The "Public Option"

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
DogFaceMedic

DogFaceMedic

Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2006
Messages
552
Reaction score
4
Members do not see this ad.
I want the readers digest version of what is actually proposed. Anyone have a good one -- no book length propaganda please.

The term "public option" strikes me as word-smithing to make it appealing to all that the poor down-trodden, huddled masses of proletariat will get care and not interfere w/ private insurance. But, that sounds too good to be true.

Also, what are the "punishments" written into the plan for insurance companies & hospitals if costs are not reduced? The implication is that "stuff" roles down hill, and then pressure will be on us to cut tests, salaries, procedures while increasing risk and shouldering other costs.

The Public Option sounds like the gov't muscling in to healthcare w/ options or triggers designed into the plan to progressively take control of the market.
 
DogFaceMedic said:
I want the readers digest version of what is actually proposed. Anyone have a good one -- no book length propaganda please.

The term "public option" strikes me as word-smithing to make it appealing to all that the poor down-trodden, huddled masses of proletariat will get care and not interfere w/ private insurance. But, that sounds too good to be true.]
Click to expand...

"Public" means that it is available to the public as a non-profit fund run by the government or designated organization. Supporters of the program claim that funds will ONLY come from people who sign up for the plan and will not be funded from taxpayer dollars. What will happen if it runs at a loss (likely) has not yet been explained.

Also, what are the "punishments" written into the plan for insurance companies & hospitals if costs are not reduced? The implication is that "stuff" roles down hill, and then pressure will be on us to cut tests, salaries, procedures while increasing risk and shouldering other costs.
Click to expand...

So far none. Our essential problem is healthcare consumption, not the uninsured. This plan does nothing to address the over-consumption of healthcare.

The Public Option sounds like the gov't muscling in to healthcare w/ options or triggers designed into the plan to progressively take control of the market.
Click to expand...

There are two camps on this. One side of the Progressives claim that it is simply an "option" that will "increase competition". Then you have members of Congress like Barney Frank who have stated that it is their plan to use the Public Option to slowly increase government control in an incremental fashion.

Overall it's likely going to be just an expansion of Medicare. Hugely expensive with cost-overruns supported by taxpayer dollars.
 
President Obama was a supporter of a single payer system advocated by the Physicians for a National Health Program.

So his advocacy for a public option could be opening the door for a single payer system, which likely will occur. Insurance companies will not be able to compete with the public (government) option because the government option will be reimbursing hospitals and doctors at Medicare rates (well below what private insurers pay). As insurance premiums go up to make up for this, individuals will leave private insurers and join the government plan. As people leave insurance companies, this further increases premiums. Before you know it, all people are part of the government option.

I've mentioned this before: I'm a supporter of a single payer system. However, I believe in a NON-PROFIT THIRD PARTY plan and not a government run healthcare system.
 
Perhaps more concerning is how Obama has capped the salaries of all high-level executives with banks who took TARP funding. The CEOs of Bank of America, Citigroup, et all have been informed that their TOTAL COMPENSATION cannot exceed $200k per year.

When physicians inevitably fall under government control, who do you think will make more - the CEO of the largest national bank or the lowly ED physician?

This is going to get very interesting.
 
Google Keiki Care- the attempted universal health-care program in Hawaii that was ended after just 7 months because of $900 million general fund shortfall by 2011.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93SBEUG0&show_article=1

Massachusetts has attempted universal healthcare and the over-budget $1.3 billion annual program is up from $630 million in fiscal year 2007, according to a February report by Physicians for a National Health Program titled "A Failed Model for Health Care Reform."

Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security are all grossly over-budget and projected to become even more so. The following chart from the congressional budget is rather disturbing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Medicare_and_Medicaid_GDP_Chart.svg

Do you think that the American Public will accept healthcare rationing? Do you think the nurses are going to allow their pay to be cut? What is the one group in healthcare who can't unionize? Physicians. Who induces the least compassion amongst the general population? Physicians. Who is about to get really screwed as government and the public realize that this amount of spending is unsustainable? You decide.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree that consumption is a major problem, so isnt rationing care the only solution (other than increasing insurance costs)? How much would massive tort reform affect this cost? How much would decreasing insurance company overhead affect cost by socializing (assuming the govt can run a more efficient system)?

