Can Public Option Work?

[The Rabbi]

You're such an illiterate turd:
U.S. Vs. The World - Regulatory,Legislative and Tax Issues - Life and Health Insurance News
Most Cancer Survival Rates in USA Better Than Europe and Canada » Secondhand Smoke | A First Things Blog
Healthcare Economist · Low Life Expectancy in the United States: Is the Health Care System at Fault?

 

[Chris]

And they get about a tenth of the quality of care when they get sick.
No thanks, I'll stick to our present system.

Horseshit.

The medical schools in France are much cheaper, so they have a third more doctors per capita than we do.

Their doctors can spend more time with their patients. More doctors, more time spent, equals better care. And they cover everyone for much less cost than we do.

Do a little reading. Seriously.

I would take that seriously except that you've proven yourself the chief dim bulb on this board.
Go look at cure rates and survival rates for major adverse health events. The US has far better ratings than any other country.

Personal insults are not convincing arguments.

We are 37th in the world in healthcare rankings, and most people who get cancer in this country are treated by Medicare.

So I am glad you agree with me that government health insurance results in good cure rates and survival rates.

 

[Varth Dader]

We spend 16% of our GDP on health care, don't cover all of our citizens, and get lousy results. Japan spends 8%, has much better waiting times than we, and stellar results. And they cover all their citizens.

They also build better cars and don't engage is useless wars. So what's your point?

 

[oreo]

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!!

To answer you:

1. Did social security work? No it's bankrupt
2. Did Medicare work? No it's bankrupt
3. Did Medicade work? No it's bankrupt
4. Is the U.S post office in serious financial trouble? Yes it is
5. Is the Senate cafeteria in red ink? Yes it is
6. Is the federal government RESPONSIBLE for this current economic collapse & all the bail-out's? Yes it is (through their incompetent management of Fannie/Freddie--in which they decided it would be a great idea to lower lending requirements while co-signing our names to 50% of the mortgages in this country--which created a financial domino effect on banking--AIG--Wall street & others.)

So now--do you still believe it's a good idea for them to take over health care?--

 

[Chris]

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!!

To answer you:

1. Did social security work? No it's bankrupt
2. Did Medicare work? No it's bankrupt
3. Did Medicade work? No it's bankrupt
4. Is the U.S post office in serious financial trouble? Yes it is
5. Is the Senate cafeteria in red ink? Yes it is
6. Is the federal government RESPONSIBLE for this current economic collapse & all the bail-out's? Yes it is (through their incompetent management of Fannie/Freddie--in which they decided it would be a great idea to lower lending requirements while co-signing our names to 50% of the mortgages in this country--which created a financial domino effect on banking--AIG--Wall street & others.)

So now--do you still believe it's a good idea for them to take over health care?--

What a fantasy world you live in.

Yes, Social Security and Medicare work quite well, and the post office does a great job. As do the police, the firemen, the military, and most all of the other government workers.

And Phil Gramm's deregulation of Wall Street created the $516 TRILLION DOLLAR derivative bubble that destroyed our economy. It wasn't the housing crisis.

So keep on living in your fantasy world.

 

[Chris]

We spend 16% of our GDP on health care, don't cover all of our citizens, and get lousy results. Japan spends 8%, has much better waiting times than we, and stellar results. And they cover all their citizens.

They also build better cars and don't engage is useless wars. So what's your point?

 

[The Rabbi]

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!!

To answer you:

1. Did social security work? No it's bankrupt
2. Did Medicare work? No it's bankrupt
3. Did Medicade work? No it's bankrupt
4. Is the U.S post office in serious financial trouble? Yes it is
5. Is the Senate cafeteria in red ink? Yes it is
6. Is the federal government RESPONSIBLE for this current economic collapse & all the bail-out's? Yes it is (through their incompetent management of Fannie/Freddie--in which they decided it would be a great idea to lower lending requirements while co-signing our names to 50% of the mortgages in this country--which created a financial domino effect on banking--AIG--Wall street & others.)

So now--do you still believe it's a good idea for them to take over health care?--

What a fantasy world you live in.

Yes, Social Security and Medicare work quite well, and the post office does a great job. As do the police, the firemen, the military, and most all of the other government workers.

And Phil Gramm's deregulation of Wall Street created the $516 TRILLION DOLLAR derivative bubble that destroyed our economy. It wasn't the housing crisis.

So keep on living in your fantasy world.

As I said, chief dim bulb of the board. SS and Medicare are bankrupt. PO is bankrupt. Police and firemen are local, not federal. Military is hardly the model of efficiency and survive only by having basically unlimited funds.
Deregulation of wall st (whatever that means) has resulted in mega increases in net worth in this country over the last 10 years.
WHo lives in a fantasy world again??

 

[Chris]

To answer you:

1. Did social security work? No it's bankrupt
2. Did Medicare work? No it's bankrupt
3. Did Medicade work? No it's bankrupt
4. Is the U.S post office in serious financial trouble? Yes it is
5. Is the Senate cafeteria in red ink? Yes it is
6. Is the federal government RESPONSIBLE for this current economic collapse & all the bail-out's? Yes it is (through their incompetent management of Fannie/Freddie--in which they decided it would be a great idea to lower lending requirements while co-signing our names to 50% of the mortgages in this country--which created a financial domino effect on banking--AIG--Wall street & others.)

