Can Public Option Work?

Discussion in 'Healthcare/Insurance/Govt Healthcare' started by SmellyLemmings, Oct 18, 2009.

  1. SmellyLemmings
    Offline

    SmellyLemmings Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2009
    Messages:
    19
    Thanks Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1
    President Obama's Healthcare Reform 'Public Option' Explained - LAist

    I'm a little confused when it comes to the public option debate. I dont know if I should support it or not.

    This website shows a nifty chart explaining how public option would work, which was very helpful. But I still can't ignore how public option reminds me of socialized medicine. What about the death panel debate, the limitations on doctors and individual patient options? Not to mention the HUGE cost for this small part to healthcare reform. My paycheck is as thin enough with the other governmental programs I still pay for. So is public option worth supporting, or are u like me; a little skeptical. thanks for the comments!!
     
  2. Big Black Dog
    Offline

    Big Black Dog Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    22,931
    Thanks Received:
    5,118
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Ratings:
    +5,760
    I am very leary of this whole Obama Health Care Reform business for several reasons. The first being the socialized medicine if the Public Option portion of it is passed. The government has no business in the insurance business at all. It isn't allowed by the Constitution. I believe there is a need for health care reform in the US - I think most people do - but if done so by the government it will just grow the size of government, give the government even more control over your life and privacy and cost way too much money. The government can't even manage social security and medicare. Those two programs are just for a small portion of Americans. How in the world does anybody with any brains think the government can manage health care for the whole nation with their past track record? Another big problem is the cost. Just where is the money going to come from for this reform package being pushed by the government? The US already is very deeply in debt to China and others. The money we owe China alone is frightening and now they want to borrow more to pay for the reform? A very bad move I am sure. It will bankrupt the country. The government says they will save enough from revamping medicare alone to pay for most of the reform. I don't believe it. The government never has saved anything in it's past history of financial endeavors. Let's have them physically show us the savings before we jump like frogs into this mess. It is a time for people to think with their brains and not with their hearts.
     
  3. AVG-JOE
    Offline

    AVG-JOE American Mutt Staff Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2008
    Messages:
    22,890
    Thanks Received:
    4,886
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Location:
    Your Imagination
    Ratings:
    +7,022
    If it is run with the efficiency and integrity of Social Security, a public option makes sense.
     
  4. AVG-JOE
    Offline

    AVG-JOE American Mutt Staff Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2008
    Messages:
    22,890
    Thanks Received:
    4,886
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Location:
    Your Imagination
    Ratings:
    +7,022
    You say there is a need for health care reform and I disagree. I see it as a need for health financial and health data management reform.

    It's not the doctoring in America that needs attention, it's deciding what we should pay for and how we should structure the bureaucracy we employ to manage our health and financial data.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. Big Black Dog
    Offline

    Big Black Dog Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    22,931
    Thanks Received:
    5,118
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Ratings:
    +5,760
    I think it's a little more complicated than that. I mean, why should it cost more in Los Angeles and New York City then it does in Dixon, Illinois to fix a broken arm? Shouldn't it cost the same thing in every hospital in America? Why do the hospitals bill the insurance companies, say $2,500.00 for medical services but accept only $950.00 that the insurance company pays them and writes the rest off? Why does it cost over $100.00 to walk into an Emergency Room for any kind of a problem and then be charged more by the doctors, X-ray department, etc., etc., etc. The point I am trying to make is the reform needs to be in the price structure of it all. Nothing is a standard throughout America. This is where the reform needs to start. Granted, it costs lots of money to get through medical school, set up a medical practice, and all the rest that goes along with that but why not charge the same thing for office visits all across the country? This is the point I am trying to make.
     
  6. Chris
    Offline

    Chris Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    Messages:
    23,154
    Thanks Received:
    1,958
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +2,089
    National health insurance and socialized medicine are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

    Socialized medicine is when the doctors and hospitals are owned by the government. Very few countries have socialized medicine, and it doesn't work as well as national health insurance alone IMHO.

    National health insurance is when the government acts as the insurance company, and this seems to work pretty well. There are inherent efficiencies in a national health insurance system, and that is why the other industrialized countries pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. France seems to have the best system of all IMHO.

    A nice overview can be found at this link....

    Universal health care - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
  7. veritas
    Offline

    veritas OBKB

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    1,760
    Thanks Received:
    135
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +135
    There is no death panel debate. That's a hoax for stupid people.

    Insurance is the very definition of socialism, except without the good parts. Pooling risk over a large sampling, or spreading risk by paying in is like socialism, except it's not egalitarian, which is where the profit motive comes and claims are denied and people dropped or excluded from participating at all.

    The public option has not been shown to be a huge cost, nor such a small factor, that's rhetoric.
     
  8. The Rabbi
    Offline

    The Rabbi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2009
    Messages:
    67,620
    Thanks Received:
    7,821
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Nashville
    Ratings:
    +18,215
    Nothing is standard. A 2BR Apartment in Dixon IL doesnt cost nearly what it does in NYC. A gallon of milk in Hawaii is a lot mroe than the same gallon in WI. Costs vary throughout the country, including medical. So what?
    Hospitals bill lots more than they end up accepting because frequently they bill and collect nothing. They are not allowed to turn away people because they can't pay. So their unreimbursed expenses are large.
    But none of that is responsive to the idea that we need the gov't intruding into what ought to be a private sector decision. What will standardizing rates throughout the country do??
     
  9. The Rabbi
    Offline

    The Rabbi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2009
    Messages:
    67,620
    Thanks Received:
    7,821
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Nashville
    Ratings:
    +18,215
    Death panels are not a hoax. Their absence is a trap for the credulous. The way the system is set, there must inevitably be death panels because care will eventually have to be rationed. It is pure economics 101: set the cost below market and you create shortages. The shortages must be adjudicated in the same way the pricing mechanism would have done so. Here, there will be a bunch of bureaucrats making the decision instead of the marketplace.
    Insurance is not socialism. It is the opposite in fact. Socialism is not egalitarian either, despite whatever rhetoric the communists are using these days.
    Whenever this type of thing has been tried, the costs skyrocket and quality stinks. This has been shown over and over and is supported by the economics of it.
     
  10. AVG-JOE
    Offline

    AVG-JOE American Mutt Staff Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2008
    Messages:
    22,890
    Thanks Received:
    4,886
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Location:
    Your Imagination
    Ratings:
    +7,022
    There are a slew of particulars that are both symptoms and causes of the inconsistencies, expense and paperwork of healthcare but it boils down to one problem:

    We are encouraging the management of our health and financial data to be run at a profit.

    Can you imagine buying food like we buy health care?

    We need two types - some sort of maintenance program for physicals and such and 'insurance' for if your kid gets leukemia.

    Right now the private insurance bureaucracies are making bank because they have us paying in from our 20's through our working years when we don't make much in the way of claims statistically and as soon as we hit 65 and start seeing more doctors, they dump us on to the public rolls of Medicare.

    We, the working tax-payers and insurance premium payers should be getting a smoke offered to us by the insurance-for-profit industry.....:eusa_whistle:
     

Share This Page