I think covering the uninsured is a seperate ethical issue but it will comlicate the situation by increasing costs most likely.
 
cinapism said:
I agree that consumption is a major problem, so isnt rationing care the only solution (other than increasing insurance costs)? How much would massive tort reform affect this cost? How much would decreasing insurance company overhead affect cost by socializing (assuming the govt can run a more efficient system)?

I think covering the uninsured is a seperate ethical issue but it will comlicate the situation by increasing costs most likely.
Click to expand...

It is hard to generate a discussion with specifics when the bill is hidden by the oligarchs. Nonetheless, I agree that that the objective of the left is to take over more and more b/c of their mythology that they are the only ones who want reform and moral enough to guide us low, mean, nasty, brutish huddled masses of humanity who need their guidance.

The thought that the gov't can run anthing more efficiently has NEVER occured in human history. never, ever, nada, nilch, none. The problem is not insurance company overhead, it is the demand that everything be done or be dragged to the tort dungeon.

We all want reform, but I don't want gov't with its own agenda.
 
DogFaceMedic said:
The thought that the gov't can run anthing more efficiently has NEVER occured in human history. never, ever, nada, nilch, none. The problem is not insurance company overhead, it is the demand that everything be done or be dragged to the tort dungeon.

We all want reform, but I don't want gov't with its own agenda.
Click to expand...


This time it WILL be different! For some reason the government can run a "public option" well, even though they've failed at Medicare, Social Security, Postal Service, in fact the whole damn rest of the government. But just ignore the failures, because this time it will WORK!
 
GeneralVeers said:
This time it WILL be different! For some reason the government can run a "public option" well, even though they've failed at Medicare, Social Security, Postal Service, in fact the whole damn rest of the government. But just ignore the failures, because this time it will WORK!
Click to expand...

How did the Post office fail? Last time I checked Fed Ex couldn't send a letter from new york to la for 40 cents.
 
BAM! said:
How did the Post office fail? Last time I checked Fed Ex couldn't send a letter from new york to la for 40 cents.
Click to expand...
The Postal Service isn't making a profit and is being subsidized by the government. However, this is the first year they've been in the red in quite a few years.
 
BAM! said:
How did the Post office fail? Last time I checked Fed Ex couldn't send a letter from new york to la for 40 cents.
Click to expand...

Yes, it still works, but if they don't shape up their act somehow, my tax dollars are going to continue to help you send a letter from New York to LA. I don't care if YOU can send a letter or not. That is your problem, not my problem, and not the government's. Besides, you need to enter the 21st century and start e-mailing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Abraham Lincoln said,

"Property is the fruit of labor. Property is desirable, is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently to build one for himself, this by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence... I take it that it is best for all to leave each man free to acquire property as fast as he can. Some will get wealthy. I don't believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good". (Quoted in THE FREEMAN: Ideas on Liberty, May 1955, p.7.)

This is the heart of the matter. Obama and the democrats (and a lot of the republicans, evidenced by how they vote on government spending) want more government intervention, more redistribution of wealth through social programs. They are trying to avoid the issue of actually funding this stuff (over a trillion dollar pricetag, but it won't cost you a dime, Promise!). They are just setting up a ponzi scheme that is going to come crashing down on our children and grandchildren. The more taxes there are, the harder it is to become wealthy. The fewer prosperous people, the worse the economy is and the worse off the entire nation is, whether they are rich or poor.

You wouldn't disagree with good ol' Abe would you? That would be, well, un-American.

