Can Public Option Work?

[auditor0007]

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

Incredible.

Well apparently health insurance companies would qualify as miserable failures also since they have played such a major role in driving costs through the roof, woudln't you agree? Why is it that people are paying so much more for health insurance now then they did 30 years ago? I thought capitalism and the market was the way to keep costs down? Isn't that what you tell us all the time? So why then have health insurance costs gone through the roof despite being left in the hands of private industry?

Make all the excuses you want Dude, there is no justification, and blaming it all on the evil goverenment isn't going to cut it. What is incredible is that you can't see this when it is as clear as a cloudless sky.

 

[Annie]

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

Incredible.

Well apparently health insurance companies would qualify as miserable failures also since they have played such a major role in driving costs through the roof, woudln't you agree? Why is it that people are paying so much more for health insurance now then they did 30 years ago? I thought capitalism and the market was the way to keep costs down? Isn't that what you tell us all the time? So why then have health insurance costs gone through the roof despite being left in the hands of private industry?

Make all the excuses you want Dude, there is no justification, and blaming it all on the evil goverenment isn't going to cut it. What is incredible is that you can't see this when it is as clear as a cloudless sky.

How about people buying insurance for everything from teeth to refrigerators? When it comes to 'health care' most can afford the necessities, but would crap out with hospitalization, yet were all over insured, which is what drove up the rates and made so many run to doctors when unnecessary. Which led to a mill effect at docs, where we no longer know the doc nor they us. No problem suing then...

 

[The Rabbi]

Well apparently health insurance companies would qualify as miserable failures also since they have played such a major role in driving costs through the roof, woudln't you agree? Why is it that people are paying so much more for health insurance now then they did 30 years ago? I thought capitalism and the market was the way to keep costs down? Isn't that what you tell us all the time? So why then have health insurance costs gone through the roof despite being left in the hands of private industry?

Make all the excuses you want Dude, there is no justification, and blaming it all on the evil goverenment isn't going to cut it. What is incredible is that you can't see this when it is as clear as a cloudless sky.

Maybe because health care is so much better than it was 30 years ago? THere are millions of people, hundreds of millions, who are alive today, and who are functional today that would have been dead or severaly disabled 30 years ago. Look at Hodgkins Disease. I remember a boy in the Junior High class ahead of mine (this was about 1975) who had it and died. Mortality was about 95% in those days. Today the cure rate is about 95%.
Virtually every type of treatment and diagnosis has come light years from 30 years ago. Is the extra cost worth it? Damn skippy it is.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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.

1) Allow people to purchase health insurance across state lines. Increasing competition and driving down prices
2) Include Tort reform to lower malpractice insurance costs and waste through things such as overtesting just to avoid lawsuits. (For example i said my shoulder hurt and they gave me an x-ray to see if it was broken, then they decided to do an MRI also WTF)
3) Pass regulations requiring insurance companies to uphold their end of the contract when you get sick. No disqualifying patients for stupid little reasons just to get out of paying for what you promised to cover.
4) Provide a 100% income tax credit to all families making under 100,000 a year and individuals making under 70,000 a year (even if people like me making 40,000/year can afford to buy their own). After that no credit. Those making under 2x the poverty line will receive a tax refund directly relating to the amount they paid for insurance.


I also say pass each one of these ideas individually, based on their own merits. Dont jam them all into some 1500 page bill that the congress wont read.

They say health care wouldn't kick in, if passed, till 2013 anyway, so why not start now with smaller steps instead of completely altering the entire system?



Its about time i made a real healthcare post instead of skipping like a broken record on the publicoptionbecomessingelpayeruniversalcare record

 

[auditor0007]

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

Incredible.

Well apparently health insurance companies would qualify as miserable failures also since they have played such a major role in driving costs through the roof, woudln't you agree? Why is it that people are paying so much more for health insurance now then they did 30 years ago? I thought capitalism and the market was the way to keep costs down? Isn't that what you tell us all the time? So why then have health insurance costs gone through the roof despite being left in the hands of private industry?

Make all the excuses you want Dude, there is no justification, and blaming it all on the evil goverenment isn't going to cut it. What is incredible is that you can't see this when it is as clear as a cloudless sky.

