Does Anyone Really Want National Health Care?

[PoliticalChic]

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.

I believe you know exactly what it is:

The public health insurance option is a proposed government-run health insurance agency which competes with other health insurance companies.Public health insurance option - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"...contracting with private insurers via a competitive bidding process ..." This is exactly the sort of obfuscation that I've seen from your side before, from you specifically.

You understand what the selection, and sponsorship entail....total control. Yet you pretend it is other wise....

"Under current law, the director of OPM is authorized to negotiate rates and benefits for health plans, and in the conduct of those negotiations, there are very few limitations on the director’s authority. In disputes with federal employee organizations and unions, federal courts have routinely upheld the director’s discretion in these areas. "
Office of Personnel Management and Public Health Insurance Option | The Heritage Foundation

Total control means the 'public option.'
The PPAPA controls the private insurers in this option right down to marketing of their product, the language used, and every other aspect.

Paranoia? No, but your dissembling is hard to hide.

 

[Greenbeard]

"...contracting with private insurers via a competitive bidding process ..." This is exactly the sort of obfuscation that I've seen from your side before, from you specifically.

Mmhmm. I'm referring to current U.S. law.

You understand what the selection, and sponsorship entail....total control. Yet you pretend it is other wise....

Total control of what? I'm curious what you think the FEHBP is. Do you think think it's public insurance? Do you think the interaction of the insurers offering plans in the FEHBP with providers resembles the interaction those providers would have with a public insurer?

If you don't like the concept of contracting with health plans, you're really not going to like states that choose an active purchaser model for their exchange.

 

[Bern80]

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

Complying with regulations costs money. Thus costs can't go down. When government passes regs that tell insurance companies what they must provide, that adds costs.

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.

Because anyone with a brain can see the fallacy of the statement. If I'm waiting I'm not being serviced, am I.

 

[Shogun]

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

Complying with regulations costs money. Thus costs can't go down. When government passes regs that tell insurance companies what they must provide, that adds costs.

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.

Because anyone with a brain can see the fallacy of the statement. If I'm waiting I'm not being serviced, am I.

I'm more of a " the cost of regulation to prohibit thalidomide babies is just fine" sorta guy, BERN. Sue me.

And, your assumption of brains is about as profound as your standards for a social net, BERN. Microwaves need not apply.


Of course you are being serviced, BERN, just not as quickly as the guy with the aneurism. Maybe you should tip the ambulance driver to let you know that the concept of WAITING usually implies what you are WAITING for.

 

[rdean]

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

Good ideas (though that notion that insurance companies make exhorbitant profits isn't factually correct), I just don't get the insistance by you lefties that we have to turn it over to government to do that.

Insurance companies don't own hospitals. They don't employ doctors or nurses. Common sense tells you have paying the CEO of Cigna 120 million dollars means lot's and lot's of insurance policies are skimmed. Common sense says "adding a layer of cost will increase the overall cost". How can right wingers not understand this? It's so obvious. I mean, come on. Does this really have to be explained? Really?

 

[Bern80]

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

Good ideas (though that notion that insurance companies make exhorbitant profits isn't factually correct), I just don't get the insistance by you lefties that we have to turn it over to government to do that.

Insurance companies don't own hospitals. They don't employ doctors or nurses. Common sense tells you have paying the CEO of Cigna 120 million dollars means lot's and lot's of insurance policies are skimmed. Common sense says "adding a layer of cost will increase the overall cost". How can right wingers not understand this? It's so obvious. I mean, come on. Does this really have to be explained? Really?

It's not hard to understand at all. Which is why people like YOU ought to be able to see that it would eliminate an awful lot of layers of cost if people had the ability to pay for services directly.

 

[rdean]

Good ideas (though that notion that insurance companies make exhorbitant profits isn't factually correct), I just don't get the insistance by you lefties that we have to turn it over to government to do that.

Insurance companies don't own hospitals. They don't employ doctors or nurses. Common sense tells you have paying the CEO of Cigna 120 million dollars means lot's and lot's of insurance policies are skimmed. Common sense says "adding a layer of cost will increase the overall cost". How can right wingers not understand this? It's so obvious. I mean, come on. Does this really have to be explained? Really?

It's not hard to understand at all. Which is why people like YOU ought to be able to see that it would eliminate an awful lot of layers of cost if people had the ability to pay for services directly.