So now--do you still believe it's a good idea for them to take over health care?--

What a fantasy world you live in.

Yes, Social Security and Medicare work quite well, and the post office does a great job. As do the police, the firemen, the military, and most all of the other government workers.

And Phil Gramm's deregulation of Wall Street created the $516 TRILLION DOLLAR derivative bubble that destroyed our economy. It wasn't the housing crisis.

So keep on living in your fantasy world.

As I said, chief dim bulb of the board. SS and Medicare are bankrupt. PO is bankrupt. Police and firemen are local, not federal. Military is hardly the model of efficiency and survive only by having basically unlimited funds.
Deregulation of wall st (whatever that means) has resulted in mega increases in net worth in this country over the last 10 years.
WHo lives in a fantasy world again??

SS and Medicare will always be solvent. Taxes will be raised to make it so.

Same with the post office. The cost of stamps will go up to cover expenses.

Phil Gramm deregulation of Wall Street allowed the creation of derivatives and the $516 TRILLION DOLLAR derivative bubble. Here's a link....

Derivatives are the new ticking time bomb Paul B. Farrell - MarketWatch

And the middle class lost ground in the last 8 years in real terms.

You just can't get anything right, can you?

 

[Oddball]

We spend 16% of our GDP on health care, don't cover all of our citizens, and get lousy results. Japan spends 8%, has much better waiting times than we, and stellar results. And they cover all their citizens.

Japan also has American troops as the real backbone of their military forces, per the capitulation of 1945.

Next completely flaccid argument?

 

[Chris]

We spend 16% of our GDP on health care, don't cover all of our citizens, and get lousy results. Japan spends 8%, has much better waiting times than we, and stellar results. And they cover all their citizens.

Japan also has American troops as the real backbone of their military forces, per the capitulation of 1945.

Next completely flaccid argument?

Which is beside the point.

Every other industrialized nation in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare.

 

[Oddball]

The bandwagon argument is fallacious and irrelevant.

Next?

 

[The Rabbi]

What a fantasy world you live in.

Yes, Social Security and Medicare work quite well, and the post office does a great job. As do the police, the firemen, the military, and most all of the other government workers.

And Phil Gramm's deregulation of Wall Street created the $516 TRILLION DOLLAR derivative bubble that destroyed our economy. It wasn't the housing crisis.

So keep on living in your fantasy world.

As I said, chief dim bulb of the board. SS and Medicare are bankrupt. PO is bankrupt. Police and firemen are local, not federal. Military is hardly the model of efficiency and survive only by having basically unlimited funds.
Deregulation of wall st (whatever that means) has resulted in mega increases in net worth in this country over the last 10 years.
WHo lives in a fantasy world again??

SS and Medicare will always be solvent. Taxes will be raised to make it so.

Same with the post office. The cost of stamps will go up to cover expenses.

Phil Gramm deregulation of Wall Street allowed the creation of derivatives and the $516 TRILLION DOLLAR derivative bubble. Here's a link....

Derivatives are the new ticking time bomb Paul B. Farrell - MarketWatch

And the middle class lost ground in the last 8 years in real terms.

You just can't get anything right, can you?

Raising taxes does not make a program solvent: it confirms its bankruptcy. By that argument AIG and Citibank were solvent too.
One article by one dim bulb doesnt really make the case. Derivatives have allowed a lot of risk arbitrage.
I think you are the one smoking something.

 

[Annie]

Horseshit.

The medical schools in France are much cheaper, so they have a third more doctors per capita than we do.

Their doctors can spend more time with their patients. More doctors, more time spent, equals better care. And they cover everyone for much less cost than we do.

Do a little reading. Seriously.

I would take that seriously except that you've proven yourself the chief dim bulb on this board.
Go look at cure rates and survival rates for major adverse health events. The US has far better ratings than any other country.

Cannot resist lying, can you.

U.S. health care system ranks last compared with five other nations on measures of quality, access, efficiency

The U.S. health care system ranks last compared with five other nations on measures of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and outcomes, in the third edition of a Commonwealth Fund report analyzing international health policy surveys.
While the U.S. did well on some preventive care measures, the nation ranked at the bottom on measures of safe care and coordinated care.

Another new Commonwealth Fund report comparing health spending data in industrialized nations published today reveals that despite spending more than twice as much per capita on health care as other nations ($6,102 vs. $2,571 for the median of Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD] countries in 2004) the U.S. spends far less on health information technology, just 43 cents per capita, compared with about $192 per capita in the U.K.

"The United States stands out as the only nation in these studies that does not ensure access to health care through universal coverage and promotion of a 'medical home' for patients," said Commonwealth Fund President Karen Davis. "Our failure to ensure health insurance for all and encourage stable, long-term ties between physicians and patients shows in our poor performance on measures of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and health outcomes. In light of the significant resources we devote to health care in this country, we should expect the best, highest performing health system."

