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

[remicks]

*****

Just this one point ...this one issue .....

please EXPLAIN:

WHY ,within a national heath care plan, are you opposed to the inclusion of a public option for any citizen who so chooses , to buy into the government plan instead of a private insurance one ???

:icon_question:




*****

[DiscoMan]

William McGurn: Saving the Obama Presidency - WSJ.com

It's not the NYT but may provide some thought provoking insight.

[remicks]

*****


Very disappointed in your non-answer to a very direct question discoman . Not surprised , just disappointed .

What is so hard about a no-nonsense straight answer on this ???


OK then , so what about you other conservative anti American health-care-for us-one-and-all types ,

why the opposition to a public option ???.


*****

[Videoskooter]

A few questions coz' I'm interested but I don't have the time to study the American situation!

1. Does the American state provide healthcare insurance now, for everybody? My guess is no? For some?

2. How powerful are those insurance companies and are they in anyway linked to a community (like over here: Catholic, Socialist, Liberal, Independent)?

3.How will that Obama proposition be financed? Taxmoney, special taxes? Over here it's by special taxes. If I pay an employee € 1 as wage, I pay an extra € 1,5 to the state and they support my employee should he become disabled, sick or unemployed. I pay also for an "Accidents insurance" (by private companies). If an employee has an accident during working hours, they will cover his medical expenses and loss of wage.

4.Can the American government afford this because social security is very, very expensive? A major part of the revenues for the Belgian government are used to finance our healthcare system.

[DiscoMan]

To answer Remcks: a public option is not necessary. Expand, update and reform Medicaid.

To answer Videoskooter: Yes Medicare for the elderly and Medicaid for the poor. Two USG run programs that were passed by the Lyndon Johnson Administration in the mid-60s. They are poorly run, outdated, out of control, out of money and full of fraud. Before we add another unecessary poorly run Government program these two must be reformed, updated, expanded to the unemployed, more of the poor (NOT ILLEGAL ALIENS) and have the waste and fraud eliminated. NO POOR PERSON IS EVER DENIED MEDICAL ATTENTION IN A U.S. HOSPITAL. NONE! Our emergency rooms are absolutely full of them 24 hours a day. Which, of course, is part of our problem.

We have a tremendous problem with "Slip and Fall" lawyers suing every doctor and nurse for everything imaginable. As an example I get ads from them to join their various lawsuits in my email every day.

There are many surgeons in private practice (depending on specialty) pay over $200,000.00 plus a year in malpractice insurance which has forced many of them to quit the practice of medicine and otherwise earn a living. We now have 800,000 (and shrinking) doctors trying to take care of a population of over 300 million. It can't be done. A GLARING omission of Obama's proposal has been the total absence of tort reform to get these lawyers under control and out of healthcare. But considering the fact that BO and his regime are all ivy league college educated elitist lawyers we shouldn't be surprised.

The insurance companies, health maintenance organizations (HMOs) and pharmaceutical companies are tremendously powerfull, are a huge part of the problem and own the USG.

Taxes, special taxes, tax surcharges and healthcare rationing.

No. Obama has already bankrupted the U.S. with all of his bail outs. The actuaries for the the USG are s******g themselves in horror now that 70 million baby boomers are beginning to retire and becoming Medicare and Social Security (FDR 1933 unchanged in 76 years) recipients. The Government can't pay that bill now how the hell are they going to pay for an expanded role in healthcare?

This argument has more to do with that segment of our population (as evidenced on this BB) who looks to the USG to provide all of their needs from cradle to grave and the majority who don't want such an intrusive role of the Government in our daily lives. A core characteristic of the American psyche is mistrust of government authority.

Our healthcare does need reform, not another USG program piled onto other USG programs that are wastefull and failing.

I am NOT a conservative. I just don't get my politics in an echo chamber like others do.

[paul]

1. Does the American state provide healthcare insurance now, for everybody? My guess is no? For some?

Medicare is the government insurance for the elderly and disabled.

2. How powerful are those insurance companies and are they in anyway linked to a community (like over here: Catholic, Socialist, Liberal, Independent)?

