Public Option, where do you stand?

[xmsr3]

---

Members don't see this ad.

So where do you stand on the public option?

 

[bannie22]

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)

 

[randombetch]

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*

 

[bannie22]

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*

perhaps so. just like US News Ranking for med schools lolz. but i was looking at it for the first time today, and during my interview trail i have always been emphasizing how effective and efficient the singapore system is... and lo and behold, i was surprised and not surprised to find that singapore ranks 6... now i can go to my interviews not only demonstrating how efffective that system is, and end it with a YOU KNOW THAT SYSTEM RANKS 6, regardless of how crappy the rnaking system is, at least it works on the outside (WHO RANK), and inside (to the people, like me)

 

[7starmantis]

So polls show anywhere between 56-82% of Americans favor a public option

Stats also show that ice cream sales increase violent crimes.

 

[TheMightySmiter]

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.

 

[7starmantis]

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.

+1 minus the public option

 

[redsquareblack]

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.

 

[armybound]

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.

 

[Parts Unknown]

WHO's rankings are garbage, in my opinion...

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...

 

[dru2002]

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.

qft

 

[randombetch]

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 % of GDP going to healthcare has to do with quality of healthcare...

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.

 

[randombetch]

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.

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.

Physician compensation is a factor. Lowering physician compensation lowers the incentive to take on tons of debt to go through years of intense medical training, which therefore lowers the competition to get into medical school, which lowers the quality of the students who want to be doctors, which lowers healthcare quality.

 

[binko]

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.

Ding ding ding. 👍

 

[bannie22]

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???

 

[dru2002]

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'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.

 

[Parts Unknown]

I don't see how % of GDP going to healthcare has to do with quality of healthcare...

In a wealthy nation such as ours, a high % of GDP going to health care should indicate universal, high quality care. Overall, we are getting very poor value for our health care dollars. The citizenry, particularly providers, should be up in arms about this.

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.

Those are highly questionable assertions. We aren't the only rich or unhealthy nation on Earth, but we are an extreme outlier in terms of per capita health care spending. The reasons behind this are many and complex, but suffice to say that our system is a club sandwich of misaligned financial incentives.

 

[bannie22]

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 hope so, but then why do it behind the scene then? 🙄

 

[dru2002]

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.

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.

 

[Parts Unknown]

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.

Inefficiencies stem from much more from system design (or lack thereof) than who is at the helm. The friction inherent to our system, with its thousands of individual hospitals, providers, and insurers, should be obvious. A single payer system would carry its own problems, but nonetheless be a more efficient means of delivering care.

Here is an oft-cited 2003 NEJM paper on the subject, which found that our adminstrative overhead was 31.0% of expenditure compared to 16.9% in Canada. Per capita we spent over three times as much.

 

[FIREitUP]

yeah, a public option would be much more bureaucratic.



to be fair, I can't be on board with a public option if medicare and medicaid remain in their current state.

 

[Dr McSexy]

. 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.

 

[FIREitUP]

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.

👍if the public option shares the same fate as the current fiasco we call medicare I think it would lead to physicians being reluctant to accept individuals with the public health insurance.

 

[randombetch]

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.

I didn't have health insurance till age 18 when I went to college.

 

[7starmantis]

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.

+1

Good post.

 

[randombetch]

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.

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?

 

[randombetch]

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.

👍👍👍👍👍

 

[Thomas Hearns]

Stats also show that ice cream sales increase violent crimes.

No they don't

 

[7starmantis]

No they don't

Sure they do, but I also heard that 86% of stats are made up on the spot.

 

[redsquareblack]

Sure they do, but I also heard that 86% of stats are made up on the spot.

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.

This is different than poll results showing support for the public option. Or is there something I'm missing???😕

 

[FIREitUP]

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?

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?

 

[7starmantis]

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.

Just a sarcastic remark, pay it no mind. Just saying, polls and stats are just that, not really anything to "hang your hat on" to stay with my Texas theme today.

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 love being followed around from thread to thread being made fun of for my posts rather than having logical arguments made about my posts in the original thread. 🙄

 

[He2]

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?

 

[7starmantis]

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?

Haha, this is great! misquotes and everything! Never said anything about the "liberal media" or "brainwashing" in fact don't think I'm ever used those terms. But thanks for playing.

Tolerance and respect are oozing from this place. Just post on the original thread or STFU.

 

[randombetch]

Sure they do, but I also heard that 86% of stats are made up on the spot.

Stats are powerful tools man, don't diss stats.

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.

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.

 

[denner]

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?

That's one hell of an assumption.

 

[seelee]

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.

If politicians were really interested in getting advice from physicians then their would be tort reform and SRG fixes in the bill.

 

[seelee]

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.

Lucky few? The majority of people in this country are happy with their current health care.

 

[randombetch]

If politicians were really interested in getting advice from physicians then their would be tort reform and SRG fixes in the bill.

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.

 

[seelee]

The nievite of this thread is adorible.

