Why we need a public option!

[Bern80]

Why should government tell you how much health care you should buy, and how much you should accept to provide health care services?

Because it's the best way to provide healthcare for everyone.

It should be just like the fire department and the police.

The health care bill we are discussing is nothing at all like the fire department or the police. If it were similar then the state (more likely the county) governments would employ Doctors and Nurses to work in there facilities. If we needed medical attention, we would go to the hospital receive their services and go on our way without ever having to pay a dime out of pocket because they would have taxed us for it.

Immie

I think what Chris means is that it's just another service he thinks government should supply.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The French.

Exactly what are they "leading" us in?

Health care. The French are consistently ranked first in the world on health care. Of course, there is a down side.... it is very expensive for their taxpayers. On the other hand, it's probably a system that we could instigate in the US. Personally, having seen both systems, I would have respected Obama had he said that he wanted to put together a team to investigate how a similar system might work here rather than the complete cluster **** that he ended up doing.

Gee.....who to believe....some brainless-Bimbo....or, an (actual) insurance-industry insider....who "escaped"????




[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QwX_soZ1GI[/ame]

****

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi1acHg3mhw[/ame]​

 

[Wry Catcher]

You're really reaching now, why not 'grow up' and quite tossing mud on the wall and hope some sticks. Those who don't buy health insurance and get ill or injured get treated and the tax payer pays.
Those who are homeless still get police protection, and if their meager belongings are set on fire, firefighters will respond and give aid, and the tax payer pays.

So instead of making everyone buy health insurance to cover your precieved problem of taxpayers paying for other people (which there going to be anyway if government run it, DOH!), why don't we legislate that you are on the hook for your health care costs. Why would anyone assume they shouldn't have to pay for services rendered?

Not everyone who can't afford health insurance is a bum, though it seems the 'tea party mentality' likes to assume such is true. There are those who earn a living, though not a living wage, who go to two or more jobs, pay taxes, support their famiilies and have no benefits or 'disposable' income - for food, clothing, energy and shelter take it all. There is no extra, no dental care, no regular check-ups, no child care when both parents work. There is only the hope that their kids will have it better.
And now the TP and the Callous Conservatives wish to take hope away.
Yes, there are 'bums' and cheats but there are 'bums' and cheats in all income levels and in all the strata of our society; the difference being some bums are addicted to drugs/alcohol or suffer from mental disorders and some in suits and ties are addicted to avarice & take pleasure in great wealth without regard for others.

If I need to stop mud sligning then you need to get ******* real. You really believe that conservatives don't want people to receive the health care they need? Come on, attempt a little intellectual integrity please. This isn't about who should get health care or who shoudn't, it's about how it should be provided. History shows government doesn't do very much, bery well so I think a lot of us are perfectly justified in worrying about government sticking its nose in. In the grander scheme it is an erosion of freedom. Everytime you would rather have government provide something for you then you providing it yourself you are giving away your freedom. You are saying I would rather someone else makes the decisions for me. I guess some people don't mind that.

To break down the issue, you and I have a fundamental and irreconcilable vision of government. I believe government, per se, is a means for a people to come together for a common good. You see government as an impediment to a common good.

You and I define freedom in much different ways. To me freedom is not an abstraction (for example, I suspect you equate lassiez faire capitalism as essential to be free) and I see freedom on a continuum, with freedom on one extreme and security on the other.

Man has always come together to trade, share and protect each other; no man is an island -there have always been, and there will always be preditors.

Some preditors are too strong and powerful for one man to defeat alone. Be that preditor a monster of massive proportion or a virus. It's not about a surrender of freedom, it's about the collective strength being more powerful than the man alone, and the collective wisdom being much stronger than the single mind.

Government can be for good or evil, for there are preditors who smile and promise some freedom, and smile and promise others security, while they scheme for their own sole benefit. We must always beware of those who seek power and control for its own sake, and make promises to the many which benefit the few. That is how I see the new Right, of which the Republican Party is now controlled by.

