APP - what is wrong with the government option?

[ib1yysguy]

i'm not so sure....some of those who want to pass this bill are on record as saying the single payer is better and that this bill is the "step" to get there.....

It's a step in a sense that it's covering more people, and some of them (the poorest ones) are going to get it paid for by the government.

Like I said in the other post, it's also an experiment to see if the government can do this kind of care effectively. If they do the public option and we find out that WOAH people aren't actually getting denied life saving care, wait times for essential surgeries aren't huge, and it generally does a pretty darn decent job of providing health insurance then people will buy into the plans and it'll compete directly with HMOs.

We'll either find out that conservatives are right and the government can't do anything right, or we'll find out that the government does this administrative stuff pretty efficiently. At that point we'll decide as a nation whether the next logical step is to move to a full single payer system or to keep a hybrid or find something else.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Yeah, that's true. The mandate was HUGELY supported by industry types. It means money in the pocket for private insurers. It brings them 45 million more subscribers, minus whoever goes onto the government plan. Oh wait! There will be no government plan, so it winds up with 45 million more people being hand-delivered to private industry.

Mandating insurance then providing a way for people to pay for it through subsidies if they can't afford it and increasing competition by providing a not super comprehensive luxury plan but an adequate three tier plan that you pay with your own premium dollars with lower overhead, no huge executive pay, no stock holders to answer too, and no advertising budget seems like a no-fucking-brianer.

The biggest objection to this is that it hurts private industry profits. That's ALL. The private industry may have trouble keeping up with the costs, but if they can provide better value for their premiums then they do just fine. If they can't, then we all learn that the government is in fact way better suited to provide this kind of service from a moral standpoint as well as an economic one.

Challenge idiots like Tutu or Meme on anything they say about healthcare. They've got no clue why they oppose it. They still call it a "government takeover of healthcare" when all it happens to be is a government administered insurance option (insurance is not the same as health care providing, retards).

It makes me so sick to my stomach that the super loud retards of this country are going to win this battle over the public option with zero rationale and 100 percent empty rhetoric and misinformation.

Excellent points! Add to this that we're talking OPTION and NOT mandatory acceptance, and the neocon arguments dissolve into ignorant panic.

 

[ib1yysguy]

I'd like to add that the people who said this was a logical step toward single payer say so with the assumption that it'll be a huge success. That's an assumption no conservative would grant to them as a given, however.

If it is a huge success and it turns out government can insure people really effectively, the arguments against single payer begin to evaporate. The public option is an experiment to show if conservatives are right about government not being able to do anything and they'll wind up with death panels and killing retarded babies. If that's the case, this isn't a step toward single payer. It'll wind up setting back their single player plans in a huge way by proving government isn't fit to do it.

The reason you see it as a step toward single payer is because you realize that it's not going to be a huge failure and that means the argument for single payer gets strengthened. So ask yourself if the arguments against single payer wind up being bullshit, why the heck should you oppose it anyway? You've been conditioned to hate it. That's pretty much all.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

QUOTE=ib1yysguy;511627]It's a step in a sense that it's covering more people, and some of them (the poorest ones) are going to get it paid for by the government.

ok....but, not everyone will qualify for the public option.....they will have to pay....

Like I said in the other post, it's also an experiment to see if the government can do this kind of care effectively. If they do the public option and we find out that WOAH people aren't actually getting denied life saving care, wait times for essential surgeries aren't huge, and it generally does a pretty darn decent job of providing health insurance then people will buy into the plans and it'll compete directly with HMOs.

experiment.....pretty big experiment....

i don't have a problem with that, if the government truly "competes"....... you say the governnment is not a for profit entity....do you honestly believe that the governmnet will honestly compete? if yes....how so?

We'll either find out that conservatives are right and the government can't do anything right, or we'll find out that the government does this administrative stuff pretty efficiently. At that point we'll decide as a nation whether the next logical step is to move to a full single payer system or to keep a hybrid or find something else.

fair enough.....and you're right....until "then"....no one will know.....

 

[ib1yysguy]

ok....but, not everyone will qualify for the public option.....they will have to pay....

That's right. That's why it's absurd to call it socialism. It's paid for by freaking premiums.

experiment.....pretty big experiment....

And probably not a necessary one since Medicare accomplished the same results. Some people remain unconvinced, however, that government is capable of doing anything right.

i don't have a problem with that, if the government truly "competes"....... you say the governnment is not a for profit entity....do you honestly believe that the governmnet will honestly compete? if yes....how so?

I don't understand the question. Are you asking me if the government is going to rig the laws to make HMOs useless or something? And if I don't think so, then why don't I think so? I guess I don't think they're going to do that because the purpose of the public option isn't to destroy private industry insurance. If they wanted to do that, there are easier ways than creating a new bureaucracy - like heavy handed regulations and price restrictions. But that's not the purpose. The purpose is to counter the problem of monopoly within the system which has lead to out of control prices, inefficiency, etc.

Maybe you can rephrase the question so I can attempt to answer it without putting words in your mouth.


[/QUOTE]
fair enough.....and you're right....until "then"....no one will know.....[/QUOTE]

We do know, however. At least anyone paying attention should. Medicare and the VA system are both good examples of the government doing a perfectly good job of administrating health insurance or healthcare (respectively).

 

[tinfoil]

That's right. That's why it's absurd to call it socialism. It's paid for by freaking premiums.




And probably not a necessary one since Medicare accomplished the same results. Some people remain unconvinced, however, that government is capable of doing anything right.



I don't understand the question. Are you asking me if the government is going to rig the laws to make HMOs useless or something? And if I don't think so, then why don't I think so? I guess I don't think they're going to do that because the purpose of the public option isn't to destroy private industry insurance. If they wanted to do that, there are easier ways than creating a new bureaucracy - like heavy handed regulations and price restrictions. But that's not the purpose. The purpose is to counter the problem of monopoly within the system which has lead to out of control prices, inefficiency, etc.

Maybe you can rephrase the question so I can attempt to answer it without putting words in your mouth.

[/QUOTE]


LOL camera boy doesn't understand the question. Government run entities can perform loss inducing services indefinately. what part of that don't you get? LOL what a fucking idiot. Go snap a picture, dumbass. You don't have half the brain to understand what the fuck you're talking about

 

[ib1yysguy]

LOL camera boy doesn't understand the question. Government run entities can perform loss inducing services indefinately. what part of that don't you get? LOL what a fucking idiot. Go snap a picture, dumbass. You don't have half the brain to understand what the fuck you're talking about[/QUOTE]

'Cept the private option is funded mostly by premiums and not funded like the pentagon. Medicare can't run in the red indefinitely either. The Medicare premiums are in the form of a specific tax rather than being voluntary.

 

[Lao Tse]

just talked with a friend who works in the ins. ind. for a local private ins. firm that deals with EE benefits....they do not represent any ins. co....rather, they work for people in the community to get better rates, eg., the negotiators for you.....they get you ins rates, and due to volume, the ins cos. give them a cut.....and they work for cos. as low 2 people

i mentioned the government option and why is this better than simply expanding medicare.....that was the conversation, nothing more.

thoughts:

what about all those small businesses that perform such jobs? does that go away with the gov. option?

the gov. option is actually not a bad idea, as to simply expand medicare is a bureaucratic nightmare....much simpler to create the gov. option and bring the other gov. ins. in line.....

after my talk....i am seriously not seeing much reason to not get behind obama's plan. medicare sucks etc.....what if this gov. option actually worked?

See. You really are a fascist, in the end. I told you you were.

 

[Lao Tse]

'Cept the private option is funded mostly by premiums and not funded like the pentagon. Medicare can't run in the red indefinitely either. The Medicare premiums are in the form of a specific tax rather than being voluntary.

That is bullshit. The government will never allow it to go under. It will always get the Bailout cash, favorable legislation. It is inevitable.

