Can Public Option Work?

[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??

You do Rabbi. There is a lot that government does that works well in spite of congress and their meddling with things for personal gain.

Safe food? Thank government!

Do you ever use Roads, Bridges, Airports, etc? Thank government!

Think about it!

It isnt that they dont get things done. It is that they get things done in the most expensive least efficient way possible. And in doing so they destroy private enterprise, enslave the population, and reduce us to serfs. The health care mess will be more of the same, a lot more. And it is completely unnecessary.

 

[Varth Dader]

Are you beiung obtuse on purpose?

In Federalist 41, James Madison (the architect of the Constitution), explained in very clear terms what was meant by "general welfare", and a fascistic takeover of the medical services industry doesn't come anywhere near that description.

Like I said, what James Madison thought of the meaning of the words "general welfare" is of great interest, yet isn't "binding". No one voted for the Federalist 41, they voted for the constitution, and over time, it's our job to interpret the constitution. We are allowed to give words their plain meaning.

Jesus tapdancing Christ.....You are being obtuse on purpose.

The Constitution itself was ratified as the law of the land, with the meanings of its semantics and intents being expounded upon in the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers.

Claiming that you get to change the meanings of the words and their clear intents to suit your situational ethics is straight out Orwellian bullshit.

If Madison wanted to make anything really clear, then he had to put it in the document and people had to sign it. That is "clear" intent.

After that, you have to go in the heads of everyone that signed the constitution to really understand the meaning, and that's not possible to do.

If you write a clause in a contract, write the federalist paper to go along with it, but we both sign the contract, your signature is not worth any more or any less than mine, especially if you want the contract to be binding on both of us.

In any event, the type of static interpretation of the constitution you want is not appropriate in my humble opinion. Logic like yours is the one that gives us crappy decisions like Dred v Scott. This is part of the decision:

It begins by declaring that,

[w]hen in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to [p410] assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature's God entitle them, a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

It then proceeds to say:

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among them is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

The general words above quoted would seem to embrace the whole human family, and if they were used in a similar instrument at this day would be so understood. But it is too clear for dispute that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration, for if the language, as understood in that day, would embrace them, the conduct of the distinguished men who framed the Declaration of Independence would have been utterly and flagrantly inconsistent with the principles they asserted, and instead of the sympathy of mankind to which they so confidently appealed, they would have deserved and received universal rebuke and reprobation.

That's the type of approach you take. Even though the words say "All men are created equal", surely the African race was "not intended to be included".

 

[Ame®icano]

I thought Obama said doctors were all for it?

The White House and Democratic leaders are offering doctors a deal: They’ll freeze cuts in Medicare payments to doctors in exchange for doctors’ support of healthcare reform.

At a meeting on Capitol Hill last week with nearly a dozen doctors groups, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said the Senate would take up separate legislation to halt scheduled Medicare cuts in doctor payments over the next 10 years. In return, Reid made it clear that he expected their support for the broader healthcare bill, according to four sources in the meeting.

Reid offers doctors a deal

 

[Old Rocks]

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??

You do Rabbi. There is a lot that government does that works well in spite of congress and their meddling with things for personal gain.

Safe food? Thank government!

Do you ever use Roads, Bridges, Airports, etc? Thank government!

Think about it!

It isnt that they dont get things done. It is that they get things done in the most expensive least efficient way possible. And in doing so they destroy private enterprise, enslave the population, and reduce us to serfs. The health care mess will be more of the same, a lot more. And it is completely unnecessary.

Bullshit, Rabid. They are not getting the job done. They are merely transfering the wealth of the producing people in our society to the parasites running the so called Health Care companies.

Time to emulate the other industrial nations and provide all citizens with coverage, and reduce the cost at the same time.

 

[The Rabbi]

You do Rabbi. There is a lot that government does that works well in spite of congress and their meddling with things for personal gain.

Safe food? Thank government!

Do you ever use Roads, Bridges, Airports, etc? Thank government!

Think about it!

It isnt that they dont get things done. It is that they get things done in the most expensive least efficient way possible. And in doing so they destroy private enterprise, enslave the population, and reduce us to serfs. The health care mess will be more of the same, a lot more. And it is completely unnecessary.

