Public option will lead to Single Payer Barney Frank

[kevinwaynesongs]

Just because Barney Frank says it will means nothing. If I really thought Obama's plan would bring Single-Payer I'd support it.

[ICommentCuzImBored]

How about this.... How did everyone who has healthcare get?..... They worked for it! So all you who are waiting around for some superman to give you free healthcare here's a plan.... EARN IT!!!! and don't make the people who have earned it pay for all of you.

[kevinwaynesongs]

@ICommentCuzImBored So be a real hero and next time your house is on fire, deny the Fire Dept from coming. You don't wan entitlements! ;-)

[hijackednation]

barney frank amazes me how a criminal like this guy can be in power.

[john51880]

Please vote for Sean Bielat!

[leycyp]

Earl Sholley for U.S. Congress District 4,

Massachusetts... You gotta believe.

[rkoliver1]

It's Bush's fault!

[sming01]

what a joke all of this health care reform talk it... it;s only reform if it makes things better, gov't run health care will drive up costs

[musicalidea]

@sming01 Every other industrialized nation in the world except for the US has public health insurance & gov't mandated price controls on private ins. Some of these also have govt-run hospitals & pharma production. We pay, on average, over 2x per capita the amount that these countries pay for medical insurance, & about 50 million of us have no insurance whatsoever. Read the Wiki article on "Monospony" to understand the economic reason why public ins costs SO MUCH LESS than private ins.

[dougmanjones]

After reading your comments, I conclude that you're probably an econ major, hence your name, and like most econ majors, you like to talk about things that make you seem smart. Fair enough. However, all you've done is come up with smart ways of framing a bogus argument. Keep polishing the turd and see if it smells any better.

[888captainplanet]

lol econ major.. this is basic economics

[herbs814]

SIngle-payer is tyranny.

Single-payer is evil.

[dougmanjones]

What is this video supposed to prove? Frank is right; a good public option will lead to single payer, which is fairer and more efficient. Frank's made it no secret that he's an advocate of single payer; he's been saying so for years.

[herbs814]

no such thing as a good public "option". Any government-subsidized "option" scheme is just a tyrannical trojan horse that will sabotage the productive private sector, stealing from those who choose private care. government "option" is evil and unacceptable.

[dougmanjones]

Evil? Give me a break. Is it evil in France, Canada or Great Britain, where health care is better (and cheaper) than it is here?

[herbs814]

It only costs less because it provides less.

Healthcare is better in US.

Private healthcare is moral.

Socialized healthcare is evil.

[dougmanjones]

Wrong. The WHO (world health organization) ranked the health care systems of all countries recently. France is #1. U.S. was somewhere in the 30s.

Also, everyone in France has health insurance. Yeah, real evil.

Why exactly do you think a public option is "evil." Cause Glenn Beck says it is?

[herbs814]

WHO is a global government organization that spits out propaganda in favor of government control over individual liberty. NOT TO BE TRUSTED.

Everyone in France is STOLEN from to enrich corrupt bureaucrats who use health insurance as a vote-buying scheme. THAT IS EVIL.

The government "option" STEALS from the people who produce. That is EVIL.

[dougmanjones]

Relax. Grow up.

[herbs814]

If you trust socialism, you are a slave that needs to grow up.

[dougmanjones]

So you don't trust socialism? What the hell do you think the military is...or public schools...or federal research grants...or a myriad of federal programs, funded by tax $ that go towards the benefit of the common good? Ever use an interstate? Ever fly in a plane and feel good about there being an FAA? No one's advocating Stalin-style communism; however, we already have a measured amount of socialism. Why can't the health care sector be part of it, like police or fire departments?

[herbs814]

what you've just mentioned is a list of things that intrude on our liberties and need to be privatized.

[dougmanjones]

First of all, how does the FAA intrude on your liberties? I guess you want the freedom to crash into other planes?

Second, we tried private police and private fire departments. It was a disaster, wrought with fraud and corruption; basically, you had to pay up front (and often, outbid criminals) to get the cops to come and you had to pay cash to get the fire dept to put out your burning house. Sound good?

[herbs814]

Capitalism is always better than socialism. If you can't stand freedom, go to Cuba.

[dougmanjones]

That's your answer? That's the best you can do? "If you can't stand freedom?"

Seriously, man. Read up a little. Study some history, some political theory, some economics. It's not as cut and dry as you think. It's called an open mind and it's the key to having a rational (key word: rational) debate. The whole "love it or leave it" argument has no merit, nor does it call for anything proactive.

Good luck!

[MrSuperpunch019]

your a mindless zombie who needs to grow up

[herbs814]

Socialism is evil. And if you think any America should ever submit to socialist tyranny, then you need to grow up. Or just leave America, where we actually revere honesty, liberty, and justice.

[Macrodude1]

The military is something that -- since you can't defend the parts and particular citizens of a country, but the country itself -- must be a common enterprise. Also, no one owns the military. Same with highways. It's not about redistribution of wealth -- mandatory charity -- which is basically what HC "reform" is about. Charity is a matter for individuals, not government. At least, that was the belief expressed in the Constitution.

