The Public Option Is Not A Mysterious Thing! Many Members Of Congress Have It! Congressman Weiner

[alw21202z]

Mr.Wener or Weiner

[AngelAsmodeus]

If we pay say $300.00 a month , thats $3600.00 a year . Then you have a deducts of say $2500.00 up front that you pay before insurance kicks in. Thats $6100.00 dollars a year you pay , or $508.00 a month . Government Insurance starting to look pretty good isn't it ....LOL....Lets vote yes and buy a new car with our new found money.....

[jag10]

There is really no comparison (on the whole). Private and top public schools (high tax affluent or ultra competitive inner-city magnet) are heads and shoulders above the typical government school. Sophomores test better than government school Seniors.

In my area public schools are one grade behind by the time a kid reaches 4th grade.

The bar has been lowered to the lowest common denominator. The difference in dollar spent per child is half in most cases. The budget today is lower than 1980.

[mrbhave]

I'm referring to colleges, not grade schools.

[enemigosocultos]

So they have private insurance thanks to the public option in their health plan? Which is actually a subsidy that allows them to shop for better treatment, physicians and etc?

[RoyalDemonforChrist]

this is a lie. congress has private insurance

[mrbhave]

Congress gets private insurance that is paid for with public monies. That's the truth. Ask any retired veteran about TRICARE, which is basically what Congress gets. All retired vets are eligible for private insurance, which is paid for with tax dollars (I.e., government funded).

[RoyalDemonforChrist]

private healthcare paid for with public monies. you really think the public option will be as good as what congress gets? give me a break.

[mrbhave]

From a quality perspective, it wouldn't be any different. The only obvious difference would be the 30% reduction in prices for the public option. Get out the middle man. That's what's best.

[RoyalDemonforChrist]

30% reduction in prices will lead to decreased quality of care. doctors who see medicare patients are already reimbursed below market value. many doctors will choose not to see patients on the public option because it just wont be worth their labor. then someone on the public option will have to go to a lesser doctor

[mrbhave]

Oh really? So a 30% off sale means the goods are suddenly less quality than before the sale? This isn't about underpaid doctors. It's about removing the blood-sucking insurance profiteers whose only mission is to get a cut of the medical business between doctors and patients. And for what? What value do insurance companies bring to the table that couldn't be accomplished with a non-profit, public option? Nada. They bring absolutely nothing. And they are totally dispensable.

[RoyalDemonforChrist]

the unintended consequences of what you want will lead to a decrease in quality of care and lower the standard of living as a result. it is not as if you are having a 30% off sale. this isnt walmart it is modern medicine. it isnt as simple as "DEMAND PUBLIC OPTION NOW" my family are doctors. i have grown up around the medical field. i know how doctors are getting screwed over and this will make things worse for doctors. as you decrease incentive for good doctors the quality of care decreases

[mrbhave]

Sure, it is that easy. It's as easy as eliminating the 30% in overhead that's required to support for-profit insurance companies in the form of high compensation and advertising, neither of which would be required in a public option. An immediate 30% reduction would dramatically change the medical landscape. Some of that money saved could very well go to paying doctors more. The current "Fee for Services" pay structure is also to blame.

[RoyalDemonforChrist]

the what pay structure do you propose for doctors? you want medical slaves? expensive procedures done for next to nothing? why would a young person become a doctor when the government is controlling prices and reimbursement? the best and brightest will go into a different field. good luck when your doctor is from india and dosent even speak english cause no american person is going to become a doctor once this is implemented. you cant abuse a person's good will forever. eventually they walk away

[mrbhave]

We could easily pass tort reform to prevent doctors from having to practice costly, "preventive medicine." That would solve part of the problem. Ask doctors who ONLY wish to go into specialty work because of the money why they don't instead become stock brokers, if money is all they desire. Best and brightest? Oh, I see. There aren't any "best and brightest" general practitioners. Those guys are stupid for only wanting to help people and not get rich doing so. You're missing so much.

[RoyalDemonforChrist]

preventive care? how can you be paid on the basis of the patient's health when the patient is free to make their own decisions? the american public is obese and unhealthy. they will continue to do so and preventive care will not save them from themselves. if you want to make healthcare a right then the responsibility is on the public to live a healthy lifestyle. someone is goign to have to enforce that for people who refuse to do it themselves and disobey doctor's orders. less freedom

[mrbhave]

Yeah, "preventive care," the term that describes how doctors perform unnecessary procedures and tests for fear of getting sued, if they happen to miss something. That's the rationale of most right-wingers. Solve that problem and you solve a big chunk. Except that's not the only issue.

