Political Discussions
Howard Dean Suggests An Alternative to Public Option
Posted by Agit8r • 9/14/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: howard dean, obamacare, public option, Regulation
"There's two countries in Europe that have universal health care without--and it's entirely run by insurance companies. But they treat the insurance companies like regulated utilities. If the insurance companies would prefer to be treated like regulated utilities, we'd drop the public option in a heartbeat."
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32812029/ns/meet_the_press/page/2/
There certainly would be no possiblity of a metamorpasis into a single payer system like some fear. o_0
User Comments
-
But now you're just trading in facts. Shame on you.-
yes, heresay, i'm afraid. tsk tsk, how dreadfully clumsy of me
-
-
So why haven't the conservatives jumped on this obvious preventative of "totalitarianism"?
-
Because they have built their main arguments against health care reform upon a series of straw men or, if you prefer a different metaphor, a house of cards. Interestingly, however, this foundation has proved remarkably resilient in the face of the winds of reason. I suppose that is because so many people on the right are clinging to them, helping them to stay upright.
-
-
No, this is a bad idea because it doesn't follow the normal requirements of a regulated utility.
For instance, telephone and power, both use limited means of delivery. The existence of wires proved enough to create a monopoly in practice.
We "conservatives" don't jump on this because it creates a government control either way. We have already provided a solution, let the market take care of it, open up the competition over state lines. Let the customers vote with their wallets.
The problem right now exists because regulation prevents this, we don't think more regulation would be the answer.
Leave the regulation to take care of obviously fraudulent practices, like dropping members AFTER they get sick. To "regulate" yourself out of a regulatory problem isn't exactly the smart solution. Instead they should look at what regulations that are causing the problem and removing those.
This is a perfect example of why many of us opposed to it doesn't think it will work. When a bad set of laws and rules are passed, the gov't has a tendency to fix this by adding more rules and laws. Instead of just ripping it up and recreating a better system, we end up with what is essentially the tax code of something like 7000 printed pages.
(the HC legislation is already pushing 1000 and hasn't even been implemented yet)-
So you support the Healtcare equivelent of Enron. And Obama is the one killing "Grandma Millie"!?! o_0
-
Please explain how Supporting free market is the same as supporting criminality.
-
that was how we were sold electrical deregulation. Weasel son;t change there stripes, but the
fringe still put their trust in them nonetheless
-
-
I support another alternative, the one Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) put up briefly, non-profit coops with some government funding but complete policy holder democracy.-
Again, this allows the consumer of healthcare to make the decisions. In essence, all a co-op means is that the payer starts his/her own insurance company with a bunch of other payers. Allowing them to make the deals, negotiate pricing etc.
The problem with smaller "companies" like this is that they often lack the reach to negotiate with outside providers, which means that outside network coverage can become high. On the other hand, since co-ops are often local networks, you can negotiate much better deals with local providers. -
I would say that a bill with plenty of Cantwell's input would most likely be to my liking
-
-
Unless he screams when he explains it, I just don't buy it.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