[dougmanjones]

The Constitution doesn't say anything about charity. What are you talking about?

[Macrodude1]

Congress cannot do whatever it wants. What it can do is specified in Art.I, Sect. 8. You will find that all those powers relate to common enterprises that would not be practical to do privately. Transferring wealth from one citizen to another on the basis of need (and/or political power) is not included in those powers. If it not included, Congress has no such power. The framers thought Sec. 8 was clear enough, but, to make doubly sure, the 10th Amendment was added.

[dougmanjones]

Obviously, it's not practical to provide for the common health of the country privately or else we would already be doing it, no?

[Macrodude1]

(1 of 3) We used to until some decades ago do it privately, were not doing that anymore; now were doing it semi-privately, which is why it is still the best, but is also the most expensive. To do it privately, we would need to: 1- Eliminate discriminatory tax treatment against non-employer provided plans. 2- Remove the restriction against interstate competition for medical insurance companies. 3 Remove the mandates on what health insurance must include...

[Macrodude1]

(2 of 3) In short, enforce contracts, instead of dictating what they must be, and let the market do its work. Reform tort law as well. Do these, and taxes and prices will drop drastically, and family and charities will be far more able to help those who still cant afford treatment or insurance. And each election we wouldnt be voting about what our coverage should be.

[Macrodude1]

(3 of 3) Thats the answer supported by the Constitution. For further (qualified) support, look to Democrat David Goldhills article in the liberal Atlantic magazine; you can get it googling Goldhill and Atlantic.

[dougmanjones]

All very valid points; however, I think what the Barney Franks are trying to do is better. The fact is, the way we do health now is inherently flawed. The insurance companies, doctors, hospitals and lawyers have (inadvertently, perhaps) built a health care system that profits from bad health (hence, high costs, bad health and uninsured). Profit motive can't solve everything, and in this case, is a big part of the problem. That's what the public option is all about - fundamental change.

[Macrodude1]

(1 of 2) Well, DMJ, its true that doctors would go broke if no one got sick, but, for a variety of reasons (and my own experience) I dont think you can draw from that they dont try to prevent future diseases. In any case, prevention is not rocket science, and is primarily the responsibility of individuals themselves. No, profits dont solve everything if they did, we wouldnt need charity of a human conscience. And, I might add,

[Macrodude1]

(2 of 2) contrary to Marx, and the implication of your concern, economics does not determine everything, either.

As for Barney Frank, his record with public option mortgage companies whose bad paper was at the root of the 2008 financial meltdown speaks, or should speak for itself.

[Macrodude1]

PS Actually, as far as diagnostic testing is concerned, while it saves lives in some cases, but not in the great majority, it is more costly, and so the profit motive and prevention coincide a minor detail our Pres. was mistaken about as he attempted to transform the system. Aside from that, consider the vast array of tools that, under the market, have been developed not to keep people sick for profits sake, but to prevent and cure disease. Compare it to what socialism has produced.

[dougmanjones]

"what socialism has produced"?

You mean like in Canada, Britain and Switzerland, where the govt and individuals spend less on health insurance and have better results (life expectancy, infant mortality, disease prevention)? Research and innovation should continue to be profitable; however, application of the fruits of such research and innovation should have never been made into something that can make money. It's Friedmanism run amok, and it doesn't work.

[Macrodude1]

(1 of 4) My question was in made in the specific context of medical innovations with respect to the profit motive you raised; it was not to restate the fundamental dispute about a market vs. government solution to HC as if no previous discussion had occurred. In passing, however, I would point out that, with regard to Swit., etc., youre cherry-picking. The Swiss, etc., are the cream of the crap. Why dont you bring up the former Soviets, or Cuba, which

[Macrodude1]

(2 of 4) had/have systems completely in line with your anti-profit thinking? Any American system is likely to be a mix of others. In Cuba, what you get from government services depend on your support of Castro. (See Cuban Days, Gjelten) Particularly with unions, Obama has already been showing similar proclivities.

Researchers can profit, but manufacturers cant? You must be an academic.

[Macrodude1]

(3 of 4) Friedmanism? ! Its not free enterprise, first articulated centuries ago by Adam Smith? Youre naming it after only one of the latest many defenders, Milton Friedman, as if he invented it, or was the first to describe it? Youre joking, right? Either that, or you are very mis-educated, or you are extremely invested, psychologically and/or financially, in the promise of a government solution to a market/moral issue.

[Macrodude1]

(4 of 4) Returning to the main point of my last email (which you have ignored), to your contention that profits encouraged doctors from practicing preventive medicine, I pointed out that, preventive medicine is in fact (and confirmed by the CBO) more profitable. Which leaves what to your position? Nothing that has not already been rebutted in the emails prior. Deal with it.

[dougmanjones]

That's your pitch? Being condescending? Good luck with that.

[Macrodude1]

(1 of 2) It was not my intent, and I dont believe, that I was condescending toward you. Whether I was or not, I responded to your points. And while I appreciate and respect your civil tone, and your willingness to engage, in this discussion of whether the last best hope of the world should imitate the policies of nations that (with the exception of Canada) people left in order to come to it, what really matters is whether those responses were well-taken or not.