A single payer system would be less expensive than using the emergency room as "primary care". Which is what millions of Americans are doing right now. First, the middle class is getting fleeced by insurance companies. Then they are taxed to keep open "emergency rooms". I for one, think "emergency rooms" are a good idea. No one on the left wants to see anyone suffer.

 

[Harry Dresden]

No one on the left wants to see anyone suffer.

are you sure about that Dean?.....no one?.....not one fucking lefty?,...but yet i bet that you will say EVERYONE on the Right does....right Dean-o.....

 

[Immanuel]

No one on the left wants to see anyone suffer.

are you sure about that Dean?.....no one?.....not one fucking lefty?,...but yet i bet that you will say EVERYONE on the Right does....right Dean-o.....

Unless, of course, the person who would suffer doesn't believe in gay marriage or is anti-abortion or worse yet, wants a smaller and limited government. Then that person can rot in hell for all they care.

Immie

 

[rdean]

No one on the left wants to see anyone suffer.

are you sure about that Dean?.....no one?.....not one fucking lefty?,...but yet i bet that you will say EVERYONE on the Right does....right Dean-o.....

Unless, of course, the person who would suffer doesn't believe in gay marriage or is anti-abortion or worse yet, wants a smaller and limited government. Then that person can rot in hell for all they care.

Immie

I'm curious. Why do right wingers claim they want "smaller government" when they want to intrude in so many other people's lives. Why don't they leave the gays and the women alone. Most right wingers I talk to don't even know any gays. Doesn't make sense to go after those you don't know and don't care about just so you can make their lives miserable.

 

[Bern80]

Insurance companies don't own hospitals. They don't employ doctors or nurses. Common sense tells you have paying the CEO of Cigna 120 million dollars means lot's and lot's of insurance policies are skimmed. Common sense says "adding a layer of cost will increase the overall cost". How can right wingers not understand this? It's so obvious. I mean, come on. Does this really have to be explained? Really?

It's not hard to understand at all. Which is why people like YOU ought to be able to see that it would eliminate an awful lot of layers of cost if people had the ability to pay for services directly.

A single payer system would be less expensive than using the emergency room as "primary care". Which is what millions of Americans are doing right now. First, the middle class is getting fleeced by insurance companies. Then they are taxed to keep open "emergency rooms". I for one, think "emergency rooms" are a good idea. No one on the left wants to see anyone suffer.

If you're worried about the middle class getting fleeced by insurance companies than the middle class should stop using insurance companies for everything under the sun. If you want people to stop using emergency rooms as primary care you work on reducing the costs of the resource and increasing it's supply. Single payer is not going to address any of that. It's an easy way out solution for people that just want things to cost less to the consumer, but it's kind of like spraying novicaine on a gushing wound as if the fact that it doesn't hurt anymore makes things all better.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"...contracting with private insurers via a competitive bidding process ..." This is exactly the sort of obfuscation that I've seen from your side before, from you specifically.

Mmhmm. I'm referring to current U.S. law.

You understand what the selection, and sponsorship entail....total control. Yet you pretend it is other wise....

Total control of what? I'm curious what you think the FEHBP is. Do you think think it's public insurance? Do you think the interaction of the insurers offering plans in the FEHBP with providers resembles the interaction those providers would have with a public insurer?

If you don't like the concept of contracting with health plans, you're really not going to like states that choose an active purchaser model for their exchange.

I love it when you pretend you don't understant that Obamacare is the complete and utter command and control of health insurance...

"...Total control of what?..."
'Cause then I get to explain things like the degree of control by the feds...

Obamacare was intended to have one national exchange to regulate all health insurance, and to distribute subsidies. Forced to back down on that idea, he got fifty instead! Under Title I, state officials are instructed that they “shall” establish an “American Health Benefit Exchange, “ (AHB) in each state. The secretary of HHS will make grants to each state to set them up, determining the amount of money, whether or not to renew depending on whether the state is “making progress” in meeting the new federal insurance requirements, and other “benchmarks” that the secretary may see fit to establish. And the secretary has the power to decide if the state exchanges are “qualified,” as of January 1, 2013.

a. These exchanges will be the central vehicle for the federal government to control and regulate the health insurance market. Washington will dictate exactly how they work, and step in and set them up if not satisfactory. PPACA, Public Law 111-148, section 1321(c) (1)

 

[Greenbeard]

So we've progressed from you explaining that the FEHBP and, in fact, any insurance plan contracted by OPM is a public option because it's under "total control" of the feds to you now claiming that every plan in an exchange is under "total control" of the feds.

