Help me understand the outcry against a "public option"

[chickenona]

That's a bullshit concern though. Every country in Europe has the option of private health care, and oftentimes the government will STILL pick up the portion of the bill not covered by private insurance.

Also, I have to say - I don't know ANYONE with a private plan who's satisfied with it. The only people I know who are 100% satisfied with their health care are guys who are covered by the VA. The VA blows the doors off of any private health care.

Insurance companies have manufactured a fake panic over the horrors that will befall consumers if there's a public option. Without a public option this health care bill will be the biggest piece of failed legislation of our lifetime.

[tin00can]

I'm pretty satisfied with the VA so far. Just thought I'd throw that in.

[JakeYonkel]

We have BCBS and after the rate hikes last year I may hop in line with the rest of the welfare recipients and get me some free health care myself if this goes through. Fuck.




(yes, that was sarcastic)

[Crazy Levi]

To simplify it, many believe the public option would create another choice for consumers but only for a short while. Since the government does not have to make a profit like insurance companies do they will sell their premiums at a very low rate at first which will drive competition out of business. This will leave only government run healthcare and lead to a government take over. Many that currently have health care and that are satisfied with it do not want that. Not to mention the fact that almost nothing the government runs is very successful anyway. Nobody is looking forward to being put on a six month wait list for an MRI or being denied cancer medicine becasuse of cost.

Holy fuck this is ridiculous

"A public option might drive all the competetion out of business...you know, the companies who have been fucking the American public without lube for decades...anyway, the gov't, which can't do ANYTHING right...will do such a good job in the health care business, that all the other companies will go tits up, and then, well holy shit...the Govt will be the ONLY GAME IN TOWN! And then we are all fucked, cause they can't do anything right! Also, soon Nazis will come back and run America!"

There are a lot of stupid people in this country.

[Nevermind]

...the Govt will be the ONLY GAME IN TOWN!

Exactly. Then the only game in town will be able to tell you what medical procedures it feels like you should have and what they feel like paying for. That's it end of story. You have no choice.

"Well, we're sad to inform you that based on our past data collection, we do not feel that said patient needs the requested cat scan."

[tin00can]

...the Govt will be the ONLY GAME IN TOWN!

Exactly. Then the only game in town will be able to tell you what medical procedures it feels like you should have and what they feel like paying for. That's it end of story. You have no choice.

"Well, we're sad to inform you that based on our past data collection, we do not feel that said patient needs the requested cat scan."

OMG! Government death panels and forced abortions!

[tin00can]

Also, I have to say - I don't know ANYONE with a private plan who's satisfied with it. The only people I know who are 100% satisfied with their health care are guys who are covered by the VA. The VA blows the doors off of any private health care.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/U ... _poll.html

Among insured Americans, 82 percent rate their health coverage positively. Among insured people who've experienced a serious or chronic illness or injury in their family in the last year, an enormous 91 percent are satisfied with their care, and 86 percent are satisfied with their coverage.

...in 2003. Well done indeed.

[tin00can]

2009(even more are happy with their health coverage)

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... ent_months

The new polling also shows that 80% of those with insurance rate their own coverage as good or excellent.

And I'm sure republican fear-mongering about the health care overhaul has nothing to do with that.

[Nevermind]

2009(even more are happy with their health coverage)

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... ent_months

The new polling also shows that 80% of those with insurance rate their own coverage as good or excellent.

And I'm sure republican fear-mongering about the health care overhaul has nothing to do with that.

Talk about fear mongering: President Obama says we'll go bankrupt if we don't pass his heath care bill.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser ... ed-in.html

Yeah, his bailouts, failed stimulus, failed cash for clunkers, taking over banks and car companies, huge deficits, and national debt he's accumulating , would have nothing to do with it.

It seems like I've heard this fear mongering before from him. Oh yeah. If we pass his stimulus package, unemployment won't go above 8%.

[chickenona]

Haha, yeah those numbers look pretty impressive until you start reading the qualifiers.

