Does Anyone Really Want National Health Care?

[Granny]

I do.....I DO!

Cut out the do nothing middle men who do nothing for healthcare except paperwork
Cut out exorbitant overhead and profit from do nothing insurance companies

You get sick....No Bills.....No Debt

I find it hard to believe I'm responding to your post ... but you might have a halfway decent thought here.

If we cut out all the do nothing mindless drone "middle men" who do nothing and know nothing about healthcare and who will be pushing more unimaginable amounts of red tape paperwork than an entire sequoia forest and rain forest combined could ever support, we would be ahead of the game. By not having these "middle men," we could save the taxpayers' costs involved by the inevitable creation of an all new government agency and all these unnecessary "new jobs" it would require to push all that damned paper in the first place.

Hell, by not having these paper pushing morons in the first place we could reduce the overhead costs of more governmental buildings and/or rental properties to house all these "middle men" (or "middle women" as the case may be - don't want the NOW screeching discrimination). We could save lots of taxpayer dollars by not having the exorbitant increased cost of more lights being left on all night in an empty building, less water being flushed, probably less expensive toilet seats in the first place (the $800 toilet seats for the Navy comes to mind) ... typical government mentality being if $800 toilet seats are good enough for Navy asses, then equal treatment in comfort should apply to all government employees' assess ... the taxpayer money savings list could go on forever.

As to being sick and having no bills, no debt ... it would take a mental giant to finally figure out that with government spending as it does ... the "bill" would ultimately come out of taxpayer pockets by way of higher taxes and the cumulative "debt" would finally leave the taxpayers, the big bad corporations, the little mom and pop shops with nothing but lint left in their pockets.

 

[Bern80]

Liberals will say....We have to take care of everyone no matter how undeserving they are

And what liberals don't understand is that sounds nice, but it makes the problem worse, not better. You grow the undeserving because you have taught them through the policies that stem through this mind set that there is no point in changing their behavior because you uber 'compassionate' liberals are going to fix it for them anyway. In the long run that isn't really compassion. That's handicapping. Over time our government has decided it needs to do more things for people that most have the capacity to do themselves. Again I have zero problem helping those that truly can not help themselves. The health and strength of society will deteriorate however, when it's government decides it's being compassionate by taking care of people instead of allowing people to take care of themselves. It's like survival of the fittest in the wild. You may find that harsh and cruel, but at the same time you have to admit it makes for the strongest most efficient race of what's left possible.

I think our society needs a basic safety net. Three hots and a cot plus basic medical care to keep you alive. No matter how undeserving a person you are, I don't want people begging door to door, living out of dumpsters or dying in the streets because they lack medical care

But if that's true then indeed everyone should get those things. No matter what their income is. If that's really what your saying then everyone from the bum on the street should be provided by government shelter and food and health care. You can't do things that way and expect a strong society. If you want fewer poor people you teach them what to do to not be poor and let them make their own choices after that. If you just do those things for them, give them house, give them food, give them health care with no strings attached, YOU ARE NOT HELPING THEM. YOU ARE ENABLING THEM. It's the equivalent of enabling a drug addict by just giving them drugs so you they can feel better.

 

[rightwinger]

Liberals will say....We have to take care of everyone no matter how undeserving they are

I think our society needs a basic safety net. Three hots and a cot plus basic medical care to keep you alive. No matter how undeserving a person you are, I don't want people begging door to door, living out of dumpsters or dying in the streets because they lack medical care

But if that's true then indeed everyone should get those things. No matter what their income is. If that's really what your saying then everyone from the bum on the street should be provided by government shelter and food and health care. You can't do things that way and expect a strong society. If you want fewer poor people you teach them what to do to not be poor and let them make their own choices after that. If you just do those things for them, give them house, give them food, give them health care with no strings attached, YOU ARE NOT HELPING THEM. YOU ARE ENABLING THEM. It's the equivalent of enabling a drug addict by just giving them drugs so you they can feel better.

