Quote :

"But what if they suck? What do you do?"

In a free society, if all the options on offer suck, then you and your fellow citizenry can get together, pool your resources, and create a new option that doesn't suck. If your option is truly better, then the rest of the citizenry will flock to your non-suck option.

This, of course, will not be what you are allowed to do under the government plan. If you opt to create your own non-suck plan, then everyone that joins you will face a financial penalty. Those penalties and your income taxes will go to subsidize the government plan. So, yes, you can still go start your own plan, but you cannot stop paying for the government plan. As such, it will be just like public education: you can take a private option for yourself, as long as you can afford to pay for both, which is not most of us.

9/2/2009 10:50:48 AM

Quote :

"In a free society, if all the options on offer suck, then you and your fellow citizenry can get together, pool your resources, and create a new option that doesn't suck. If your option is truly better, then the rest of the citizenry will flock to your non-suck option."

Let me introduce you to something called "reality," in which this does not occur. In the fictional world of Ayn Rand, perhaps, but not here.

Quote :

"As such, it will be just like public education: you can take a private option for yourself, as long as you can afford to pay for both, which is not most of us."

Great analogy. Let's do this for health care, okay?

[Edited on September 2, 2009 at 11:09 AM. Reason : ]

9/2/2009 11:09:02 AM

the problem is not with the insurance companies....

the problem is with the cost of the providers.

the government healthcare plan is like taking advil to cure cancer. sure it may take away the pain (treat the symptoms) but it is not going to cure you. i say we get to the root of the problem via tort reform, overhaul the AMA, etc., and then, voila, healthcare will be affordable again.



[Edited on September 2, 2009 at 11:20 AM. Reason : .]

9/2/2009 11:18:40 AM

Quote :

"the government healthcare plan is like taking advil to cure cancer. sure it may take away the pain (treat the symptoms) but it is not going to cure you."

This does not make any sense. Please explain what this means.

9/2/2009 11:31:04 AM

Quote :

"Does not compute. How does this work with something like childhood cancer? "

Well a chiild is typically covered under thier parents insurance. However, if your bigger point is to address that they might be unable to get health insurance later in life due to the cancer, I agree its a problem. However, there are some insurances that will provide coverage but wont pay for anything dealing with cancer treatment for a period of time.

Quote :

"You have a health insurance provider through your work, I am assuming. Does it suck? If it did, what could you do? I suppose you could switch to a "buy your own" provider like Blue Cross/Blue Shield. But what if they suck? What do you do? It seems like you don't really have any more of a choice now than you are saying you would under a government plan. Personally? I'd rather have 3 cents taken out of every dollar I put into my healthcare rather than the ten to twenty cents taken out by private insurance companies to provide the same type of coverage."

I do have my health insurance through my work. The reason being it costs less than purchasing my own, since the majority of it is paid by the practice. It hurts the business bc we are on a group plan and have many older people working in the practice. This raises the cost to insure myself. Ive talked to my boss about just paying me what he pays for my health ins and ill buy my own, but he hasnt yet. We are looking at moving towards HSAs next year which will be great. Now for my wife. I had her covered through work. But her insurance, which i pay for fully, went from 200 to 400 a month. So we shopped around and got her own plan for 109 a month. It was all we needed and a 2k deductible. Sure we could have paid more for a plan that covered more, but this was all we needed. Choice is a great thing. Currently the number of choices you have are limited by our govt. I cant shop BC/BS in a different state for rates. I had about 5 different companies to shop from and took the best one for my wife. Again, OUR choice, OUR money.

I dont understand your point about your cents per dollar.

9/2/2009 2:46:51 PM

Government healthcare is cheaper than private insurance because they are not profit motivated.

9/2/2009 2:48:12 PM

both that ^ fallacy and this: This does not make any sense. Please explain what this means.

have been covered ad nauseum in the other thread.

9/2/2009 2:52:22 PM

Show me a private health insurance company with an overhead that is less than Medicare.

9/2/2009 3:16:13 PM

Quote :

"Let me introduce you to something called "reality," in which this does not occur. In the fictional world of Ayn Rand, perhaps, but not here."

Do you really need me to dig up a list of everyone that managed to start their own health insurance company?

Quote :

"Great analogy. Let's do this for health care, okay?"

No. It is immoral to condemn the poor to wastelands called urban schools where they are more likely to get shot than an education. Hospitals, I mean.

If you think the overhead for private insurance is high, you should check the overhead of the average Washington D.C. public school.

Quote :

"health insurers ranked 35th, with a 2.2 percent profit margin. Health insurers also ranked lower in profitability than medical products and equipment makers, pharmacies and medical facilities."

Some overhead exists for a reason, such as to prevent fraud and abuse. Other forms of overhead, such as exists at government run institutions, exists for bad reasons.

9/2/2009 3:29:21 PM

^^ Actually, on average, administrative costs of in 2005 Medicare were $509 per primary beneficiary, compared to private-sector administrative costs of $453.


By definition, government is less efficient than the market. They have no incentive to cut costs. Anyone who has worked in a federal office will tell you stories of purchases at the end of the fiscal year to ensure your budget was maxed out. If you didn't max it out this year, they won't increase it next year.

9/2/2009 3:31:54 PM

Quote :

"Do you really need me to dig up a list of everyone that managed to start their own health insurance company? "

A few examples would do. I'm very curious as to how many low- to middle-income individuals with no experience in the area have banded together to create functioning insurance companies.

Quote :

"Anyone who has worked in a federal office will tell you stories of purchases at the end of the fiscal year to ensure your budget was maxed out."

:shrug: My dad works for a completely private company and does this shit every year for the same reasons.

9/2/2009 3:50:27 PM

Quote :

"Show me a private health insurance company with an overhead that is less than Medicare. "

Medicare has over 30 TRILLION dollars in unfunded liablities.

Well I have to pay for my insurance company and get medicare tax taken out of my paycheck. Show me a private company that takes my money against my will, for a service I probably wont be able to use.

9/2/2009 6:05:32 PM

Quote :

"for a service I probably wont be able to use"

you really think medicare is going to end in the 20-30 years?

9/2/2009 6:13:50 PM

Quote :

"A few examples would do. I'm very curious as to how many low- to middle-income individuals with no experience in the area have banded together to create functioning insurance companies."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_insurance

It is the very definition of what is being discussed.

Meanwhile, if profits are the culprit, why exactly is it then that not-for-profit health insurance organizations - such as BCBSNC - are unable to offer premiums low enough to drive out other competition from the market?

9/2/2009 6:48:30 PM

Because they are a lot smaller entity than the government.

9/2/2009 7:27:42 PM

Bzzzzzt!

But thanks for playing!

9/2/2009 8:08:26 PM

Quote :

"why exactly is it then that not-for-profit health insurance organizations - such as BCBSNC - are unable to offer premiums low enough to drive out other competition from the market?"

Because they are the farthest thing from a non-profit.

9/2/2009 9:53:19 PM

Quote :

"you really think medicare is going to end in the 20-30 years? "

I do think that there will be means testing for it in the next 35 yrs. You have to just look at the numbers to know the program we see today will not be there in 35 yrs.

speaking of medicare. You know those "free scooters"

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/09/02/medicare.wheelchairs/index.html

"In July, a CNN investigation found that a patient and taxpayers were billed about $1,200 over four years for a nonmotorized chair, while a nearly identical chair could be bought from the same supplier for $349."

And we have no choice to not continue to fund this crap either. If this was a private company, you could choose to no longer do business with them.

9/2/2009 9:55:55 PM

^^ oh, really?

9/2/2009 10:02:15 PM

Quote :

"you really think medicare is going to end in the 20-30 years?"

I'm sure no one here knows. It is called the future, after-all. That said, things certainly cannot continue as they are, as has been stated by many, the federal government is going broke. The Federal Government already taxes the U.S. economy at over 18% of GDP, and it seems that Americans have a hard time taxing themselves any more, as the record high of 24% was set during WW2. Meanwhile, Obama's budget before healthcare reform is already 28% of GDP, which going back to WW2 levels of taxation would still be 4% short, and in a few decades we will run into the unfunded liabilities of medicare and social security.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2009/Hummeltbills.html

This economist is predicting that the U.S. is most likely to default on on its debts in the coming decades. "What will ultimately kill the welfare State is that its centerpiece, government-provided social insurance, is simultaneously above reproach and beyond salvation."

9/2/2009 10:14:21 PM

Quote :

" of course, their leaders have convinced them they don't deserve insurance and it's their own fucking fault for making $5.50/hour at Walmart with no benefits. I mean, Walmart is good for everyone, right? It wouldn't be the first time poor people voted against their own self-interests (see What's the Matter With Kansas?)"

ran across this quote today. surprised I've never seen it before. Summed up my previous argument (quoted above) perfectly....

"It is an old strategy of tyrants to delude their victims into fighting their battles for them."
- FDR, 1936

9/3/2009 1:29:00 AM

Quote :

""It is an old strategy of tyrants to delude their victims into fighting their battles for them." - FDR, 1936"

FDR is the worst goddam president this country has ever had. New Deal my ass. He prolonged the depression with SPEND SPEND SPEND policies.

Quote :

"Monday and Tuesday! man it must be rought being in the 35% tax bracket making that $200,000+/year!"

i wish. add up what they take out for federal income tax, state income tax, medicare, and social security and even a poor shit making 50,000 a year ends up paying over 30% in taxes. that doesn't include property tax, vehicle tax, energy tax, communications tax, sales tax, etc. it's a fucking rape.

Quote :

"at least Obama and democrats are responsible enough to balance the budget and raise the money for their agenda"

LOL, you obviously haven't seen the budget deficits run up already under Obama's administration. The man is Bush on steroids and he gets away with it because anyone who criticizes his policies is labeled a racist. Fuck Bush and Fuck Obama.

Quote :

"...he needs a liberal to point that out and another to hand him a government check."

This was hilarious but so true. Liberals have the attitude that no one is capable of caring for themselves, that they need an enlightened liberal to wipe their ass for them.

look, we all know the current system is broke. the question is how to fix it? government handouts is not the best option. how about allowing true capitalism and adam smith free market economics in healthcare? open it up to competition by allowing people in one state to purchase health care from another state. you would get rid of the bluecross blueshield / united healthcare monopoly in NC and get lower prices and better service as a result.

[Edited on September 3, 2009 at 8:39 PM. Reason : .]

9/3/2009 8:38:06 PM

Some images for pro-health care reform rallies today in Charlotte & Raleigh.





[Edited on September 3, 2009 at 11:03 PM. Reason : .]

9/3/2009 11:03:17 PM

So this month in health care opened with the right wing yelling at town halls, and then the left wing got involved and started doing there thing too, boycotting whole foods for being perceived as anti-health care reform, getting labor & other left leaning groups up in arms about it & threatening to turn their support away from democrats who don't support health care reform, getting the AARP on the left wings side, and doing their own rallies largely focused on the end of the month.

In terms of sheer noise level I think the right won the early part of the month & the left won the end part of the month, and I think the noise coming from both sides was in many ways misinformation, and the only take away for representatives from the recess is that people are very divided on the issue, but the recess is over early next week. I've been disappointed with the left & the right during this recess.

What do you all think the take away message form the recess is for representatives?

9/4/2009 1:18:51 AM

did you really need to post that and the previous post in two different threads?

9/5/2009 4:40:17 PM

As long as we are having two threads about the exact same topic that are taking turns being the primary area for discussion about that topic, yes. Did you really need to bump this thread with your post to keep two different threads going about the same topic?

[Edited on September 5, 2009 at 6:24 PM. Reason : .]

9/5/2009 6:21:32 PM

^^^^ where are all the signs accusing opponents of being nazis with fake birth certificates? How do those protesters think they’ll ever get media attention?

9/5/2009 6:41:13 PM

did you really need to post that in two different threads?

9/5/2009 9:12:31 PM

do you really want to keep bumping a thread on the exact same topic already being discussed in another thread?

9/5/2009 10:04:50 PM

there are another 15 threads about healthcare. why don't you go post the same thing in there, too?

9/5/2009 11:10:52 PM

The real reason liberals are excited about universal health care is that now they'll have
a financial rationalization for micromanaging everyone's life. And, since liberals are smarter than
the rest of us rubes we should be delighted that they will give us free health care with our own money.

9/5/2009 11:12:34 PM

^^there are two threads about healthcare that are staying on the front page that were taking turns as the main thread in use & that is why I posted there.

you may think I had one posted that wasn't necessarily needed, and have expended many more unnecessary posts trying to make that point. why are we even having this conversation still?

[Edited on September 6, 2009 at 2:25 AM. Reason : .]

9/6/2009 2:25:46 AM

Quote :

"Want a preview of ObamaCare in action? Sneak a look at what has happened in Maine. In 2003, the state to great fanfare enacted its own version of universal health care. Democratic Governor John Baldacci signed the plan into law with a bevy of familiar promises. By 2009, it would cover all of Maine's approximately 128,000 uninsured citizens. System-wide controls on hospital and physician costs would hold down insurance premiums. There would be no tax increases. The program was going to provide insurance for everyone and save businesses and patients money at the same time. After five years, fiscal realities as brutal as the waves that crash along Maine's famous coastline have hit the insurance plan. The system that was supposed to save money has cost taxpayers $155 million and is still rising. Here's how the program was supposed to work. Two government programs would cover the uninsured. First the legislature greatly expanded MaineCare, the state's Medicaid program. Today Maine families with incomes of up to $44,000 a year are eligible; 22% of the population is now in Medicaid, roughly twice the national average. Then the state created a "public option" known as DirigoChoice. (Dirigo is the state motto, meaning "I Lead.") This plan would compete with private plans such as Blue Cross. To entice lower income Mainers to enroll, it offered taxpayer-subsidized premiums. The plan's original funding source was $50 million of federal stimulus money the state got in 2003. Over time, the plan was to be "paid for by savings in the health-care system." This is precisely the promise of ObamaCare. Maine saved by squeezing payments to hospitals and physicians. The program flew off track fast. At its peak in 2006, only about 15,000 people had enrolled in the DirigoChoice program. That number has dropped to below 10,000, according to the state's own reporting. About two-thirds of those who enrolled already had insurance, which they dropped in favor of the public option and its subsidies. Instead of 128,000 uninsured in the program today, the actual number is just 3,400. Despite the giant expansions in Maine's Medicaid program and the new, subsidized public choice option, the number of uninsured in the state today is only slightly lower that in 2004 when the program began. Why did this happen? Among the biggest reasons is a severe adverse selection problem: The sickest, most expensive patients crowded into DirigoChoice, unbalancing its insurance pool and raising costs. That made it unattractive for healthier and lower-risk enrollees. And as a result, few low-income Mainers have been able to afford the premiums, even at subsidized rates. This problem was exacerbated because since the early 1990s Maine has required insurers to adhere to community rating and guaranteed issue, which requires that insurers cover anyone who applies, regardless of their health condition and at a uniform premium. These rules—which are in the Obama plan—have relentlessly driven up insurance costs in Maine, especially for healthy people. The Maine Heritage Policy Center, which has tracked the plan closely, points out that largely because of these insurance rules, a healthy male in Maine who is 30 and single pays a monthly premium of $762 in the individual market; next door in New Hampshire he pays $222 a month. The Granite State doesn't have community rating and guaranteed issue. One proposal to get people into the DirigoChoice system is to reduce the premiums, presumably to give the uninsured a larger incentive to join. But that would explode the program's costs when it already can't pay its bills. A program that was supposed to save money by reducing health-care waste and inefficiencies has seen a 74% increase in premiums. But even those inflated payments can't keep the program out of the red. Last year, DirigoCare was so desperate for cash that the legislature broke its original promise of no tax hikes and proposed an infusion of funds through a beer, wine and soda tax, similar to what has been floated to pay for the Obama plan. Maine voters rejected these taxes by two to one. Then this year the legislature passed a 2% tax on paid health insurance claims. Taxing paid insurance claims sounds a tad churlish, but the previous funding formula was so complicated that it was costing the state $1 million a year in lawsuits. Unlike the federal government, Maine has a balanced budget requirement. So out of fiscal necessity, the state has now capped the enrollment in the program and allowed no new entrants. Now there is a waiting list. DirigoChoice has become yet another expensive, failed experiment in government-run health care, alongside similar fiascoes in Massachusetts and Tennessee. Not everyone sees it this way. Noting the similarities between the Maine program and the Congressional initiative, Karynlee Harrington, the executive director of the Dirigo Health Agency, boasted recently: "DirigoChoice is consistent with what we think the definition of a public health option is." It certainly is. "