Most people are paying too much for their healthcare. Anybody can find a poll to support the point they're trying to make in this debate regardless of their positions. People are all over the place with this shit.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/19/ ... index.html

"Satisfied" just means they like the doctor they go to and their insurance plan covers that doctor. When you start talking about costs, though, more will bitch.

[bane]

It's easier to ridicule people's fears on this thing than it is to talk about it like grown ups, but Your Momma's post is pretty spot on. I think most of those fears are unfounded or at the very least overblown, but that's where the outcry comes from. Much of it has been artificially created by the insurance lobby, but there is reason for concern about government inefficiency IMO. I'm reasonably certain that the dem's utopian image of national healthcare isn't going to be the reality. All of the back room deals that went down with the senate bill are pretty indicative of how this thing is going to work. It'll be politics as usual.

[Crazy Levi]

It's easier to ridicule people's fears on this thing than it is to talk about it like grown ups, but Your Momma's post is pretty spot on. I think most of those fears are unfounded or at the very least overblown, but that's where the outcry comes from. Much of it has been artificially created by the insurance lobby, but there is reason for concern about government inefficiency IMO. I'm reasonably certain that the dem's utopian image of national healthcare isn't going to be the reality. All of the back room deals that went down with the senate bill are pretty indicative of how this thing is going to work. It'll be politics as usual.

Please explain to me how there is any credibility to the fear that a government-run health care system would be so efficient and wonderful that it would drive everyone else out of business. And please explain to me how that makes any sense, when it is usually followed by the sentence "The government can't do ANYTHING right!!!!"

[bane]

It's easier to ridicule people's fears on this thing than it is to talk about it like grown ups, but Your Momma's post is pretty spot on. I think most of those fears are unfounded or at the very least overblown, but that's where the outcry comes from. Much of it has been artificially created by the insurance lobby, but there is reason for concern about government inefficiency IMO. I'm reasonably certain that the dem's utopian image of national healthcare isn't going to be the reality. All of the back room deals that went down with the senate bill are pretty indicative of how this thing is going to work. It'll be politics as usual.

Please explain to me how there is any credibility to the fear that a government-run health care system would be so efficient and wonderful that it would drive everyone else out of business. And please explain to me how that makes any sense, when it is usually followed by the sentence "The government can't do ANYTHING right!!!!"

There is a ton of propoganda flying around on both sides of this deal. Both are ridiculously overblown in their extremes. I never said anything about driving people out of business, but I do think there is reason for concern with inefficiency. Social Security and Medicare are already a mess. What evidence do you have that this won't be?

Edited to add: I'm not nearly as worked up over this thing as some people are. I don't see it changing my life all that much. I think best case, I'll still have coverage similiar to what I have now and it'll still cost me a fortune, just like it does now. Worst case, my coverage isn't quite as good and it costs me a bit more money. Regardless, I don't see it making much of a difference to my life. The only real personal benefit I see is the preexisting condition thing, other than that, it'll just be status quo with a different name on the "Pay to the order" of section of my insurance bill.

[chickenona]

It's been estimated that up to 14% of the costs associated with private insurers in the current health care system are administrative, while public programs cite around 5% of their costs as being attributable to administrative expenses. Given this statistic, citing government inefficiency as an excuse for deep-sixing public healthcare options doesn't really hold water either.

I don't understand what people think is so horrible about government-run healthcare that even the OPTION can't be allowed to exist. It's insurance-industry fearmongering pure and simple.

[bane]

It's been estimated that up to 14% of the costs associated with private insurers in the current health care system are administrative, while public programs cite around 5% of their costs as being attributable to administrative expenses. Given this statistic, citing government inefficiency as an excuse for deep-sixing public healthcare options doesn't really hold water either.

I don't understand what people think is so horrible about government-run healthcare that even the OPTION can't be allowed to exist. It's insurance-industry fearmongering pure and simple.