Government is not a legitimate provider of competition. As it always has regulatory capture over itself. Get an IQ point. Just one. MMMM kay.

 

[Good Luck]

The government option, as it is being discussed, is not such a bad idea when the main idea is to find a means of providing medical coverage for those who both want it and cannot afford it.

The problem is government option is only a small part of the current bill under consideration. There are a lot of other factors in the bill, much of which is aimed at making a government option somewhat affordable for the government. First, mandating that everyone have coverage whether they desire coverage or not is a load of shit. People are supposed to be free in this country, not goose stepping in conformance. The bill is going to mandate that people accept coverage from their company - which is hardly ever 100% paid for by said company - buy one's own coverage, or (if "lucky" enough to be considered poor enough) be covered through the government option. The idea is that premiums from people who are currently without insurance voluntarily because they are in good health will help pay for the total program. How is this any different, functionally, from simply taxing the shit out those people? (Other than the fact that a big portion will go to insurance company pocketrs instead of straight to government coffers.) When government mandates people into a course of action they would otherwise not take, it is one more step toward a totalitarin state.

Second, the government WILL be interfering with the private insurance sector and individual right of choice. The proponents claim that a person will have the right to keep their current coverage - which is true, but only up to a point. If this bill passes, then anyone changing jobs after its passage will be forced to go through the government to "allow" them to change their insurance coverage to their new employer.

Also, shall we mention the insurance regulations being proposed? Force coverage of preexisting conditions, and premiums will go up. Force coverage of items currently excluded and premiums will go up. Reduce maximum out-of-pocket limits, and premiums will go up. Every proposed regulation advertised as a gain for the individual will increase premiums. And who is going to be paying those premiums? The middle class working American who is too wealthy to qualify for the government option - that's who. Again, when it comes to the difference it will make to the people, functionally no different than raising taxes through the roof to pay for the government option.

And my final objection is nothing in the plan comes within a country mile of addressing why health care costs have skyrocketed the past couple decades. If health care costs had risen at even twice the rate of inflation since 1980, health care would not even be a significant issue. Yet no one (other than the brain dead who think drug companies are somehow making more profit than any other company their size) has seriously considered any factors driving health care costs upward. Bring some of the factors driving costs out of control, and we'll START having some genuine health care reform. Unless we do so, we are just biting our own tails.

 

[ib1yysguy]

Does anyone on this board actually have the patience to read through one of GL's manifestos?

 

[tinfoil]

Does anyone on this board actually have the patience to read through one of GL's manifestos?

what a douchebag. Go snap a pretty picture, faggot

 

[Taichiliberal]

Does anyone on this board actually have the patience to read through one of GL's manifestos?

Only when one wants to reaffirm the consensus of how willfully ignorant neocon parrots and pundits are. Facts that contradict their blatherings and rants are ignored or denied as they just keep squawking their erroneous bilge six ways to Sunday.

But then again, there is the cheap laugh factor at reading GL's stuff.

 

[Good Luck]

I keep forgetting the average modern liberal, being a full fledged product of their political philosophy, find reading more than "See Spot run!" an incomprehensible chore.

Note not one actual point is refuted. Of course, they have to read the text of the bill to know what is in it, and therefore what I object to. And let's not mention that actually knowing the content of their pet legislation might interfere with their bullshit and outright lies.

What a bunch of twits. If these are an average example of dem party membership, it's no wonder the democrats have so much trouble doing anything (other than bitch and whine) even with a super majority. I swear, they whine more as a majority than they did as a minority. And they think they'll actually retain their status longer than 4 years with this kind of crap? LOL

Here's to looking forward to liberals crying from the minority seats in 4 short years, like the whiny maggots they are.

 

[Taichiliberal]

I keep forgetting the average modern liberal, being a full fledged product of their political philosophy, find reading more than "See Spot run!" an incomprehensible chore.

Note not one actual point is refuted. Of course, they have to read the text of the bill to know what is in it, and therefore what I object to. And let's not mention that actually knowing the content of their pet legislation might interfere with their bullshit and outright lies.

