User Comments

1. 

   6/25/09

   clioandme

   1.) "Read my lips" is a quote from Bush 41. Funny how you have to draw on a GOP disaster to make your point.
   
   2.) Obama talked about his own ideas and his own plan during the campaign. Of course, Congress might have to go somewhere else. Presumably you know that we do not live in a dictatorship. Well, maybe you know that.
   
   3.) As I keep saying, this thing is still in committee, and I haven't seen Obama supporting a specific plan yet. Right now everything from Heritage is pure speculation.
   
   4.) I dispute the notion that public involvement will force out private stakeholders. I watched private insurance companies flourish as alternatives to Barmer and AOK in Germany, for example. If the privates are worth their salt, they'll find a way to make money.
   
   5.) You've gone through this with others here on multiple other threads, because you are repeating this fear like a mantra, over and over and over again ad nauseam.
   
   6.) Your tiresome mantra does nothing to address those of us under severe financial stress because of this nation's elitist health care system, by which I mean, health care for those with the right kind of job or full pocketbooks, and the rest can get stuffed, being undeserving of any consideration.
   
   7.) Since ideology is all with you and The Wealth of Nations has canonical status, you might consider how Adam Smith's invisible hand had a moral component to it, but the current system has none.
   
   8.) Am expecting you to bring up your mantras again, and also to cite multiple cases in countries with decent systems where things have gone wrong. You've done this on multiple threads, as if the flaws negated the value of their systems. Meanwhile, you use your fears to defend the most expensive, inefficient system in the world, one that does not deliver to tens of millions of us. Don't expect me to waste my time on a routine I've already seen here, for example: www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/yavol-herr-burgermeister

   [reply]
   1. 

      6/25/09

      anticsrocks

      @mark - My but you certainly are holier-than-thou aren't you? Your underlying hatred of all things NOT of the Democratic Party is palpable in every one of your posts. Try stepping back from the conservative bashing, try leaving the phrase "fear mongering" at home and look at this subject with an objective eye. If you are even capable of that.
      
      We have the best health care system in the world. It is not perfect, because it is run by humans, who by their very nature are not perfect. You, mark are a valid example of that statement. You continue to want it both ways. You want to destroy everything about this country that makes it great, while quietly enjoying the liberties you have by being an American citizen. Then you smugly look down your nose at ANYONE who disagrees with you, resorting to the Democratic talking points of accusing the other side of "fear mongering" and rhetoric. It is sad, really that you cannot be objective.
      
      I ask you this - Where do you draw the line with Obama? Or are you so in the tank for this guy that LITERALLY ANYTHING HE WANTS to do to this country is okay for you?
2. 

   6/25/09

   Anok

   Let's see...
   
   A) You can keep your insurance if you like it.
   
   B) The government is not going to force you to go on public insurance.
   
   How is that backtracking? It's saying the same thing LOLLOL
   
   Or how about this:
   
   You can keep your insurance if you like it, because the government will not force you to go on public insurance.
   
   See how that works? The two statements are completely compatible
   
   WHether or not the public option will "force out" private insurance will be up to the private insurance agencies, won't it. If they can't compete, then they can't compete. If they can, then they will.
   
   that's called - free market capitalism!

   [reply]
   1. 

      6/25/09

      clioandme

      There is a serious logical contradiction in Republican rhetoric. On the one hand, they claim that the government health insurance will resemble trips to the DMV, which apparently is a negative experience for most people across the country. On the other hand, they claim that government health insurance will drive private health insurers out of business. The first argument suggests that the public option would lose in the game of competition. The second argument suggests that the public option would win. Of course, logic was never the GOPs strong point, because it gets in the way of ideological purity.
   2. 

      6/25/09

      Anok

      Exactly. What it boils down to is insurance companies and the private medical sector being afearded of real honest to goodness competition.
      
      It wouldn't matter if it was the government, or a large private not-for-profit company running the type of program that the government is looking at. Either one poses a serious risk to the private sector for one reason and one reason only:
      
      They have been gouging us for decades, and they know it. And soon we will know it, too.
   3. 

      6/25/09

      anticsrocks

      No, you are both missing the boat. The Government cannot compete, so it just won't. It will purposely drive the private insurers out of the market because it controls too many aspects of the market.
      
      @mark - As far as "Republican rhetoric" saying that Government health care will be like the DMV, then saying it drives private companies out of the market. How is that wanting it both ways? The Government will bully the private companies out and be the ONLY GAME IN TOWN! That's not competition, that is monopolizing the market.
      
      @Anok - How is it free market capitalism when you have one entity setting the rules AND playing the game at the same time? The Government will pass laws that private companies can't compete with. Then they are the only source of our health care, and who suffers? Americans, that's who.
   4. 

      6/25/09

      Anok

      Psst..Your projections are showing
      
      The public option plans and other proposals do not include laws that will force out private insurance companies.
      
      It is pure competition, plain and simple.
   5. 

      6/25/09

      anticsrocks

      That may be the way things are now, Anok. But you don't really expect the Government to "play fair" in the market place, do you?
   6. 

      6/26/09

      Anok

      I don't think that it will be in their best interest to do so, however anything is possible.
      
      As of right now, the medicaid and medicare industries compete indirectly with private insurance and have been for decades. I've seen no intrusive legislation on behalf of the government to enlarge those programs and put private sectors out of business.
      
      Remember, without a need for profit, there is very little incentive to push to become a monopoly.
   7. 

      6/26/09

      anticsrocks

      True, but when you are the only game in town and on top of that you are the referee, and player all in one, that can never be construed as fair. There is no check and balance built into that system.
   8. 