[Macrodude1]

(2 of 2) In any case, good luck. If you and your allies achieve your goals, you will, in my opinion, need it.

[dougmanjones]

I don't have any allies; I'm just a guy who's bored at work who reads the paper- just like you. ha ha

I guess I like the liberals' viewpoint because at least they're being proactive, trying to get things done, not just trying issue a political defeat for strategic positioning in next year's elections. I guess we'll see how this all plays out.

Good day sir

[dougmanjones]

I read that article when it came out. It's very good, very inciteful and astute.

[Macrodude1]

One of the primary points of that article was the need to replace comprehensive health coverage with catastrophic coverage. The bill just passed by the Democrats outlaws catastrophic coverage.

[888captainplanet]

Ya that's true, but it doesn't take into account factors in the US that don't exist in other countries at least not to the degree they do here. when adjusting for crime, premature births, and obesity US has best healthcare worldwide.

[dougmanjones]

It has the best healthcare for people that have good insurance, you mean? We need universal coverage, which would require mandates. We need a strong public option which would make insurance companies hold down premiums and we would need (horrors!!!) a bit of rationing, which would incentivize good health and discourage superfluous tests and procedures. It needs a total overhall if we're ever to make health care a right, as it should be.

[888captainplanet]

By mandating that everyone be insured demand for insurance rises, and when demand rises so does the price of premiums. Insurance companies on average make between 2 - 5 percent profit. how is the public option going to keep them anymore honest. I thought the entire idea of reform was to stop rationing?

wouldn't it be easier to just stop mandating certain levels of coverage, allow for consumer based insurance, and let people decide for themselves what type of care they want.

[dougmanjones]

That's what we have now. It doesn't work, hence the whole health care debate thing.

[rightsideofhistory]

888captainplanet: no no no 2-5 profit?? It's more like 34% !! If you pay a $6000 premium per year, only $4000 goes into the claims pot. $2000 of it goes toward "the company" and its shareholders. They are an unnecessary middleman skimming the till. There is NO argument to justify their role in the entirety of healthcare. **They are between you and your doctor** - isn't that phrase what the cons have been howling in their attack ads against Obama? Huh? that is how things are NOW (???)

[john51880]

Single payer ---public option---CO OP---- it is all GOVERMENT OPTION! No thanks!

[hillerm]

When you are classified by the insurance industry as "uninsurable", you have no freedom. If you get sick, you are screwed. Now that's what I call a real "death panel".

At the very least, some form of public option needs to exist.

[Maziyar]

dont listen to the nazis calling the americans nazis. republicans and dems have ties in the insurance industry.

[CzarCaustic]

Davejoe - actually England doesn't have a single payer system. They have a Nationalized health system. Canada has a single payer system.

[davejoe75]

Semantics. 90%+ of healthcare bills paid in England are paid through NHS. In Canada, rich people pay for "extra" insurance coverage to get to the front of the line.

Both systems don't improve quality or reduce costs for physicians and patients.

[Lavitzzz]

You're an idiot. I live in Canada and the rich don't get to pay "extra" for better health care. We all pay very cheap in to the government and get equal high quality care. Enjoy your fail system that is profit motivated and capitalizes on treating humans like trash.

[QuantumFlux1964]

They just come to the US and pay for treatment here...

Why do you care what is going on with the health care debate in the US, anyway?

[TheN01skinsfan]

Czarcaustic,

A single payer means there is only one payer THE GOVERNMENT!!!!!! Which is what England has!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jaydaddymc]

but where does the govt get its money? From us tax payers. No matter what you call it, we still pay for it

[imbubba56]

This dweeb is a cancer in the Congress.

[NHMntnHIGH]

Barney is a criminal and needs to be put on trial with the rest of these idiots in congress on both sides, then jailed for life their assets returned to the treasury. As for Barney's single payer system if it's so good then the congress to volunteer to be test dummies for the program for 5 years first before forcing this crap on the rest of us. Franks is a fool

[davejoe75]

Did he really just admit this publicly? Time to show Barney Frank the power of the Internet.

Single payer is the worst of all reform ideas. Even France and Germany don't have single payer. Only England does, and England is not a country to follow for anything.

[mrrepublican1234]

Yes. Barney has been busted. He intends to push private insurance out of business with single-payer. It starts with a public option that financially penalizes employers for providing medical coverage for their employees (making insurance unviable), and employees for taking their employer's insurance instead of their employer's plan. Then politically appointed government bureacrats will have the ability to manage their health from abortion to euthenasia. All this funded with your taxes..

[Yankhadenough]

mrrepublican1234 No, the for-profit private insurance corporations have FINALLY been busted for the murderous, monsterous money-grabbing middlemen they are. We will hopefully soon join the free world. The dying will stop the day patients rule instead of the almighty dollar .

[john51880]

GOVERMENT OPTION not public option. Yes you are right Barney needs a spanking!

[Scoforever]

Stop Barney Frank, Barack Obama and the Democrats now!