Sorry dogface, I can't help spewing book-length propaganda, as you well know.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jarabacoa said:
This is the heart of the matter. Obama and the democrats want more government intervention, more redistribution of wealth through social programs. They are trying to avoid the issue of actually funding this stuff (over a trillion dollar pricetag, but it won't cost you a dime, Promise!). They are just setting up a ponzi scheme that is going to come crashing down on our children and grandchildren. The more taxes there are, the harder it is to become wealthy. The fewer prosperous people, the worse the economy is and the worse off the entire nation is, whether they are rich or poor.

You wouldn't disagree with good ol' Abe would you? That would be, well, un-American.

Sorry dogface, I can't help spewing book-length propaganda, as you well know.
Click to expand...

You uncaring RICH PERSON! How dare you question our Dear Leader and his glorious new America!
 
Can someone with a negative net worth of over $400,000 be considered rich?🙁
 
Jarabacoa said:
Abraham Lincoln said,

"Property is the fruit of labor. Property is desirable, is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently to build one for himself, this by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence... I take it that it is best for all to leave each man free to acquire property as fast as he can. Some will get wealthy. I don't believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good". (Quoted in THE FREEMAN: Ideas on Liberty, May 1955, p.7.)

This is the heart of the matter. Obama and the democrats (and a lot of the republicans, evidenced by how they vote on government spending) want more government intervention, more redistribution of wealth through social programs. They are trying to avoid the issue of actually funding this stuff (over a trillion dollar pricetag, but it won't cost you a dime, Promise!). They are just setting up a ponzi scheme that is going to come crashing down on our children and grandchildren. The more taxes there are, the harder it is to become wealthy. The fewer prosperous people, the worse the economy is and the worse off the entire nation is, whether they are rich or poor.

You wouldn't disagree with good ol' Abe would you? That would be, well, un-American.

Sorry dogface, I can't help spewing book-length propaganda, as you well know.
Click to expand...

There are no restrictions when quoting Abe.
 
BAM! said:
How did the Post office fail? Last time I checked Fed Ex couldn't send a letter from new york to la for 40 cents.
Click to expand...

I am glad someone brought up the post office. I have worked in a past job where we had to ship products all over the world. I can tell you when we had to get it right and guaranteed right we never used the Post Office. We had terrible customer service (ie none) with the post office and all kinds of logistical nightmares and mistakes. We shipped 200 - 300 packages / day. Think about it; if you had something extremely important that had to be mailed / shipped somewhere and you had to be sure it would get there in a timely manner. Would you use the Postal Service or Fedex or UPS? You would obviously use Fedex or UPS or the item is not important enough to you. When it comes to healthcare everything and every person is considered very important (ie something you would Fedex or UPS in the shipping analogy).

Also if you have ever had something lost or go wrong with the post office you know what a nightmare it is to get the issue resolved. It takes weeks and even months of constant follow up with the Post Office and they treat you like you are an enemy, not a customer. The whole system if inefficient and can't even be compared to the private companies like Fedex and UPS.

I think the Postal Service is exactly what would happen to our healthcare if it is taken over by the government. Sub par service and inefficiency and long waits that you will not want to trust for something as important as your health. If we keep the shipping analogy going as long as the government does not make the private healthcare impossible and or illegal you will have groups of "Fedex" or "UPS" like doctors who charge more but give much better service and ultimately better healthcare. However that will be considered "unfair" and probably made illegal or shut down if we convert to a government run system.
 
BAM! said:
How did the Post office fail? Last time I checked Fed Ex couldn't send a letter from new york to la for 40 cents.
Click to expand...

Something that I don't think most people realized, but UPS, FED Ex, and the like don't deliver mail because they are PROHIBITED BY LAW from doing so.

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

We don't know how much a letter sent by private carrier would cost because it isn't an option. It is easy to think that the 'government option' for mail is the best or only solution for this service when there is no other competition or innovation from private industry allowed. I believe that private carriers have raised the bar for the post office in the areas that they do compete with the USPS. (Online tracking, next day services, instant signature confirmation, worldwide express delivery, automatic pickup, etc.) are all areas that I am pretty sure came from private carriers and left the post office trying to keep up with.