      6/26/09

      Anok

      What do you think private insurers are, then? Depending on where you live, or what pre-existing conditions you have that disqualify you....you may only have one carrier in town who play judge and jury on your health...for a profit
      
      In any case, monopolies are illegal. I'm not thinking that the government is going to create a program to beat out the competitors to make a monopoly.
      
      And even if they did - in the theory of a truly free market - monopolies are not illegal, and any company could do the same thing. Why is it bad for this "company" then in the eyes of free market capitalists?
3. 

   6/25/09

   clioandme

   A great comment by techfun on twitter:
   
   "Can't wrap head around why its better for someone answering to wallstreet to decide my medical care than someone answering to voters." (twitter.com/techfun/status/2325751494)

   [reply]
4. 

   6/25/09

   satijournal

   While the Heritage Foundation editorial is meaningless drivel, the AP article does raise some valid concerns about the government offering insurance:
   
   If the government run program can operate with a deficit or with funding from other sources, that will give it an unfair advantage.
   
   Since the government makes the rules, that may give it an unfair advantage.

   [reply]
   1. 

      6/25/09

      clioandme

      Isn't the whole point that market forces alone do not work, that government involvement is indeed necessary? If this were just about the fairness of the market alone, we would not even need to have this game. Moreover, the government is already involved in a major way. Think Medicare and Medicaid.
      
      No, the government needs to be involved, and it is okay if it isn't subject to the same restrictions as the private insurers. They'll still find their markets, if they have anything of value to offer. Meanwhile, the government will be under pretty severe financial pressures to make whatever they come up with pay for itself. But voters will be able to influence the shape our system takes, instead of simply Wall Street executives.
      
      Meanwhile, the idea is that the government's involvement will put it in a position to actually reduce medical costs over the long term and save money in its other already existing entitlement programs. Whether or not that's what emerges from Congress is, of course, another matter.
   2. 

      6/25/09

      satijournal

      But if gov't run health care is partially subsidised by tax dollars, people who have private insurance will be funding those on the gov't programs. That's not going to go over too well.
      
      I haven't heard this proposed, but there should be a requirement that it operate as a non-profit with no profit but also no loss.
   3. 

      6/25/09

      Agit8r

      Obama actually made an interesting point yesterday. If the government doesn't do anything as well as "The Market", how is it unfair for the "private" companies to have to compete with it?
   4. 

      6/25/09

      Anok

      Private companies in the free market can receive funding from any number of sources.
      
      That said - we pay taxes that pay for public schools, even if you choose to attend a private school.
      
      The amount of taxes paid in to suppliment a public option health care program would be minimal at best. People will still have to pay for premiums for their policies. the premiums will simply be lower because of the "group rate" risk and pricing system.
      
      It's the same reason employer based insurance is lower than private insurance. groups paying in spreads the risk to a managable amount so that premiums can be lower. The size of the company and the amount of eligible participants changes the price of the premium. More participants = lower premiums.
      
      On a national scale that means that premiums will be lower because the risk pool is massive, plus the government does not need to make an ever increasing annual profit.
      
      Furthermore, insurance companies never pay what the medical industry asks it to pay. They always pay less. The same is true for this type of insurance, only they may opt to pay even less than what private insurance companies pay.
      
      Then again it will be less likely that the public option will deny as many claims as private insurers do, so while the doctors et al would be paid less in dollar amounts, they will make more because they'll actually get paid instead of waiting months upon months only to find that the insurance company will not cover the claim.
      
      Agit - I think that's what Mark was getting at above - if the program is no good, then it won't last on the market. They are more worried that it will last, and thus put real competition out there for companies.
   5. 

      6/25/09

      anticsrocks

      Where is the impetus for Government to "drive down the costs?" They do not have to worry about petty things like being able to pay their employees based on how well they run their programs. They have no incentive to be cost conscious, save for the overall cost of their massive entitlement programs. At some point, there will be a rationing body that is telling you that you are denied this drug or that procedure. When that happens, and there are no private insurers, you aren't independently wealthy, what do you do then?
   6. 

      6/25/09

      anticsrocks

      @Anok "Furthermore, insurance companies never pay what the medical industry asks it to pay. They always pay less."
      
      What do you think Medicare and Medicaid are already doing? They tell doctors, hospitals, clinics, etc... what they will pay for each service, drug, etc... It is considerably less and often times the payments lag 6 months to a year behind the date of service. If a private company did that, then the libs would be screaming at the top of their lungs about the greedy capitalists pigs running the company into the ground.
   7. 

      6/25/09

      satijournal

      It's the same reason employer based insurance is lower than private insurance. groups paying in spreads the risk to a managable amount so that premiums can be lower.
      
      That's the rationale behind the co-ops proposal. Individuals would be able to purchase insurance through a co-op to get cheaper insurance.
   8. 

      6/25/09

      Anok

      Antics hun - private insurance companies already do that. They do NOT pay full asking price for medical claims. At most they pay 75% of what the hospital asks for.
      
      The only people who pay full costs are those paying for medical costs out of pocket. Why? Because they are the only ones without any leverage.
      
      By the by, the government has no incentive to gouge anybody, either. They don't make a profit, see? So no need to gouge, raise prices, or over charge people.
      
      Sati - yes, any large group plan will net the same financial result. Although I am not familiar with the co-op program.
   9. 

      6/25/09

      anticsrocks

      *blush* You called me 'hun' - he he.
   10. 

       6/26/09

       Anok

       ha!
5. 

   6/26/09

   cooper

   The private insurance market has become coercive, even Adam Smith knew that coercive markets were a bad thing. People are already denied state of the art drugs and treatments in droves.
   
   To me he's back tracking in the opposite direction.

   [reply]