Why We Need a Public Health-Care Plan

[Ban Hammer 13,657]

I'm still astounded how the majority of Americans believe that "more bureaucracy" is the right answer to this problem, and that somehow, the presence of a government insurance plan will somehow force private insurance to provide reasonable coverage. At least that's what I gotoutta the public plan TV ad.

Blaming high private insurance premiums for all our problems is analogous to blaming your thermometer for the temperature outside.

If the government really wanted you to have affordable healthcare, then they would eradicate all the artificial barriers to entry legislatively imposed on the healthcare industry.

government being involved in your life to "keep you safe" = bad

government being involved in your life to "keep you healthy"= good

[mawilson 2,133]

government being involved in your life to "keep you safe" = bad

government being involved in your life to "keep you healthy"= good

They are trying real hard to make themselves useful, aren't they?

How can you have true freedom in this country if the government controls every

aspect of your life - from your health care to your bank and car manufacturer?

[rebeccajo 14]

Its not necessarily that the doctor orders the wrong tests but that the insurance company can often overrule them on what they think is necessary or are willing to pay for.

Yes! Definitely true! A friend of mine, Vietnamese Medical Doctor (surgeon), is pursuing a Law degree so she can change the laws for HMOs and other rules regarding referrals, tests, etc...

She was a surgeon for 7 years. She despised the fact that it is a big issue to the insurance company for overruling their decisions.

I always think it's somewhat funny when the scare squad complains that they want the doctor and patient - not a Washington bureaucrat - to make their health care decisions. They completely turn a blind eye to the fact that health care decisions aren't really made by doc and patient today but rather by some profit driven insurance bureaucrat. Oh, all that shallow propaganda.

at least the profit driven insurance bureacrat does not have to take into account denying something will help balance social security.

What?

Charles is saying that the government has a conflict of interest in running these two programs (Healthcare

and Social Security), because the solvency of Social Security is undermined by increases in life expectancy

brought about by improved public health levels - people who live longer will receive more total Social Security

payments over the course of their lifetimes.

That's ridiculous.

The problem with SS isn't the longevity of pensioners. It's the amount of them right now - my generation - the Baby Boomers. If SS can find a way to stay afloat the next twenty years, it will be flooded with cash as the Boomers die off.

And, if there ever is "socialized" medicine (which I don't expect to see in my lifetime) the money for it would probably flow through the Medicare system, aiding the solvency of that program.

[Niels Bohr 72]

A World without Government? Take a look at Cambodia. The government does ######! And, look at how poor the country is.

We cannot use our simple minded game that a world without government is good. There is a middle ground in order to protect, and maintain the US high standards and development.

What the Republican need to understand is there must be some control. What the Dems need to understand is to reduce some spending.

Heck, in Cambodia there isn't even welfare.

Edited June 28, 2009 by Niels Bohr

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Addressing private health insurance is only fighting half the battle. Part of the reason why healthcare is more expensive in the USA is because liability insurance is more expensive. With every drug you take and every visit to the doctor your subsidizing their very very expensive liability insurance. Why is the liability insurance so high? Because legal actions are often and expensive. I honestly believe that unless the government regulates payouts then the costs won't change. If malpractice is proven and death occurs we should be thinking values = to average life insurance not $xx,xxx,xxx.

By the way I find it somewhat ironic regarding myself. When I lived in the UK I was paying about £140 a month to the NHS (I was 25 when I left). I was making £21,000. In the US I pay nothing and I make about $50,500 (27 now) though no raise in two years because of economy.

I'm American , so I never knew if 21,000 was very good or not (I moved to the UK when I was 22) but I felt like I was paying alot for health. Now you must realize that I fit into the average insurable category when I mention this and arguably the NHS helps the uninsurable where the US will not. I just found it very interesting. (I do realize I'm very lucky that my employers covers all of my insurance including the premium..at least normally....at the moment due to the economy I pay it at about 90 usd a month still very much less then I was paying in the UK)

1. So NHS isn't 'free' in the UK?

2. How was the quality of service in the UK?

3. The uninsured will not be turned back an an emergency room in the USA. You knew that.... right?

[mRx 16]

A World without Government? Take a look at Cambodia. The government does ######! And, look at how poor the country is.

We cannot use our simple minded game that a world without government is good. There is a middle ground in order to protect, and maintain the US high standards and development.

What the Republican need to understand is there must be some control. What the Dems need to understand is to reduce some spending.

Heck, in Cambodia there isn't even welfare.

Cambodia ranked nearly worst in the world in regards to property rights and freedom from corruption. So it's really not hard to see why Cambodia's GDP is in the sewers.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Obviously Cambodia don't have a balance. And, if you want more freedom. Cambodia is the place. You have all the freedom. You can technically do whatever you want.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I'm still astounded how the majority of Americans believe that "more bureaucracy" is the right answer to this problem, and that somehow, the presence of a government insurance plan will somehow force private insurance to provide reasonable coverage.

Nobody believes that. Which is why the private health insurance industry - which has brought to the health care field more bureaucracy than any government anywhere in the developed world - needs to be subjected to the competition of more efficient models which just so happen all to be government run to some degree.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Addressing private health insurance is only fighting half the battle. Part of the reason why healthcare is more expensive in the USA is because liability insurance is more expensive. With every drug you take and every visit to the doctor your subsidizing their very very expensive liability insurance. Why is the liability insurance so high? Because legal actions are often and expensive. I honestly believe that unless the government regulates payouts then the costs won't change. If malpractice is proven and death occurs we should be thinking values = to average life insurance not $xx,xxx,xxx.

By the way I find it somewhat ironic regarding myself. When I lived in the UK I was paying about £140 a month to the NHS (I was 25 when I left). I was making £21,000. In the US I pay nothing and I make about $50,500 (27 now) though no raise in two years because of economy.

I'm American , so I never knew if 21,000 was very good or not (I moved to the UK when I was 22) but I felt like I was paying alot for health. Now you must realize that I fit into the average insurable category when I mention this and arguably the NHS helps the uninsurable where the US will not. I just found it very interesting. (I do realize I'm very lucky that my employers covers all of my insurance including the premium..at least normally....at the moment due to the economy I pay it at about 90 usd a month still very much less then I was paying in the UK)

1. So NHS isn't 'free' in the UK?

2. How was the quality of service in the UK?

3. The uninsured will not be turned back an an emergency room in the USA. You knew that.... right?

1. No the NHS is not free. Basically you pay based on your income. So for instance students or people living in council housing will pay little to nothing where as the uber rich will pay alot. (Also, the rich still have private insurance to get 100% guaranteed treatment and a nicer hospital room etc...look up NHS triage.)

2. It depends where you live. In Bristol I had excellent service. In Cardiff I lived in the centre so all of the surgeries that I could register with were pretty ghetto and very overcrowded(luckly I only needed to visit mine once).

I went to the surgery twice in Bristol in a year and a half and once in Cardiff in one year. It is a different experience. The doctors never examined me , they heard my symptoms and gave their prescription in about five minutes.

3. Yeah , but that person might be struck with a debt that will effectively ruin their lives if they have a low income with kids. I will say that the NHS practices triage because they are over stretched....still not as bad as Japan where I hear you might have to drive around in an ambulance for an hour waiting for a hospital to admit you. (I read a few months ago of an ambulance making calls to 7 different hospitals before they admitted the person and I think the person died because of it.)

[mawilson 2,133]

Obviously Cambodia don't have a balance. And, if you want more freedom. Cambodia is the place. You have all the freedom. You can technically do whatever you want.

Government, businesses and individuals all have a role to play in keeping the economy running smoothly,

and the government's job is to enforce the laws and contracts - nothing more.

[HAL 9000 96]

Addressing private health insurance is only fighting half the battle. Part of the reason why healthcare is more expensive in the USA is because liability insurance is more expensive. With every drug you take and every visit to the doctor your subsidizing their very very expensive liability insurance. Why is the liability insurance so high? Because legal actions are often and expensive. I honestly believe that unless the government regulates payouts then the costs won't change. If malpractice is proven and death occurs we should be thinking values = to average life insurance not $xx,xxx,xxx.

By the way I find it somewhat ironic regarding myself. When I lived in the UK I was paying about £140 a month to the NHS (I was 25 when I left). I was making £21,000. In the US I pay nothing and I make about $50,500 (27 now) though no raise in two years because of economy.