How about people buying insurance for everything from teeth to refrigerators? When it comes to 'health care' most can afford the necessities, but would crap out with hospitalization, yet were all over insured, which is what drove up the rates and made so many run to doctors when unnecessary. Which led to a mill effect at docs, where we no longer know the doc nor they us. No problem suing then...

I agree. These insurance policies that cover everything from A to Z just add to the administrative costs which in turn have helped drive costs even higher. And most people could afford to pay out of pocket for the basics other than catastrophic coverage.

Since I lost my coverage, I now pay cash. It is much cheaper too. When I go to my doctor, they have to figure out how much to charge me because they don't even know the rates themselves, becuase they are so used to punching in a code for whatever service based on the insurer. Once they figure out what to charge, they then give me a 20% discount for paying cash.

 

[auditor0007]

Well apparently health insurance companies would qualify as miserable failures also since they have played such a major role in driving costs through the roof, woudln't you agree? Why is it that people are paying so much more for health insurance now then they did 30 years ago? I thought capitalism and the market was the way to keep costs down? Isn't that what you tell us all the time? So why then have health insurance costs gone through the roof despite being left in the hands of private industry?

Make all the excuses you want Dude, there is no justification, and blaming it all on the evil goverenment isn't going to cut it. What is incredible is that you can't see this when it is as clear as a cloudless sky.

Maybe because health care is so much better than it was 30 years ago? THere are millions of people, hundreds of millions, who are alive today, and who are functional today that would have been dead or severaly disabled 30 years ago. Look at Hodgkins Disease. I remember a boy in the Junior High class ahead of mine (this was about 1975) who had it and died. Mortality was about 95% in those days. Today the cure rate is about 95%.
Virtually every type of treatment and diagnosis has come light years from 30 years ago. Is the extra cost worth it? Damn skippy it is.

More effective shouldn't necessarily mean more expensive. That person with Hodgkins disease in 1975 was still treated. It just didn't work. Look at it this way; would you be willing to spend 100% of GDP on healthcare if it insured that no one ever died and we lived forever?

 

[Oddball]

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

Incredible.

Well apparently health insurance companies would qualify as miserable failures also since they have played such a major role in driving costs through the roof, woudln't you agree? Why is it that people are paying so much more for health insurance now then they did 30 years ago? I thought capitalism and the market was the way to keep costs down? Isn't that what you tell us all the time? So why then have health insurance costs gone through the roof despite being left in the hands of private industry?

Make all the excuses you want Dude, there is no justification, and blaming it all on the evil goverenment isn't going to cut it. What is incredible is that you can't see this when it is as clear as a cloudless sky.

Right...Deflect from you inane arguments, claiming that miserably failed gubmint programs are successful, by pointing at insurance companies.

 

[auditor0007]

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.

1) Allow people to purchase health insurance across state lines. Increasing competition and driving down prices
2) Include Tort reform to lower malpractice insurance costs and waste through things such as overtesting just to avoid lawsuits. (For example i said my shoulder hurt and they gave me an x-ray to see if it was broken, then they decided to do an MRI also WTF)
3) Pass regulations requiring insurance companies to uphold their end of the contract when you get sick. No disqualifying patients for stupid little reasons just to get out of paying for what you promised to cover.
4) Provide a 100% income tax credit to all families making under 100,000 a year and individuals making under 70,000 a year (even if people like me making 40,000/year can afford to buy their own). After that no credit. Those making under 2x the poverty line will receive a tax refund directly relating to the amount they paid for insurance.


I also say pass each one of these ideas individually, based on their own merits. Dont jam them all into some 1500 page bill that the congress wont read.

They say health care wouldn't kick in, if passed, till 2013 anyway, so why not start now with smaller steps instead of completely altering the entire system?



Its about time i made a real healthcare post instead of skipping like a broken record on the publicoptionbecomessingelpayeruniversalcare record

While allowing insurnance companies to sell their policies across state lines sounds like a great idea, it won't change anything other than to allow people to keep their insurance when they move, and that would be a very good thing. That is how I lost my insurance, because I moved to a different state and had pre-existing conditions. The thing is that most insurance companies could do this already. I was with Anthem, and Anthem is in the state I moved to also. They could have offered me a similar policy as my old one if they wanted to keep me, but because I became sick while I was insured by them, they wanted to dump me. All the years I had been with them didn't make a difference.