What public programs are you citing there Chicke? State run med insurance? I don't see how any plan works without a public option. The rationale behind more healthy people paying in offsetting the additional expense of doing away with pre existing condition exemptions is a nice idea, but I don't see them pulling it off. We have a whole lot of baby boomers coming into their expensive years. I think costs are going to sky rocket, but they would anyway even without this supposed "universal" thing. I am curious to see where you got those numbers though.

[chickenona]

The 5% figure I gave is cited from Medicare/Medicaid (Federal programs). State programs have an even lower percentage of admin costs, around 3.5%.

[bane]

The 5% figure I gave is cited from Medicare/Medicaid (Federal programs). State programs have an even lower percentage of admin costs, around 3.5%.

Wow. I have a very hard time buying that one. Not intended as a knock on you, but I think somebody is using some "fuzzy math".

[chickenona]

The 5% figure I gave is cited from Medicare/Medicaid (Federal programs). State programs have an even lower percentage of admin costs, around 3.5%.

Wow. I have a very hard time buying that one. Not intended as a knock on you, but I think somebody is using some "fuzzy math".

The numbers were compiled for NHE (National Health Expenditures) reports.

Why would you assume that insurance companies - who are largely administrative entities - wouldn't have a much larger percentage of administrative expenditures?

And I'm still not getting the basis for the fear. The private option will always be there in America. As with everything else, the wealthy would keep them afloat. And as I stated, private health care providers and insurers still operate at a profit in most European countries.

I'm continually baffled by the American public's malleability when it comes to information provided to them by the same people who want to go on taking an assload of their money unnecessarily and will tell them anything to keep things the way they are.

Healthcare is too expensive in the US. That's just the way it is.

[bane]

The 5% figure I gave is cited from Medicare/Medicaid (Federal programs). State programs have an even lower percentage of admin costs, around 3.5%.

Wow. I have a very hard time buying that one. Not intended as a knock on you, but I think somebody is using some "fuzzy math".

The numbers were compiled for NHE (National Health Expenditures) reports.

Why would you assume that insurance companies - who are largely administrative entities - wouldn't have a much larger percentage of administrative expenditures?

And I'm still not getting the basis for the fear. The private option will always be there in America. As with everything else, the wealthy would keep them afloat. And as I stated, private health care providers and insurers still operate at a profit in most European countries.

I'm continually baffled by the American public's malleability when it comes to information provided to them by the same people who want to go on taking an assload of their money unnecessarily and will tell them anything to keep things the way they are.

Healthcare is too expensive in the US. That's just the way it is.

I have a hard time buying that a government run, particularly a federal government run entity can run a more efficient ship than a corporation. There's no profit to worry about, so they don't have the same level of motivation. That's just the nature of bureaucracy. The fear is what it is. I already stated that I think it's mostly irrational and unfounded. That said, I don't think it's a stretch to think that a public option could ultimately become most people's only option. Once most employers stop providing coverage because it's too expensive the only people who will still be able to afford it are the wealthy. I don't think that's an irrational supposition. That doesn't mean that we'll be worse off. Maybe it'll be more affordable and still provide the same high level that I get right now. I don't know, but any time you limit my freedom to pick and choose I'm going to be a little leery about it.

[thejuggernaut]

It's going to be amazingly hilarious when those who are crying about class divide are sitting in a waiting room for hours while the local Rockerfeller has his doctor visit him.

It's also going to be hilarious watching the scumbag lawyers sue the taxpayers when a semi competent doctor fucks up.

There'll still be a private option and it will end up being cheaper (or stay at the same equivalent price as it is now) because:

A. The retarded lawsuits will vanish for the most part because people with means don't need to hire scumbag communist lawyers who make their living by extorting/conning money from those who've earned it.

B. People with means, by and large, don't have to rely on insured medical treatment as much.

C. People with means won't be sitting in a crowded waiting room with the vermin of the world, stewing in a nice gumbo of lord knows what kind of bacteria, thus they will be less prone to contracting something requiring treatment.