I'm American , so I never knew if 21,000 was very good or not (I moved to the UK when I was 22) but I felt like I was paying alot for health. Now you must realize that I fit into the average insurable category when I mention this and arguably the NHS helps the uninsurable where the US will not. I just found it very interesting. (I do realize I'm very lucky that my employers covers all of my insurance including the premium..at least normally....at the moment due to the economy I pay it at about 90 usd a month still very much less then I was paying in the UK)

1. So NHS isn't 'free' in the UK?

2. How was the quality of service in the UK?

3. The uninsured will not be turned back an an emergency room in the USA. You knew that.... right?

1. No the NHS is not free. Basically you pay based on your income. So for instance students or people living in council housing will pay little to nothing where as the uber rich will pay alot. (Also, the rich still have private insurance to get 100% guaranteed treatment and a nicer hospital room etc...look up NHS triage.)

2. It depends where you live. In Bristol I had excellent service. In Cardiff I lived in the centre so all of the surgeries that I could register with were pretty ghetto and very overcrowded(luckly I only needed to visit mine once).

I went to the surgery twice in Bristol in a year and a half and once in Cardiff in one year. It is a different experience. The doctors never examined me , they heard my symptoms and gave their prescription in about five minutes.

3. Yeah , but that person might be struck with a debt that will effectively ruin their lives if they have a low income with kids. I will say that the NHS practices triage because they are over stretched....still not as bad as Japan where I hear you might have to drive around in an ambulance for an hour waiting for a hospital to admit you. (I read a few months ago of an ambulance making calls to 7 different hospitals before they admitted the person and I think the person died because of it.)

No need to go beyond US borders. Many well-off hospitals, including the one whose ER entrance is 50 feet from my lab window, frequently dumps poor patients onto other hospitals to reduce their pro-bono costs. And yes... some folks love to charge our current system with the inexcusable fallacy that its the extreme, government big-brother led system that is being sought after with substandard care as the norm. These folks have absolutely no basis for this stupidity, but therein lies their crisis.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

I'm still astounded how the majority of Americans believe that "more bureaucracy" is the right answer to this problem, and that somehow, the presence of a government insurance plan will somehow force private insurance to provide reasonable coverage. At least that's what I gotoutta the public plan TV ad.

Blaming high private insurance premiums for all our problems is analogous to blaming your thermometer for the temperature outside.

If the government really wanted you to have affordable healthcare, then they would eradicate all the artificial barriers to entry legislatively imposed on the healthcare industry.

I am still astounded anyone is trying to get anyone else to believe your first assertion, the American's want "more bureaucracy."

The blame is not on high insurance premiums, although they are a serious factor for both individuals and businesses.

The bigger issue is the fact that you can pay the premiums and still wind up paying huge amounts of money for actual care, or worse still, pay the premiums then suddenly and capriciously no longer be covered because the cost of your care is dodged by the insurance company via denying the claim, denying the medically needed medication or procedure is covered, or dropping your sorry bum altogether at their whim is the problem.

The private insurance model does not work! Corporations exist to make money. Your health care costs money i.e. cuts into profits. Thus any and all excuses to deny your coverage, to pay as little as possible, or dump you in your time of need altogether has become the goal of the health insurer. There is no way around this, it is the way the system is breaking down.

Is there reason to fear government run health care will get messed up? Sure there is.

But private health insurance as we have it now clearly does not work.

Edited June 28, 2009 by ready4ONE

[scandal 951]

I'm still astounded how the majority of Americans believe that "more bureaucracy" is the right answer to this problem, and that somehow, the presence of a government insurance plan will somehow force private insurance to provide reasonable coverage. At least that's what I gotoutta the public plan TV ad.

Blaming high private insurance premiums for all our problems is analogous to blaming your thermometer for the temperature outside.

If the government really wanted you to have affordable healthcare, then they would eradicate all the artificial barriers to entry legislatively imposed on the healthcare industry.

I am still astounded anyone is trying to get anyone else to believe your first assertion, the American's want "more bureaucracy."

The blame is not on high insurance premiums, although they are a serious factor for both individuals and businesses.

