The debate on healthcare is being steered to avoid certain issues like affordability and attractiveness to the general public. But the Obama administration's control over the media seems to have not been total as an article came out yesterday which exposes the ugly reality on affordability vs. revenue neutrality.
Experts say that subsidy is very important, because insuring sick people is very unprofitable. Without the subsidies and the ability to lose money, Obama's health care plan could not possibly be affordable for the majority of those who need it (unless it avoids covering the sick).
The problem with the sick needing care, seeking out care, but being too unprofitable to include is well known. Its called "adverse selection". Insurers generally avoid insuring the sick unless they have to, when they do have to ("guaranteed issue") THAT insurance always costs much, much more because sick people are attracted to it, making it unaffordable to those who need it the most.
However, Obama got elected promising he would do more than waffle on AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE. He got elected, in a very close prmary season, by claiming his plan was unversal when it wasn't.
He stated again and again that he was going to institute something virtually unknown in the United States, a public option plan, that would "accept everybody who could pay the premium"
At other times, he made statements that collectively, 9 out of 10 Americans believe constituted promises that health care WOULD BE AFFORDABLE.
In order for a public plan to cover the 1/5 of Americans who have health issues, a plan must be ready to operate at a loss.
By definition, a revenue neutral plan cannot operate at a loss.
Banks received subsidies from the government SO THEY COULD OPERATE AT A LOSS EVEN THOUGH THE BAD MORTGAGES THEY LOST SO MUCH ON WERE KNOWN BAD RISKS. Today, the money changers are asking for another 75 Billion Dollars to be taken from the taxpayers, to pay down their gambling debts. There is no assurance that they wont be back again and again, asking for more.
But, for some reason, the politicos, notably, Senator Schumer of New York, the worshipper of the golden calf on Wall Street, have a double standard. They don't want the poor and the sick, or the working people of America, who desperately need universal health care. REAL HEALTH CARE to receive the same priority.
The hope for an affordable, attractive "public option" is vanishing as that subsidy is now being slolen away arguably to spend on bad bank loans, a black hole which will not end.
Without our input, they will execute a bait and switch. The requirement for revenue neutrality fundamentally changes the game, making the goal of affordable insurance for sick people impossible. (very expensive insurance of last resort for sick people may be possible, though, which is what we seem to now be debating. By very expensive, I really mean very expensive for most of the working class. So expensive only the sickest will buy. This preponderance of sick people will drive the plan into the red.) The insurers don't want the Obama administration to offer affordable insurance for profitable healthy people, so that is probably going to be "off the table" too. Whats left is going to be unattractive for both sick and well, too expensive for the sick, MUCH too expensive for the well.
Please write or call your Senators and Congressmen and tell them that the subsidies are a CRUCIAL part of the healthcare reform and that without the subsides, Any "revenue neutral" Obama's plan is bat and switch and it is doomed to fail.
Also, please say that we should avoid wasting precious time on a five or ten year detour down a path we know in advance is going to fail, that instead we need single payer for all, now.