- Joined
- Jul 3, 2008
- Messages
- 584
- Reaction score
- 0
So where do you stand on the public option?
Last edited:
i feel that this entire health care is becoming way too hyped up, and getting more and more unnecessarily complex. and it is making me more and more confused as i continue with my interviews esp since i am an international student.
i wonder why america just cant make it easier, and just move towards one of those tried and successful systems that other countries uses (check out world health organization health care ranking)
WHO's rankings are garbage, in my opinion...
I agree that it's sad healthcare couldn't be simpler. I blame the liberals who try value equality so much more than efficiency that the rules and paperwork just keep piling up so the system is more "fair." *gets flamed to death*
So polls show anywhere between 56-82% of Americans favor a public option
I am in favor of the public option to try to help the current situation, but we need deeper reform than that. First of all, we need to detach insurance from employment. It was a product of WWII and the post-war era economy, and is now putting enormous pressure on the system and the people using it. I understand the argument that insurance can't work without pools, and large companies do provide a convenient pool, but that doesn't have to be the only way insurance pools can operate successfully.
Don't blame "the liberals", that's crap and that kind of thinking will get us nowhere. Any attempt to solve this problem is going to be far from perfect. It has to be taken step-by-step.
WHO's rankings are garbage, in my opinion...
qfti don't see how anyone can really not support a public insurance option, unless they're worried about physician compensation under it, or if they believe it will bankrupt us.
I agree, for the amount we spend we should be well below #37.
For the amount we spend, any citizen or legal resident should be able to obtain efficient, coordinated, evidence-based care anywhere in the country, without fear of going utterly broke.
Instead we have an expensive, misguided, disjointed, cobbled-together mess that results in misallocation of resources, reduplicative efforts, high rates of avoidable medical errors, and contributes significantly to the financial harship of patients.
Inside this husk of a system are millions of providers routinely battling the inherent obstacles in order to render good patient care. Outside are a curious band of cheerleaders who somehow think this situation is not only acceptable, but laudable.
Alright, back to work...
I don't see how anyone can really not support a public insurance option, unless they're worried about physician compensation under it, or if they believe it will bankrupt us.
Look, say what you want, but a big part of the reason why the "health care system" is the nonsensical, expensive, bureaucratic nightmare that it is now is that it wasn't planned. It was never meant to be this way, but rather just "evolved", as small fixes to one aspect produced unintended complications for another. It has nothing to do with "liberal" versus "conservative".
An instructive exercise is to look back over the history of health care in the United States.
lowering physician compensation results in less opportunities for care, but at the same time, studies have shown that AMOUNT of health care has absolutely no correlation to health, in fact, is sometimes correlated negatively.
my point: american health care system is in a mess, and they are not making it any better.
yes, its great that we are moving somewhere.
but lets be honest, us here, on sdn, trying so difficult to educate ourselves on medicare mediaid, the 4-5 insurance plan types...
what about the people that reallly need these care? are they even close to educated enough to comprehend all these mumbojumbo that some of us here have difficulty comprehending.
and what really does senate and politicans know about health care. yes they know alot, but shouldnt discussions also involve the parties directly involved with the health care system???
I don't see how % of GDP going to healthcare has to do with quality of healthcare...
randombetch said:We spend a lot on healthcare because we're rich enough to spend that money on healthcare and because of the extremely unhealthy lifestyles we choose to partake in. And because we have lots of old people who get treatments and medications to offset years of unhealthy lifestyle choices.
I'm pretty confident that behind the scenes they are. Especially something this public the senators and congressman have sought the advice of those this will directly effect.
I'm worried about the inevitable inefficiencies that arise because of government controls, that this will make healthcare worse for many and better for few.
I'm worried about the inevitable inefficiencies that arise because of government controls, that this will make healthcare worse for many and better for few.
. This is an optional governement run non profit health insurance plan which is funded by premiums, (not taxes) and which dosn't do rescision, (ending your coverage if you get sick) and dosn't disqualify pre-existing conditions.