Fret not, private insurance holders, your lives will become much better once that line that's already in the sand becomes a chasm.

[UncleTomsCabin]

I live in a state that has great subsidized govt health for working poor people or students like myself. I have been on it and it is 10x better than what my current job offers. You pay a premium based on your income (anywhere from 17 bucks a month to 100) and everything is covered pretty well.

[wylde342]

Haha, yeah those numbers look pretty impressive until you start reading the qualifiers.

Most people are paying too much for their healthcare. Anybody can find a poll to support the point they're trying to make in this debate regardless of their positions. People are all over the place with this shit.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/19/ ... index.html

"Satisfied" just means they like the doctor they go to and their insurance plan covers that doctor. When you start talking about costs, though, more will bitch.

I don't know ANYONE who *isn't* happy with their health care. That's why. Who wants government jumping into it? I pay $30 to go to the doctor and $10 or nothing for medicine/prescriptions.

[bane]

Haha, yeah those numbers look pretty impressive until you start reading the qualifiers.

Most people are paying too much for their healthcare. Anybody can find a poll to support the point they're trying to make in this debate regardless of their positions. People are all over the place with this shit.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/19/ ... index.html

"Satisfied" just means they like the doctor they go to and their insurance plan covers that doctor. When you start talking about costs, though, more will bitch.

I don't know ANYONE who *isn't* happy with their health care. That's why. Who wants government jumping into it? I pay $30 to go to the doctor and $10 or nothing for medicine/prescriptions.

Playing devil's advocate, the issue isn't how much your copay or prescriptions cost you, it's your premiums. I'm really happy with the care I get through my plan. The coverage is kick ass and the choice of doctors is exceptional. My premiums are expensive as a motherfucker though. If my wife didn't work for a kick ass corporation that covers the bulk of it, there's no way in hell we could afford it on our own. Therein lies the rub. I spent a lot of years unisured because I was single and self employed. Thankfully, that's not the case anymore, but for a lot of people it is. That's what this thing is supposed to address.

[wylde342]

Haha, yeah those numbers look pretty impressive until you start reading the qualifiers.

Most people are paying too much for their healthcare. Anybody can find a poll to support the point they're trying to make in this debate regardless of their positions. People are all over the place with this shit.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/19/ ... index.html

"Satisfied" just means they like the doctor they go to and their insurance plan covers that doctor. When you start talking about costs, though, more will bitch.

I don't know ANYONE who *isn't* happy with their health care. That's why. Who wants government jumping into it? I pay $30 to go to the doctor and $10 or nothing for medicine/prescriptions.

Playing devil's advocate, the issue isn't how much your copay or prescriptions cost you, it's your premiums. I'm really happy with the care I get through my plan. The coverage is kick ass and the choice of doctors is exceptional. My premiums are expensive as a motherfucker though. If my wife didn't work for a kick ass corporation that covers the bulk of it, there's no way in hell we could afford it on our own. Therein lies the rub. I spent a lot of years unisured because I was single and self employed. Thankfully, that's not the case anymore, but for a lot of people it is. That's what this thing is supposed to address.

I agree with you. Chicken's post was saying that people are unhappy with their coverage. My family does well income wise, but we also set aside money out of each check and everything we make to cover all this stuff. We've been doing it for years and have built up a separate account to pay the premiums/etc so we're not "paycheck to paycheck." So we have a nicer plan which is probably more expensive than most. We have friends who make about half or even less what we make who charge everything, drive nicer and newer cars than we do, and take twice as many trips as we do. They bitch and complain about the price of this/that - I just shake my head and think, "Nice loaded out BMW X3.."

You get what you pay for. If you're stupid with your money, please don't ask the government (me, via taxes) to help you out. I did the same type of planning when I was in college and made next to nothing. It works at any income level. Again, I did basic financial planning when I made next to nothing and always had enough money for everything.

What they're doing is a great thing; I don't think sick people should be denied coverage. But it's GOING to increase rates no matter what. People wanted reform yet they were too short sighted to realize "To pay Peter...you gotta rob Paul."

