Public Option, where do you stand?

[bigal40]

---

Members don't see this ad.

But something like a public option, in conjunction with a number of other reforms, would fix a system that everyone agrees is heading towards an iceberg. There are cost issues that just cannot be solved without universal healthcare - however we get there. I see public option as the most expedient way of getting to that point, but one way or another we have to get there. And that is going to cost money.

Please provide examples of and sources for these costs issues you claim can only be solved by universal health care.

I think the government is supposed to have the best interests of it's citizens at heart, and I think a fully insured and healthy public is a benefit to ALL of us. It's the responsibility of the wealthy to support those (the lower income and the poor) who support the system through which we have made our money and built our success.

Everyone is responsible for everyone else. That's not communism, that's humanism.

A fully insured and healthy public is a good thing - I have said this over and over, the problem is what you are doing to get their. Why not offer the uninsured a high premium insurance option (like I said at least $5000) and give them access to HSAs? You admit yourself that most people in this country would have worse healthcare if we had a system like Britain's, so why should we tear down the insurance of the majority to bring insurance to the minority when there are other ways to bring insurance to the minority?

Everyone is not responsible for everyone else, that just leads to laziness because people expect others to take care of them. There are two types of people, the producers and the leechers. The challenge is to allow the producers to benefit from their work and give the leechers an incentive to become producers.

 

[Concubine]

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/-1/case-for-mlr.pdf

According to the AMA:

"Through its impact on defensive medicine, liability pressure increases health system costs by between $84 and $151 billion per year. More than 60 percent of liability claims against physicians are dropped, withdrawn or dismissed without payment. However, even these cases have a price, costing an average of more than $18,000 to defend in 2007. Physicians are found not negligent in over 90 percent of cases that go to trial—yet more than$100,000 per case is spent on defending those claims."

Again, according to the AMA, some specialties are hit harder than others, I suggest talking especially to obstetricians & ER physicians:

"One in 12 obstetricians who have reported changes in their practice as a result of the risk or fear of professional liability claims have stopped delivering babies. In Massachusetts, 48 percent of physicians have altered or limited their services because of liability concerns.Numerous independent research articles show that over the long term, patients have greater access to physicians in areas with reforms, such as caps on noneconomic damages, than in areas without."

...and medical malpractice not an issue my ass.

 

[bigal40]

So far the only argument for the public option has been "lower administrative costs" (made by Desaad).
However, adminstrative costs for the largest government run insurance program (Medicare) are currently higher than private insurance admin costs.

Can't one of the 90 people who claim they support the public option come up with a reason for supporting it, or do you just support it becuase your mommy and daddy are democrats and you voted for Obama?

 

[Simplify]

Ignorance is bliss!

 

[Concubine]

This is expected when you poll premed students. If you polled medical students, it would be a little more skewed the other way, residents more so, & attendings even more so.

 

[KMFDM]

So far the only argument for the public option has been "lower administrative costs" (made by Desaad).
However, adminstrative costs for the largest government run insurance program (Medicare) are currently higher than private insurance admin costs.

Can't one of the 90 people who claim they support the public option come up with a reason for supporting it, or do you just support it becuase your mommy and daddy are democrats and you voted for Obama?

I'm skeptical of something from the Heritage Foundation, especially since I've seen other sources indicate exactly the opposite.

 

[Narmerguy]

econ has always been fascinating personally because it's just inscrutible to me. all these models and predictors of something completely artificial and somewhat arbitrary. just don't get it.

Haha me too. It's really changed the way that I look at normal things like whether or not you brush your teeth. I talked to our Economics department chair about the healthcare situation in regards to economics and he sent me a lecture that he gave on it. It's really good and really easy to read, don't really require more than some basic economics understanding. If you want to see it just PM me and I can send it to you.

👍

That was exactly what I was saying! Or at least what I meant by saying "Thinking drugs is better than your future is irrational. Spending money on drugs because you think drugs will make you happy is rational."

Oh I see. My bad 😀

I'm skeptical of something from the Heritage Foundation, especially since I've seen other sources indicate exactly the opposite.

I agree, I've seen almost all other sources indicate the opposite.

 

[unimaginative]

No, I don't think an American will EVER wait for an emergent MRI or any of that other rationing BS.

Are you kidding? It is happening right now. Anyone who is actually in medicine will tell you that rationing is here, Now. Go to a county hospital or big University tertiary care facility and see all of the transfers that show up, they are constantly dumping the super sick and indigent patients. Right now, things are rationed based on your or someone else's ability to pay for it.

Before the housing crisis the #1 cause of brankruptcy for americans with health insurance was medical illness.

It might be worthwhile for many of you to learn something about the health care system and policy rather than use your limited understanding of the situation to tout your ideological leanings. Many of you guys are pretty light on facts and long on opinions. Try not imitate what you see on t.v. it isn't really helpful and most people find it quite distasteful. For the self-interested ones it would probably make you look informed on your med school interviews.

There has been essentially no discussion of on this thread regarding "fee-for service". The health care policy journals and and even the more clinical ones have been churning out articles talking about the fact that there are little to no real attempts to alter this warped structure. There have been a number of excellent articles in the NYTimes that have distilled this reseach into lay terms which you might find helpful. You could start with last weeks NYT magazine article on Intermountain Health Care. Most non-ideological analysts agree that fee for service is a very very bad thing and that costs are not going to be able to be controlled without changing this underlying system. Basically for the uninformed this is the structure of payment in medicine. You need X procedure pay Dr. Y $ Z dollars for it. Doesn't matter if the outcome is good or not that is the what happens. There is essentially no one in the health care system that is reimbursed to keep you healthy, everyone is getting paid when you are sick. Although most physicians would recoil at the implication that the health of their patients is not their primary concern, that isn't what they are paid for. Everyone is payed to do something to you even if that is just to listen to you talk. Even the most arduent capitalist finds this system ridiculous cause you are not paying for health which is really what you are after. You don't neccesarily want or need lots of test and procedures and that evidence is buidling. If you take a look at some of the work from the Dartmouth health atlas group there isn't much evidence that paying more money leads to better outcomes and possibly it leads to worse outcomes.

Try reading some of this stuff it is truly fascinating. Plus if you actually know what you are talking about it makes you sound a lot smarter even if you are still just as dumb. If you ever tried to quote stuff from the heritage foundation or move-on. org in an actual health policy manuscript you would be the laughing stock of your colleagues. Just because you are self described conservative or liberal doesn't mean you have to be a *****, although this thread may yet disprove that...

 

[Concubine]

There has been essentially no discussion of on this thread regarding "fee-for service". The health care policy journals and and even the more clinical ones have been churning out articles talking about the fact that there are little to no real attempts to alter this warped structure. There have been a number of excellent articles in the NYTimes that have distilled this reseach into lay terms which you might find helpful. You could start with last weeks NYT magazine article on Intermountain Health Care. Most non-ideological analysts agree that fee for service is a very very bad thing and that costs are not going to be able to be controlled without changing this underlying system. Basically for the uninformed this is the structure of payment in medicine. You need X procedure pay Dr. Y $ Z dollars for it. Doesn't matter if the outcome is good or not that is the what happens. There is essentially no one in the health care system that is reimbursed to keep you healthy, everyone is getting paid when you are sick. Although most physicians would recoil at the implication that the health of their patients is not their primary concern, that isn't what they are paid for. Everyone is payed to do something to you even if that is just to listen to you talk. Even the most arduent capitalist finds this system ridiculous cause you are not paying for health which is really what you are after. You don't neccesarily want or need lots of test and procedures and that evidence is buidling. If you take a look at some of the work from the Dartmouth health atlas group there isn't much evidence that paying more money leads to better outcomes and possibly it leads to worse outcomes.

There has been a lot of talk about reimbursement made on quality of care rather than quantity. I'm all for this, but I think this country needs a fundamental change in attitude towards healthcare before this could work. People go to the physician expecting fancy tests to diagnose their illness, and if the doc simply does a good HPI & physical (the vast majority of dx could be made by just this), feel robbed. The incentive for the doc isn't there either, because there isn't any money in a good history & physical anymore.

 

[bigal40]

I'm skeptical of something from the Heritage Foundation, especially since I've seen other sources indicate exactly the opposite.

This article explains why the studies you have seen that indicate the opposite are actually incorrect.
http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2009/06/27/busting-the-administrative-cost-benefit-myth/

Out of curiosity what studies have you been looking at?

 

[HappySlappy]

Some tend to think the government should step in and protect everyone from others, I don't agree. I think the government should "pop the teet out their mouths and let them grow up". (Major Pain is my hero).

Okay, if we REALLY want to get into some philosophical topics, if the government doesn't intervene with people being pushed around by corporate America, then how exactly will they "grow up" or be able to defend themselves? That's something I have a hard time understanding with conservatives. They work SO hard to protect the big companies but do little if nothing to protect the little guy under the premise that they should "work just as hard to be just as successful." Ummm, when only the rich get the tax breaks and all the benefits that our nation has to offer, this land because a place of opportunity for ONLY THE RICH and the poor have absolutely no chance of succeeding (I'm sure the original premise for America is that this is supposed to be a land of opportunity for ALL). I'm not talking about all of us being financially equal or a communist society, but there HAVE to be regulations on some of these businesses so that the poor and middle class are allowed to prosper as well.

I just have to LOL for the guy condemning us for being "foolishly altruistic." Unless I was severely misinformed, the medical profession is SUPPOSED to be altruistic and we are SUPPOSED to look after EVERYONE, not just those that can afford health insurance. If you haven't applied to med school yet, or have already applied, what have/will you put in your personal statement? That you're not doing this to help everyone you possibly can? I understand that not everyone can be saved, but we still have the try the best we can.

I also have to LOL at the guy who said we should just dismiss the WHO health care study. So basically we're just supposed to dismiss any study that doesn't agree with your opinion, right?

 

[bigal40]

Ummm, when only the rich get the tax breaks and all the benefits that our nation has to offer, this land because a place of opportunity for ONLY THE RICH and the poor have absolutely no chance of succeeding (I'm sure the original premise for America is that this is supposed to be a land of opportunity for ALL). I'm not talking about all of us being financially equal or a communist society, but there HAVE to be regulations on some of these businesses so that the poor and middle class are allowed to prosper as well.

Everyone gets tax breaks, not just the rich. The rich pay a significantly larger portion of their income to taxes therefore get proportionately larger tax breaks. And the rich don't receive "all the benefits that our nation has to offer". In fact they get much fewer benefits, how many of the rich get their food or medical care paid for like the poor do? Are only the rich allowed to drive on roads, send their kids to school, or go to the library. In fact, I challenge you to name one benefit the rich get that the poor don't get.

And the poor having "absolutely no chance of succeeding" is plain bull****, the poor have more of a chance to make something out of their lives here than anyplace else in the world.

 

[HappySlappy]

The rich's tax break doesn't come for free. You seriously cannot be foolish enough to think that tax breaks for everyone is what really ends up happening/working for everyone, right? The tax break in the last administration wasn't paid for and look what happened (added to the deficit along with the Iraqi War and Medicare Plan D). Usually, under conservative policies, they come at the expense of lowering minimum wage or weakening unions, so yeah some one ultimately has to pay and the RICH CAN AFFORD IT. And yeah, I'm sure food stamps and libraries are EXCELLENT benefits that everyone's just dying to get...... It's also b.s. to say that just because the poor have some things given to them for free that they just have it MADE compared to the rich. And don't lie, if you (and other conservatives) had it your way, they'd get absolutely nothing claiming this "equality" b.s., when in reality there's nothing "equal" about the conservatives doing everything they can to keep themselves rich and everyone else poor.

 

[bigal40]

The rich's tax break doesn't come for free. You seriously cannot be foolish enough to think that tax breaks for everyone is what really ends up happening/working for everyone, right?

I guess you are referring to the Bush tax cuts, which is really quite off topic since I asked why the public option is good. But anyway try and educate yourself on how the Bush tax cuts worked, the tax rates for all income levels were decreased meaning everyone paid less taxes.

The tax break in the last administration wasn't paid for and look what happened (added to the deficit along with the Iraqi War and Medicare Plan D). Usually, under conservative policies, they come at the expense of lowering minimum wage or weakening unions, so yeah some one ultimately has to pay and the RICH CAN AFFORD IT.

Again, you can't defend your position on the public option and instead decide to attack Bush, but I can't blame you it is just you BDS(Bush Derangement Syndrome). I agree, Bush was not very fiscally conservative, but lets get back on topic.

And yeah, I'm sure food stamps and libraries are EXCELLENT benefits that everyone's just dying to get...... It's also b.s. to say that just because the poor have some things given to them for free that they just have it MADE compared to the rich.

I did not say the poor had it made, I was countering your claim that you said the govt gives all the benefits to the rich and nothing to the poor. Still, tell me one thing the rich get that the poor don't.

 

[strummin]

And the poor having "absolutely no chance of succeeding" is plain bull****, the poor have more of a chance to make something out of their lives here than anyplace else in the world.

Lemme guess: you've never been poor, have you?

Nobody has said that the poor have absolutely no chance of succeeding. But to say that in American society, a child from a poor family has the same chances of succeeding than a child from a rich family.. now that actually is "plain bull****". Truly poor people have an immensely difficult time succeeding in this society - and btw, food stamps and tax breaks don't help them as much as you think it might. America is the perfect example of capitalism gone awry, and the poor bear the brunt.

Just look at the increasing disparity between the rich and the poor these last couple of decades: It's absolutely disgusting. Conservative philosophy of the last couple of decades: "Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, even if you don't have boots."

 

[bigal40]

Lemme guess: you've never been poor, have you?

I was born into a lower middle class family and I watched my father and mother work hard to now be in the upper middle class. So no I have never been poor.

Nobody has said that the poor have absolutely no chance of succeeding. But to say that in American society, a child from a poor family has the same chances of succeeding than a child from a rich family.. now that actually is "plain bull****"

I am tired of the lies I have seen in this thread, you day no one said the poor have no chance, try reading the thread, it was like 4 posts ago by HappySlappy:

the poor have absolutely no chance of succeeding

Then you put words in my mouth, where did I say "a child from a poor family has the same chances of succeeding than a child from a rich family"?

 

[Concubine]

Everyone gets tax breaks, not just the rich. The rich pay a significantly larger portion of their income to taxes therefore get proportionately larger tax breaks. And the rich don't receive "all the benefits that our nation has to offer". In fact they get much fewer benefits, how many of the rich get their food or medical care paid for like the poor do? Are only the rich allowed to drive on roads, send their kids to school, or go to the library. In fact, I challenge you to name one benefit the rich get that the poor don't get.

And the poor having "absolutely no chance of succeeding" is plain bull****, the poor have more of a chance to make something out of their lives here than anyplace else in the world.

I have to agree with bigal here. The rich are proportionally taxed much more than the poor.

 

[strummin]

They don't have any clue. The liberals fall in rank with what the like of Pelosi and Obama say.

Well, thanks for generalizing. I guess you won't mind when I say that the conservatives fall in rank with what the likes of Gingrich, Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck say.

Btw, if you were implying that liberals are not capable of thinking on their own, then..well.. I wonder how you would explain why the majority of university professors are liberal. Hmm.

 

[HappySlappy]

I guess you are referring to the Bush tax cuts, which is really quite off topic since I asked why the public option is good. But anyway try and educate yourself on how the Bush tax cuts worked, the tax rates for all income levels were decreased meaning everyone paid less taxes.



Again, you can't defend your position on the public option and instead decide to attack Bush, but I can't blame you it is just you BDS(Bush Derangement Syndrome). I agree, Bush was not very fiscally conservative, but lets get back on topic.


I did not say the poor had it made, I was countering your claim that you said the govt gives all the benefits to the rich and nothing to the poor. Still, tell me one thing the rich get that the poor don't.

If you want to talk about the public option, I'd be happy to, I was just referring to someone's philosophical component of their argument on why people should not be protected by the government. My first two quotes, for the record, should be combined to prove my point (I did know that Bush cut taxes on all classes but it was at the expense of increasing our deficit and ultimately did nothing to help our economy). When you decrease taxes for anyone it should always come at the expense of something to avoid a deficit. So like I said, nothing is free, and the rich have plenty of money so why not tax them????? Does that sound simple enough?

The rich ultimately have a better education, better health, better safety, better housing, need I go on? None are technically provided by the government (if you exclude tax breaks), but if you truly want to say our nation is equal, then how is one kid who comes from the safest neighborhood and goes to the best private school (and will ultimately grow up to be rich and have kids that will go to the same school and be in the same environment) equally compared to a kid who lives in the projects who goes to an urban school (and will himself grow up to have kids that will do likewise)???

So going back to the public option, what exactly is your problem with it as a "future doctor?" Do you think it's fair that insurance premiums continue to skyrocket and that nothing will be done about it? I myself have a problem that it's not strong enough and has too many loopholes for the insurance industry to still drop people and exploit people for multi-millions. A single payer system is the BEST option in my opinion, but since it's not going to happen this year I'll settle for the public option because it'll at least inhibit these companies for a short while (even with the loopholes). I find it baffling that people complain that these nations/countries with government healthcare or single-payer systems are "absolutely horrendous," when you hear people that ACTUALLY LIVE THERE, however, say that their healthcare system is great. It's pretty easy when you read nothing but conservative articles or watch nothing but Fox News to complain about other people's health care system, but it's also quite idiotic seeing as how you DON'T live there and you know nothing about it.

 

[bigal40]

I have to agree with bigal here. The rich are proportionally taxed much more than the poor.

concubine, its pretty upsetting to me that the number of votes for the public option keep going up in this poll, but no one is able to articulate why.

 

[HappySlappy]

I have to agree with bigal here. The rich are proportionally taxed much more than the poor.

OMG, do you think it MIGHT be because they HAVE MORE MONEY????? You mean people that are making $250,000 a year are taxed more than people making $28,000 a year? *Gasp*

 

[c5212]

IMO, health care reform is a lose-lose situation: leave it in the hands of the government, no good. leave it in the hands of insurance companies looking for that $, no good. why don't we just... eat our fruits and vegetables 😉

 

[bigal40]

So going back to the public option, what exactly is your problem with it as a "future doctor?" Do you think it's fair that insurance premiums continue to skyrocket and that nothing will be done about it? I myself have a problem that it's not strong enough and has too many loopholes for the insurance industry to still drop people and exploit people for multi-millions. A single payer system is the BEST option in my opinion, but since it's not going to happen this year I'll settle for the public option because it'll at least inhibit these companies for a short while (even with the loopholes). I find it baffling that people complain that these nations/countries with government healthcare or single-payer systems are "absolutely horrendous," when you hear people that ACTUALLY LIVE THERE, however, say that their healthcare system is great. It's pretty easy when you read nothing but conservative articles or watch nothing but Fox News to complain about other people's health care system, but it's also quite idiotic seeing as how you DON'T live there and you know nothing about it.

You haven't read the thread, but pretty much every question you ask in this paragraph has been answered. To sum it up, there are major porblems with the single payer systems on other countries (see my other posts about it), this public option is a way to get to a single payer system. I am not saying do nothing about rising insurance prices but there are other ways to fix this problem that are much more effective and cheaper.(in fact there isn't really any evidence a public option would have any effect on insurance premiums)

 

[strummin]

To sum it up, there are major porblems with the single payer systems on other countries

Maybe they seem like "major problems" to you. But I know several people who live in European countries e.g. UK and people living in Canda and all of them are perfectly happy with their healthcare. Sure, it's not perfect, but it's much better than what we have right now.

 

[Concubine]

OMG, do you think it MIGHT be because they HAVE MORE MONEY????? You mean people that are making $250,000 a year are taxed more than people making $28,000 a year? *Gasp*

the key word was proportionately. As your income goes up, you can watch the percentage of your paycheck given to Uncle Sam go up too. On top of that, the poor pretty much get all their taxes back come refund time.

 

[bigal40]

Maybe they seem like "major problems" to you. But I know several people who live in European countries e.g. UK and people living in Canda and all of them are perfectly happy with their healthcare. Sure, it's not perfect, but it's much better than what we have right now.

I also know people living in the UK and Canada and they complain about how much they pay for taxes and VAT to support their health care systems. There are also basically limitless anecdotes of people being denied the care they need or facing excessive delays.
If you look into many of these systems, they are either operating in the red currently or will be in the future w/o more tax increases, the costs of these programs all have far outpaced initial estimations.

 

[7starmantis]

Maybe they seem like "major problems" to you. But I know several people who live in European countries e.g. UK and people living in Canda and all of them are perfectly happy with their healthcare. Sure, it's not perfect, but it's much better than what we have right now.

I hear this all the time with no real specifics. Exactly how is it so much better than what we have right now?

 

[Concubine]

So like I said, nothing is free, and the rich have plenty of money so why not tax them????? Does that sound simple enough?

The rich ultimately have a better education, better health, better safety, better housing, need I go on? None are technically provided by the government (if you exclude tax breaks), but if you truly want to say our nation is equal, then how is one kid who comes from the safest neighborhood and goes to the best private school (and will ultimately grow up to be rich and have kids that will go to the same school and be in the same environment) equally compared to a kid who lives in the projects who goes to an urban school (and will himself grow up to have kids that will do likewise)???

...and why shouldn't they have better education, health, safety, etc if they have the money to pay for it? The purpose of our government was to never to force people to be equal.

 

[HappySlappy]

So if not the public option bigal, what do you propose (or have heard) be done then to keep these costs under control????? I hear A LOT of people complaining about the single-payer system and how it supposedly doesn't work, which I find dubious because all the articles and input I've seen about it not working come from, guess who, CONSERVATIVE AMERICANS, not even people that live in Canada, France, or the UK (I know France and the UK don't have a single payer system, but a government system). I have yet to hear about this "effective alternative" that beats the democrats' plan, so I'm listening. If the conservatives are really serious about doing something to change our health care system, then I'm all for it, but so far they've just been proving to me that they want nothing done.

And Concubine, they can even PROPORTIONALLY afford it and still be quite well-off. Hypothetically, you tax someone making $1000000 50% of their income and they'll still be making $500000. That still sounds like a lot to me. You don't tax someone $28000, they'll still be making $28000. Boo-hoo, little Sally won't get her yacht this X-mas because some jerk HAD to get health insurance....

 

[7starmantis]

Don't forget we have tried it in the US already three times. Research Hawaii, Tennessee and Romney Care. All with the same result. Unable to be sustained, bankruptcy, failure.

 

[bigal40]

So if not the public option bigal, what do you propose (or have heard) be done then to keep these costs under control????? I hear A LOT of people complaining about the single-payer system and how it supposedly doesn't work, which I find dubious because all the articles and input I've seen about it not working come from, guess who, CONSERVATIVE AMERICANS, not even people that live in Canada, France, or the UK (I know France and the UK don't have a single payer system, but a government system). I have yet to hear about this "effective alternative" that beats the democrats' plan, so I'm listening. If the conservatives are really serious about doing something to change our health care system, then I'm all for it, but so far they've just been proving to me that they want nothing done.

What a good alternative is depends on what your main goal is. If you want to provide coverage to everyone regardless of the quality of care and regardless of the price, then the single payer option is the way to go.

I have never heard this proposed before, but I came up with it and posted it previously. To control cost, allow insurance that is approved in one state to be sold in any state, place a cap on malpractice suits, remove the antitrust exemptions that private insurance companies have(actually up to this point these have been proposed before), create an insurance policy that has a minimum $5000 deductible (sliding scale up to ~$20k based on income). This insurance option in conjuction w/ HSAs would have a very low cost but prevent people from going bankrupt due to catastrophic illnesses, and allow them to get discounts on preventative care by using the HSAs

 

[7starmantis]

Theoretically you could even have a "public option HSA" where the government would contribute to peoples HSA based on a sliding scale vs income or something along those lines. That would be a lot easier to cover 100% of the uninsured (not only a portion) and cost much less in the long run. That wouldn't "stick it to" those evil insurance companies though. 🙄

 

[zinciest]

Theoretically you could even have a "public option HSA" where the government would contribute to peoples HSA based on a sliding scale vs income or something along those lines. That would be a lot easier to cover 100% of the uninsured (not only a portion) and cost much less in the long run. That wouldn't "stick it to" those evil insurance companies though. 🙄

If this happened, the gov's contribution to lower income people would probably be so small that it might not be worth it. And I know wikipedia isn't very credible, but give the hsa section a read (especially the criticism section). They seem to benefit people with a higher income much more than those who have less to contribute to hsa.

 

[bigal40]

If this happened, the gov's contribution to lower income people would probably be so small that it might not be worth it. And I know wikipedia isn't very credible, but give the hsa section a read (especially the criticism section). They seem to benefit people with a higher income much more than those who have less to contribute to hsa.

Why is it when someone proposes something to help the poor people immediately say oh well that also helps the rich we don't want that?

 

[zinciest]

Why is it when someone proposes something to help the poor people immediately say oh well that also helps the rich we don't want that?

I think you misread my post. If it would help people who can't afford insurance, I'd be all for it, even if it also benefited people in a higher income bracket. All I'm saying is that it would probably not help poorer people because they wouldn't get a sizable contribution to their hsa if the government allocated money based on someone's income.

It's not hard to see that if the government is handing out insurance money based on how much you make, the person making 200K a year is going to get a lot more than someone making 20K a year. The person making 20K might get so little that it wouldn't really benefit them. And yes, I know that the person making 200K pays more taxes, but just like the rich shouldn't have better access to firefighters, they shouldn't have better access to funds to pay for their medical treatment. The firefighter/doctor comparison is valid if you're comparing two government services (I'm putting this in preemptively for the people who are going to try and tear down the comparison).

 

[HappySlappy]

Glad you all are FINALLY bringing something to the table (so you have regained your humanity at least), but there are already states with more than one insurance company provider, and guess what? Premiums still remain high in those states, so I doubt telling the insurance companies they can cover people in any state is going to do much good in terms of controlling costs.

Antitrust exemptions, as you've said, are already covered in the House bill, so nothing new.

Tort reform isn't really a huge issue when it comes to health care costs, compared to insurance coverage, and when you place a cap on how much a person can get you're basically telling both the greedy patients AND THE ONES YOU MAY HAVE ACTUALLY HARMED a big old SCREW YOU. I agree something needs to be done about the greedy ones that are after the money, but I don't want to hurt patients that have actually been harmed by a doctor's neglect as well.

Zinciest has it covered with the HSA, and also what happens if a person has a catastrophic illness and wipes out his/her account? They're on their own?


For the record, who says the quality of care goes down with the single payer? You guys? Can I please get a credible source on how "quality declines" with a single payer system? Just post an article I can read or anything. If anything, I've read that places with the single payer system or government-run systems have higher life expectancies and get more bang-for-the-buck. Our current system is anything but stellar in both.

 

[Parts Unknown]

This article explains why the studies you have seen that indicate the opposite are actually incorrect.
http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2009/06/27/busting-the-administrative-cost-benefit-myth/

Out of curiosity what studies have you been looking at?

Supporting a Heritage article with an RCP article is like getting two foxes to guard the hen house. A blogger named Tom Bozzo sifted through this debate and demonstrates what I expected: to make Medicare administrative costs appear artificially high, they extracted a bunch of Medicare outlays and inappropriately labeled them "administrative." Viola.

Can't one of the 90 people who claim they support the public option come up with a reason for supporting it, or do you just support it becuase your mommy and daddy are democrats and you voted for Obama?

I outlined my reason for not minding a public option in post #127, but never heard back from you. Might that count?

 

[ChiDO]

We need to get rid of all the BS loopholes in our tax system for individuals, corporations, ect. Flat-tax individuals at 20% and be done with it no matter what income.

In regards to the public option, this is what is going to happen if it is passed.

Public option available to everyone.
Obama claims you can "keep" your doctor.
Company A (that you work for) pays $20k a year in insurance for the company.
Company A realizes that the public option would cost $15k a year.
Company A drops your insurance and everyone gets on the public plan.
Company B-Z follow...now everyone is on the public option.
Obama/Democrats win their socialist/big governemtn/depend on government program.
Public option costs spiral out of control (just like every other govt program).
Tax the "rich" some more...probably breaking 50% now. ("Rich" probably classified as $100k now due to outrageous govt debt/spending).
Our children/grandchildren suffer.


Now how to fix some of the problems we are facing:

1. Tort Reform - curb defensive medicine practice
2. Allow insurance competition over state-lines to eliminate insurance company monopolies.
3. Eliminate Tax loopholes and simplify the IRS code (flat tax everyone).
4. Institute maximum terms for Congress (eliminates special interest; ideally forces each member to really work for their constituents).
5. Eliminate earmarks and require all "Bills" in congress to be written in plain English. (2000 page "health care bill" - give me a break....)
6. Eliminate lobbyists.
7. Require a balanced, ****ing budget. If you don't have the ****ing money don't keep opening up more and more government programs.
8. Change http://www.usdebtclock.org/ to usSURPLUSSclock.

 

[zinciest]

We need to get rid of all the BS loopholes in our tax system for individuals, corporations, ect. Flat-tax individuals at 20% and be done with it no matter what income.

In regards to the public option, this is what is going to happen if it is passed.

Public option available to everyone.
Obama claims you can "keep" your doctor.
Company A (that you work for) pays $20k a year in insurance for the company.
Company A realizes that the public option would cost $15k a year.
Company A drops your insurance and everyone gets on the public plan.
Company B-Z follow...now everyone is on the public option.
Obama/Democrats win their socialist/big governemtn/depend on government program.
Public option costs spiral out of control (just like every other govt program).
Tax the "rich" some more...probably breaking 50% now. ("Rich" probably classified as $100k now due to outrageous govt debt/spending).
Our children/grandchildren suffer.

Not everyone will be eligible for the public option, though.

 

[Concubine]

We need to get rid of all the BS loopholes in our tax system for individuals, corporations, ect. Flat-tax individuals at 20% and be done with it no matter what income.

3. Eliminate Tax loopholes and simplify the IRS code (flat tax everyone).

I like number 3. I've always wondered why we never moved to this to begin with. Can you imagine how much simpler things would be (not to mention the millions of trees saved every year)

 

[BerlinDude]

We need to get rid of all the BS loopholes in our tax system for individuals, corporations, ect. Flat-tax individuals at 20% and be done with it no matter what income.

In regards to the public option, this is what is going to happen if it is passed.

Public option available to everyone.
Obama claims you can "keep" your doctor.
Company A (that you work for) pays $20k a year in insurance for the company.
Company A realizes that the public option would cost $15k a year.
Company A drops your insurance and everyone gets on the public plan.
Company B-Z follow...now everyone is on the public option.
Obama/Democrats win their socialist/big governemtn/depend on government program.
Public option costs spiral out of control (just like every other govt program).
Tax the "rich" some more...probably breaking 50% now. ("Rich" probably classified as $100k now due to outrageous govt debt/spending).
Our children/grandchildren suffer.


Now how to fix some of the problems we are facing:

1. Tort Reform - curb defensive medicine practice
2. Allow insurance competition over state-lines to eliminate insurance company monopolies.
3. Eliminate Tax loopholes and simplify the IRS code (flat tax everyone).
4. Institute maximum terms for Congress (eliminates special interest; ideally forces each member to really work for their constituents).
5. Eliminate earmarks and require all "Bills" in congress to be written in plain English. (2000 page "health care bill" - give me a break....)
6. Eliminate lobbyists.
7. Require a balanced, ****ing budget. If you don't have the ****ing money don't keep opening up more and more government programs.
8. Change http://www.usdebtclock.org/ to usSURPLUSSclock.

Here is what is going to happen if the public option is NOT passed:
1. Insurance companies refuse coverage for those who look like they might one day need it, and refuse payments for those who have coverage and actually need it (that brain tumor may have been a pre-existing condition, ya know).
2. America continues to have health outcomes worse than many developing countries.
3. Republicans continue to whine about whatever those perpetual whiners are whining about.
4. Glenn Beck continues to cry.
5. The Church of Scientology continues to advocate for a flat-tax, and random idiots start to believe it makes perfect sense.

I mean seriously, flat tax. WTF?

 

[BerlinDude]

I like number 3. I've always wondered why we never moved to this to begin with. Can you imagine how much simpler things would be (not to mention the millions of trees saved every year)

We never moved to a flat tax because it is a ******ed idea. How on Earth could you believe a 50% sales tax makes sense?

 

[ChiDO]

We never moved to a flat tax because it is a ******ed idea.

Please elaborate on how a flat tax is a ******ed idea compared to our progressive tax system.

 

[BerlinDude]

Why is a 50% sales tax a ******ed idea? Are you serious?

Medical school tuition is about 40K a year. Do you think that should be increased to 60K a year so Dick Cheney doesn't have to worry about his 1040?

Then bear in mind if you want to buy a 500K house you have to pay 750K so George Bush doesn't worry about his 1040. A one-dollar burger is 1.50 now. (those 1040s are hard!). You have to pay an extra 1500 to buy a 3K car. But hey, it's for a good cause - we don't want a bunch of rich guys paying out income taxes. And on the plus side, cocaine costs about the same (illegal drugs are exempt from the sales tax). Hoo-ray!

 

[Concubine]

Why is a 50% sales tax a ******ed idea? Are you serious?

Medical school tuition is about 40K a year. Do you think that should be increased to 60K a year so Dick Cheney doesn't have to worry about his 1040?

Then bear in mind if you want to buy a 500K house you have to pay 750K so George Bush doesn't worry about his 1040. A one-dollar burger is 1.50 now. (those 1040s are hard!). You have to pay an extra 1500 to buy a 3K car. But hey, it's for a good cause - we don't want a bunch of rich guys paying out income taxes. And on the plus side, cocaine costs about the same (illegal drugs are exempt from the sales tax). Hoo-ray!

Please elaborate how you jumped from "flat tax" to "50% sales tax". Oh, and please spare me the rhetorical hyperbole.

 

[ChiDO]

Please elaborate how you jumped from "flat tax" to "50% sales tax".

qft. 👍 I didn't even mention 50% sales tax anywhere....😕

 

[Caesar]

Man, I forgot about this thread!

Is there anything in the past 2-3 pages that I need to respond to?

Glad to see my inbox hasn't been filled by this thread, let's keep it that way please.

 

[strummin]

If the conservatives are really serious about doing something to change our health care system, then I'm all for it, but so far they've just been proving to me that they want nothing done.

👍

Of course the conservatives don't want anything done. If Obama actually manages to do something good for the country, they won't be able to continue saying that the "black Kenyan-born Muslim socialist" is ruining this country. Anything positive Obama does will be a disaster for Fox News' ratings and will ruin Republicans' chances come 2012.

The Republicans don't want anything done. That's the only way have a chance of winning come 2012.

The Republicans' position so far has been quite consistent. Anything Obama suggests, their response is quite simple: "NO".

 

[BerlinDude]

Please elaborate how you jumped from "flat tax" to "50% sales tax". Oh, and please spare me the rhetorical hyperbole.

Ha, my bad, sorry guys. I mixed up 'flat tax' and 'fair tax' (which abolishes the income tax and replaces it with a large national sales tax).

A flat tax is also a bad idea, since it charges everyone the same income tax rate. Those who have higher incomes generally are using more government services and have more invested in the system, so why shouldn't they pay a higher portion?

 

[Tutmos]

Those who have higher incomes generally are using more government services... and have more invested in the system, so why shouldn't they pay a higher portion?

I'd like to demonstrate that you really don't believe your own rhetoric. You stated that people who use more services should pay a higher portion (rate) of their income. Although you claimed people with higher incomes use more services from the government I am quite certain that you will magically change your position when it is shown to you that lower income people use more services from the government.

If you were an honest person you'd be all in favor of higher tax rates for lower income people that use more services, which we all know you won't, so why should anyone listen to anything you have to say if you don't believe your own trash?

BTW for everyone else, the reason we don't have a flat tax is because with a flat tax you can't give special rewards hidden in legislation for yourself, donors, industries you favor and in general attempt social engineering by punishing or rewarding via taxes the outcomes you want. Most legislators are also lawyers and for exactly the same reason as you'll never see tort reform for medicine is there is a huge industry, including lawyers that exist for nothing other than the complexity of the tax code.

If anyone thinks the house bill is anything but a joke all you need to do is look at the fact that once again they have exempted themselves from the bill. You'll know they think it's actually good once they apply a law to themselves.