Reply With Quote
Hence, my use of the word linchpin.
The public option is not would have caused a single payer system. Yes it would allow it, but a public option alone would not cause such a system.
The key was how much power they are trying to give the government for controlling private insurance companies. The government would have the power to decree rates, ins ute mandatory loss ratios, and decide the benefits of plans offered by private insurance companies. There's also the fact that at least HR3200 required the government to do whatever was necessary to get "enough" people to go for the public option without specifying what "enough" was.
Hence, my use of the word linchpin.
Oh, reeeeeeeeeeelly...well about seventy members of congress belong to the DSA or the democratic socialists of america,all also belong to the DNC.
So am am I to believe they are democrats that aren't really socialists, or am I to believe they're socialists that aren't really democrats.
the apparatchiks win the proloteriat lose.
Yes, but you based the argument on undercutting the private sector using subsidies, and implied that a public option would necessarily lead to a single payer system, which I disagree with.
I was pointing out that the regulation of private sector companies included in the bills would be used far more effectively than simple price undercutting. I don't think a public option leads to a single payer system without the governmne taking the power to destroy the private sector portion.
You're right, I believe it would have been structured by this administration to drive commercial insurance out of business. And, that is based on statements made by Obama prior to his becoming President.
Let me expand a bit.
Obama's "public option" was billed as an affordable alternative to expensive insurance for those who could not afford it...while offering the same amount of coverage. And, just like other government-subsidized programs, those who could afford more expensive option will migrate to the cheaper option, particularly if it offers the same level of coverage.
Obama is counting on this. Take enough customers from the commercial companies and they are no longer financially viable. Insurance only works if you have more money coming in in premiums than you have going out in costs. Well, free-market insurance, anyway. Those rules don't apply to government insurance...they can, and often do, operate in the red by borrowing from our grandchildren.
Which they would do given the chance.
I agree. Obama obviously wants a single payer system, and he was upfront about the in the past. Which is one of the reasons I hope these things get completely gutted. Some of the powers the government gives itself are HORRENDOUS.
Still has a little while to go on that one.
He's on the right track for that considering he's only been in office for seven months.Still has a little while to go on that one.
I agree, I think it would also take an 8 year character assassination campaign by his opponents...such as was perpetrated against President Bush.Still has a little while to go on that one.
That or his programs actually coming to fruition.
Well, it should be going up if this publich health options gets dropped, as the majority of the public seem to want.
Will you guys approve of the rest of the bill if the gov option is dropped off?
no. It mandates minimum insurance coverages that not everyone needs or wants to pay for. It gives the government access to our banks to take money out for the copay. It does so many other bad things still.
no. Everything I've looked at gives the government way too much control over the private insurance companies. Effectively the government would be running them and they'd be private in name only.
It's complete .
So, what SHOULD be done to relieve the issue of ineffectiveness in insurance? WC, I know you've mentioned some laws that conservatives have tried to repeal, as part of a 'reform' plan... any links?
Additionally, don't you think there should be some regulation preventing companies from dropping people once they develop an illness? What about all the over-billing that occurs?
There was an article linked quoting numbers where there are actually very few people who do not have access or do not make enough to have insurance. If you want to cover those few who fall in between medicare and the middle class, then do that. What ever you wish to support, do not support something that takes away my freedom of choices.
What would I support?
How about another insurance added to social security and medicare insurances. Make a 2% insurance and 2% payroll tax on all income up to about $100,000. Everyone pays, then extend medicare to people who don't make enough to buy insurance.
Also, enforce immigration policies. If someone is suspected of being illegal to this country that comes across medical care, then find out, and deport them after treatment if they are illegal. These 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens are the largest calls of the uninsured that are complained about.
If you took ALL the profit ALL the Health Insurance companies made last year; you could run Medicare (not counting any expansions - or even Medicaid) for a day.
What you gonna do the other 364?
Why should anything be done? Who says insurance is ineffective?
But, if you wanted to make a significant change that would bring down the cost of insurance...quit requiring insurance companies to pay for maintenance care and routine exams. Make insurance for catastrophic medical needs.
Then, bring down the overall cost of medical care by tort reform, lifting onerous government regulations, and discouraging people from running to the doctor every time they run a fever or the color of their bowel movement changes. How do you do that? You make them pay for those silly doctor visits instead of requiring the insurance companies to pick up the tab.
i hope you're just summerizing, and intentionally left out a bunch of .
how many people do that, and why would that lower the cost to those who don't?Then, bring down the overall cost of medical care by tort reform, lifting onerous government regulations, and discouraging people from running to the doctor every time they run a fever or the color of their bowel movement changes. How do you do that? You make them pay for those silly doctor visits instead of requiring the insurance companies to pick up the tab.
Well, you'd have to negotiate with your insurance company as to what cons uted catastrophic medical need but, no, it's that simple. A person can buy catastrophic coverage now -- with a high deductible -- for a family my size for under $100 a month. Perfectly reasonable.
A butt load of people do. Since the inception of HMOs and $5 (now $20) co-pays, people have been going to their doctors for everything from hang nails to wart removal.
Why would it lower the cost? I wouldn't have to pay so much for insurance if my insurance company didn't have to pay for all that unnecessary garbage. And, since I'm not one of those that abuse the system, it would definitely lower my costs.
Another thing I would propose is to quit requiring employers to pay for, provide, or coordinate insurance coverage. Put that money back into my salary and let me shop for my own insurance.
That compe ion right there would drive down insurance costs.
nah, they wouldn't change the amount of your co-pay.
they require employers to pay for insurance?
I doubt illegal immigration has very little, if anything, to do with the cost of high premiums.
I dont think the government requires employers to proide insurance. And this wouldnt work as a government program. You cant tell private business to stop giving their employees insurance and hope they give them more salary (that they save) instead.
Rather, the tax code should change so that you could buy your own insurance privatey, and hope that employers would give their employees the option to opt out of their insurance and receive a larger paycheck instead.
more proof that yoni hasn't created anything.
Sure it would. I wouldn't have a co-pay. I would be paying the entire cost of the non-catastrophic doctor's visits while my insurance company would be paying the entire cost (minus deductible) of my catastrophic medical need.
How would that save me money?
Well, right now, I have about $400.00 per month taken out of my paycheck for insurance premiums. I spend less than that, per year, on medical care for my family because of co-pays and the infrequency of our visits to the doctor.
Give me that $400.00 per month, I'll spend $100.00 per month on catastrophic insurance and still spend less than $2,500.00 per year on doctor's visits.
$400.00 per month = $4,800.00 per year (not counting co-pays)
$100.00 per month + $2,500.00 out of pocket = $3,700.00 per year (no co-pay)
It's simple math. And, that's only if I can manage to spend $2,500.00 a year. Which I doubt I can...without, of course, suffering a catastrophic illness and, then, my catastrophic coverage kicks in.
Some people would spend absolutely nothing on medical care some years. When I was younger, I went years without seeing a doctor. When my family was young, we went years without seeing a doctor for anything beyond immunizations and the occasional trip to the E.R. for s ches.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions