Why I Support a Public Option.

[jeffrockit]

Under funded. Needs young, healthy contributors. Alternative? Make private insurance keep the elderly and the disabled as well as the young and working.​

Why am I morally obligated to pay for anyone else's health care?

It's not a question of you paying for the health care of some poor, undeserving bastard, it is a question of being lucky enough to not become a poor, undeserving bastard with health care bills he couldn't possibly have planned for without sharing the risk.

I don't think any of us poor, undeserving bastards are unwilling to pay for the insurance we obtain via a public option.....​

Your statement about being lucky leads me to believe your position is that anyone not poor is just "lucky" and being poor is due to "unlucky" circumstances. Is it also your position that hard work and sacrifice have nothing to do with attaining wealth, only luck is involved? Is your position also that the result of any risk one takes, good or bad, should be shared by all?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Your statement about being lucky leads me to believe your position is that anyone not poor is just "lucky" and being poor is due to "unlucky" circumstances.

It is largely a function of the socio-economic status of your parents.

Is it also your position that hard work and sacrifice have nothing to do with attaining wealth, only luck is involved?

It requires both.

 

[jeffrockit]

Your statement about being lucky leads me to believe your position is that anyone not poor is just "lucky" and being poor is due to "unlucky" circumstances.

It is largely a function of the socio-economic status of your parents.

Studies show that statement to be wrong. Only 25% of wealthy people inherit it while 69% earn their wealth by hard work.
CARPE DIEM: Inheritance is NOT The Main Driver: Rich Aren't Getting Richer, They're Getting More Numerous

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Studies show that statement to be wrong. Only 25% of wealthy people inherit it while 69% earn their wealth by hard work.
CARPE DIEM: Inheritance is NOT The Main Driver: Rich Aren't Getting Richer, They're Getting More Numerous

Funny the study doesn't take into account the advantage of growing up in a wealthy neighborhood, attending private schools, and having your way through University paid for - only the direct inheritance of assets upon death.

That's exactly what I would do if I was trying to spin the facts.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Why am I morally obligated to pay for anyone else's health care?

It's not a question of you paying for the health care of some poor, undeserving bastard, it is a question of being lucky enough to not become a poor, undeserving bastard with health care bills he couldn't possibly have planned for without sharing the risk.

I don't think any of us poor, undeserving bastards are unwilling to pay for the insurance we obtain via a public option.....​

Your statement about being lucky leads me to believe your position is that anyone not poor is just "lucky" and being poor is due to "unlucky" circumstances. Is it also your position that hard work and sacrifice have nothing to do with attaining wealth, only luck is involved? Is your position also that the result of any risk one takes, good or bad, should be shared by all?

It is the use of parable, analogy and a little bit of sarcasm by a modestly clever wordsmith to make a political point. Don't try to dissect my words to discover a hidden meaning or shine a light on my warped personality, you'll find only frustration.

It is NOT my position that ALL risk be born by all, it is my position to point out exactly what the definition of 'insurance' is.

Now, the big national questions:

1. Do We, The People want to use the power of 'insurance' to spread the risk of financial ruin due to the risk of a 'health' issue?​

2. Assuming we decide that health 'insurance' payments are more palatable than every individual trying to squirrel away enough cash to cover a fight with cancer and letting them die in the streets if they don't and prove to be 'unlucky'; Who should manage the bureaucracy used to track our health and financial data and what should we pay them?​

 

[Immanuel]

Congratulations. You have defined the word 'option' in Public Option.

Except that in the proposals by the Democrats 'option' is a misnomer. It is not an option at all. An option implies I have a choice to make. Under the Democratic proposals I have no "option". That was the entire point I made earlier. Maybe you didn't read that?

Immie

I am not touting the piece of crap 'reform' currently stalled in congress, and am I through whining about it. I'm trying to push a component that the insurance lobby quickly assassinated thanks to our sold out 'representatives'.