You are under the impression that some people just need a little motivation and they will become upstanding members of our society. "If only they didn't have it so easy......they would work hard and earn a living"

Every society has the good and the bad. Most are extremely hard working and take care of themselves. Some are just A-holes who are unemployable. My previous post asked what do we do with those people? I worked with a guy once that couldn't go two weeks without telling the boss what an A-Hole he was. The guy could not hold back....complete moron and unemployable.

What do we do with him? Let him starve and die in the street?

 

[Harry Dresden]

I think our society needs a basic safety net. Three hots and a cot plus basic medical care to keep you alive. No matter how undeserving a person you are, I don't want people begging door to door, living out of dumpsters or dying in the streets because they lack medical care

why?.....why should i help a person who is standing in the help needed line,when he is telling me to "go fuck myself and no i dont want to work you asshole just give me my food and monthly check and get the fuck out of my way"......why should i help an ass like that?....someone who actually needs the aide....no problem.....Undeserving one....problem.....

 

[Bern80]

Liberals will say....We have to take care of everyone no matter how undeserving they are

I think our society needs a basic safety net. Three hots and a cot plus basic medical care to keep you alive. No matter how undeserving a person you are, I don't want people begging door to door, living out of dumpsters or dying in the streets because they lack medical care

But if that's true then indeed everyone should get those things. No matter what their income is. If that's really what your saying then everyone from the bum on the street should be provided by government shelter and food and health care. You can't do things that way and expect a strong society. If you want fewer poor people you teach them what to do to not be poor and let them make their own choices after that. If you just do those things for them, give them house, give them food, give them health care with no strings attached, YOU ARE NOT HELPING THEM. YOU ARE ENABLING THEM. It's the equivalent of enabling a drug addict by just giving them drugs so you they can feel better.

You are under the impression that some people just need a little motivation and they will become upstanding members of our society. "If only they didn't have it so easy......they would work hard and earn a living"

Every society has the good and the bad. Most are extremely hard working and take care of themselves. Some are just A-holes who are unemployable. My previous post asked what do we do with those people? I worked with a guy once that couldn't go two weeks without telling the boss what an A-Hole he was. The guy could not hold back....complete moron and unemployable.

What do we do with him? Let him starve and die in the street?

Yes. You and no other tax payer are responsible for his choices. Sticking with this example, let's say government provides this person all the things you say it should. Shelter, food, health care, maybe even some welfare money, how are you really helping this person? How are you making him a better person and not the jack ass that he is by showing him he doesn't need to do anything at all to get these things? Doesn't need to learn any social skills. Doesn't need to learn any marketable skills and in fact can be a grade a piece of shit to everyone he meets, but he's still gonna get all of those things because YOU think it's the compassionate thing to do. All I can tell you is that simply isn't compassion for your fellow man.

 

[rightwinger]

But if that's true then indeed everyone should get those things. No matter what their income is. If that's really what your saying then everyone from the bum on the street should be provided by government shelter and food and health care. You can't do things that way and expect a strong society. If you want fewer poor people you teach them what to do to not be poor and let them make their own choices after that. If you just do those things for them, give them house, give them food, give them health care with no strings attached, YOU ARE NOT HELPING THEM. YOU ARE ENABLING THEM. It's the equivalent of enabling a drug addict by just giving them drugs so you they can feel better.

You are under the impression that some people just need a little motivation and they will become upstanding members of our society. "If only they didn't have it so easy......they would work hard and earn a living"

Every society has the good and the bad. Most are extremely hard working and take care of themselves. Some are just A-holes who are unemployable. My previous post asked what do we do with those people? I worked with a guy once that couldn't go two weeks without telling the boss what an A-Hole he was. The guy could not hold back....complete moron and unemployable.

What do we do with him? Let him starve and die in the street?