Your last bit certainly sounds like less freedom, alright. I'm sure that's not the answer.

[greyflcn]

re: mrbhave

If that were true, then tort reform would actually lower costs. Which it doesn't.

greyfalcon. net/ tort

The real reason that we have so many unnecessary tests is that federal reimbursement is done "per procedure", rather than being done "per results"

Only method that's been shown to actually reduce this is taking a "per results" billing approach. i.e. How Mayo Clinic, and Kaiser Permanente do it. Some of the most successful medical institutions in the country.

[mrbhave]

Oh, I agree with you about tort reform. My comments were an olive branch to republicans to get them on board with health care reform.

Right, you're referring to the "fee for service" payment structure, which I eluded to previously.

Yes, we might find part of the solution in adopting what some of these smaller institutions have found to be successful for them.

But nothing will be more successful at lowering costs than a public option.

[greyflcn]

re: mrbhave

Well yeah, more tort stuff.

greyfalcon. net/ tort2

But anyways, just talked with a friend who is a tort lawyer.

Way it works

95% of all cases settle

Then if you do the case you have to win

And then if you win, the jury has to give you a big settlement

And then when that's all said and done, the judge can merely disagree and lower the settlement by himself.

For instance the McDonalds coffee case, the jury awarded $2.70 million, but a judge lowered it to $0.48 million.

[mrbhave]

The larger concern that I have with tort reform is how such a move would spill over into other areas of law. Would limits be placed on all tortious cases? Would we suddenly see a maximum, allowable fine imposed upon businesses and individuals, no matter what the situation? You can imagine how much delight that would bring to big corporations who could then afford to willfully neglect the law, in favor of a "minor" 250k penalty (instead of millions) whenever someone sues them.

[RoyalDemonforChrist]

i thought the slippery slope wasnt valid? public option will lead to socialism? slippery slope? we arent talking about major corporations. we are talking about individual doctors who are burdened by massive malpractice insurance. here is a way to reform healthcare without government expansion: immigration reform, market reform: let insurance compete across state lines, these two things will take care of much of the problems without new entitlements.

[greyflcn]

re: RoyalDemonforChrist

Well there's a couple reasons why that state line argument won't work.

1. States would lose the ability to regulate the minimum quality and coverage of insurance within their state. (For instance 42 states ban the practice of treating domestic violence as a pre-existing condition)

2. States get tax revenue from these HMOs within their state. If they all relocation to only a few states with the weakest legal structure. Then most states will lose sales tax revenue

[RoyalDemonforChrist]

so what you are saying is that government regulation actually IS the problem. well dont you think we should change that and increase competition? what you are trying to do is sell something with free market rhetoric by saying the public option will increase competition and choice. you are trying to argue for something that is inherently anti market place with free market rhetoric and people are falling for it. it is dishonest but it is the only way to sell these historically discredited ideas

[greyflcn]

re: RoyalDemonforChrist

Actually, what I'm saying is that markets that trend toward conglomeration are not self regulating. They are collusive.

And therefore require the use of either:

1. Government Regulation

2. Government Competition

I happen to prefer the second option.

However I'd be perfectly fine with the first option as well, like they have in Switzerland.

[RoyalDemonforChrist]

so you prefer government conglomeration. you are a fascist and you dont even realize it.

[mrbhave]

You're confused. Fascism has nothing to do with a merger between corporations and government (as Fox and other neo-con talking heads would have you believe). If anything, hard-line conservatism is fascist, because it is inherently authoritarian and dictatorial. Radical Islam is fascist (and very, very conservative).

fascism \fasc"ism\ n. 1. a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government; -- opposed to democracy and liberalism. [WordNet 1.5]

[greyflcn]

re: mrbhave

He meant to use the word Corporatist

Which actually doesn't have anything to do with the word Corporation

Rather it has to do with the latin Corpus, or Body.

Basically those who believe that multi-lateral negotiation between interested parties can achieve more optimal results.