Just burn the reform bill and let me buy Medicare at the current rate. If I'm the only one foolish enough to exercise my option to buy into Medicare, what harm could there be in trying it?

I have no problem with you being allowed to buy into Medicare, if that is what you want. On the other hand, I don't want my only "option" to be to join you.

I know you are not touting the P.O.S. You never gave any indication that you were.

Immie

 

[Political Junky]

We can't afford a public option. Cuz the gummit spent your great-grandchildren's money already. We're tapped out. Government, like individuals, should not spend irresponsibly.

If things continue as they are, our families will die from lack of care.

 

[Political Junky]

I do NOT want Government run health care for all. It won't work.

Are liberals missing a gene? What part of I don't want to pay for everyone else don't you get? What part of take PERSONAL responsibility for your self and your family don't you get?

The health care crap in Congress right now does not improve anything. If you want Health care to be sold across State lines? It is not in there. If you want preexisting conditions covered make single bill for that. If you want all non work people covered by one group rate make a single bill for that.

NONE of that requires Government to be involved at all. Just make a law.

Get tort reform in there. Get the shyster Lawyers out of our medical costs.

There is not a SINGLE program the Government runs that is cost effective and runs smoothly. They are all full of waste and abuse. It is the NATURE of the beast.

No Government entity EVER has an incentive to save a dime.In fact by their very nature they MUST spend every penny given them even if it is wasted doing it. Failing to do so means next year their budget goes DOWN.

Every Government agency has every incentive to create more work for itself so that it can get more money. No Government agency ever works to eliminate its self or save the tax payers a penny. By their very nature they must grow.

Do you feel that you know more than me because you are older and more experienced?

I spent 16 YEARS in Government handling accounts, I know exactly how it works.

So, you were the incompetent government worker?

 

[KissMy]

If you want to fix health care it would help if you knew what is causing the problems

Antitrust exemption for the insurance industry was established in the 1945 McCarran-Ferguson Act. The insurance industry has a special statutory exemption from the antitrust laws. Insurers should be subject to the same antitrust laws as everyone else.” Congress needs to pass S.1681 - Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2009 This Act repeals the insurance industry exemption for the most egregious forms of antitrust violations - price fixing, bid rigging, and market allocations. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMN2AXyBsp0&feature=related"]Repeal Antitrust Exemption[/ame]

Want to know why there are too few general practitioners & soaring medical cost?

They told me I was too smart to go into primary care "Everyone told me it was the wrong thing to do," recalls Dr. Jennifer Weyler, explaining her decision two years ago as a medical student to become a family doctor. "My teachers discouraged me; administrators discouraged me. They told me I was too smart to go into primary care or that the job wouldn't be enough of a challenge." And sure enough, Weyler, now a resident in family medicine at the University of Massachusetts, is frustrated - but not by her job, which she loves. "It frustrates me," she explains, "to have to continually explain to people what a primary care practitioner is."

It was only 50 years ago, after all, that no one had to be told what a family doctor was, mainly because that's about all there was. Eighty-seven percent of all doctors in the thirties were general practitioner - namely internists, pediatricians, and family doctors. Today that figure has dropped to 30 percent.

A New England Medical Center's Health Institute study in 1992 found that specialists order more tests, perform more procedures, and hospitalize patients more often than primary care doctors treating similar symptoms. Family practitioners are less likely to hospitalize patients than specialists treating patients who had similar levels of illness, according to a recent Journal of the American Medical Association report. A 1990 study estimated that a 50-50 mix of primary care doctors to specialists would produce a 39 percent reduction in total expenditures for physician services. "Primary care protects people from unwanted procedures," explains Fitzhugh Mullan, an assistant U.S. surgeon general "General practitioners look at risks and benefits, both in terms of care and costs."

The American Medical Association is a trade union that limits the number of people who can enter medical school. Control over admission to medical school and later licensure enables the profession to limit entry in two ways. The obvious one is simply by turning down many applicants. The less obvious, but probably far more important one, is by establishing standards for admission and licensure that make entry so difficult as to discourage young people from ever trying to get admission.