The bigger issue is the fact that you can pay the premiums and still wind up paying huge amounts of money for actual care, or worse still, pay the premiums then suddenly and capriciously no longer be covered because the cost of your care is dodged by the insurance company via denying the claim, denying the medically needed medication or procedure is covered, or dropping your sorry bum altogether at their whim is the problem.

The private insurance model does not work! Corporations exist to make money. Your health care costs money i.e. cuts into profits. Thus any and all excuses to deny your coverage, to pay as little as possible, or dump you in your time of need altogether has become the goal of the health insurer. There is no way around this, it is the way the system is breaking down.

Is there reason to fear government run health care will get messed up? Sure there is.

But private health insurance as we have it now clearly does not work.

In general, I agree with your perspective.

However do note that the statement in bold above could easily apply to any for-profit insurance corporation, not just health insurance. It could apply to your auto insurance or your homeowners insurance. They too would have a financial incentive not to pay out. And yet we don't have a crisis in those sectors, and they seem to have genuine competition and prices that don't escalate the way health insurance costs do.

I was watching the Sunday talks shows today.

ABC This Week had on Charles Grassley, Republican Senator from Iowa. I thought his remarks on the public-option were very interesting. He's on record as being unwilling to support the "public option" as put forth by Democrats. But today he was showing a willingness to consider a "co op plan", and that there could be bipartisan support for that. Well, maybe that makes sense? I would give this some serious consideration before rejecting out of hand. I'd like to see a competitive insurance market, sure, but as I said in my very first post in this thread -- why can't we stimulate/force/regulate the private industry to be more competitive? If a "co op" can achieve that, and do it with GOP support, what's wrong with that?

Here's the relevant excerpt.

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/Politics/St...8866&page=3

STEPHANOPOULOS: And Senator Grassley joins us now from Waterloo, Iowa.

Thanks for joining us this morning, Senator.

You heard that commercial, the president's supporters trying to pressure you in your home state. You also heard David Axelrod on the president's preferences for what should be in the plan.

Bottom line, is there any kind of public health insurance option you can accept?

And will the plan you negotiate meet the president's pledge not to raise taxes on people earning under $250,000 a year?

GRASSLEY: Well, a Democratic senator has come forth with a co-op plan, that, if it's along the lines of what we have known co-ops in this country for 150 years, and that would definitely bring additional competition into the insurance industry, I think that, if it's structured along those lines, that we could have, yet, a different option than what we presently have.

And we're looking at that and we're trying to get a bipartisan agreement on that. And if it doesn't touch the concerns that we have about federal control of health and leading toward a Canadian-style single-payer system, then I think it can get bipartisan support.

But let me assure you that we're trying to find a bipartisan compromise in this area, as well as every other area. And I'm not so sure that the competition is a major thing that we have to deal with in order to get a bipartisan compromise.

George, if I could say what the overall view of my party and most everybody in Congress is, is to make health insurance affordable and accessible.

And when we say accessible, we mean taking away the discrimination that comes from preexisting conditions. And when we say affordable, affordable for people that have preexisting conditions, and also affordable for low-income people; and, lastly, to bend the curve of growth of health care. Because we can't keep on this gigantic increase in health care costs that we have.

Later, on the pundit panel, Paul Krugman pointed out that the Administration is pushing for the public plan out of a "hope" that it can stimulate competition and reign in prices. Not a certainty mind you, but a hope. So, if it's controversial, not a certainty to work, and there are other alternatives that could also work and get stronger backing, I still fail to see why we (Dems) need to be regurgitating this mantra of a public-plan. Let's be really broad minded and consider other possible alternatives. We used to complain (correctly) that when the Republicans were in power they would not listen to Democrat ideas. Obama promised a different, bipartisan approach. Here's a chance to listen to a reasonable Republican (which I've always believed Grassley to be).

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I'm still astounded how the majority of Americans believe that "more bureaucracy" is the right answer to this problem, and that somehow, the presence of a government insurance plan will somehow force private insurance to provide reasonable coverage. At least that's what I gotoutta the public plan TV ad.

Blaming high private insurance premiums for all our problems is analogous to blaming your thermometer for the temperature outside.

If the government really wanted you to have affordable healthcare, then they would eradicate all the artificial barriers to entry legislatively imposed on the healthcare industry.