And that is why I reject the tea party mentality and the movement so popular today. It is a collection of individuals who see simple solutions to compex problems and disregard the essential quality that is government. A means for people to come together for a common good.

 

[Bern80]

To break down the issue, you and I have a fundamental and irreconcilable vision of government. I believe government, per se, is a means for a people to come together for a common good. You see government as an impediment to a common good.

No. I believe you believe the purpose of government is to do things for poeple. I believe it's purpose is to protect basic freedoms and rights and not be an impediment to me achieving my goals.

You and I define freedom in much different ways. To me freedom is not an abstraction (for example, I suspect you equate lassiez faire capitalism as essential to be free) and I see freedom on a continuum, with freedom on one extreme and security on the other.

Actually we do view freedom the same way then and I see freedom and security on the same spectrum you do. If that is really the spectrum you see then are you not forced to admit that this health care bill that is suppossed to 'secure' your access to health care is not also removing yor freedom?

Freedom is the ability to choose, when choices are removed you are less free, the more government is involved in your life, the less free you are. Where you and I might differe in the definition of freedom is that you seem to think freedom means someone is suppossed to be provide something for you. I actually see freedom as a neutral concept that has good and bad implications. If you really are for freedom then you have to be willing to accept the good with the bad. Yes you can be free to pursue whatever you want within reason, but you must also allow people to fail as well.

Man has always come together to trade, share and protect each other; no man is an island -there have always been, and there will always be preditors.

Some preditors are too strong and powerful for one man to defeat alone. Be that preditor a monster of massive proportion or a virus. It's not about a surrender of freedom, it's about the collective strength being more powerful than the man alone, and the collective wisdom being much stronger than the single mind.

And by predator I imagine you mean the insurance companies. So I find it truly awful to see government colluding with the predator. What a sweet heart deal they got. A mandate that tells people they must do business with the predator.

Continuing with our metaphors the goal is to take away the predators fangs so to speak. Government is not the only means to that end. In fact government getting out of the way and making the insurance truly compete would likely dull their fangs considerably.

Government can be for good or evil, for there are preditors who smile and promise some freedom, and smile and promise others security, while they scheme for their own sole benefit. We must always beware of those who seek power and control for its own sake, and make promises to the many which benefit the few. That is how I see the new Right, of which the Republican Party is now controlled by.

Then you have a serious problem with who you percieve doing that and who actually is doing it. Look at the provisions of the health care bill pushed by the left. Insurance companies can't raise rates for pre-existing conditions, that helps a few to the detriment of the many who's premiums are now going up as a result. It mandates that peope MUST buy insurance. That benefits the few (the insurance companies) to the benefit of the many (the consumers) AND it is undeniably a loss of freedom. It attempts to cover the uninsured. That benefits the few to the detriment of the many again through premium increases.

And that is why I reject the tea party mentality and the movement so popular today. It is a collection of individuals who see simple solutions to compex problems and disregard the essential quality that is government. A means for people to come together for a common good.

The tea party is not promising anything to anyone. It is a group predominantly comprised of peope that are just plain tired of runaway government spending and an ever increasing encroachment of the federal government into people's lives. Give Boiling Mad: Inside Tea Party America a read. You will find it is a rather unbiased look at this group.

Complexity is just an excuse. Maybe you need to ask yourself whether these things you think are so complex really are. The simplicity of it is probably why I like economics so much. It's a common sense science with laws that have held true time and time again. Examples:

Scarcity of in demand items makes them more valuable, things like certain job skill sets (hint, hint people complaining about a lack of jobs, jobs are out there).

Subsidies inflate the cost of goods and services.

Lowering the price of something increases demand and makes the item more scarce. What do suppose is going to happen to the demand for medical services now that cost isn't a factor for millions of americans?

The problems are country is facing aren't nearly as complex as you think they are.

 

[Wry Catcher]

To break down the issue, you and I have a fundamental and irreconcilable vision of government. I believe government, per se, is a means for a people to come together for a common good. You see government as an impediment to a common good.