Like the AMA, SEIU is largely a medical trade union who wrote Obamacare H.R.3200. Obama is the SEIU union boss negotiating their pay contract with the US citizens. These unions will pay lower premiums & get more benefits than the average citizen under Obamacare. "SEIU's Agenda is My Agenda!!!" said Obama "Together we had fought to raise wages for home care workers in Illinois." SEIU Employees are getting a Big Raise with Obamacare. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ1NJaCtIkM"]Obama - SEIU's Agenda is My Agenda[/ame] [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5alq_p7RaA&feature=related"]Takeover & Deception[/ame]

Do you really want more rationing & higher medical cost? Adding a 2,000 page bureaucracy congress did not read forcing everyone into that system will make prices even higher & care worse for us that pay for it. Unlike the H.R.3200 health care bill passed by the house that does away with private health care & forces me to pay more for less, there is no public option, only mandated government healthcare! Start reading at page 16 of H.R.3200

10 (1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—
11 (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in
12 this paragraph, the individual health insurance
13 issuer offering such coverage does not enroll
14 any individual in such coverage if the first
15 effective date of coverage is on or after the first
16 day of Y1.

This will cause private insurance pools to shrink until that company goes out of business forcing everyone onto the option-less government plan. I would at least like the option to provide my own health care. A 10 page health care bill would be enough. [ame="httphttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcBaSP31Be8&feature=player_embedded"]Whats in H.R.3200[/ame] Republicans are NOT the party of NO!

 

[jeffrockit]

It's not a question of you paying for the health care of some poor, undeserving bastard, it is a question of being lucky enough to not become a poor, undeserving bastard with health care bills he couldn't possibly have planned for without sharing the risk.

I don't think any of us poor, undeserving bastards are unwilling to pay for the insurance we obtain via a public option.....​

Your statement about being lucky leads me to believe your position is that anyone not poor is just "lucky" and being poor is due to "unlucky" circumstances. Is it also your position that hard work and sacrifice have nothing to do with attaining wealth, only luck is involved? Is your position also that the result of any risk one takes, good or bad, should be shared by all?

It is the use of parable, analogy and a little bit of sarcasm by a modestly clever wordsmith to make a political point. Don't try to dissect my words to discover a hidden meaning or shine a light on my warped personality, you'll find only frustration.

It is NOT my position that ALL risk be born by all, it is my position to point out exactly what the definition of 'insurance' is.

Now, the big national questions:

1. Do We, The People want to use the power of 'insurance' to spread the risk of financial ruin due to the risk of a 'health' issue?​

2. Assuming we decide that health 'insurance' payments are more palatable than every individual trying to squirrel away enough cash to cover a fight with cancer and letting them die in the streets if they don't and prove to be 'unlucky'; Who should manage the bureaucracy used to track our health and financial data and what should we pay them?​

I only asked questions based on your statement. None were answered.

 

[jeffrockit]

Studies show that statement to be wrong. Only 25% of wealthy people inherit it while 69% earn their wealth by hard work.
CARPE DIEM: Inheritance is NOT The Main Driver: Rich Aren't Getting Richer, They're Getting More Numerous

Funny the study doesn't take into account the advantage of growing up in a wealthy neighborhood, attending private schools, and having your way through University paid for - only the direct inheritance of assets upon death.

That's exactly what I would do if I was trying to spin the facts.

Wealth envy is the liberal's bread and butter. Those evil rich folks are keeping us down.

 

[Modbert]

The GOP Compromise:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7cry-4pyy8&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - I'm against it (Horse Feathers)[/ame]

 

[elvis]

The GOP Compromise:

YouTube - I'm against it (Horse Feathers)

is the public option in this new thing obama is proposing?

 

[Modbert]

is the public option in this new thing obama is proposing?

I doubt it. Republicans want to bring back a "Contract for America" while not bringing up the fact that they are complaining about the Dems possibly doing what they did to get everything passed.