The thing is, the costs of these policies will still remain high if they try to cover everything for everybody. And adding even more insurers for doctors and hospitals to deal with will not reduce costs; it will increase them as it will increase the administrative workload involved. If costs are ever to be reduced, it will have to come at the point of delivery, not the middle man who just shuffles papers.

 

[auditor0007]

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

Incredible.

Well apparently health insurance companies would qualify as miserable failures also since they have played such a major role in driving costs through the roof, woudln't you agree? Why is it that people are paying so much more for health insurance now then they did 30 years ago? I thought capitalism and the market was the way to keep costs down? Isn't that what you tell us all the time? So why then have health insurance costs gone through the roof despite being left in the hands of private industry?

Make all the excuses you want Dude, there is no justification, and blaming it all on the evil goverenment isn't going to cut it. What is incredible is that you can't see this when it is as clear as a cloudless sky.

Right...Deflect from you inane arguments, claiming that miserably failed gubmint programs are successful, by pointing at insurance companies.

Talk about deflection.

 

[Oddball]

Still can't defend your hilarious spin, claiming bankrupt gubmint programs are successful, can you?

 

[Harry Dresden]

It says that under the commerce clause or the general welfare clause.

thats already been debunked about 10x here in different threads....

first, the government is not taking over health care and running it in these bills, they are regulating it...and it is within their powers to regulate imo.

Is Social Security, and Medicare, and medicaid unconstitutional? I haven't had a chance to go back in the thread yet to see if anyone has answered that question, so I apologize if you answered already Harry....



Care

Care....i havent answered that Question....but the other day on c-span....a Dem Representative was saying "Govt.Run Health Care"....those were his words.....i also recall Pelosi saying those same words......so is Govt Run Health Care now just getting to mean the same as Govt Regulated Health Care to many people?.....these two terms are getting bandied about.....apparently....

 

[Harry Dresden]

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?

so now we will get to have a govt employee doing the same.....only this time there will be a WHOLE bunch of them.....and im more than sure there will be a WHOLE bunch more problems....

 

[The Rabbi]

Well apparently health insurance companies would qualify as miserable failures also since they have played such a major role in driving costs through the roof, woudln't you agree? Why is it that people are paying so much more for health insurance now then they did 30 years ago? I thought capitalism and the market was the way to keep costs down? Isn't that what you tell us all the time? So why then have health insurance costs gone through the roof despite being left in the hands of private industry?

Make all the excuses you want Dude, there is no justification, and blaming it all on the evil goverenment isn't going to cut it. What is incredible is that you can't see this when it is as clear as a cloudless sky.

Maybe because health care is so much better than it was 30 years ago? THere are millions of people, hundreds of millions, who are alive today, and who are functional today that would have been dead or severaly disabled 30 years ago. Look at Hodgkins Disease. I remember a boy in the Junior High class ahead of mine (this was about 1975) who had it and died. Mortality was about 95% in those days. Today the cure rate is about 95%.
Virtually every type of treatment and diagnosis has come light years from 30 years ago. Is the extra cost worth it? Damn skippy it is.

More effective shouldn't necessarily mean more expensive. That person with Hodgkins disease in 1975 was still treated. It just didn't work. Look at it this way; would you be willing to spend 100% of GDP on healthcare if it insured that no one ever died and we lived forever?

Your response is bizarre.
How do you think treatments become more effective? THe tooth fairy? No, these come about through research and development, which is expensive. They add tremendously to the economic utility of the country, allowing people to have productive lives who would have been burdens, at best, on everyone else. What is it worth to have Steve Jobs still working at Apple?
Your last question is just a puzzler.

 

[Harry Dresden]

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??

the difference is....when you get to those financial risks you cant afford to take.....the Govt is not going to be anymore helpful than any ins co out there.....the answer is still going to be TOUGH SHIT....unless of course you sign every fucking thing you own over to them....then they will talk....

 

[Oddball]

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??

Nobody expects that their auto insurance is going to cover oil changes and new tires.

