APP - Republicans cant have it both ways! Or can they?

Jarod

Well-known member
Contributor
On the public option I am hearing inconsistant arguments...

1) They say the government is inefficent and terrable at running things and having a government run health system will result in terrable medicine where people cant get the treatment they need and it will be so inefficent that it will waste way too much money!

2) They say we cant have a "public option" because private companies cant compete with the government program and will be run out of business because they have a government player in the arena...


How is an inefficent system that provides substandard health care going to run the "better" private insurance companies out of business?
 
Dude, it's not a matter of having it "both ways" and I think you know this. The issue is when government can set the rules its not honest and fair competition between a government insurance option and private insurance.
 
Dude, it's not a matter of having it "both ways" and I think you know this. The issue is when government can set the rules its not honest and fair competition between a government insurance option and private insurance.

But if Republicans are correct on point one, who would ever go to a public option for health care?
 
On the public option I am hearing inconsistant arguments...

1) They say the government is inefficent and terrable at running things and having a government run health system will result in terrable medicine where people cant get the treatment they need and it will be so inefficent that it will waste way too much money!

2) They say we cant have a "public option" because private companies cant compete with the government program and will be run out of business because they have a government player in the arena...


How is an inefficent system that provides substandard health care going to run the "better" private insurance companies out of business?

OK idiot, we'll try to make it simple for you.

Company A must charge X to be able to pay its employees and provide the service.

The government can do it cheaper be cause the government doesn't need to make a profit since it gets it's money for doing nothing

If you don't understand the difference--and it would not suprise me if you didn't-- then you are clueless and will never understand.
 
But if Republicans are correct on point one, who would ever go to a public option for health care?

Like I said, when Government can set the rules it can set them so cost wise private insurance is not a viable economic option for most individuals and companies.
 
OK idiot, we'll try to make it simple for you.

Company A must charge X to be able to pay its employees and provide the service.

The government can do it cheaper be cause the government doesn't need to make a profit since it gets it's money for doing nothing

If you don't understand the difference--and it would not suprise me if you didn't-- then you are clueless and will never understand.

I understand what you are saying, but if they cant provide good healthcare, who cares what it costs.
 
Its a perfictly legit point. You know you are beat so you just stop engaging in the discussion and say something like "delete"!

Excuse me, I am not beat and your point is not legitimate. Respond to my last post. I wrote delete because I posted something and then realize I had missread your post so I deleted what I wrote.
 
Its not a matter of whether the private insurance companies can't compete. Its that, as somone said, the gov't entities do not have to make a profit (or even break even) because they have access to huge amounts of money taken from the population as taxes.


*Deleted*
 
Last edited:
Its not a matter of whether the private insurance companies can't compete. Its that, as somone said, the gov't entities do not have to make a profit (or even break even) because they have access to huge amounts of money taken from the population as taxes.


If you compare what private hospitals provide versus what a VA hospital provides, you can see the difference. The VA doesn't cost the patient much (if anything), but the quality of care sucks too.


But Jarod's point still stands.

We've been told by rightwingers that government insurance is a socialist nightmare, that will result in long lines, rationing, massive waiting lists, and atrocious healthcare.

If that's true, few people are going to choose the public option, no matter how much it costs, or how much the government "tweaks" the rules.


Not wanting government health insurance, is clearly about something else. There's some other agenda at play here.
 
Its not a matter of whether the private insurance companies can't compete. Its that, as somone said, the gov't entities do not have to make a profit (or even break even) because they have access to huge amounts of money taken from the population as taxes.


If you compare what private hospitals provide versus what a VA hospital provides, you can see the difference. The VA doesn't cost the patient much (if anything), but the quality of care sucks too.



What's with the VA bashing? The VA consistently outranks the private sector in patient satisfaction.
 
What's with the VA bashing? The VA consistently outranks the private sector in patient satisfaction.

I would be interested in seeing that linked. I have never known a vet who thought he was well taken care of, or satisfied with the care at a VA hospital.
 
I would be interested in seeing that linked. I have never known a vet who thought he was well taken care of, or satisfied with the care at a VA hospital.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 20, 2006 – Veterans continued to rate the care they receive through the Department of Veterans Affairs health care system higher than other Americans rate private-sector health care for the sixth consecutive year, a new annual report on customer satisfaction reveals.

For VA Secretary R. James Nicholson, the news is affirmation of what he called "the greatest story never told," that the VA offers top-quality care for its patients.

VA medical services received high marks during the annual American Customer Satisfaction Index, which has ranked customer satisfaction with various federal programs and private-sector industries and major companies since 1994.

Veterans who recently used VA services and were interviewed for the 2005 ACSI survey gave the VA's inpatient care a rating of 83 on a 100-point scale -- compared to a 73 rating for the private-sector health care industry. Veterans gave the VA a rating of 80 for outpatient care, five percentage points higher than the 75 rating for private-sector outpatient care and 9 percent higher than the average satisfaction rating for all federal services.

"Although VA has received many wonderful endorsements recently, the support of our veterans -- the people who know us best -- is the highest praise," Nicholson said.

The latest survey marks the sixth consecutive year that VA's health care system has outranked the private sector for customer satisfaction, Nicholson noted today during a joint interview with the Pentagon Channel and American Forces Press Service.

He called this year's results, like those over the past six years, a testament to the hard work of VA employees and generous funding from Congress and the president, who have increased the VA's budget by 57 percent over the past five years.

The results also reaffirm what Nicholson said the VA's 7.5 million enrollees have recognized all along: The VA continues to get better all the time. "It's been good for a long time, but now it's great," he said.

Over its 75-year history, the VA has created "the largest integrated health care system in the world and arguably the best," Nicholson said. Some 237,000 VA professionals provide health care to more than 7.5 million enrollees through 154 hospitals, 860 clinics and 200 veterans centers. These health care facilities are "on the leading edge of technology and safety" as they provide a model for the medical profession, Nicholson said.

A computerized medical record system -- one Nicholson said he hopes will serve as a model for the Defense Department and other organizations -- helps eliminate hospital mix-ups and ensures more thorough patient care, he said.

In addition, VA remains a leader in medical research, developing the pacemaker, helping pioneer the CT scan, and performing the first liver transplant, among other advances, he said. The VA has been involved in studies involving Parkinson's disease and a recent breakthrough in an immunization for shingles.

Meanwhile, the VA continues to strive to better serve its patients, Nicholson said. The department's staff is working to reduce waiting time for appointments and to ensure veterans of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan receive top priority for care, he said. "We have ramped up for them," he said, noting that the VA has already provided medical services to about 135,000 new veterans. "We are there for them and ready for them."

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=14560
 
I would be interested in seeing that linked. I have never known a vet who thought he was well taken care of, or satisfied with the care at a VA hospital.

what did they do? find the 5 vets that actually liked the VA? every vet that I know right now that has to use the VA hates it for the inefficiency alone.
 
I understand what you are saying, but if they cant provide good healthcare, who cares what it costs.

One example, employeers. Ultimately employeers have to worry about their bottom line to stay competitive or to stay in existence. If the government 'tweeks' the market and thus makes it employeers choose the public option or just pay the penalty employees are stuck with it.
 
How is an inefficent system that provides substandard health care going to run the "better" private insurance companies out of business?

by restricting what the private companies may offer, and by operating on federal monies instead of funds generated from customers......it's quite elemental, actually.....
 
Back
Top