 

[elvis]

is the public option in this new thing obama is proposing?

I doubt it. Republicans want to bring back a "Contract for America" while not bringing up the fact that they are complaining about the Dems possibly doing what they did to get everything passed.

i haven't seen any trace of the public option in his new proposal. this is his last chance.

 

[Bern80]

Studies show that statement to be wrong. Only 25% of wealthy people inherit it while 69% earn their wealth by hard work.
CARPE DIEM: Inheritance is NOT The Main Driver: Rich Aren't Getting Richer, They're Getting More Numerous

Funny the study doesn't take into account the advantage of growing up in a wealthy neighborhood, attending private schools, and having your way through University paid for - only the direct inheritance of assets upon death.

That's exactly what I would do if I was trying to spin the facts.

Fine how about the fact that more than half of the millionaires in this country are first generation wealthy. Generally for parents to provide to their kids all of those things, they have to be fairly wealthy themselves.

 

[Modbert]

i haven't seen any trace of the public option in his new proposal. this is his last chance.

Like I said, he won't do it. He wants to get something passed at this point, Republicans can be proud they watered down another bill that will do absolutely nothing for the people likely.

 

[elvis]

i haven't seen any trace of the public option in his new proposal. this is his last chance.

Like I said, he won't do it. He wants to get something passed at this point, Republicans can be proud they watered down another bill that will do absolutely nothing for the people likely.

and the dems can be proud they had no balls the first time around.

 

[Modbert]

and the dems can be proud they had no balls the first time around.

Dems haven't had balls since JFK got shot. They likely buried their balls right beside him if history is any indicator.

 

[Maple]

I spent 16 YEARS in Government handling accounts, I know exactly how it works.

HERE'S a guy that spent almost 20 years inside the health insurance industry and tells us exactly how it works AGAINST American citizens.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wendell Potter on Profits Before Patients

Wendell Potter saw for-profit insurers hijack our health care system and put profits before patients. Now, he speaks with Bill Moyers about how those companies are standing in the way of health care reform.

Interview excerpt:

BILL MOYERS: Why is public insurance, a public option, so fiercely opposed by the industry?

WENDELL POTTER: The industry doesn't want to have any competitor. In fact, over the course of the last few years, has been shrinking the number of competitors through a lot of acquisitions and mergers. So first of all, they don't want any more competition period. They certainly don't want it from a government plan that might be operating more efficiently than they are, that they operate. The Medicare program that we have here is a government-run program that has administrative expenses that are like three percent or so.

BILL MOYERS: Compared to the industry's--

WENDELL POTTER: They spend about 20 cents of every premium dollar on overhead, which is administrative expense or profit. So they don't want to compete against a more efficient competitor.

BILL MOYERS: You told Congress that the industry has hijacked our health care system and turned it into a giant ATM for Wall Street. You said, "I saw how they confuse their customers and dump the sick, all so they can satisfy their Wall Street investors." How do they satisfy their Wall Street investors?

WENDELL POTTER: Well, there's a measure of profitability that investors look to, and it's called a medical loss ratio. And it's unique to the health insurance industry. And by medical loss ratio, I mean that it's a measure that tells investors or anyone else how much of a premium dollar is used by the insurance company to actually pay medical claims. And that has been shrinking, over the years, since the industry's been dominated by, or become dominated by for-profit insurance companies. Back in the early '90s, or back during the time that the Clinton plan was being debated, 95 cents out of every dollar was sent, you know, on average was used by the insurance companies to pay claims. Last year, it was down to just slightly above 80 percent.

So, investors want that to keep shrinking. And if they see that an insurance company has not done what they think meets their expectations with the medical loss ratio, they'll punish them. Investors will start leaving in droves.

I've seen a company stock price fall 20 percent in a single day, when it did not meet Wall Street's expectations with this medical loss ratio.