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574322401816501182.html

I have no problem with goverment trying to install some regulations on healthcare or insurance but I just don't want them going into the insurance business.

9/7/2009 10:52:15 PM

The argument is getting somewhat less simple than the OP intended.

Bottom line is:

- Is everyone entitled to the services of highly educated individuals who spend years to become qualified to be doctors?

- If so, what does this do to the salaries of said individuals when they realize that they are smart and can make more money doing something else (law?).

- Will the quality of care go down? (Yes - are public defenders as good as what you can hire?)

The truth is that the quality of care will go down - and those that can afford better will be better cared for. Should health care be treated like our legal system? OJ anyone?

Even Chris Rock said that if OJ was a normal dude, he would have fried.

9/7/2009 11:06:30 PM

I will answer your questions in the order that they were received.

-Yes. Do you believe that senior citizens on Medicare don't deserve the same quality of service as those on private insurance? Want to try to peddle that line as a politician?

-How do you explain public school teachers, or anyone working a job where they also have an option of working in the private industry? Some people are decent people and want to help out the less fortunate.

-There will always be a situation where money can buy something better than what the government can offer. If I was a billionaire, I could hire my own private security force. Does this mean that the police department is bad?

You're also oversimplifying the court case of Simpson.

And, this doesn't really matter since a public option would not force you to change from your private insurance. And, if things turn out like you said, you will probably have an influx of talent into your private insurance company (if doctors decide they would rather work in the private industry than the public industry).

9/8/2009 9:06:31 AM

Quote :

"at least Obama and democrats are responsible enough to balance the budget and raise the money for their agenda"

jesus, who said that? I tried looking back but didnt see who wrote this. LOL

9/8/2009 10:00:52 AM

Quote :

"And, this doesn't really matter since a public option would not force you to change from your private insurance. And, if things turn out like you said, you will probably have an influx of talent into your private insurance company (if doctors decide they would rather work in the private industry than the public industry)."

Which comes full circle to question 1 which assumes that there will be different levels of quality of health care for public and private. So, by default, the public option reduces the talent, which will move to the higher paying jobs. There are not many talented doctors with 200K in debt that are going to want to work for the public sector and take 15 years to pay back their student loans.

OJ Case: pretty fucking simple. A killer got away because he was famous/rich.

9/8/2009 10:10:15 AM

I still don't see how that affects your quality of healthcare. If anything, there will be more doctors wanting to work for your private insurance. You should be championing this cause!

9/8/2009 10:16:52 AM

As a human being with feelings for his fellow man, I suspect he cares for more than just his own healthcare quality.

That said, your position is incorrect. Governments are not stupid, they see your point and know if they cut wages doctors will flee to the private sector. As such, every government in the world that has tried wage caps placed them upon all doctors, not just those they employ. Their next step was to outlaw the entire private sector, freeing up lots of doctors to work in the public sector. This was all after making it difficult for doctors to leave the country, of course.

9/8/2009 11:27:41 AM

^^

But I thought everyone was entitled to the same quality health care?

9/8/2009 11:33:08 AM

Everyone is entitled to a minimum standard of healthcare (as opposed to "NONE" which we have now.)