What a bunch of twits. If these are an average example of dem party membership, it's no wonder the democrats have so much trouble doing anything (other than bitch and whine) even with a super majority. I swear, they whine more as a majority than they did as a minority. And they think they'll actually retain their status longer than 4 years with this kind of crap? LOL

Here's to looking forward to liberals crying from the minority seats in 4 short years, like the whiny maggots they are.

Hey chuckles, I've wasted more time than I care to admit deconstructed many pass rants of yours piece by piece.....only to have you just repeat it while ignoring any fact that contradicts your BS.

After awhile, people get tired of trying to teach a parrot cognitive reasoning skills. You haven't change one iota, so people rather laugh than waste time banging their heads against your willfully ignorant neocon wall. So continue to tell yourself and everyone else what a righteous genius you are and how all your diatribes are truth from the mount on high. We know better.

 

[Good Luck]

Hey chuckles, I've wasted more time than I care to admit deconstructed many pass rants of yours piece by piece.....only to have you just repeat it while ignoring any fact that contradicts your BS.

After awhile, people get tired of trying to teach a parrot cognitive reasoning skills. You haven't change one iota, so people rather laugh than waste time banging their heads against your willfully ignorant neocon wall. So continue to tell yourself and everyone else what a righteous genius you are and how all your diatribes are truth from the mount on high. We know better.

The only thing you have ever done, twinkey, is repeat yourself ad nauseum while claiming "victory" using opinion sites for reference while claiming them to be facts. Every one here, even other liberals, know your methods.

Meanwhile, you still do not (cannot?) address the concerns I expressed, so you try to BS your way by claiming "victory" in previous threads. It would be funny if it were not so pathetic.

 

[Taichiliberal]

The only thing you have ever done, twinkey, (learn to spell, bunky....gives a little more weight to your attempted insults) is repeat yourself ad nauseum (this dimbulb NEVER used this phrase until I he read it on my responses, folks. Check the history. Pity he doesn't have the imagination to go beyond plagiarism) or while claiming "victory" using opinion sites reference while claiming them to be facts. a lie, as I've used the Wall St. Journal, the NY Times, Newsweek, etc. And if I use a advocate web site, I make sure THEY are using likewise sources for their material. Pity poor Bravo, reduced to lying for Every one here, even other liberals, know your methods. I always find it fascinating how neocon parrots make these sweeping assertions without a shred of proof. I mean, one expects similarly minded fools like STY, USF, Meme, Yurtle, the Loyal End, the PMFool and such to agree with ol Bravado here. but to try and speak for those he openly detests is just absurd.

Meanwhile, you still do not (cannot?) address the concerns I expressed, so you try to BS your way by claiming "victory" in previous threads. It would be funny if it were not so pathetic.

Like I said.....whenever I desconstruct your BS, you just ignore it and repeat your dreck as if nothing else exists. As you demonstrated above, you readily lie about others, so why should I expect an honest debate.

Let's just take one example of how intellectually impotent your false bravado is:

Second, the government WILL be interfering with the private insurance sector and individual right of choice. The proponents claim that a person will have the right to keep their current coverage - which is true, but only up to a point. If this bill passes, then anyone changing jobs after its passage will be forced to go through the government to "allow" them to change their insurance coverage to their new employer.

No where is there a proposal where the gov't decides if you can change health care insurance when you change jobs....because essentially that would be the gov't interfering in your personal job choice...which becomes violations of State and Federal law that I can't begin to list. What you are confusing is the MONITORING OF INSURANCE COMPANIES...you know, making sure they're not screwing over their customers. Companies are free to choose, you are free to change. As the President said, employers can CHOOSE, no one is forcing them in any way, shape or form. If you can find EXACTLY the proposal that supports what you say, then produce it. If not, go blow smoke somewhere else, and then try and learn something from the following:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/09/obama-health-care-speech_n_281265.html

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/seven-falsehoods-about-health-care/
http://mediamatters.org/research/200908200002