No. I believe you believe the purpose of government is to do things for poeple. I believe it's purpose is to protect basic freedoms and rights and not be an impediment to me achieving my goals.

You and I define freedom in much different ways. To me freedom is not an abstraction (for example, I suspect you equate lassiez faire capitalism as essential to be free) and I see freedom on a continuum, with freedom on one extreme and security on the other.

Actually we do view freedom the same way then and I see freedom and security on the same spectrum you do. If that is really the spectrum you see then are you not forced to admit that this health care bill that is suppossed to 'secure' your access to health care is not also removing yor freedom?

Freedom is the ability to choose, when choices are removed you are less free, the more government is involved in your life, the less free you are. Where you and I might differe in the definition of freedom is that you seem to think freedom means someone is suppossed to be provide something for you. I actually see freedom as a neutral concept that has good and bad implications. If you really are for freedom then you have to be willing to accept the good with the bad. Yes you can be free to pursue whatever you want within reason, but you must also allow people to fail as well.



And by predator I imagine you mean the insurance companies. So I find it truly awful to see government colluding with the predator. What a sweet heart deal they got. A mandate that tells people they must do business with the predator.

Continuing with our metaphors the goal is to take away the predators fangs so to speak. Government is not the only means to that end. In fact government getting out of the way and making the insurance truly compete would likely dull their fangs considerably.

Government can be for good or evil, for there are preditors who smile and promise some freedom, and smile and promise others security, while they scheme for their own sole benefit. We must always beware of those who seek power and control for its own sake, and make promises to the many which benefit the few. That is how I see the new Right, of which the Republican Party is now controlled by.

Then you have a serious problem with who you percieve doing that and who actually is doing it. Look at the provisions of the health care bill pushed by the left. Insurance companies can't raise rates for pre-existing conditions, that helps a few to the detriment of the many who's premiums are now going up as a result. It mandates that peope MUST buy insurance. That benefits the few (the insurance companies) to the benefit of the many (the consumers) AND it is undeniably a loss of freedom. It attempts to cover the uninsured. That benefits the few to the detriment of the many again through premium increases.

And that is why I reject the tea party mentality and the movement so popular today. It is a collection of individuals who see simple solutions to compex problems and disregard the essential quality that is government. A means for people to come together for a common good.

The tea party is not promising anything to anyone. It is a group predominantly comprised of peope that are just plain tired of runaway government spending and an ever increasing encroachment of the federal government into people's lives. Give Boiling Mad: Inside Tea Party America a read. You will find it is a rather unbiased look at this group.

"The Government" is the people. It is not the current crop of elected officials but for the moment. If, as you and Oddude believe, this movement towards limited government is a sea change, I will be shocked. For practical matters matter as was learned by our founding fathers under the Articles of Confederation and human nature has not changed.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Here's an interview of the author of "Boiling Mad" for those interested.

Kate Zernike on "Boiling Mad: Inside Tea Party America" - CSMonitor.com

(oops, this is for page #2, I'll post page one to be safe)

Kate Zernike on "Boiling Mad: Inside Tea Party America" - CSMonitor.com

Obviously, I've not read the book. But, I've read a good deal of books on our nation's history. Now I'm reading a biography on Teedie (as his family called him), our 26th President ["T.R. The Last Romantic"]. This and other biographies give a good snapshot of the our nations economic history and the labor strive which ebbs and floods in our rather short history.

Anger is not new, nor is it an uncommon reason for people to vote. But, as Mark Twain noted and I posted on another thread:

""Look at the candidates whom we loathe, one year, and are afraid to vote against, the next; whom we cover with unimaginable filth, one year, and fall down on the public platform and worship, the next - and keep on doing it until the habitual shutting of the eyes to last years evidences brings us presently to a sincere and stupid belief in this year's".

 

[Revere]

An isolvent government can't promise anyone "security."

 

[Bern80]

To break down the issue, you and I have a fundamental and irreconcilable vision of government. I believe government, per se, is a means for a people to come together for a common good. You see government as an impediment to a common good.

No. I believe you believe the purpose of government is to do things for poeple. I believe it's purpose is to protect basic freedoms and rights and not be an impediment to me achieving my goals.



Actually we do view freedom the same way then and I see freedom and security on the same spectrum you do. If that is really the spectrum you see then are you not forced to admit that this health care bill that is suppossed to 'secure' your access to health care is not also removing yor freedom?

Freedom is the ability to choose, when choices are removed you are less free, the more government is involved in your life, the less free you are. Where you and I might differe in the definition of freedom is that you seem to think freedom means someone is suppossed to be provide something for you. I actually see freedom as a neutral concept that has good and bad implications. If you really are for freedom then you have to be willing to accept the good with the bad. Yes you can be free to pursue whatever you want within reason, but you must also allow people to fail as well.



And by predator I imagine you mean the insurance companies. So I find it truly awful to see government colluding with the predator. What a sweet heart deal they got. A mandate that tells people they must do business with the predator.

Continuing with our metaphors the goal is to take away the predators fangs so to speak. Government is not the only means to that end. In fact government getting out of the way and making the insurance truly compete would likely dull their fangs considerably.



Then you have a serious problem with who you percieve doing that and who actually is doing it. Look at the provisions of the health care bill pushed by the left. Insurance companies can't raise rates for pre-existing conditions, that helps a few to the detriment of the many who's premiums are now going up as a result. It mandates that peope MUST buy insurance. That benefits the few (the insurance companies) to the benefit of the many (the consumers) AND it is undeniably a loss of freedom. It attempts to cover the uninsured. That benefits the few to the detriment of the many again through premium increases.

And that is why I reject the tea party mentality and the movement so popular today. It is a collection of individuals who see simple solutions to compex problems and disregard the essential quality that is government. A means for people to come together for a common good.

The tea party is not promising anything to anyone. It is a group predominantly comprised of peope that are just plain tired of runaway government spending and an ever increasing encroachment of the federal government into people's lives. Give Boiling Mad: Inside Tea Party America a read. You will find it is a rather unbiased look at this group.

"The Government" is the people. It is not the current crop of elected officials but for the moment. If, as you and Oddude believe, this movement towards limited government is a sea change, I will be shocked. For practical matters matter as was learned by our founding fathers under the Articles of Confederation and human nature has not changed.

Dude how are we suppossed to fix the problem if you won't even have the conversation?

In response to the little you did write; Partially. It isn't only the people. This is not a direct democracy and the vote was not meant to be the only way to prevent tyranny.

 

[Wry Catcher]

No. I believe you believe the purpose of government is to do things for poeple. I believe it's purpose is to protect basic freedoms and rights and not be an impediment to me achieving my goals.



Actually we do view freedom the same way then and I see freedom and security on the same spectrum you do. If that is really the spectrum you see then are you not forced to admit that this health care bill that is suppossed to 'secure' your access to health care is not also removing yor freedom?

Freedom is the ability to choose, when choices are removed you are less free, the more government is involved in your life, the less free you are. Where you and I might differe in the definition of freedom is that you seem to think freedom means someone is suppossed to be provide something for you. I actually see freedom as a neutral concept that has good and bad implications. If you really are for freedom then you have to be willing to accept the good with the bad. Yes you can be free to pursue whatever you want within reason, but you must also allow people to fail as well.



And by predator I imagine you mean the insurance companies. So I find it truly awful to see government colluding with the predator. What a sweet heart deal they got. A mandate that tells people they must do business with the predator.

Continuing with our metaphors the goal is to take away the predators fangs so to speak. Government is not the only means to that end. In fact government getting out of the way and making the insurance truly compete would likely dull their fangs considerably.



Then you have a serious problem with who you percieve doing that and who actually is doing it. Look at the provisions of the health care bill pushed by the left. Insurance companies can't raise rates for pre-existing conditions, that helps a few to the detriment of the many who's premiums are now going up as a result. It mandates that peope MUST buy insurance. That benefits the few (the insurance companies) to the benefit of the many (the consumers) AND it is undeniably a loss of freedom. It attempts to cover the uninsured. That benefits the few to the detriment of the many again through premium increases.