Another point about the mail is all of the 'junk mail' that we receive is shipped for mere fraction of what we spend to mail first class letters and parcels. These items are usually individually addressed, which means that it all has to be sorted and it causes the carrier to have to stop at every house on a street to deliver the exactly addressed junk to each specific house.

My point is that the majority of the labor, expense, time, and cost of delivering mail is spent on handling crap that they collect half of the normal rate. All this for stuff that most people don't want anyway. Think of it as welfare for businesses. Subsidizing their masses with the taxes levied on the few.

(Excepting national defense) I believe, for anything the government can do - free markets, competition, and capitalism can usually do better.

We need a carrot or stick system. Doling out services for 'free' takes the incentive away from getting your but out of bed everyday and participating in the system. There are a lot of people that take and keep jobs they don't want because they NEED them. It motivates people! People do things because they either have to or they want to. They need the insurance, the income, the retirement plan, etc. Given the option of having everything handed out, I suspect that most would not work, not contribute, yet take, take, and take. Somebody ends up paying for all of this. These are the people that I see routinely in ED (county) program where I am.

It will be interesting to see what happens when 50 million people all show up demanding the health care they will have now have an ENTITLEMENT to.

Additionally, I wish people would stop calling this health care reform. It isn't. It may be INSURANCE reform, or REIMBURSEMENT reform, or COVERAGE reform, but very little if any of this has to reforming the way that health care is practiced or provided in this country.

Anyway, just my .02 Sorry if this was off track.
 
I think that most progressives who want government control of healthcare do so for altruistic reasons, and genuinely think it will make people's lives better.

Three questions I have for those people:

1. What governmental organization has ever provided more efficient and better services than an equivalent private organization?

2. When the cost of a new program is estimated, what entitlement program has ever come in at or below CBO projections in terms of cost? (hint: there is one, and ONLY one).

3. Is a government takeover of healthcare and an "individual mandate" legal under the Constitution? Moreover is it keeping within the "spirit" of the Constitution?
 
GeneralVeers said:
Why can't our current politicians demonstrate the same statesmanship?
Click to expand...

Because they'd never get elected.

We the people get exactly the type of crappy government we deserve.

Marrion Barry. Need I say more?

Take care,
Jeff
 
GeneralVeers said:
This time it WILL be different! For some reason the government can run a "public option" well, even though they've failed at Medicare, Social Security, Postal Service, in fact the whole damn rest of the government. But just ignore the failures, because this time it will WORK!
Click to expand...

Veers, I have been reading your stuff for as long as I have been on here. I have always affirmed that everything on the Right's argument boils down to 1) Ignorant or 2) Lies. You prove my point in spades.

Medicare supplies excellent health care to those who can't work anymore and who would otherwise die in the gutter, even though the king of the douchebags (Ronald Reagan) railed against it. Let's see a 70 year old try to get private insurance..... Now while this may tickle you pink that old people don't have health insurance cuz you make "30%" less, it really sickens the rest of us.

Social Security....really? Wow, so anyone who is beyond able to work and has the audacity to not be wealthy should just eat out of the garbage dump live in a cardboard box? Good for you. How proud your grandparents must be, Canadian or not.

The post office? Wow, I can send a letter anywhere in the 50 for 45 cents and it will get there in a day, and their rates are cheaper than any of the privates.

I know that it must sicken you that any penny you pay in tax goes to help anyone other than yourself, but just remember...someday it may be you. Let's hear you wolf your bull**** then.....

As I said...any Republican's argument against reform is based upon 1) Ignorance or 2) Lies. I challenge you to prove me wrong.

Quit being a douche and use your intelligence and training to help people instead of bitching that your not rich enough and others might be getting help because of your paltry hand. Vegas or not. If you don't like it, go bag groceries.
 
General! I just realized! We are stupid and ignorant people! Why didn't I see it before? Now that I read octagon's post, I realize the error of our ways. Come, let's go over to the honest and smart side of the democrats.