Yet the politicians, doctors, and nurses are opting out of that wonderful UK system:

3,000 NHS staff get private care - Times Online

October 18, 2009
3,000 NHS staff get private care
Marie Woolf, Whitehall Editor

NHS staff
THE National Health Service has spent £1.5m paying for hundreds of its staff to have private health treatment so they can leapfrog their own waiting lists.

More than 3,000 staff, including doctors and nurses, have gone private at the taxpayers’ expense in the past three years because the queues at the clinics and hospitals where they work are too long.

Figures released under the Freedom of Information act show that NHS administrative staff, paramedics and ambulance drivers have also been given free private healthcare. This has covered physiotherapy, osteopathy, psychiatric care and counselling — all widely available on the NHS.

“It simply isn’t fair to have one service for staff and another for everyone else,” said Norman Lamb, the Liberal Democrat health spokesman, who obtained the figures.

“If the NHS has to circumvent their own waiting lists the system isn’t working well enough. It’s an admission by the NHS that their own system isn’t able to respond to the mass of people desperate to get back to work.”

The number of health service employees sent to private healthcare facilities has more than doubled in the past three years.

In 2006-7, 708 staff working for NHS trusts received private treatment at a cost of £279,000. Last year it increased to 1,641 at a cost of £828,413.

The health department defended the practice and said sending doctors, nurses and other key staff for private treatment helped to get them back to work....

I guess the rest of the country doesn't need to get back to work?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The facts are these: national health care works, the quality of life and delivery of service is better for the population, and it costs far less than in America. My own desire is a two-tier system here in America, so those who can afford a private option may do so if they wish.

All we are doing now is watching the various parts of the Democratic Party hammer out the final versions before Senate-House reconciliation of the two versions.

 

[The Rabbi]

The facts are these: national health care works, the quality of life and delivery of service is better for the population, and it costs far less than in America. My own desire is a two-tier system here in America, so those who can afford a private option may do so if they wish.

All we are doing now is watching the various parts of the Democratic Party hammer out the final versions before Senate-House reconciliation of the two versions.

Even more stinking turds from Jake, King ot he Unsubstantiated Statement!

 

[Care4all]

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.

Can you please show me, what in the constitution does not allow citizens to BUY THEIR OWN HEALTH INSURANCE with their own money?

Can you please show me where Medicare or Medicaid or Social security insurance or flood insurance is UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

you and others keep SAYING this but I see nothing in the constitution that prevents this....???

 

[Varth Dader]

We spend 16% of our GDP on health care, don't cover all of our citizens, and get lousy results. Japan spends 8%, has much better waiting times than we, and stellar results. And they cover all their citizens.

Japan also has American troops as the real backbone of their military forces, per the capitulation of 1945.

Next completely flaccid argument?

Funny, that reminds me of the "Canadian are living off of the US for their cheap medicine". Maybe it's time we take a hint?

(The best part is when politicians want to reimport drugs from Canada)

 

[Care4all]

We spend 16% of our GDP on health care, don't cover all of our citizens, and get lousy results. Japan spends 8%, has much better waiting times than we, and stellar results. And they cover all their citizens.

Japan also has American troops as the real backbone of their military forces, per the capitulation of 1945.

Next completely flaccid argument?

and BECAUSE of THAT dude, the usa should be spending LESS of their gdp on health care than Japan....because we have a huge military industrial complex spending that is in our gdp, then our health care costs should be a smaller percent of the overall gdp when prorated.

and japan's health care costs of there gdp SHOULD BE A LARGER percent of their gdp because they do not have a military expense in their gdp.

so it is really much WORSE....we should be spending only +/- 4% of gdp on healthcare....or a lower percentage than Japan.

 

[The Rabbi]

What does military spending have to do with health care spending? It is totally fallacious.
WHat do Japanese health care costs have to do with American costs? It is totally fallacious.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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!!

The public option WILL lead to socialized single payer health CARE run by the government.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...lead-to-single-payer-government-run-care.html

Many democrats, including those in Obama's administration agree
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndStT6c93rc]YouTube - Proof Positive the Public Option Will Lead to Single Payer[/ame]

My own democrat congressman also agrees
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3BS4C9el98]YouTube - Single Payer Action Confronts Barney Frank[/ame]


And so does President Obama


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk]YouTube - SHOCK UNCOVERED: Obama IN HIS OWN WORDS saying His Health Care Plan will ELIMINATE private insurance[/ame]

The Public option also will not be defecit neutral and will be taxpayer subsidized


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2aV6uJGkP0&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Christropher Hayes, Netroots Nation Day 1, Simple Explanation of the Proposed Public Option[/ame]

What does the "public" in "public option" really mean? - Consumer Watchdog


If you couldn’t afford the full premium and you made less than 400% of the federal poverty line (about $43,000 for an individual or $88,000 for a family of 4), you’d get a subsidy so your premium would be pegged to a fixed percentage of your income.

Its in the bill as such http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf



Did I help clear it up for you?