(In accordance with the Nash equilibrium principle)

And the answer is, yes, I do believe in Corporatism.

Unions, for instance, are a good example of Corporatism.

[greyflcn]

re: RoyalDemonforChrist

Yes, I prefer a non-profit conglomerate over a for-profit conglomerate.

Since a pro-profit conglomerate, in a market like insurance, has the incentive to give you the least amount of service, for the highest amount of money, in order to garner higher profits.

The non-profit has no such incentive.

That's largely why non-profit insurance has such a dramatically lower price overhead, than for-profit insurance.

greyfalcon. net/ overhead2

greyfalcon. net/ overhead3

[mrbhave]

Right, and Blackwater isn't charging us taxpayers three to six times more per mercenary than the government is paying for our military soldiers and marines. That argument just doesn't hold water when the facts are examined.

Corporations are allowed to write government policy. So don't you think they're going to write it in favor of themselves? It's pretty obvious, given the shoddy Baucus bill.

[RoyalDemonforChrist]

you are absolutely right. so then what in the name of the universe makes you think that these corporations are ever going to give you a break? private premiums are going to sky rocket and people will be forced into a "government option" it isnt going to be pretty. it is going to be one size fits all cradle to the grave utopia and you are going to love it.

[greyflcn]

re: RoyalDemonforChrist

So wait, you're saying if Private Insurance is given competition, that their response is going to have premium rates skyrocket?

When as is, premium costs are already raising 3x the rate of inflation? And that isn't "skyrocketing"?

[mrbhave]

In case you haven't noticed, despite the fact that 1300 different insurance companies exist in this country, most regions are controlled by one or two companies. So the theoretical doom and gloom that you're proposing under a public option already exists.

If the government pushes out private profiteers, we might all finally get a huge sigh of relief that we don't have pay 30% more than we should for our health care, just so some loser CEO can receive a $25 million dollar annual salary.

[mrbhave]

Slippery slope? Socialism? We have had socialism in this country ever since the framers decided that certain "essential" duties should be operated by the federal government. The military, police, firefighters (although not always socialized), and mail to name a few. And UPS competes nicely with USPS.

Good luck getting states to agree on what constitutes as "insurance." That's half of the problem on that front. The other is getting politicians' own campaign interests out of the equation.

[RoyalDemonforChrist]

i am not going to continue going around in circles with you, your democratic party talking points, and double speak.

[mrbhave]

I'm a libertarian. I just happen to agree with liberals on this point. I agree with the framers of our Constitution that certain "essential" duties should be reserved for the government. Call it what you will.

Any republican who has ever voted to elect (and/or re-elect) any republican in the last 40 years is OK with liberalism. Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II were a bunch of big government, big spending liberal republicans. Remember that.

[RoyalDemonforChrist]

yeah and they were all scum bags werent they?

[mrbhave]

I cannot argue with you on that one.

[RoyalDemonforChrist]

ok great now we are getting somewhere. democrats and republicans are tag teaming america. i would be open to a single payer system but the way the government is going about it will only bring fraud and more corruption so in my opinion using incrementalism is pointless. the system of government is far too corrupt for us to be taking on these problems now because the mafia is in control and will make sure the legislation suits their interests. we know that reform will not be for the people.

[mrbhave]

That's a risk we run with every fact of government. Just have a look at the local/national news. You can find at least one political corruption story every day.

If it were up to me, I would keep the government out of most of the economy. But we taxpayers are paying subsidies for all sorts of things (farms, medicine, banks, automobiles, etc.) to prop up our "capitalist" society. It's a farce on its face. And so long as we're paying, I want to something for my money. Fair enough?

[RoyalDemonforChrist]

it is crony capitalism. corporatist fascism. the whole system is broken. i dont understand why anyone believes any promise made to them by any government official? i dont understand why anyone has faith in any government program after consistent failures and i dont understand why people cant understand what they are trying to do with the public option is cover up another of their failures in the bankrupt medicare.

[mrbhave]

If we have no faith in our government, then it's time for the wildebeests to turn on the lions. And I think that time is rapidly approaching us.

[RoyalDemonforChrist]

yeah well we can cut down on those costly "unnecessary" procedures by not diagnosing people and letting them die.

[mrbhave]

HMO's do that now when they decide that a procedure is too costly, experimental, or unnecessary.