They never spew ignorant, disproportionately emotional, hate-filled rants filled with strawmen fallacies and misrepresentation of ideas.

Do you really have paltry hands?

You know what they say about people with paltry hands...
 
Octagonecology said:
Veers, I have been reading your stuff for as long as I have been on here. I have always affirmed that everything on the Right's argument boils down to 1) Ignorant or 2) Lies. You prove my point in spades.
Click to expand...

Insults display your level of intelligence and rhetorical ability.


Medicare supplies excellent health care to those who can't work anymore and who would otherwise die in the gutter, even though the king of the douchebags (Ronald Reagan) railed against it. Let's see a 70 year old try to get private insurance..... Now while this may tickle you pink that old people don't have health insurance cuz you make "30%" less, it really sickens the rest of us.
Click to expand...

I never said Medicare was bad. What I've said is that it's likely unconstitutional and not within the powers of the Federal Government to provide healthcare. These Seniors would be better off saving their whole lives for a health savings account. Oh BTW, Medicare is BROKE, therefore a failure. Sure we can help everyone in society with massive social spending, but if we bankrupt the country in the process does it really matter?

Social Security....really? Wow, so anyone who is beyond able to work and has the audacity to not be wealthy should just eat out of the garbage dump live in a cardboard box? Good for you. How proud your grandparents must be, Canadian or not.
Click to expand...

Why do I have to contribute to a program I don't want? Why is my money taken by force? If it's really a "retirement plan" and "my money" why can't I choose where to put it? This is another unconstitutional overreach by government. Essentially we are all too stupid to manage our retirement so the government has to do it for us.

The post office? Wow, I can send a letter anywhere in the 50 for 45 cents and it will get there in a day, and their rates are cheaper than any of the privates.
Click to expand...

True, but the government maintains a monopoly. The private companies are restricted by law from delivering regular mail. Also, did I mention that the Post Office is BANKRUPT? Another triumph of big government!

I know that it must sicken you that any penny you pay in tax goes to help anyone other than yourself, but just remember...someday it may be you. Let's hear you wolf your bull**** then.....
Click to expand...

Well it's actually over 30% of my salary (which is a lot of pennies). I don't believe most of the money actually helps anyone. Most of it goes to wasteful spending, unions, and projects I don't agree with.


Quit being a douche and use your intelligence and training to help people instead of bitching that your not rich enough and others might be getting help because of your paltry hand. Vegas or not. If you don't like it, go bag groceries.
Click to expand...

When progessives run out of ideas they try to belittle their opponents. You are a typical example of why your party is ideologically bankrupt.
 
GeneralVeers said:
Insults display your level of intelligence and rhetorical ability.




I never said Medicare was bad. What I've said is that it's likely unconstitutional and not within the powers of the Federal Government to provide healthcare. These Seniors would be better off saving their whole lives for a health savings account. Oh BTW, Medicare is BROKE, therefore a failure. Sure we can help everyone in society with massive social spending, but if we bankrupt the country in the process does it really matter?



Why do I have to contribute to a program I don't want? Why is my money taken by force? If it's really a "retirement plan" and "my money" why can't I choose where to put it? This is another unconstitutional overreach by government. Essentially we are all too stupid to manage our retirement so the government has to do it for us.



True, but the government maintains a monopoly. The private companies are restricted by law from delivering regular mail. Also, did I mention that the Post Office is BANKRUPT? Another triumph of big government!



Well it's actually over 30% of my salary (which is a lot of pennies). I don't believe most of the money actually helps anyone. Most of it goes to wasteful spending, unions, and projects I don't agree with.




When progessives run out of ideas they try to belittle their opponents. You are a typical example of why your party is ideologically bankrupt.
Click to expand...

I appreciate you opinion. I do really. You continue looking out for "you" and screw anyone else. When was the last time you sat down and asked yourself why you went into this business? Do you even remember when you sold out?