I am still astounded anyone is trying to get anyone else to believe your first assertion, the American's want "more bureaucracy."

The blame is not on high insurance premiums, although they are a serious factor for both individuals and businesses.

The bigger issue is the fact that you can pay the premiums and still wind up paying huge amounts of money for actual care, or worse still, pay the premiums then suddenly and capriciously no longer be covered because the cost of your care is dodged by the insurance company via denying the claim, denying the medically needed medication or procedure is covered, or dropping your sorry bum altogether at their whim is the problem.

The private insurance model does not work! Corporations exist to make money. Your health care costs money i.e. cuts into profits. Thus any and all excuses to deny your coverage, to pay as little as possible, or dump you in your time of need altogether has become the goal of the health insurer. There is no way around this, it is the way the system is breaking down.

Is there reason to fear government run health care will get messed up? Sure there is.

But private health insurance as we have it now clearly does not work.

In general, I agree with your perspective.

However do note that the statement in bold above could easily apply to any for-profit insurance corporation, not just health insurance. It could apply to your auto insurance or your homeowners insurance. They too would have a financial incentive not to pay out. And yet we don't have a crisis in those sectors, and they seem to have genuine competition and prices that don't escalate the way health insurance costs do.

I was watching the Sunday talks shows today.

ABC This Week had on Charles Grassley, Republican Senator from Iowa. I thought his remarks on the public-option were very interesting. He's on record as being unwilling to support the "public option" as put forth by Democrats. But today he was showing a willingness to consider a "co op plan", and that there could be bipartisan support for that. Well, maybe that makes sense? I would give this some serious consideration before rejecting out of hand. I'd like to see a competitive insurance market, sure, but as I said in my very first post in this thread -- why can't we stimulate/force/regulate the private industry to be more competitive? If a "co op" can achieve that, and do it with GOP support, what's wrong with that?

Here's the relevant excerpt.

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/Politics/St...8866&page=3

STEPHANOPOULOS: And Senator Grassley joins us now from Waterloo, Iowa.

Thanks for joining us this morning, Senator.

You heard that commercial, the president's supporters trying to pressure you in your home state. You also heard David Axelrod on the president's preferences for what should be in the plan.

Bottom line, is there any kind of public health insurance option you can accept?

And will the plan you negotiate meet the president's pledge not to raise taxes on people earning under $250,000 a year?

GRASSLEY: Well, a Democratic senator has come forth with a co-op plan, that, if it's along the lines of what we have known co-ops in this country for 150 years, and that would definitely bring additional competition into the insurance industry, I think that, if it's structured along those lines, that we could have, yet, a different option than what we presently have.

And we're looking at that and we're trying to get a bipartisan agreement on that. And if it doesn't touch the concerns that we have about federal control of health and leading toward a Canadian-style single-payer system, then I think it can get bipartisan support.

But let me assure you that we're trying to find a bipartisan compromise in this area, as well as every other area. And I'm not so sure that the competition is a major thing that we have to deal with in order to get a bipartisan compromise.

George, if I could say what the overall view of my party and most everybody in Congress is, is to make health insurance affordable and accessible.

And when we say accessible, we mean taking away the discrimination that comes from preexisting conditions. And when we say affordable, affordable for people that have preexisting conditions, and also affordable for low-income people; and, lastly, to bend the curve of growth of health care. Because we can't keep on this gigantic increase in health care costs that we have.

Later, on the pundit panel, Paul Krugman pointed out that the Administration is pushing for the public plan out of a "hope" that it can stimulate competition and reign in prices. Not a certainty mind you, but a hope. So, if it's controversial, not a certainty to work, and there are other alternatives that could also work and get stronger backing, I still fail to see why we (Dems) need to be regurgitating this mantra of a public-plan. Let's be really broad minded and consider other possible alternatives. We used to complain (correctly) that when the Republicans were in power they would not listen to Democrat ideas. Obama promised a different, bipartisan approach. Here's a chance to listen to a reasonable Republican (which I've always believed Grassley to be).

Like maybe payin for your own?

[scandal 951]

Like maybe payin for your own?

Aw, marc'ie poo :star:

You're just a dipsh!t as usual who can't mind your manners and stay in the chopfvck thread rather wandering into serious bizznezz threads