Bullshit, Rabid. They are not getting the job done. They are merely transfering the wealth of the producing people in our society to the parasites running the so called Health Care companies.

Time to emulate the other industrial nations and provide all citizens with coverage, and reduce the cost at the same time.

Other than having it completely backwards you are correct 100%.

 

[woodjack]

I am curious for the people that can afford health care insurance now and do not buy it. If the Public option comes into play, will people really jump on it and pay the premiums for it? For those that cannot afford it now but want it, I can see why they would get it; but then again they would still have to pay premiums to be able to get it albeit at a reduced cost. Looking at insurance for vehicles and how many people do not have it, how can the government guarentee that people will pay their premiums for it to work.

I do think alot of people automaticly assume that the public option means free health care. most of the uninformed probably think that, I also heard that they would fine people that do not get health care, there is alot of assumption going on in the government, if they fine people for not getting insurance how are they going to pay for that as well as the premuims for health insurance.

in a perfect world it would work, but there are alot of people that will not buy it "deadbeats" or do not even know they have to buy it. are they going to offer classes to those people that do not understand it or will it all be controlled by some bureaucrats and who will enforce the fines?

I could be all wrong about this and everyone will jump on it but I still do not think they will get the people to pay for it. and on top of that have they actually coem up with how much the premuims will be anyway?

I mean there are alot of folks that do not pay their child support/auto insurance and parking tickets/speeding tickets and numerous other things. I am sick of the debate about it but looking at how people sometimes are it is hard for me to believe this is going to be all that they say it is going to be.

 

[judyd]

I am curious for the people that can afford health care insurance now and do not buy it. If the Public option comes into play, will people really jump on it and pay the premiums for it? For those that cannot afford it now but want it, I can see why they would get it; but then again they would still have to pay premiums to be able to get it albeit at a reduced cost. Looking at insurance for vehicles and how many people do not have it, how can the government guarentee that people will pay their premiums for it to work.

I do think alot of people automaticly assume that the public option means free health care. most of the uninformed probably think that, I also heard that they would fine people that do not get health care, there is alot of assumption going on in the government, if they fine people for not getting insurance how are they going to pay for that as well as the premuims for health insurance.

in a perfect world it would work, but there are alot of people that will not buy it "deadbeats" or do not even know they have to buy it. are they going to offer classes to those people that do not understand it or will it all be controlled by some bureaucrats and who will enforce the fines?

I could be all wrong about this and everyone will jump on it but I still do not think they will get the people to pay for it. and on top of that have they actually coem up with how much the premuims will be anyway?

I mean there are alot of folks that do not pay their child support/auto insurance and parking tickets/speeding tickets and numerous other things. I am sick of the debate about it but looking at how people sometimes are it is hard for me to believe this is going to be all that they say it is going to be.

i don't think you can compare health and auto insurance. Those who don't have auto insurance are usually dropped because of DUI's or multiple accidents, and can't get affordable insurance with another company.

People who don't get health insurance usually just can't afford it. Also many younger healthy people figure they will forego insurance because they "never get sick". They see it as a low priority. Should it be a requirement, yes, I do believe most will get it.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I support Single Payer Universal Health care- Barack Obama
I support a public option as it is the way to lead to socialized single payer healthcare -Barney Frank
The public option isn't a trojan horse for single payer, its right there for everyone to see -Obama advisor (i forgot his name but i have a vid if you want me to post it AGAIN)


No a public option can't work as those who are implimenting it are doing so just to get Single Payer Government run care.

 

[The Rabbi]

i don't think you can compare health and auto insurance. Those who don't have auto insurance are usually dropped because of DUI's or multiple accidents, and can't get affordable insurance with another company.

People who don't get health insurance usually just can't afford it. Also many younger healthy people figure they will forego insurance because they "never get sick". They see it as a low priority. Should it be a requirement, yes, I do believe most will get it.

Why can't you compare them? They are perfectly comparable. People without health insurance generally think they can get by without it because of the expense. Ditto with people without car insurance.
I really dont see a lot of difference. They are there for the same reason.

 

[judyd]

i don't think you can compare health and auto insurance. Those who don't have auto insurance are usually dropped because of DUI's or multiple accidents, and can't get affordable insurance with another company.