I would like an insurance policy that pays out more than what I pay into it.

What? That doesn't exist? Well then lets have the government do it.

What? The government can't provide that kind of service without some kind of rationing? Well then lets just not ration it?

What? That will cost more than the government can afford? Well, lets just tax the rich/borrow more/cut reimbursements...etc.

The purpose of insurance is to protect against risk. I pay a premium and the insurance promises to pay in case something bad happens.

Insurance that covers everything is a ponzi scheme. My employer pays 900$ a month for my policy. Giving me that $900 is not an option because then he would have to pay taxes on it. I do not use $900 dollars a month on health insurance because I am relatively healthy. We maybe spend about $1000-2000 per year on health care. If we were buying medications then maybe it would increase to 4 or 5K.

A catastrophic coverage health care plan would cost about 100 dollars for my wife and I. It would cover hospital admissions, major illness, trauma, ER visits (if admission was necessary) etc. I would have to pay the first $5000 and they would pay the rest.

If I had my choice, I would get the catastrophic care plan, and have the $900 dollars put into an HSA where it would build interest. When I would go to the doctor, I could pay the doctor right then and there and make him accountable for what he charged me. If something bad happens then I pay the deductible out of my HSA, once again controlling making my providers accountable.

If I left my job (once again, if I had my way) I could take my policy and HSA with me. That way if my new employer didn't have a health care plan, I could continue to budget and put money into that HSA. Taking personal responsibility for my care.

Nancy Pelosi doesn't want me to have it my way. She doesn't want me to be able to control how my money is spent for my health care. 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.

Oh and the "opt out option" that is adorable because the citizens of the state will still have to pay those extra taxes.

Oh and the idea that the public option will not be paid for with taxes is a flat out lie. Some of the big debates in congress are having to do with how the option will be paid for. Some are saying to tax the "cadilllac" insurance plans. Others are saying to tax pharma, and equipment manufactures (which will make things like wheelchairs, walkers, dialysis machines, etc. even more expensive).

Our health care is expensive because that is what our health care costs. We want limitless high tech health care with zero tolerance for physician error. That is expensive. We want highly trained doctors who stay at the forefront of medical science. We want weeks of free ICU care for our eighty year old grandfather who is neurologically devastated and for our babies that are born weeks premature. That kind of care is not available in other countries.

Right now we are being told that we can have the exact same care, except cheaper if we hand over control to the government. News flash, refusing to pay what something costs does not reduce the cost.

 

[strummin]

Obama thinks patients should be able to sue for as much as they want.

You must be able to read his mind, because he definitely hasn't said that.

 

[FIREitUP]

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.

doctors back in the day didn't have to deal with the bureaucratic nonsense the do now. there's nothing stopping anyone from doing things illegally (except the law) of course, but there is a great deal of time spent getting people treatment they need because insurance companies want to make it as difficult as possible for anyone to get care so they make a profit.

i recommend you see what goes into a physician billing and attempting to schedule surgery, you will be astonished at how difficult they have made it.

medicare is severely underfunded, pays relatively little and will be facing budget cuts in the future. medicare has turned into a private insurance company in their tactics, for instance rejecting a claim because of a minute error in paperwork. if the public option suffers the same fate as medicare, I'm afraid we will have regressed as a nation. it's time for the government to address the problems in medicare/medicaid and institutionalize a comprehensive public option that will be fair. but the government wants to have their cake and eat it too, so we just don't know what will happen.

i guess i don't know if the public option will be less bureaucratic, but if it goes the route of a single payer plan it definitely will be.

 

[seelee]

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.

Right, notice that the House bill has plenty of goodies for lawyers, but nothing for physicans who are the ones that actually provide health care.

This bill has nothing to do with fixing health care and everything to do with having more people sucking on the government teet.

 

[strummin]

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.

Oh, look, another mind-reader.

Btw, complete, utter BS.

 

[seelee]

You must be able to read his mind, because he definitely hasn't said that.

Yes he did. At the AMA speech he said that he was opposed to caps on malpractice awards. If there are no caps, then that means he wants the people to be able to sue for as much as they want.

 

[seelee]

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.

 

[randombetch]

You must be able to read his mind, because he definitely hasn't said that.

I'm pretty sure he did...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNokY4_27PE

 

[7starmantis]

Oh, look, another mind-reader.

Btw, complete, utter BS.

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.

 

[strummin]

Hey Billy, the grown ups are talking go back and play with your G.I. Joes.

Oh look, the mormon can't handle dissent. How surprising.

 

[FIREitUP]

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.

yeah it is complete BS. especially if you are an idiot who can afford health insurance but opts not to get it but is unable to pay his bills so the hospital loses money. don't tout claims of freedom when it comes to health insurance; if you are a millionaire and can afford to pay for treatment if necessary then by all means don't get health insurance. but if you don't get health insurance but rather spend your money on a new chevy tahoe, and can't foot your medical bills, then you are a leech and deserved to be punished.