It'll be interesting to see (if these bills pass), how long will this last. As in, we already know that more people are going to use the healthcare system if the bill passes, the government will try to keep the premiums affordable (because isn't that the point?), and additionally, the government is taking on clients with pre-existing conditions (which is also the point), who are inevitably a higher risk and will most likely have higher medical costs associated with them. As such, I would predict that the premiums charged will not be enough to actually cover the costs that increased usage of the system and pre-existing conditions higher medical costs will cause.
So that means that either the govt. will cut reimbursements rates of physicians, which has several consequences. Physicians will either see more patients in the same amount of time to make up for the loss of income. Or they will limit the amount of public option patient they see, in order to see more private patients (and possibly charge the private patients more to make up for the cost; this is already evident with Medicare patients). If you live in a undeserved area AND there's significant number of public option patients, if physicians limit the amount of public option patients they see, there will be people who will have to go out of their way just to see a doctor.
OR govt. will regulate the amount physicians are allowed to charge for services in order to keep their costs down. So, physicians can either do more unnecessary tests to make up their costs or go bankrupt because they will not make enough to cover their overhead costs (see JAPAN and hospital failures).
Does something need to be done? Yes. I realize that I've may have painted a picture of doom and gloom, but I don't think that the infrastructure we currently have can support the system and I don't think enough consideration of the consequences has taken place to warrant a national change.
I'm not a health care policy expert, so for sure, none of the above may actually even happen. But I would rather see the Public Option tested on a small scale on willing states and see what happens before initialize a national public option.
You may be one of the lucky few who has very good insurance that allows for you to get what ever care you need with little red tape. But anytime I needed care growing up it was always a hassle fighting with the insurance company to get things covered. So I don't see how adding a public option will make this system anymore of a beaurocratic nightmare.
It'll be interesting to see (if these bills pass), how long will this last. As in, we already know that more people are going to use the healthcare system if the bill passes, the government will try to keep the premiums affordable (because isn't that the point?), and additionally, the government is taking on clients with pre-existing conditions (which is also the point), who are inevitably a higher risk and will most likely have higher medical costs associated with them. As such, I would predict that the premiums charged will not be enough to actually cover the costs that increased usage of the system and pre-existing conditions higher medical costs will cause.
So that means that either the govt. will cut reimbursements rates of physicians, which has several consequences. Physicians will either see more patients in the same amount of time to make up for the loss of income. Or they will limit the amount of public option patient they see, in order to see more private patients (and possibly charge the private patients more to make up for the cost; this is already evident with Medicare patients). If you live in a undeserved area AND there's significant number of public option patients, if physicians limit the amount of public option patients they see, there will be people who will have to go out of their way just to see a doctor.
OR govt. will regulate the amount physicians are allowed to charge for services in order to keep their costs down. So, physicians can either do more unnecessary tests to make up their costs or go bankrupt because they will not make enough to cover their overhead costs (see JAPAN and hospital failures).
Does something need to be done? Yes. I realize that I've may have painted a picture of doom and gloom, but I don't think that the infrastructure we currently have can support the system and I don't think enough consideration of the consequences has taken place to warrant a national change.
I'm not a health care policy expert, so for sure, none of the above may actually even happen. But I would rather see the Public Option tested on a small scale on willing states and see what happens before initialize a national public option.
my point: american health care system is in a mess, and they are not making it any better.
yes, its great that we are moving somewhere.
yeah, a public option would be much more bureaucratic.
View attachment 13796
to be fair, I can't be on board with a public option if medicare and medicaid remain in their current state.
It'll be interesting to see (if these bills pass), how long will this last. As in, we already know that more people are going to use the healthcare system if the bill passes, the government will try to keep the premiums affordable (because isn't that the point?), and additionally, the government is taking on clients with pre-existing conditions (which is also the point), who are inevitably a higher risk and will most likely have higher medical costs associated with them. As such, I would predict that the premiums charged will not be enough to actually cover the costs that increased usage of the system and pre-existing conditions higher medical costs will cause.
So that means that either the govt. will cut reimbursements rates of physicians, which has several consequences. Physicians will either see more patients in the same amount of time to make up for the loss of income. Or they will limit the amount of public option patient they see, in order to see more private patients (and possibly charge the private patients more to make up for the cost; this is already evident with Medicare patients). If you live in a undeserved area AND there's significant number of public option patients, if physicians limit the amount of public option patients they see, there will be people who will have to go out of their way just to see a doctor.
OR govt. will regulate the amount physicians are allowed to charge for services in order to keep their costs down. So, physicians can either do more unnecessary tests to make up their costs or go bankrupt because they will not make enough to cover their overhead costs (see JAPAN and hospital failures).
Does something need to be done? Yes. I realize that I've may have painted a picture of doom and gloom, but I don't think that the infrastructure we currently have can support the system and I don't think enough consideration of the consequences has taken place to warrant a national change.
I'm not a health care policy expert, so for sure, none of the above may actually even happen. But I would rather see the Public Option tested on a small scale on willing states and see what happens before initialize a national public option.
Stats also show that ice cream sales increase violent crimes.
No they don't
Sure they do, but I also heard that 86% of stats are made up on the spot.
See, what I don't completely buy is this notion: "because healthcare is bad now, changing it will make it better."
Just because it's a mess now doesn't mean moving "somewhere" will lead us to a better place.
And just because it's very bureaucratic now doesn't mean a public option will make things less bureaucratic. It might make it less bureaucratic, but if it does, then it's not going to be because we're at the maximum level of bureaucracy now.
I don't know very much about how the single payer system aims at lowering bureaucracy though. Can someone explain how a government funded public option (not single payer) will decrease the bureaucracy in existance, other than by forcing private companies out of business?
Erm, 7, you're a smart guy, definitely, but you know better. Stats don't "show that ice cream sales increase violent crimes". They show that ice cream sales and violent crimes (and drownings, too, for that matter) are directly correlated.
then again, we could always go for 7's conservative default plan by giving everyone tax credits. because why solve a problem if you can mask it with task credits?
we did. you ignored every one of them and just accused us of making ad hominem attacks and being brainwashing by the liberal media. you never mentioned one word about my notes on ken arrow's work, did you?
Sure they do, but I also heard that 86% of stats are made up on the spot.
the single payer is less bureacratic if done correctly; dr. provides service and gets paid. no having to check for authorization, referrals, getting your claims denied, etc. but that's only if they don't run the public option like they've been running medicare.
the single payer is less bureacratic if done correctly; dr. provides service and gets paid. no having to check for authorization, referrals, getting your claims denied, etc. but that's only if they don't run the public option like they've been running medicare.
then again, we could always go for 7's conservative default plan by giving everyone tax credits. because why solve a problem if you can mask it with task credits?
I'm pretty confident that behind the scenes they are. Especially something this public the senators and congressman have sought the advice of those this will directly effect.
You may be one of the lucky few who has very good insurance that allows for you to get what ever care you need with little red tape. But anytime I needed care growing up it was always a hassle fighting with the insurance company to get things covered. So I don't see how adding a public option will make this system anymore of a beaurocratic nightmare.
If politicians were really interested in getting advice from physicians then their would be tort reform and SRG fixes in the bill.
Obama thinks patients should be able to sue for as much as they want.
Stats are powerful tools man, don't diss stats.
Did you mean the public option is less bureaucratic? I'm not talking about the single payer system.
If the Dr. can get paid without authorization, doesn't that mean there's nothing stopping him from making up bulls*** and getting paid for it?
Why wouldn't they run the public option like they've been running medicare? Or conversely, why don't they run medicare like they want to run the public option?
Again, these are all questions of inquiry and not meant to be hostile in any way... I really don't know.
Republicans really want tort reform (at least, I watched them stand up and cheer loudly when Obama tried to briefly mention "tort reform" in passing during his speech to Congress). Obama thinks patients should be able to sue for as much as they want.
Nancy Pelosi thinks that I should be forced at the point of a gun to buy health care that I don't want or need.
You must be able to read his mind, because he definitely hasn't said that.
Oh, look, another mind-reader.
Btw, complete, utter BS.
You must be able to read his mind, because he definitely hasn't said that.
Oh, look, another mind-reader.
Btw, complete, utter BS.
Hey Billy, the grown ups are talking go back and play with your G.I. Joes.
No its not, federal mandate with imposed fines if not followed. Managed by the IRS who can then put you in prison for not paying the fines.
yeah, complete BS.