I don't want the government involved for so many reasons - I'm not going to waste the screen space typing them all out. Take a look at the financial history of Amtrak for a quick idea.

When prime ministers of other countries are saying, "Hey America, WATCH YOUR SPENDING..." maybe we should chill and listen? (See China)

[chickenona]

Except we're talking about health care. "You get what you pay for" is all well and good for cars and houses, but does anybody really want to sit here and say that poor people are more deserving of getting sick JUST BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD HEALTH INSURANCE? That's bullshit.

[KneelandBobDylan]

2009(even more are happy with their health coverage)

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... ent_months

The new polling also shows that 80% of those with insurance rate their own coverage as good or excellent.

A majority of America want the public option.

Just sayin'.

[wylde342]

Except we're talking about health care. "You get what you pay for" is all well and good for cars and houses, but does anybody really want to sit here and say that poor people are more deserving of getting sick JUST BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD HEALTH INSURANCE? That's bullshit.

Yes it's bullshit, but do people who have more schooling, work more hours, and generally strive for more not deserve more than those who don't?

You can look at it both ways.

[CliffByford]

For fear of repeating myself, allow someone who lives in a country with public and private health insurance to explain how it works.

In the UK, we are automatically guaranteed treatment by the National Health Service free at point of demand. This is partly funded by a tax called National Insurance, which also goes some way to our final state pension. The National Health Service, although an admittedly bloated organisation, provides everyting from General Practitioners to secondary care, surgery, outpatient treatment, pre- and post-natal services - the lot, basically.

However - wait times are of course an issues, especially with a popular service. Also, although the level of care is generally high, you tend to get better treatment privately. Essentially, if you're paying over the odds for the service, you should receive better accommodation (for hospital stays), prompter service and better after-care. Often, established doctors (especially surgeons) will hold public and private contracts, and in some cases the NHS bills private insurance companies for use of facilities and personnel.

So - what are the implications for the US? I see benefits. If, as here in the UK, you have a "basic" service provided by the state, it forces the private firms to get competitive. This means raising the level of provision - failure to do so would see people gravitate towards the cheaper service, ipso facto. Trust me - anyone with private plans should find a) premiums dropping and b) provision improving. It should also see some of the more unscrupulous practitioners in the insurance industry being weeded out.

Wylde, your argument is the ripest of bullshit. Hard-working folk with private plans should actually receive an improvement in their healthcare, as insurance companies fear their customers will gravitate towards the state option. Meanwhile, the poorest people should be able to receive basic coverage, at least. In theory, everyone's a winner; in practice it may not be perfect, but it's a vast improvement on your current system.

[BigDrewHalenite]

Except we're talking about health care. "You get what you pay for" is all well and good for cars and houses, but does anybody really want to sit here and say that poor people are more deserving of getting sick JUST BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD HEALTH INSURANCE? That's bullshit.

Yes it's bullshit, but do people who have more schooling, work more hours, and generally strive for more not deserve more than those who don't?

You can look at it both ways.

Sure. And that's where the nice car and the big house and the toys come in. Decent health care on the other hand, shouldn't be a reward for career advancement.

[wylde342]

Except we're talking about health care. "You get what you pay for" is all well and good for cars and houses, but does anybody really want to sit here and say that poor people are more deserving of getting sick JUST BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD HEALTH INSURANCE? That's bullshit.

Yes it's bullshit, but do people who have more schooling, work more hours, and generally strive for more not deserve more than those who don't?

You can look at it both ways.

Sure. And that's where the nice car and the big house and the toys come in. Decent health care on the other hand, shouldn't be a reward for career advancement.

Sorry,I just don't see it as cut/dry as you do. Who's to say what "extra's" someone should get. Again, I'm FAR from rich and not arguing as a "Have" versuses the Have not's. It's just the way I see it personally.

Glad to hear from a poster with experience that premiums will come down and care/etc will go up; that's awesome.