Yes. You and no other tax payer are responsible for his choices. Sticking with this example, let's say government provides this person all the things you say it should. Shelter, food, health care, maybe even some welfare money, how are you really helping this person? How are you making him a better person and not the jack ass that he is by showing him he doesn't need to do anything at all to get these things? Doesn't need to learn any social skills. Doesn't need to learn any marketable skills and in fact can be a grade a piece of shit to everyone he meets, but he's still gonna get all of those things because YOU think it's the compassionate thing to do. All I can tell you is that simply isn't compassion for your fellow man.

Then we will have a situation like we did in the 1930's

Vagrants going door to door looking for handouts, Hoovervilles, petty thefts from homes, no sanitation,unchecked diseases,

USA as Calcutta

 

[Harry Dresden]

What do we do with him? Let him starve and die in the street?

yep.....and then remove the carcass and realise that we have just lost one person who WILLINGLY was a dredge on society.....and he did not have to be and was fully able to change his/her attitude......its on him/her.....Society just got relieved of a genuine asshole.....

 

[Bern80]

You are under the impression that some people just need a little motivation and they will become upstanding members of our society. "If only they didn't have it so easy......they would work hard and earn a living"

Every society has the good and the bad. Most are extremely hard working and take care of themselves. Some are just A-holes who are unemployable. My previous post asked what do we do with those people? I worked with a guy once that couldn't go two weeks without telling the boss what an A-Hole he was. The guy could not hold back....complete moron and unemployable.

What do we do with him? Let him starve and die in the street?

Yes. You and no other tax payer are responsible for his choices. Sticking with this example, let's say government provides this person all the things you say it should. Shelter, food, health care, maybe even some welfare money, how are you really helping this person? How are you making him a better person and not the jack ass that he is by showing him he doesn't need to do anything at all to get these things? Doesn't need to learn any social skills. Doesn't need to learn any marketable skills and in fact can be a grade a piece of shit to everyone he meets, but he's still gonna get all of those things because YOU think it's the compassionate thing to do. All I can tell you is that simply isn't compassion for your fellow man.

Then we will have a situation like we did in the 1930's

Vagrants going door to door looking for handouts, Hoovervilles, petty thefts from homes, no sanitation,unchecked diseases,

USA as Calcutta

That's a broad generalization to avoid addressing the basic psychological issues that you are ignoring. No we won't have the streets of calcutta. In fact psychology suggests you would move closer to that the MORE a government tries to do for its people. Do you think it's a coincidence that France has some of the most generous welfare benefits of an industrialized country AND one of the highest unemployment rates of an industrialized nation?

This isn't some theory I dreamed up, winger. These are basic principles of psychology. Why would I do what I don't have to do? Why expend the energy if someone else will expend the energy to provide me a house, food and healthcare? You really think that if government didn't do anything for people the whole of society would slump to its knees twiddling it's thumbs collectively wondering whos going to take care of their survival? That is as counter intuitive a notion as I've ever hear. Necessity is the mother of invention is a famous phrase because it's TRUE. If you have to, unless you are the laziest most obstinate waste of space on the planet, you WILL find a way.

 

[HUGGY]

Does Anyone Really Want National Health Care?

I doubt anyone that is young and healthy thinks about it much. I know I didn't. Americans have developed a million excuses to ignore the future. They would rather invest a hundred hours a year to watching American Idol than invest anything in the people that brought them into this world.

The Christian Fundamentalists are the worst hypocrites of all. They cry to the heavens about family values and ALWAYS support policies that further destroy the family.

I know you won't be...because you HAVE NO CONSCIENCE..but you should be ashamed of yourselves.

I feel sorry for our ancestors that fought and died in WWII... You people were not worth the sacrifice.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Does Anyone Really Want National Health Care?

I doubt anyone that is young and healthy thinks about it much. I know I didn't. Americans have developed a million excuses to ignore the future. They would rather invest a hundred hours a year to watching American Idol than invest anything in the people that brought them into this world.

The Christian Fundamentalists are the worst hypocrites of all. They cry to the heavens about family values and ALWAYS support policies that further destroy the family.

I know you won't be...because you HAVE NO CONSCIENCE..but you should be ashamed of yourselves.