The tea party is not promising anything to anyone. It is a group predominantly comprised of peope that are just plain tired of runaway government spending and an ever increasing encroachment of the federal government into people's lives. Give Boiling Mad: Inside Tea Party America a read. You will find it is a rather unbiased look at this group.

"The Government" is the people. It is not the current crop of elected officials but for the moment. If, as you and Oddude believe, this movement towards limited government is a sea change, I will be shocked. For practical matters matter as was learned by our founding fathers under the Articles of Confederation and human nature has not changed.

Dude how are we suppossed to fix the problem if you won't even have the conversation?

In response to the little you did write; Partially. It isn't only the people. This is not a direct democracy and the vote was not meant to be the only way to prevent tyranny.

I notice you ignored the quote from Mark Twain. Is that because you didn't understand it, or simply chose to respond to a small part of the point being made?
Gee, you mean we don't have direct democracy in our country, now why didn't anyone ever point that out to me before (sarcasm).

Let's have a conversation, start with the plan (a budget is simply a plan) and explain in some detail how the new right, or tea party movement, or the reformed Republican Party will govern.

 

[Revere]

Cleanse eveything Obama has done, for starters.

 

[The Rabbi]

Private medicine is currently unable to supply facilities to meet the demands of society. Government has shown it can meet supply for a demand through several American diseases in the past, many I listed earlier.

How exactly is government going to magically supply more doctors?

In the short run?

They cannot.

In the long run?

By funding educational opportunities in the health care field.

The average Doctor or Nurse comes out of school so deeply in debt they have NO CHOICE but to demand salaries that are wildly out of line with what their patients are making.

Medical Student Debt

In a recent study by the Association of American Medical Colleges (3) the cost of private medical schools has risen 165% and the cost of public medical schools has gone up 312% over the last 20 years. A similar study by the AMA (4) found that medical school costs have increased substantially more than the Consumer Price Index (inflation). The average medical student graduates with nearly $100,000 in student loan debt (Medical School Loans).

source

Dumb.
No one is going to spend 8 years of his life in education preparing for a mediocre-paying, high-stress job, no matter who pays the tuition. People go in to medicine because there is an opportunity to earn a very good income. So they will sacrifice short term gratification for a career's worth of gain.
Of course under Obamacare all that goes away. Eventually the gov't will have to ration medical care because there simply won't be enough doctors, especially in rural areas.

 

[Christopher]

Nearly 59 million lack health insurance: CDC - Yahoo! News

Call it what you will, a public option providing free preventative health care is cost-effective, providing long term benefits to individuals and the nation as a whole.
The effort by some, in particular those who hope to develop publc policy along ideological guidelines, will put even those with excellent private insurance at risk should a pandemic or worse come to America.

You are right, "free" preventative health care is cost-effective, for the person getting it for "free". Unfortunately, the reality is that it is not free. The other issue is that in order to have preventative care, you have to have a population that is willing to receive the "care". Individuals changing their unhealthy lifestyles to be healthier is what is needed. This is best tackled through education, instead of force. Did you hear that San Francisco is banning the Happy Meal?

 

[Bern80]

I notice you ignored the quote from Mark Twain. Is that because you didn't understand it, or simply chose to respond to a small part of the point being made?
Gee, you mean we don't have direct democracy in our country, now why didn't anyone ever point that out to me before (sarcasm).

I don't think you want to go there considering you ignored the entirety of my post.

Let's have a conversation, start with the plan (a budget is simply a plan) and explain in some detail how the new right, or tea party movement, or the reformed Republican Party will govern.

Governance and budgets are different things. Pick one.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Cleanse eveything Obama has done, for starters.

Revere, with all sincerity, you're an idiot.

 

[Trajan]

Wellcare saw its profits raise 168 % in two years.


Amerigroup 100 %



Humana 58%

what is the % of profit? 3% 7%, 10% margins? Profit numbers i.e. billions etc. means squat, stop fixating on numbers of dollars themselves....