People who don't get health insurance usually just can't afford it. Also many younger healthy people figure they will forego insurance because they "never get sick". They see it as a low priority. Should it be a requirement, yes, I do believe most will get it.

Why can't you compare them? They are perfectly comparable. People without health insurance generally think they can get by without it because of the expense. Ditto with people without car insurance.
I really dont see a lot of difference. They are there for the same reason.

No, you can't compare them. Are there any states that DON'T require auto insurance? People who don't insure their cars are usually lawbreakers. People who don't buy health insurance are not. They are just prioritizing what they feel are their necessary expenses.

 

[Oddball]

i don't think you can compare health and auto insurance. Those who don't have auto insurance are usually dropped because of DUI's or multiple accidents, and can't get affordable insurance with another company.

People who don't get health insurance usually just can't afford it. Also many younger healthy people figure they will forego insurance because they "never get sick". They see it as a low priority. Should it be a requirement, yes, I do believe most will get it.

Why can't you compare them? They are perfectly comparable. People without health insurance generally think they can get by without it because of the expense. Ditto with people without car insurance.
I really dont see a lot of difference. They are there for the same reason.

Because auto insurance protects you against liability if you harm someone else or damage their property...It doesn't cover your expenses for oil changes or new tires.

 

[Maple]

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!!

Here's your answer.

Social Security- bankrupt
Medicare- Bankrupt
Medicaid - bankrupt
Freddie and Fannie - Bankrupt.
The postal service- bankrupt.

With a resume that looks like that, why would any sane person turn over another 6% of our economy? Answer- a sane person wouldn't, an insane person would.

The reason it reminds you of socialized medicine, is because, that's exactly what it is.

 

[Maple]

The whole problem with the public option is that employers who now cover their employee's health insurance would dump their coverage on their employee's forcing them to go to the public option.

Employers who don't insure their employees would be fined a payroll tax of 8%. Employers already pay MORE than 8% to cover their employee's insurance. This would be a very attractive incentive for business's to dump their health insurance plans forcing everyone onto the public option.

 

[Maple]

" A government big enough to give you everything you need is big enough to take everything that you have." Thomas Jefferson

 

[judyd]

The whole problem with the public option is that employers who now cover their employee's health insurance would dump their coverage on their employee's forcing them to go to the public option.

Employers who don't insure their employees would be fined a payroll tax of 8%. Employers already pay MORE than 8% to cover their employee's insurance. This would be a very attractive incentive for business's to dump their health insurance plans forcing everyone onto the public option.

Why do you feel that employers should be saddled with the health insurance concerns of their employees? I never understood why they had to get involved in that. Some companies have to have a person dedicated just to working out the health insurance problems of the employees. Why does that make sense to you?

 

[The Rabbi]

i don't think you can compare health and auto insurance. Those who don't have auto insurance are usually dropped because of DUI's or multiple accidents, and can't get affordable insurance with another company.

People who don't get health insurance usually just can't afford it. Also many younger healthy people figure they will forego insurance because they "never get sick". They see it as a low priority. Should it be a requirement, yes, I do believe most will get it.

Why can't you compare them? They are perfectly comparable. People without health insurance generally think they can get by without it because of the expense. Ditto with people without car insurance.
I really dont see a lot of difference. They are there for the same reason.

No, you can't compare them. Are there any states that DON'T require auto insurance? People who don't insure their cars are usually lawbreakers. People who don't buy health insurance are not. They are just prioritizing what they feel are their necessary expenses.

There used to be states that didnt require it. TN didnt up until 3 years ago or so. When the Baucus bill passes people who don't buy health insurance will be lawbreakers.
But I don't see why any of that matters.
Health insurance covers financial risks you can't afford to take. Auto insurance covers financials risks you can't afford to take. Where is the difference??

 

[judyd]

Why can't you compare them? They are perfectly comparable. People without health insurance generally think they can get by without it because of the expense. Ditto with people without car insurance.
I really dont see a lot of difference. They are there for the same reason.

No, you can't compare them. Are there any states that DON'T require auto insurance? People who don't insure their cars are usually lawbreakers. People who don't buy health insurance are not. They are just prioritizing what they feel are their necessary expenses.