I feel sorry for our ancestors that fought and died in WWII... You people were not worth the sacrifice.

you?......which people?.....you mean pieces of shit like Douger?....the X-American....if so....i agree.....

 

[PoliticalChic]

Certainly glad to see that you agree with every single one of the first nine....

I wouldn't take that as an endorsement; states aren't required under the ACA to build and operate exchanges, for example. You need to check your facts a bit better when you come across lists like that.

The sheer absurdity of describing the multi-state plans as "public options" compelled me to comment on that one in particular.

I see you have no disagreement with "The law requires the US Office of Personnel Management to sponsor at least two health plans ..."

The logical assumption is that if private plans are crushed by Obamacare's regulations or simply turn into government contractors, then the government plans would dominate the market.

To reiterate, there are no "government plans." The multi-state plans are private plans subject to the same regulations as all exchange-participating plans. And, as I indicated above, I do take issue with that statement as the word "sponsored" conveys absolutely no meaning and is clearly written to imply that OPM itself is offering those plans directly and thus they're somehow functioning as public options. That, however, is false.

Just wondering, do you support Cuyo's absurd premise that Obamacare is not national healthcare?

If by that you mean nationalized health care in which health care providers are no longer private, obviously the ACA is nowhere near that. If by "national health care" you mean something akin to universal health care, in which (nearly) everyone is covered, it's fairly close to meeting that definition.

"...the word "sponsored" conveys absolutely no meaning and is clearly written to imply that OPM itself is offering those plans directly and thus they're somehow functioning as public options. That, however, is false."

Really? Just 'accidently' fell into that sentence?

I've noticed before that the folks who are dying for the government to take over healthcare battle against all logic, going so far as to refuse to admit an obvious conclusion unless their side specifically admits same.

I've mentioned this before as a liberal technique..."fail to connect the dots...."
It's is the kind of dishonesty contained in a statement such as "well...it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is...."

It's called 'sophistry,' and means the intention of deceiving.

Your similarly worded disagreement with the reality of the march toward both a public option and a total takeover of the healthcare system stands out in your statement:

"...the word "sponsored" conveys absolutely no meaning..."

It is essential for you to deny that English is a language with which you are comfortable, or else your statement would be met with peals of laugher.


The legislation total a bit over 2800 pages, because the Dependancy Party that passed same wanted total and absolute control, and toward that end used specific language...such as the word 'sponsored.'

It means, in this context:

•A legislator who proposes and urges adoption of a bill.

Read more: sponsor: Definition, Synonyms from Answers.com


Now only a fool would argue that the legislation encourages private control of the healthcare system....wouldn't you agree?
And the folks who wrote the legislation would only sponsor actions that promote government control....wouldn't you agree?

From the definition above, and the following rhetorical question, it is clear to any who want to see, that this government 'sponsors' plans that move healthcare toward government control, i.e., a 'public option' that engendered such disapproval that they pretended that it had been removed from the bill.....

it hasn't been, merely camoflaged.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Does Anyone Really Want National Health Care?

I doubt anyone that is young and healthy thinks about it much. I know I didn't. Americans have developed a million excuses to ignore the future. They would rather invest a hundred hours a year to watching American Idol than invest anything in the people that brought them into this world.

The Christian Fundamentalists are the worst hypocrites of all. They cry to the heavens about family values and ALWAYS support policies that further destroy the family.

I know you won't be...because you HAVE NO CONSCIENCE..but you should be ashamed of yourselves.

I feel sorry for our ancestors that fought and died in WWII... You people were not worth the sacrifice.

It's a shame that you are so easily led.

 

[Greenbeard]

The legislation total a bit over 2800 pages, because the Dependancy Party that passed same wanted total and absolute control, and toward that end used specific language...such as the word 'sponsored.'

It means, in this context:

•A legislator who proposes and urges adoption of a bill.