For example, if one company's medical loss ratio was 77.9 percent, for example, in one quarter, and the next quarter, it was 78.2 percent. It seems like a small movement. But investors will think that's ridiculous. And it's horrible.

BILL MOYERS: That they're spending more money for medical claims.

WENDELL POTTER: Yeah.

BILL MOYERS: And less money on profits?

WENDELL POTTER: Exactly. And they think that this company has not done a good job of managing medical expenses. It has not denied enough claims. It has not kicked enough people off the rolls. And that's what-- that is what happens, what these companies do, to make sure that they satisfy Wall Street's expectations with the medical loss ratio.

BILL MOYERS: And they do what to make sure that they keep diminishing the medical loss ratio?

WENDELL POTTER: Rescission is one thing. Denying claims is another. Being, you know, really careful as they review claims, particularly for things like liver transplants, to make sure, from their point of view, that it really is medically necessary and not experimental. That's one thing. And that was that issue in the Nataline Sarkisyan case.

But another way is to purge employer accounts, that-- if a small business has an employee, for example, who suddenly has have a lot of treatment, or is in an accident. And medical bills are piling up, and this employee is filing claims with the insurance company. That'll be noticed by the insurance company.

And when that business is up for renewal, and it typically is up, once a year, up for renewal, the underwriters will look at that. And they'll say, "We need to jack up the rates here, because the experience was," when I say experience, the claim experience, the number of claims filed was more than we anticipated. So we need to jack up the price. Jack up the premiums. Often they'll do this, knowing that the employer will have no alternative but to leave. And that happens all the time.

They'll resort to things like the rescissions that we saw earlier. Or dumping, actually dumping employer groups from the rolls. So the more of my premium that goes to my health claims, pays for my medical coverage, the less money the company makes.

BILL MOYERS: So, the more of my premium that goes to my health claims, pays for my medical coverage, the less money the company makes.

WENDELL POTTER: That's right. Exactly right.

BILL MOYERS: So they want to reverse that. They don't want my premium to go for my health care, right?

WENDELL POTTER: Exactly right. They--

BILL MOYERS: Where does it go?

WENDELL POTTER: Well, a big chunk of it goes into shareholders' pockets. It's returned to them as part of the investment to them. It goes into the exorbitant salaries that a lot of the executives make. It goes into paying sales, marketing, and underwriting expenses. So a lot of it goes to pay those kinds of administrative functions. Overhead.

BILL MOYERS: When a member of Congress asked the three executives who appeared before the committee-- if they would end the practice of canceling policies for sick enrollees, they refused. Why did they refuse?

WENDELL POTTER: Well, they were talking to Wall Street at that moment. They were saying that because-- I guess they might have to spend some additional dollars to be more vigilant, to make sure that they were not rescinding a policy inappropriately. It makes no sense. The only reason they would have said that is to cover themselves. And to send a signal to Wall Street that you know, we're going to continue business as usual here.

You know, I've been around a long time. And I have to say, I just don't get this. I just don't understand how the corporations can oppose a plan that gives the unhealthy people a chance to be covered. And they don't want to do it themselves.

Well, keep in mind, what they want to do is enhance their profits. Enhance shareholder value. That's number one. And the way that the business that they're in is health care, certainly. But their primary motivation is to reward their shareholders.

Most of the shareholders are large, institutional investors and hedge funds. Hedge fund managers are the ones who look at the stock. And investors for large organizations. It's not mom and pop investor.

Bill Moyers Journal . Wendell Potter on Profits Before Patients | PBS

First and foremost the GOVERNMENT does not have to show ANY profit on ANYTHING, they just suck you dry in higher taxes and higher deficits to pay for it. You will have healthcare, but you won't be able to afford a roof over your head, food on the table, or clothes on your back, but don't worry you will have healthcare.

Government is the CONSUMER of weatlh, not the CREATOR of wealth. They have NEVER created ONE dime in WEALTH.

Nor do they have to compete with anyone, because they will just raise yours and everyone else's taxes to pay for their shortcomings and lack of business expertise.