 

[auditor0007]

Maybe because health care is so much better than it was 30 years ago? THere are millions of people, hundreds of millions, who are alive today, and who are functional today that would have been dead or severaly disabled 30 years ago. Look at Hodgkins Disease. I remember a boy in the Junior High class ahead of mine (this was about 1975) who had it and died. Mortality was about 95% in those days. Today the cure rate is about 95%.
Virtually every type of treatment and diagnosis has come light years from 30 years ago. Is the extra cost worth it? Damn skippy it is.

More effective shouldn't necessarily mean more expensive. That person with Hodgkins disease in 1975 was still treated. It just didn't work. Look at it this way; would you be willing to spend 100% of GDP on healthcare if it insured that no one ever died and we lived forever?

Your response is bizarre.
How do you think treatments become more effective? THe tooth fairy? No, these come about through research and development, which is expensive. They add tremendously to the economic utility of the country, allowing people to have productive lives who would have been burdens, at best, on everyone else. What is it worth to have Steve Jobs still working at Apple?
Your last question is just a puzzler.

We now have computers that are much more effective than the first computers, and they cost much less in real dollars. The same goes for cell phones. Actually, the same holds true for most all newer technologies. With advancements in technologies, things usually get cheaper. But not so with healthcare. In fact, it is just the opposite. And no, they are not exactly the same, but the fact is that the new technologies are not the only reason healthcare costs have risen so much as a percentage of GDP or as a percentage of our income. If that alone were the case, then there would be no real argument.

 

[The Rabbi]

Okay, fair enough. Even though developing drugs is infintely more expensive than developing computer chips.
But anyway. Your point is good.
The issue is that the people buying healthcare and the people paying for it aren't the same people. This is the problem with 3rd party payers, no one is really minding the store. The Obamacare proposals (whatever they are this week) will do nothing to help that and everything to make it worse.

 

[auditor0007]

Maybe because health care is so much better than it was 30 years ago? THere are millions of people, hundreds of millions, who are alive today, and who are functional today that would have been dead or severaly disabled 30 years ago. Look at Hodgkins Disease. I remember a boy in the Junior High class ahead of mine (this was about 1975) who had it and died. Mortality was about 95% in those days. Today the cure rate is about 95%.
Virtually every type of treatment and diagnosis has come light years from 30 years ago. Is the extra cost worth it? Damn skippy it is.

More effective shouldn't necessarily mean more expensive. That person with Hodgkins disease in 1975 was still treated. It just didn't work. Look at it this way; would you be willing to spend 100% of GDP on healthcare if it insured that no one ever died and we lived forever?

Your response is bizarre.
How do you think treatments become more effective? THe tooth fairy? No, these come about through research and development, which is expensive. They add tremendously to the economic utility of the country, allowing people to have productive lives who would have been burdens, at best, on everyone else. What is it worth to have Steve Jobs still working at Apple?
Your last question is just a puzzler.

How is my last question a puzzler? It is an impossiblity of course. We can't spend 100% of GDP on healthcare, because then there would be nothing left of our economy. No one would have money for food yet alone shelter. The question is, how much of our economy can we afford to devote to healthcare if we want a thriving economy and a decent standard of living for as many as possible?

 

[auditor0007]

Okay, fair enough. Even though developing drugs is infintely more expensive than developing computer chips.
But anyway. Your point is good.
The issue is that the people buying healthcare and the people paying for it aren't the same people. This is the problem with 3rd party payers, no one is really minding the store. The Obamacare proposals (whatever they are this week) will do nothing to help that and everything to make it worse.

I'm not sure that anything can make it worse, but I would agree that it won't do anything to make it better other than maybe make it possible for me to purchase health insurance. But it won't reduce costs. Neither will leaving things as they are. Honestly, a one-payer system could reduce costs but it is not likely to give us great results when it comes to service. The biggest problem with the current plan is that it just adds more garbage to an already disasterous system where the middle man is the big winner.

 

[Political Junky]

Yes, it will work as Medicare for everyone or Medicare E. Anyone could subscribe to Medicare E, which has been very efficient at serving seniors.
Even cons and blue dogs would have trouble voting against Medicare.