This is bizarre. The word "sponsored" isn't from the ACA, it's from your list. "The law requires the US Office of Personnel Management to sponsor at least two health plans ..." That word doesn't actually appear anywhere in the section of the law related to the multi-state plans. And the example you use of the word's meaning here is nonsensical in this context.

The implication of your list is that OPM is acting as a public insurer and thus the multi-state plans are somehow public options. Let's be very clear: if you chose a public health insurance option, your insurer wouldn't be Blue Cross, it wouldn't be Anthem, or Aetna or any other insurer--it would be a public insurer, like CMS (or, theoretically I suppose, a body like OPM). If, however, you choose a multi-state plan in an exchange, your insurer will be one of those (or some other) private insurers. That's because they're not public options, they're private options that contract with OPM, just like the myriad of private options available to federal employees through the FEHBP.

It's not clear to me whether you're simply not familiar with what public insurance (and thus, the proposed public option) is, or what private insurance is, or you're just full of shit. It sounds like all the above, with a generous helping of paranoia.

 

[Shogun]

Liberals will say....We have to take care of everyone no matter how undeserving they are

I think our society needs a basic safety net. Three hots and a cot plus basic medical care to keep you alive. No matter how undeserving a person you are, I don't want people begging door to door, living out of dumpsters or dying in the streets because they lack medical care

But if that's true then indeed everyone should get those things. No matter what their income is. If that's really what your saying then everyone from the bum on the street should be provided by government shelter and food and health care. You can't do things that way and expect a strong society. If you want fewer poor people you teach them what to do to not be poor and let them make their own choices after that. If you just do those things for them, give them house, give them food, give them health care with no strings attached, YOU ARE NOT HELPING THEM. YOU ARE ENABLING THEM. It's the equivalent of enabling a drug addict by just giving them drugs so you they can feel better.

You are under the impression that some people just need a little motivation and they will become upstanding members of our society. "If only they didn't have it so easy......they would work hard and earn a living"

Every society has the good and the bad. Most are extremely hard working and take care of themselves. Some are just A-holes who are unemployable. My previous post asked what do we do with those people? I worked with a guy once that couldn't go two weeks without telling the boss what an A-Hole he was. The guy could not hold back....complete moron and unemployable.

What do we do with him? Let him starve and die in the street?

BERN won't stop until our suburbs look more like the ghettos of Calcutta, dude. Remember, having a microwave means you are too rich for social safety nets.

 

[Shogun]

Yes. You and no other tax payer are responsible for his choices. Sticking with this example, let's say government provides this person all the things you say it should. Shelter, food, health care, maybe even some welfare money, how are you really helping this person? How are you making him a better person and not the jack ass that he is by showing him he doesn't need to do anything at all to get these things? Doesn't need to learn any social skills. Doesn't need to learn any marketable skills and in fact can be a grade a piece of shit to everyone he meets, but he's still gonna get all of those things because YOU think it's the compassionate thing to do. All I can tell you is that simply isn't compassion for your fellow man.

Then we will have a situation like we did in the 1930's

Vagrants going door to door looking for handouts, Hoovervilles, petty thefts from homes, no sanitation,unchecked diseases,

USA as Calcutta

That's a broad generalization to avoid addressing the basic psychological issues that you are ignoring. No we won't have the streets of calcutta. In fact psychology suggests you would move closer to that the MORE a government tries to do for its people. Do you think it's a coincidence that France has some of the most generous welfare benefits of an industrialized country AND one of the highest unemployment rates of an industrialized nation?

This isn't some theory I dreamed up, winger. These are basic principles of psychology. Why would I do what I don't have to do? Why expend the energy if someone else will expend the energy to provide me a house, food and healthcare? You really think that if government didn't do anything for people the whole of society would slump to its knees twiddling it's thumbs collectively wondering whos going to take care of their survival? That is as counter intuitive a notion as I've ever hear. Necessity is the mother of invention is a famous phrase because it's TRUE. If you have to, unless you are the laziest most obstinate waste of space on the planet, you WILL find a way.