All of the fear mongering about what might happen if we get a public option is ALREADY happening in private health care.

Or are you too dense to see that?

[RoyalDemonforChrist]

of course i see that but your proposed solutions will only make the situation worse. or are you too dense to understand basic economic principals?

[greyflcn]

re: RoyalDemonforChrist

Actually what gets me is when people try to make a one-size-fits-all approach to markets.

Ignoring that not all markets behave exactly the same.

The usual assumption being that ALL markets naturally trend towards de-conglomeration.

And de-conglomeration creates price undercutting.

And therefore that keeps prices closer to true costs.

Completely ignoring that this mechanism falls apart in markets that naturally trend towards conglomeration.

[mrbhave]

Worse for whom? For the insurance middlemen? Yes. For the general public?  Hardly.

But go ahead an indulge me with your acumen.

[RoyalDemonforChrist]

this has never been about the quality of healthcare. this is about the cost of healthcare. what do you think the easiest way to lower the cost of healthcare is? it is to deny procedures and access to professionals. it is really quite simple. this has nothing to do with the poor. obama has said time and time again this is about the cost of healthcare. you think insurance companies are bad because of the government regulations placed upon them? just wait until the government is denying care.

[RoyalDemonforChrist]

specialists are important. here is an idea. lets just get rid of all specialists and only have primary care doctors. lets see how many people die. the reason they became specialists is because they wanted to be doctors and help people

[mrbhave]

No, the reason most recent graduates of specialty areas give for wanting to be in specialty areas is money.

[RoyalDemonforChrist]

if you go to school for 8 years to become a doctor why shouldnt you make enough money to earn a decent living?

[mrbhave]

Please. I have a master's degree, but that doesn't guarantee me a huge compensation. It's short-sided to assume some graduated pay scale based on skill or education. If that were the case, flunkies like Bill Gates would have never had the chance to become the wealthiest man alive for so long.

[RoyalDemonforChrist]

the democratic party will not consider tort reform because that would anger one of their largest and most wealthy constituencies. the trial lawyers will not allow it. specialists require more specialized training therefore they are paid more. i really hope the public option passes. not because i believe it will help people but because i want you people to die under the rule of these tyrants because you deserve it for being so gullible. you deserve it and everyone understands that except you.

[mrbhave]

Oh, because people AREN'T already dying of rationing from the health care industry? Quit being a shill for big insurance and big pharma. Tell your politicians just what you told me. Let's have a public option. Then we'll see true reform.

We have public universities. They haven't put private universities out of business. If anything, they keep the private rates lower than would otherwise be with those "government-run," public options, many of which are vastly superior to private school.

[RoyalDemonforChrist]

did you just say that government schools are superior to private schools? let me guess where you were educated. so because sometimes people die because their insurance denies them we should make it to where everyone is subject to rationing and make MORE people die? i am done with you. this is the reason why you are a victim and you always will be a victim. they are going to bend you over and you will ask t hem for more. enjoy.

[mrbhave]

I said there are some government schools that are superior to private schools, yes.

I attend both public and private schools. Aside from the vast difference in price, I hardly see the difference.

Health care companies ration care every day. They deny coverage for many reasons.

Victim? We taxpayers pay 50 - 60 billion in subsidies to the health care industry every year. What's wrong with getting something for our money? You're so stuck on stereotypes, you are totally missing the point.

[greyflcn]

re: RoyalDemonforChrist

How about you read some of my posts on torts.

In short, I think you've been duped about the reality of punitive damages cases.

[RoyalDemonforChrist]

what is your point?

[greyflcn]

re: RoyalDemonforChrist

My point is that the only reason Republicans argue for tort reform, is because they don't have anything to seriously argue for.

Their only other arguments consist of:

Lower the liability of insurance companies

Lower the regulation of insurance companies

Tell people "Be healthy"

The point being, that they are not making honest realistic argument. They are merely trying to find seemingly plausible excuses.

[RoyalDemonforChrist]

you must be a big fan of alan grayson.

[greyflcn]

Not really, I'm not a big fan of demogaugary, regardless of party affiliation.

However the "Be Healthy" thing is literally part of their argument. Certainly it's phrased differently, like "Counseling on healthy diet and exercise". And I've seen many GOP politicians make.

