Lurking Conservatives, Please Explain Why U R Against A Public Option

[paul]

DM, I could easily pull numerous articles where private insurance failed patients.
Even in the article you present, the patient is not on the end of life scheme now. We also haven't seen much from the physicians on this because I'm sure there are is confidential info they can't disclose.

Look, the man is 93 and having a stroke at that age isn't a winning combination.

Yes I still want single payer universal healthcare. It still boggles me why people like you are against doing the sensible thing that every nation who can afford to, do.
I would rather have this than health coverage ran be people who don't even believe in the theory of evolution and hate science.

[Videoskooter]

Not joining this discussion because, like I already said, I don't know the finesses of the current American systems.

But just a reflection on private health care. Some time ago I read an article about genetic testing. You know, the medical tests that can more or less predict that you will have a certain disease later on in your life and how those companies try to obtain (buy) that info. In Europe this is forbidden right now. But we are close of getting our medical file online ( I believe it's a new Google thing again). Isn't that great! One hack and they can exclude you from a lot of things or let you pay 'em astronomical insurance rates.

Or your boss can fire you or a manager can refuse your sollicitation if they can obtain that sensitive info.

Aren't these exciting times

But back on topic: think about this: a government only has to see that the national budget can afford the healthcare plan, they don't have to make profit.

A private company needs to make profit and they will cross ethical lines to ensure that profit and to keep shareholders happy.

[DiscoMan]

All of the "liberals" who want the government option conveniently ignore the fact that the USG is not meeting its obligations under Medicare and Medicaid now. That they think the Government will perform any better under the "single payer" scheme just does not make any sense at all.

Moreover, they also conveniently ignore the fact that the USA cannot under any circumstance whatsoever afford to pay for healthcare for everyone in a population of 300 million plus. IMO it has more to do with their hatred of capitalism than any recognition of current reality.

Paul, your prejudices render your argument irrelevant.

[paul]

The USG can afford it once the pool is broadened through taxation to encompass everyone. The risk and the cost will be spread out. Private companies will no longer need to offer insurance many of them are complaining about now because it is expensive for them and those of who also pay a premium for it.

Medicare and medicaid face greater financial stress because they cover a group no insurance company wants, the elderly and the disabled. They are the mostly likely to use insurance. In fact they will likely need more expensive coverage. Also, that group has little income to pay for premiums that would cost a fortune if offered by private insurance.
This is a classic case where the government has the best answer here.

I know I wont convince you DM. Hell, I bet you hate Social Security until you need it and demand the government keep their grubby paws off your Social Security.

[paul]

Originally Posted by Videoskooter

But back on topic: think about this: a government only has to see that the national budget can afford the healthcare plan, they don't have to make profit.

A private company needs to make profit and they will cross ethical lines to ensure that profit and to keep shareholders happy.

Unfortunately Johan this logical conclusion doesn't matter to some Americans.

[DiscoMan]

"Medicare and medicaid face greater financial stress because they cover a group no insurance company wants, the elderly and the disabled."

These are the very people to whom USG provided healthcare will be rationed or denied.

Healthcare costs will not be significantly reduced until we have tort reform and get the slip and fall lawyers out of healthcare. Why has the Anointed One been missing in action on this critical aspect of cost control?

How is the USG going to provide comprehensive healthcare to 78 million baby boomers all rapidly approaching 60 plus?

I don't expect to collect social security and my wife won't for sure.

Profit is good.

[remicks]

******


So gratifying to hear our President ....in yet another brilliant, articulate speech by him
and
so soon after his thoughtful , inspiring talk to our nation's future generation ( isn't it invigorating to have a well-informed , caring President !! )

I trust you didn't deny yourself the opportunity to hear the point of including a public option explained by the man himself Discoman??? Obama did a great job of explaining it so everyone can understand....even those who are against it ....or say they are .....but as we see from their detailed responses made here:

....can't seem to say why .....


Here's a little illustration that presents the silent conservatives ' position .......... ???

Public Option Explained


from:

The Generik Brand: Public Option Explained

but wait a minute ..I see lawyers in there ..... surely ......that can't be so!!!





*****


It is so important for us to understand what is at stake here ...

so here's our President's own explanation of The Public Option:

My health care proposal has also been attacked by some who oppose reform as a "government takeover" of the entire health care system. As proof, critics point to a provision in our plan that allows the uninsured and small businesses to choose a publicly-sponsored insurance option, administered by the government just like Medicaid or Medicare.



So let me set the record straight. My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there is choice and competition. Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75% of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90% is controlled by just one company. Without competition, the price of insurance goes up and the quality goes down. And it makes it easier for insurance companies to treat their customers badly - by cherry-picking the healthiest individuals and trying to drop the sickest; by overcharging small businesses who have no leverage; and by jacking up rates.
Insurance executives don't do this because they are bad people. They do it because it's profitable. As one former insurance executive testified before Congress, insurance companies are not only encouraged to find reasons to drop the seriously ill; they are rewarded for it. All of this is in service of meeting what this former executive called "Wall Street's relentless profit expectations."


Now, I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business. They provide a legitimate service, and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors. I just want to hold them accountable. The insurance reforms that I've already mentioned would do just that. But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange. Let me be clear - it would only be an option for those who don't have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5% of Americans would sign up.


Despite all this, the insurance companies and their allies don't like this idea. They argue that these private companies can't fairly compete with the government. And they'd be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they won't be. I have insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects. But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits, excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers. It would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities.


Barack Obama

President Of The United States

[paul]

Careful remicks.

[Bernie]

I'm so glad to have caught President Obama's speech last night. He clearly set the record straight, acknowledged all sides and made a great analogy how American's were saying the same things when Social Security and Medicare were first introduced... now they would never part with them and consider it essential.

Years from now we will all look back and wonder what the fuss was all about.

Remicks: how true to be able to be proud to have a President who can stand before the people and talk in a greater than 7th grade level as well as being respectful to all, which is something he never gets in return. I really think there will be some positive change coming.

[DiscoMan]

What plan?

He has no plan, only more koom-byah psycho babble.

Nothing on tort reform; a key component of any attempt at reforming U.S. healthcare was completely missing yet again.

The Anointed One’s speech was just a different flavor of Kool Aid in the hope that more people would swallow it.