Every word that I read just makes me that much more happy that I will never, no matter what happens and no matter what anyone says.....I will never be like you.
 
Octagonecology said:
I appreciate you opinion. I do really. You continue looking out for "you" and screw anyone else. When was the last time you sat down and asked yourself why you went into this business? Do you even remember when you sold out?

Every word that I read just makes me that much more happy that I will never, no matter what happens and no matter what anyone says.....I will never be like you.
Click to expand...

That's okay. As long as people like me work hard and pay a ton of taxes, we'll be able to prop up the egregious spending programs that you love so dearly.

And also....

Luke, I am your FATHER!
 
Octagonecology said:
Every word that I read just makes me that much more happy that I will never, no matter what happens and no matter what anyone says.....I will never be like you.
Click to expand...

I'm sure he's devastated, I don't know what I would do if some anonymous person from the internet came on to a message board, made himself sound like a self righteous ass, then proceeded to proclaim they will never be like me. I don't know if life would be worth living after a tragedy like that....makes me tear up just thinking about it.
 
Octagonecology said:
I appreciate you opinion. I do really. You continue looking out for "you" and screw anyone else. When was the last time you sat down and asked yourself why you went into this business? Do you even remember when you sold out?

Every word that I read just makes me that much more happy that I will never, no matter what happens and no matter what anyone says.....I will never be like you.
Click to expand...

uh...😕
octa needs more grace.
i said many stupid things in the past and I'm blessed that instead of the beating i deserved, I received kindness.
 
EMandI said:
uh...😕
octa needs more grace.
i said many stupid things in the past and I'm blessed that instead of the beating i deserved, I received kindness.
Click to expand...

I think he would have gotten nicer responses had he not flew in announcing how much superior he was to all those who happen to disagree with the current manner in which the government is trying to reform access to health care. Its fine to have opposing views, that can spur important debates and cause people to rethink their view and grow, however acting smug, and arrogant is not the way to voice that opinion.
 
atkinsje said:
I think he would have gotten nicer responses had he not flew in announcing how much superior he was to all those who happen to disagree with the current manner in which the government is trying to reform access to health care. Its fine to have opposing views, that can spur important debates and cause people to rethink their view and grow, however acting smug, and arrogant is not the way to voice that opinion.
Click to expand...

It's old false logic that I've heard over and over: "If you are against healthcare reform, then you hate the poor!"

I've just learned to ignore it. When I hear statements similar to that I know I've won the argument.
 
While I disagree with General far more than I agree with him on this thread (which, by definition, is about the 5% of stuff we're likely to disagree about and not the 95% we're likely to agree about), Octa is way off base with his post. That was quite the personal attack.

Sadly, your post is one more example of the poor level of discourse we've descended to in a time where "debate" means a cross between CrossFire and Hannity and Whatshisface.

Take care,
Jeff
 
GeneralVeers said:
It's old false logic that I've heard over and over: "If you are against healthcare reform, then you hate the poor!"

I've just learned to ignore it. When I hear statements similar to that I know I've won the argument.
Click to expand...

I don't see the flawed logic in this argument. Right now healthcare is not entirely free market, nor is it purely government controlled; it is a mix between the two. This hybrid drives up costs and creating a difficult environment to afford coverage, and the poor get hit the hardest. Whether you move towards a socialist or free market approach, the goal of healthcare reform is to deflate these outrageous costs to provide wider coverage of the population. If you are against healthcare reform, then you have little regard for the poor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

W
Dogs in the ED
Replies
15
Views
1K
WorkNoteEmergency
W
Groove
The PITT
2 3 4
Replies
181
Views
22K
Apollyon
A
alpinism
The Insanity of Vituity
2
Replies
92
Views
10K
EctopicFetus
EctopicFetus
thegenius
AI Tech for the ER
2
Replies
70
Views
4K
EctopicFetus
EctopicFetus
CajunMedic
And so the expansion continues...
Replies
14
Views
2K
xaelia
xaelia
Top