I've even seen them say that this is the excuse as to why other countries so drastically outperform us in health.

[joshuag5732]

I support the public option.

[waltermh111]

People always ignore the underinsured too.

Sure, we may have 30mil uninsured, and more losing insurance then gaining it.

But what about those who have it, but the insurance companies deny coverage for made up reasons.

Or your insured but it still is putting you into debt not from frivolous spending, but from the copay and the parts of necessary treatment that the HMOs wont pay, or that they only pay up to a certain amount.

[xxxxdarksidexxxx]

american, lived in so cal my whole life, got accepted to college, i had played baseball for 15 years, injured 1st year in college, 3 open knee surgeries later - $85,000 - 3 years later........I turned 25 and am dropped from insurance. no more medicine, no more rehab, no more ANYTHING. Just to get insurance my rate went up more then 8x TIMES its normal value.

zero medications, zero doctors, and zero rehab for years now. working, student, and I get nothing for my health care. FAIL America

[idontnormallydothis]

propaganda

get ready to line up and get microchipped

[integral]

oh, and watch out for them black helicopters too

[greyflcn]

re: idontnormallydothis

My, aren't you the paranoid conspiracy theorist.

[idontnormallydothis]

just remember i told you so

it won't be right away but it's a known fact that the medical records of everyone are going to put into one data base and then merged with the driver license info.

those are the first steps to the microchip implant

check the stock market and the company's that make the implant. their all up in value because investors know what's going on.

[Orionx26]

Its broke!

[Smartassawhip]

Here in Missouri I have been seeing a lot of ads paid for by the insurance companies trying to scare the folks who are on medicare. They obviously view the public option as a guge threat. I say to hell with the insurance companies.

[ReliableInsider]

When the health insurance companies tell us that their rates (and their profits) are going to keep going up and up and up, they're telling the truth. 

This is -why- we need a public option.

[terpis]

there it is in a nutshell.

[justonefirefly1]

Why are they so worried about a free market for the insurance companies? Piss on the insurance companies. It takes so much to pay for gd insurance and the deductible that I can't afford to go to a doctor. And insurance companies fail to pay on time (screwing with my credit ratings) deny , delay and dick you around that is all they know how to do except raise your premiums. Let them cry bankruptcy for a while.

[greyflcn]

re: justonefirefly1

Well the state line thing has two practical implications.

1. It allows states to regulate insurance sold within their state. (For instance, 42 states ban the practice of treating domestic abuse as a pre-existing condition)

2. States get tax revenue from HMOs within their state. This tax revenue is spread relatively evenly according to population around the country. Remove the stateline barrier, and only a few states will get that revenue.

3. AIG is an insurance company

[tburke64]

HR 676 NOW!

[shDwfthSUN]

I do not think more government is the solution considering the amount of inflation that medicare, medicaid, welfare, and social security have produced, contributing to the high cost of health care just as much as the greed of Big Pharma and the HMO corporations--which may I add have only become as powerful as they are today thanks to government intervention. Instead, what we should do is move away from managed care and instead work towards promoting choice/ personal empowerment over our health.

[integral]

Oh yes, shd, I'm sure that would work.

And so your answer to all those uninsured and those who lose their insurance is

drop dead.

[mrbhave]

Interestingly enough, it was Nixon, a republican, who created the policy of HMO's.

Yeah, promoting personal empowerment over our health is currently working wonders. Over 30% of all health care costs are attributed to obesity and smoking -- two preventable, voluntary problems. Maybe doctors should carry cattle prods to get people off of their fat butts and exercise.

[lennyneroau]

Brillaint display for this man. Wish there were more democrats like him. Honest and intelligent and balls, and able to form a simple yet powerful argument.

[BeantownJim]

As Congress sells out the US Doctors are cutting back on hours and patients

I wonder what will happen with that and already a shortage of doctors and nurses and clinics for the amount of people that get the insurance Looks to be like another fiasco of the govt'

[BeantownJim]

I'll keep my freedom my money and my gins You can have the CHANGE!!!

[justonefirefly1]

Beans "keep your freedom but lay off your "gins" I think you have had enough. Put the bottle down and go to bed.

[greyflcn]

re: BeantownJim

So why is it that we pay nearly double what other countries pay, but we get life expectancy results similar to Cuba?

greyfalcon. net/ healthcare