There used to be states that didnt require it. TN didnt up until 3 years ago or so. When the Baucus bill passes people who don't buy health insurance will be lawbreakers.
But I don't see why any of that matters.
Health insurance covers financial risks you can't afford to take. Auto insurance covers financials risks you can't afford to take. Where is the difference??

I live in Maryland and if you can't provide proof of insurance when you renew your tags, you can't register your car. It is illegal to drive a car without insurance.

It is NOT illegal to go without health insurance in any state. THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE!

There are a lot of healthy young people who don't have health insurance now simply because they don't see it as a priority. But yes, they probably will comply with the law as it is written. There also may be some lawbreakers--there are always a few.

 

[auditor0007]

The whole problem with the public option is that employers who now cover their employee's health insurance would dump their coverage on their employee's forcing them to go to the public option.

Employers who don't insure their employees would be fined a payroll tax of 8%. Employers already pay MORE than 8% to cover their employee's insurance. This would be a very attractive incentive for business's to dump their health insurance plans forcing everyone onto the public option.

I understand your convictions, but your arguments fail miserably. Not saying you are completely incorrect, but let's look at some of your points.

First of all you argue that all government programs have been failures. You use Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Fannie May/Freddie Mac, and the USPS as examples.

Everyone of those programs have been successful. However, they have been abused and/or miscalculated. For instance, Social Security would still be very solvent had we not allowed our elected representatives to continually borrow from the funding of that program for the last 30 plus years.

Funding for Medicare and Medicaid were calculated based on healthcare costs from the 60's and 70's when total healthcare spending only accounted for around 7% of GDP. Now it accounts for 17%, and we're still trying to fund those programs based on them accounting for 7% of GDP. Those programs didn't drive up the cost of healthcare; healthcare costs drove up the cost to fund those programs. And what drove up the cost of healthcare? Many things including unrealistic awards from lawsuits due to malpractice, new technologies, and employer provided Cadillac healthcare plans.

As for the USPS, they lost a huge percentage of their volume due to the Internet, yet they continue trying to provide first class mail service at a low price. It can't be done. Neither UPS or Fed Ex could provide first class mail service for $.42 per letter. They too would go bankrupt. So the USPS needs to raise their rates, plain and simple.

In almost every case of government programs gone bad, the blame lies with the voters who elect representatives who do not serve their best interests, and then those same voters refuse to throw them out with the power of their vote.

Now let's move on to your support of our current system. You are assuming that by leaving things as they are, everything will be fine. The fact is that healthcare costs are going to double again over the next ten years for employers who provide health insurance to their employees, and that will happen while our economy as a whole stagnates, so the cost will be in real dollars, not inflated dollars. Employers will begin to go belly up or they will drop their insurance coverage for their employees. Companies not permitted to drop coverage by law, will cut pay for employees and force employees to pay a much bigger percentage of their healthcare costs. In the end, this will dramatically reduce the standard of living for most working Americans, and it will leave even more people without coverage.

If you have some great ideas as to how we can improve the system while actually cutting costs, I'd love to hear them, because that is what we need. However, supporting our current failed system is no answer.

 

[Oddball]

How to reframe and requalify miserable failures as successes in one easy post!

Incredible.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, you can't compare them. Are there any states that DON'T require auto insurance? People who don't insure their cars are usually lawbreakers. People who don't buy health insurance are not. They are just prioritizing what they feel are their necessary expenses.

There used to be states that didnt require it. TN didnt up until 3 years ago or so. When the Baucus bill passes people who don't buy health insurance will be lawbreakers.
But I don't see why any of that matters.
Health insurance covers financial risks you can't afford to take. Auto insurance covers financials risks you can't afford to take. Where is the difference??

I live in Maryland and if you can't provide proof of insurance when you renew your tags, you can't register your car. It is illegal to drive a car without insurance.

It is NOT illegal to go without health insurance in any state. THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE!

There are a lot of healthy young people who don't have health insurance now simply because they don't see it as a priority. But yes, they probably will comply with the law as it is written. There also may be some lawbreakers--there are always a few.

Are you hard of reading?
When Obamacare passes it will be illegal to go without health care.
But what freaking difference does the legality or illegality of it make?? None. States could change their laws to not require auto insurance. States could start requiring health insurance (MA already does).
They are perfectly comparable in terms of what each insurance does.