I'm dying to see evidence of this "Basic Principles of Psychology" you have just painted yourself in a corner with. Please, provide evidence that what you speak of is 1. a basic principal of anything and 2. some kind of standard and accepted theory in the realm of psychology.

Which, is pretty laughable since it would be a product of sociology before psychology but.. hey, I don't want to goad you too much before taking a gander at where you are pulling this bullshit from.

 

[Shogun]

Not really what I said. I said you're not really gaining anything. You're just swapping one group of people waiting for another. It's a simple question of do you want the ability to be treated when YOU want to be treated or do you want government to tell you when it decides you should be treated.

If it means broader coverage then I won't mind waiting with a broken finger while someone who can't afford an Allergist gets asthma treatment.

The point you fail to fathom here, BERN, is that your lil wait time doesn't keep you from getting care at all; you don't get to just buy your way to the front of the line as easy. Even if you are on a WAITING LIST you still get care. With your mentality, we get to totally disregard and tell people to just fuck off and die already. Sorry BERN, I'm a bit more concerned with humanity more than your pocket book.

So our problem is that health care is too expensive but you're not actually interested in making things less expensive? Interesting.

You can't make health care less expensive when your kind bitch about any regulation meant to reduce the cost of health care.

Nice dodge, by the way. I see you don't want to address the FACT that a waiting list doesn't imply lack of service like your total disregard for poor people does.

Interesting but not surprising.

 

[Shogun]

Have you ever thought about why they can't afford it?
How is it not wrong to force me to pay for their medical care?
Do you really trust the government to administer this?
I can't afford anymore of your programs.

Sure, in a society of striated wealth there is a percentage of the population which simply doesn't have the disposable income for health care. Is that a fucking sin? Are you such a bastard that you forgot to be your brother's keeper? We ALL throw into a pot that benefits us all in some way. You can, and will, afford what our collective culture chooses. Don't like it? Go make camp in Africa or something and none of us will follow you and your money out the door.

Read this carfully, Shogun, as it alters your entire post:

When fully in effect, Obamacare will result in ever single segment of the population paying more than they currenly pay for healthcare.

Especially the young and the unskilled.

Your partisan predictions amount to very little. You'd insist that baby jesus hates Obamacare if it didn't sound so fucking retarded. And, you'd still try it if you thought the suggestion would shit on a liberal.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Sure, in a society of striated wealth there is a percentage of the population which simply doesn't have the disposable income for health care. Is that a fucking sin? Are you such a bastard that you forgot to be your brother's keeper? We ALL throw into a pot that benefits us all in some way. You can, and will, afford what our collective culture chooses. Don't like it? Go make camp in Africa or something and none of us will follow you and your money out the door.

Read this carfully, Shogun, as it alters your entire post:

When fully in effect, Obamacare will result in ever single segment of the population paying more than they currenly pay for healthcare.

Especially the young and the unskilled.

Your partisan predictions amount to very little. You'd insist that baby jesus hates Obamacare if it didn't sound so fucking retarded. And, you'd still try it if you thought the suggestion would shit on a liberal.

Unlike you, I can back up what I say.
Read the following and then reconsider who sounds like what...

1. Total federal and state Medicaid spending will skyrocket from 4427 billion in 2010, to $896 billion in 2019. https://www.cms.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/NHEProjections2009to2019.pdf

2. . The office of the Actuary at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) predicted that the spending on CLASS will exceed the premiums, and
“Over the longer term, expenditures would exceed premium receipts, and there is a very serious risk that the program would become unsustainable …” https://www.cms.gov/ActuarialStudies/Downloads/PPACA_2010-04-22.pdf