The rich and famous can get their herbal biological experimental treatments and whatnot, and that's fine.

[Edited on September 8, 2009 at 11:35 AM. Reason : ]

9/8/2009 11:35:03 AM

Quote :

"And, this doesn't really matter since a public option would not force you to change from your private insurance."

Not until it drives private insurance out of the market. How many people over 65 do you know that have private insurance? That's right.

Quote :

"How do you explain public school teachers, or anyone working a job where they also have an option of working in the private industry?"

We have a teaching shortage right now. Have you heard of it? Why do you think that is?

Quote :

"Everyone is entitled to a minimum standard of healthcare (as opposed to "NONE" which we have now.)"

That's a lie. Everyone is entitled to the amount of healthcare they can pay for. Just like everyone is entitled to the amount of food and cars they can pay for.

9/8/2009 11:51:34 AM

Quote :

"Not until it drives private insurance out of the market. How many people over 65 do you know that have private insurance? That's right."

Causation does not equal correlation. You don't know any seniors on private insurance, because there is a good, free alternative offered by the government. Who would be stupid enough to buy private insurance instead? (Hint: You)

Quote :

"We have a teaching shortage right now. Have you heard of it? Why do you think that is?"

Because we pay teachers like shit and treat them like shit. This is a phenomenon unique to the United States. It's a simple fix: pay them more, however that may result in.... INCREASED TAXESSSSSSSS DUN DUN DUNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN.

Quote :

"That's a lie. Everyone is entitled to the amount of healthcare they can pay for. Just like everyone is entitled to the amount of food and cars they can pay for."

Ahh yes, let the poor people starve. Fucking worthless leeches, I say.

9/8/2009 11:58:37 AM

Quote :

"You don't know any seniors on private insurance, because there is a good, free alternative offered by the government."

The point still stands. Medicare drove all other insurers out of the market. Yet somehow you expect this NOT to happen with the "public option." You know the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Quote :

"Because we pay teachers like shit and treat them like shit."

Isn't that the point? We, the government, pay teachers like shit. Why would you expect it to be different when the gov't pays doctors? You know the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Quote :

"Ahh yes, let the poor people starve. Fucking worthless leeches, I say."

Yes, because there are no charities. Anywhere. And there never have been.

But tell me, what have YOU done recently to help a disadvantaged person that affected ONLY YOU? Nothing? Damn, sounds like you are an evil piece of shit.

9/8/2009 12:02:37 PM

Quote :

"The point still stands. Medicare drove all other insurers out of the market. Yet somehow you expect this NOT to happen with the "public option." You know the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result."

And this is a bad thing? Name a senior citizen who is upset with Medicare. I'd sign up for Medicare right now if it was allowed. Why should I pay some private company to take a profit out of my paycheck?

9/8/2009 12:06:11 PM

Quote :

"Yes, because there are no charities. Anywhere. And there never have been."

Are you seriously implying that there are enough charitable donations in our country to provide for enough food and healthcare for all of our poor people? If you cannot say this, then "Ahh yes, let the poor people starve. Fucking worthless leeches, I say." is still logically valid.

9/8/2009 12:23:51 PM

Quote :

"And this is a bad thing? Name a senior citizen who is upset with Medicare. I'd sign up for Medicare right now if it was allowed. Why should I pay some private company to take a profit out of my paycheck? "

Well you are getting money taken from your check now to pay for insurance YOU DONT HAVE currently. LOL

9/8/2009 12:31:57 PM

Say what?

9/8/2009 12:37:28 PM

Quote :

"Well you are getting money taken from your check now to pay for insurance YOU DONT HAVE currently. LOL"

ZOMG there are roads in NC I don't drive on that my taxes pay for!

9/8/2009 12:50:31 PM

The difference is you arent bitching about paying for roads.

Quote :

"Why should I pay some private company to take a profit out of my paycheck? "

You seem to be against paying for your own insurance bc they might make a profit correct? But you are getting insurance in return and have a choice in that example.

9/8/2009 1:54:30 PM