 

[Wry Catcher]

Nearly 59 million lack health insurance: CDC - Yahoo! News

Call it what you will, a public option providing free preventative health care is cost-effective, providing long term benefits to individuals and the nation as a whole.
The effort by some, in particular those who hope to develop publc policy along ideological guidelines, will put even those with excellent private insurance at risk should a pandemic or worse come to America.

You are right, "free" preventative health care is cost-effective, for the person getting it for "free". Unfortunately, the reality is that it is not free. The other issue is that in order to have preventative care, you have to have a population that is willing to receive the "care". Individuals changing their unhealthy lifestyles to be healthier is what is needed. This is best tackled through education, instead of force. Did you hear that San Francisco is banning the Happy Meal?

Everyone will get FREE preventative healthcare. Everyone. If you are unwilling to go to a FREE clinic for PREVENTATIVE healthcare, don't go. However, if you later show up with a disease which puts others at risk (AIDS, for example) expect to be quarantined. Damn, that takes away freedom, huh! Tough shit.
FREE PREVENTATIVE healthcare includes EDUCATION, as I have suggested over and over.

Those with private insurance are at risk of a pandemic, especially if those without private insurance are not treated and mingle with everyone else.

The Happy Meal is a canard. No parent educated in nutriation provides their kid with fast food on a regualar basis.

 

[Trajan]

uh huh. 2 things; as he states it not free and costs a lot and it may not have the big multiplier or I should say subtraction effect , as in bending the disease cost curve down as the outlays up front to check many many people and that only a few of those will get the ailments tested for makes this problematic. They know it too. AND, there is NO such thing as "free"....




Congressional Budget Expert Says Preventive Care Will Raise -- Not Cut -- Costs

In yet more disappointing news for Democrats pushing for health care reform, Douglas W. Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office, offered a skeptical view Friday of the cost savings that could result from preventive care -- an area that President Obama and congressional Democrats repeatedly had emphasized as a way health care reform would be less expensive in the long term.

Obviously successful preventive care can make Americans healthier and save lives. But, Elmendorf wrote, it may not save money as Democrats had been arguing.

"Although different types of preventive care have different effects on spending, the evidence suggests that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall," Elmendorf wrote. "That result may seem counterintuitive.

"For example, many observers point to cases in which a simple medical test, if given early enough, can reveal a condition that is treatable at a fraction of the cost of treating that same illness after it has progressed. In such cases, an ounce of prevention improves health and reduces spending — for that individual," Elmendorf wrote. "But when analyzing the effects of preventive care on total spending for health care, it is important to recognize that doctors do not know beforehand which patients are going to develop costly illnesses. To avert one case of acute illness, it is usually necessary to provide preventive care to many patients, most of whom would not have suffered that illness anyway. ... Researchers who have examined the effects of preventive care generally find that the added costs of widespread use of preventive services tend to exceed the savings from averted illness."

Elmendorf offered this assessment in a letter (you can read it HERE) to Rep. Nathan Deal, R-Ga. Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr., D-N.J., Henry A. Waxman, D-Calif., and Joe Barton, R-Texas, were cc'ed.

Congressional Budget Expert Says Preventive Care Will Raise -- Not Cut -- Costs - Political Punch

 

[Revere]

What is the "essential quality" of a government whose existing entitlement obligations are insolvent, when that government wants to promise you more entitlement obligations?

 

[Trajan]

What is the "essential quality" of a government whose existing entitlement obligations are insolvent, when that government wants to promise you more entitlement obligations?

essential quality? empty promises. and a denial of reality. we are expected to believe that obama and the dems are earnest in their self avowed task of getting a handle on spending, yet they enact a huge new entitlement, AND they are going to cut present entitlements and costs? its doesn't add up, period.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Define cost. What is the cost if your loved one, your spouse, child or grandchild is infected with a disease through no fault of her/his own and dies?
Is the greed of callous conservatives so great that they don't give a shit even for their own?