3. . With each passing year new taxes will be imposed. As disclosed on the attached chart from the
California Hospital Association:
• 2011: A 2.5% excise tax is imposed on pharmaceuticals. (This is part of the plan to pay for the
reform law.) This cost – which will be in the billions of dollars - will be passed on to health care
providers, primarily hospitals, who already operate with very thin margins, and will be under
great financial pressure to raise their rates to pay for it, with resulting price pressure on health
insurance premiums.
• 2012: That excise tax increases to 3%.
• 2013: A separate 2.9% excise tax on medical devices will begin. The same pass-through will take
place, creating the same pressures on providers and on insurance premiums.
• 2014: An $8 billion fee on health insurance premiums kicks in. Obviously consumers will bear
this tax and their premiums will rise.Because of all these costs, Obamacare is generally unsustainable. Here is one study that addresses that
issue:
Obamacare: The Real Price Tag is a Moving Target | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

4. Shortly after Obamacare was signed into law, AT&T, Caterpillar, John Deere, Verizon, and several other big companies reported to investors- as required, that the law would take quite a bite out of future earnings. They were considering dropping employee health insurance. “…dumping the health care coverage they provide to their workers in exchange for paying penalty fees to the government.” AT&T, Verizon, others, thought about dropping health plans - May. 5, 2010

a. Makes sense, as the law would penalize the companies $2,000 per employee if they didn’t offer the insurance, as opposed to over $7,000 per worker for a comprehensive package. Former CBO director Holtz-Eakins this may be the start of a 35 million worker avalanche that will move into subsidized coverage, at a cost of over $1 trillion more to the total cost of Obamacare over the next ten years. Opinion: Resetting the 'Obamacare' baseline - Douglas Holtz-Eakin and James C. Capretta - POLITICO.com


I challenge you to find any error in the above!!!


Will you remain an idiot, or will you do some research and think for yourself???

 

[PoliticalChic]

The legislation total a bit over 2800 pages, because the Dependancy Party that passed same wanted total and absolute control, and toward that end used specific language...such as the word 'sponsored.'

It means, in this context:

•A legislator who proposes and urges adoption of a bill.

This is bizarre. The word "sponsored" isn't from the ACA, it's from your list. "The law requires the US Office of Personnel Management to sponsor at least two health plans ..." That word doesn't actually appear anywhere in the section of the law related to the multi-state plans. And the example you use of the word's meaning here is nonsensical in this context.

The implication of your list is that OPM is acting as a public insurer and thus the multi-state plans are somehow public options. Let's be very clear: if you chose a public health insurance option, your insurer wouldn't be Blue Cross, it wouldn't be Anthem, or Aetna or any other insurer--it would be a public insurer, like CMS (or, theoretically I suppose, a body like OPM). If, however, you choose a multi-state plan in an exchange, your insurer will be one of those (or some other) private insurers. That's because they're not public options, they're private options that contract with OPM, just like the myriad of private options available to federal employees through the FEHBP.

It's not clear to me whether you're simply not familiar with what public insurance (and thus, the proposed public option) is, or what private insurance is, or you're just full of shit. It sounds like all the above, with a generous helping of paranoia.

Under Section 1334(a), the director of OPM, the agency that runs the federal civil service, is to contract with selected health insurers to offer “multi-State qualified health plans through each Exchange in each State.”

Is this sponsorship, or would you care to elucidate the basis of said 'selection'?


The OPM-sponsored plans must meet the minimum benefits package, the rating and coverage rules as specified elsewhere in Title I, and state licensure and other state health insurance requirements that are “not inconsistent” with PPACA. Otherwise, in contracting with these selected insurers, the director of OPM, with a few qualifications, is to replicate the contractual authority over the multi-state plans that he currently exercises in administering the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) under chapter 89 of Title V of the U.S. Code. Under Section 1334(a)(4) of the new law, it is clear that the director “shall implement this subsection in a manner similar to the manner in which the Director implements the contracting provisions” with carriers in the FEHBP.
Office of Personnel Management and Public Health Insurance Option | The Heritage Foundation

 

[Greenbeard]

Is this sponsorship, or would you care to elucidate the basis of said 'selection'?

That's what I'm asking you, you're the one that introduced the word without any effort to define it. If contracting with private insurers via a competitive bidding process is what you're talking about, that's fine. But that's certainly not what a public option is.