The insurance lobby is exceedingly powerful. They provide financing for both major parties here, republicans and democrats. Even though most Americans still favor universal healthcare coverage, the powerful lobbies make the rules for both parties.
Also, you can find CEOs that sit on the board of the directors of other corporations of other industries like media. They have helped shaped public opinion with lies many Americans get from the media about universal healthcare coverage people in other industrialized countries receive.

3.How will that Obama proposition be financed? Taxmoney, special taxes? Over here it's by special taxes. If I pay an employee € 1 as wage, I pay an extra € 1,5 to the state and they support my employee should he become disabled, sick or unemployed. I pay also for an "Accidents insurance" (by private companies). If an employee has an accident during working hours, they will cover his medical expenses and loss of wage.

I'm not sure Obama has a specific plan right now so it's unclear what direction we are going in. Last word was the "public option' is dead but who knows.

4.Can the American government afford this because social security is very, very expensive? A major part of the revenues for the Belgian government are used to finance our healthcare system.

Well, we (Americans) always seem to find ways to pay for expensive wars, or tax cuts that benefit the very wealthy, and of course trillions of dollars in bank and financial institution bailouts. It's really a question of priorities.

[DiscoMan]

To Paul’s point about the insurance lobby and the nefarious relationship between the Corporations and the USG: Special interest lobbyists (insurance industry is but one among many) have so completely corrupted the Congress with their easy money buying legislation that the security of our republic is now threatened. Of course the voters continue to send the same corrupt politicians back to Congress election after election…

Lies? Both sides are indulging in that game. BO doesn’t have a definitized healthcare plan just some psycho babble about “Healthcare for everyone…” BO is weak and timid where he needs to be strong and resolute. He has surrendered his leadership role on this issue (as well as others) as POTUS of all of the people to the partisan left wing nit wits Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. I hope cooler heads prevail on this, otherwise we are in for a long four years and the democRats will be out of power in 2010 to be replaced by republicans who have as little to offer the country.

[remicks]

To answer Remcks: a public option is not necessary. Expand, update and reform Medicaid.

If someone answered , "Why are you against:"
"abortion ?"
"gun laws?"
"meat processing inspections?"
"stop signs" ?

with the answer of "They are not necessary "
I don't think you'd be much impressed by that reply .

....but if that's as good as you can get ....the same answer can be said about health insurance .
Successfully reformed national medical care would make those in-it-for-profit middle-men......the insurance companies .... likewise "not necessary" .



I'm more interested in a thoughtful refutation of why, in the inevitable restructuring of our faulty health care,
they (public options) are a bad idea. (???)


Nobody ???


*****

[DiscoMan]

Why are you obsessed with a USG “public option”?

The USG cannot administer a massive public healthcare program for over 300m citizens. It can’t be done; case closed, end of story.

Our health care is not faulty. It may need reform but it certainly is not faulty.

Clearly Medicare and Medicaid must be reformed. Medicaid could and should be expanded to cover the poor, uninsurable and the unemployed. However, the USG isn’t paying its obligations under Medicare or Medicaid now. USG payments to doctors under both of these programs are so delinquent and the fees paid to the doctors have been so grossly and arbitrarily reduced by the USG that they are leaving both plans and if they choose to remain enrolled they are not accepting any new Medicare/Medicaid patients. And you think the USG will perform better with a “public option”? Are you serious? Massachusetts public health insurance program (6.5m citizens) has bankrupted that state. And you think the USG can do better…? You can’t be that naïve Remicks…?

Get the slip and fall lawyers out of healthcare, provide funding and other support for non-profit state health insurance pools. End “Free Trade”, rebuild U.S. industry so that it can provide good jobs that pay good wages and then “John Q. Public” could afford to buy his own healthcare policy. For 30 years American business has been in race to the economic bottom and much progress toward that goal would be made by shifting healthcare costs to the USG. "Free Trade" has to be stopped.

That is healthcare reform “we can believe in.”

“Obamacare” has more to do with rationing and denying healthcare to the aging baby boomer generation that it has to do with any USG altruism regarding healthcare for "all" U.S. citizens.

[DiscoMan]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/he...fe-scheme.html

Is this the kind of healthcare we want?

Count me out.

Those of you who support the "publlic option" are putting control of your health and lives in the hands of elitist ivy league educated lawyers who are convinced that they are morally and intellectually superior to the unwashed masses.

[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.:icon_cool:

[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 :icon_eek:

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]

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.