Does that mean every insurance plan in an exchange is a "public option" in your conception of the term? For that matter, is every plan currently regulated under HIPAA a public option?

I'm asking because it's very difficult to follow your train of thought; you have a very ADHD style. In the middle of discussing one thing you abruptly jump to another. And then on to another again.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So we've progressed from you explaining that the FEHBP and, in fact, any insurance plan contracted by OPM is a public option because it's under "total control" of the feds to you now claiming that every plan in an exchange is under "total control" of the feds.

Does that mean every insurance plan in an exchange is a "public option" in your conception of the term? For that matter, is every plan currently regulated under HIPAA a public option?

I'm asking because it's very difficult to follow your train of thought; you have a very ADHD style. In the middle of discussing one thing you abruptly jump to another. And then on to another again.

Based on the frequent pretense on your part that PPACA is anything less than a total government take-over of heathcare insurance, it seems evident that you are either an apparatchik of the left wing of this government, a devotee of totalitarian thinking, or one who has a financial stake in said take-over.

Is this the case?
Hoping for an honest response.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So we've progressed from you explaining that the FEHBP and, in fact, any insurance plan contracted by OPM is a public option because it's under "total control" of the feds to you now claiming that every plan in an exchange is under "total control" of the feds.

Does that mean every insurance plan in an exchange is a "public option" in your conception of the term? For that matter, is every plan currently regulated under HIPAA a public option?

I'm asking because it's very difficult to follow your train of thought; you have a very ADHD style. In the middle of discussing one thing you abruptly jump to another. And then on to another again.

Based on the frequent pretense on your part that PPACA is anything less than a total government take-over of heathcare insurance, it seems evident that you are either an apparatchik of the left wing of this government, a devotee of totalitarian thinking, or one who has a financial stake in said take-over.

Is this the case?
Hoping for an honest response.

Excellent!
Your 'honest response' was a neg rep! You couldn't admit that I was correct in my analysis of your attempts to cloud the issue!

Rather than admit that you are "an apparatchik of the left wing of this government, a devotee of totalitarian thinking, or one who has a financial stake in said take-over." you did what any churl would do!


By sending me a neg rep you have validated exactly what I wrote: you are no more than a mouthpiece for the statist Obamacare!

 

[JohnA]

You know it doesn't work like that

You throw your money into a pool, I throw my money into a pool and whoever needs it gets to draw on it. I would have no problem with that money being used to save your life.

Frankly, I would rather be the healthy one who does not need the help

these ideas seem fine in theory practice is a differant matter
problem there is the pool isnt big enough and so many draw on it it soon becomes empty
we only have so much . you throw some into the education pool, some more into the security of the country pool , more into the social welfare pool .
to throw more into the *health care pool* which one of the pools do you throw in less ??? .

What are your alternatives?

Some live....some die....Tough

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.....basic human rights

glad you agree with me

my basic human right to run my life

without interferance


my right to liberty
liberty to choose what i buy and what i choose not to


my right to happiness
if happiness means keeping as much of my hard erned cash as i can .


glad you agree
the problem as i see it you are adament in preserving and promoting everybody else life with out regard to my RIGHTS

 

[LilOlLady]

Depend on what you mean by national healthcare? Most American are already covered by national healthcare. Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans healthcare, SCHIP. County health clinics.
How would you suggest we cover the 40 million that have no healthcare at all? And don't qualify for free County care?

 

[confussed]

Anything is better than what you have now.

 

[Bern80]

Anything is better than what you have now.

If anything was better than we have now, people here would be flocking to other countries to be treated instead of the other way around. Your statement is simply false. Our health care system works fine for the vast majority of this country in terms of accessibility.

 

[CandySlice]

Who is happy about Obamacare besides the makers of X-BOX and weed? Lets see. You stay on your parents healthcare until you are 26, get Obamacare to buy your medical marijuana, kick in a few food stamps for munchies and before you know it this whole country is Bill and Teds Excellent Adventure 3
D.Miller