing negotiating power of benefits, which is also true of the Unions.

When placed together, the best manner of cost containment is that of a strong public option open to everyone while in a national exchange that is separated from the employer based system. It is guaranteed to lower the price of Health Insurance, increase wages due to lack of benefits, weakens unions (positive or negative is your call), help alleviate pressures of small and medium companies while covering a larger number of people. At minimum we must add the Wyden proposal for Interstate Exchange and remove it from an employer based system. Without these, the only ones really getting hit hard is larger corporations and we will not be provided with true cost containment. Now this doesn’t address the effects of the Baucus Tax, the fact that with the opt out this bill goes into effect 2013 and states can opt out 2014, that our representatives are more interested in protecting private interests, etc.

If this health care bill is so great, why are members of congress exempt. If it is good enough for us, is it good enough for them ? NO

We need to get CBO to score the Wyden amendment. Dylan: get Doug Elmendorff on the show, and ask him what health care reform the staff at CBO would recommend. I personally would trust them more than our congresspeople...

I am with you Brian- why doesn't Congress HAVE to use this healthcare that they propose for the rest of us. And why doesn't anyone ask them that when they interview them? I want to see the look on their faces as they answer that.

MSNBC is the only news station telling it like it is. CNN's news strategy for presenting health care reform issues is to put some opposing talking heads on camera spout talking points and over talk each other for 60 seconds - who can draw a conclusion from that kind of foolishness? The hard line right will not watch MSNBC so they are relying on their "facts" from CNN and FOX. I have not heard CNN list who is taking money from insurance lobbyist or belong to that christian coalition that resides on C? street who have inserted that extreme abortion amendment and everyone knows fox is a misinformation station meant to support money and power not give objective or real information. Until the people on the far right are ready to find and absorb the facts and not cut their noses off to spite their faces, we will have these same politicians in office until the end of time and our nation will stay locked in the mess they have made of our nation.

Dylan is doing excellent work!The Out of Order segment was spot on!

How refreshing to have Keith, Rachel, and Dylan focusing on real news and thoughtful discussion.

There, the people come first. I took-in the airing of Frontline's "Sick Around the World." It provided insight into health care systems in England, Japan, Germany and Taiwan. It aired for the first time back in April. It should be mandatory viewing for all Americans. What came-out loud and clear was that the leaders in those countries have a much higher regard for their citizens than our leaders do for the people they represent. Health care is a not for profit right under the four systems described in the documentary; can you imagine?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/?utm_campaign=homepage&utm_medium=bigimage&utm_source=bigimage

The only way to save the Health Care Network is to make Universal Health Care revenue like FICA and administer it like public education. Take (3%?) of payroll (no cap) that goes to supplement the standard level of care and access for everyone.

Allow anyone to purchase additional (Cadillac) tiers of private insurance coverage (pvt room, pvt nurse, prescription vs generic, etc), just like people can send their kids to private school, are allow to buy additional riders like flood insurance on their policies, or when they rent a car.

The solution is almost too simple.

Dylan, just wanted to get a note to you and let you know how much I enjoy your show in the morning. I was against ya with all of your talk about Generational Theft during the stim debate. But now I see that I WAS WRONG about you! You are now one of my favorite shows among Ed, Keith and Rachel. I also enjoy the anchors like David Schuster, Contessa, Tamryn, Monica, Nora, and Alex. Keep the good stuff coming!