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 They are poorly run, outdated, out of control, out of money and full of fraud.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.

[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 .....:icon_razz::icon_razz::icon_razz:


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 :icon_exclaim: lawyers :icon_exclaim: 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.

[paul]

Obama is full of it. Look beyond the stylish fluff of the speech. Some of it by the way was insulting to liberals.
It's about mandating useless jackass coverage. This guy sure as hell aint no FDR.
Want proof, note that the shares in HMOs went up after the speech.
Again, this guy is a corporatist. He doesn't give a rat's ass about healthcare.
HMO shares rise after Obama health reform speech | Markets | Hot Stocks | Reuters

[DiscoMan]

You and I are in complete agreement on your points Paul.

He is a corporatist - a "Free Trader", which is why I didn't vote for him.
You didn't swallow his Kool Aid...

And then we have the problem of his friends Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn.:icon_twisted:

[Videoskooter]

Paul, the companies in that link of yours, are they private insurance cies?

[paul]

Paul, the companies in that link of yours, are they private insurance cies?

Yes, they are Johan.

[paul]

You and I are in complete agreement on your points Paul.

He is a corporatist - a "Free Trader", which is why I didn't vote for him.
You didn't swallow his Kool Aid...

And then we have the problem of his friends Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn.:icon_twisted:

Well I did vote for him because I figured I would get at least a more liberal Supreme appointee. That is only somewhat true. Sotomayor is reportedly pro corporate and as many have said, no liberal.

My principled vote was really for Cynthia McKinney, the Green party candidate. Given the expansion of wars, wall street bailouts while main street can go to hell, secret meetings with pharmaceuticals, health reform designed to put even more money in the hands of insurance companies, etc, would I really have lost that much if McCain won and I stuck with my principled vote? I say no. If nothing else, had all this happened under McCain there'd be a lot more organized opposition from my side of the political spectrum.:icon_mad: