Public Option Health Care – It’s On!
Kudos to the House!
The Democratic Party showed on Friday what it’s capable of when led by the majority of its members rather than its conservative wing. In stark contrast to Senate Democrats, who spent the week backpedaling on reform, unified House Democrats unveiled a draft health care overhaul bill jointly endorsed by three powerful committee chairmen.
Finally, Democrats acting like they won an election.
Where the Senate Finance Committee’s outline of a bill didn’t include a public health insurance option for people to buy into, the House version includes a robust public plan that would operate nationally and compete with private insurers on a level playing field to keep them honest.
A robust public plan. Now we’re talking. And, it gets better.
While the Senate has cowered from the debate over a public option in the face of Republican and conservative Democratic opposition, Rangel said he relishes the battle.
In other words… Bring it on!
Tags: Health Care
“compete with private insurers on a level playing field to keep them honest.”
A tax dollar-subsidized public plan that will be ‘too big to fail’ will not operate on a level playing field.
Most of you want single-payer anyway, so why not admit what this is: the first step in getting rid of private options.
A tax dollar-subsidized public plan that will be ‘too big to fail’ will not operate on a level playing field.
Replace “health care” with “charter schools” and maybe you will get it.
Most of you want single-payer anyway
yes
so why not admit what this is: the first step in getting rid of private options.
No – it’s the first step to single-payer.
You are being called out here to show any proposal to eliminate private options.
YESSSSS!
Unfortunately the Senate doesn’t have the intestinal fortitude to stand up against big-Pharma and the insurance companies. So very sad.
Thank you House Dems! Be sure to show them some love call in support. Be sure to make your calls to Castle, Carper and Kaufman as well.
“You are being called out here”
I get called out when I allow you to call me out.
He does have a valid request, however — you keep pushing this idea that all of this is a single payer stalking horse without much to back it up with.
What tires me endlessly is having to explain it over and over again. So I’ll do this instead.
http://www.delawarepolitics.net/there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-public-option/
Back to the topic — definitely good on the House Dems for providing some real leadership on this thing. Apparently the Senate is more concerned about their campaign contribution from insurers and the like to seriously tackle this thing.
“I get called out when I allow you to call me out.”
Sorry, that’s not how calling out works. One more thing Republicans don’t understand about accountability.
You said “why not admit what this is: the first step in getting rid of private options.”
Nobody has ever proposed getting rid of private insurance.
Fine, if you don’t want to be called out you’ll just have to stand there with that “Bullshitter” sign pasted to your forehead.
Noone is proposing getting rid of private insurance. They just plan on removing all the customers.
“Fine, if you don’t want to be called out you’ll just have to stand there with that “Bullshitter” sign pasted to your forehead.”
There are two kinds of people: people who get to call me out, like cass, and people who don’t, like you. And if you’d like to paste something to my head, I’m easy to find.
“Noone is proposing getting rid of private insurance. They just plan on removing all the customers.”
FTW.
Tsk tsk. All of a sudden competition is a bad thing.
I see how you roll.
Competition? Riiiiiight. Because the federal government won’t mind a fair competition, even if they lose. They’ll simply fold the program if it doesn’t work, right?
Or United Health Group’s CEO, William W McGuire might have to make less that 125 million next year.
Let the market decide.
“Fine, if you don’t want to be called out you’ll just have to stand there with that “Bullshitter” sign pasted to your forehead.”
So far, Dave, your objection to public option is a partisan knee jerk, therefore contributes nothing.
How could it be anything else, since the details, like coverage and cost, have not yet been announced?
I favor single payer, eventually, but if that is not possible in the current economic context, then I favor a cheap public option policy covering basic medical services for every citizen.
Then folks can buy private supplemental policies depending on what they can need and can afford.
The public option will be DOA as it does not do amything except cost trillions and does not make the patient the focus of health care, increases bureacracy and creates another one size fits all Washington approach.
Past performance can indeed predict future results.
Medicare $74 trillion in unfunded liabilities.
Medicaid covers only 76% of costs.
Again, universal coverage needs to incorporate wellness, productivity and security with the patient as #1, hassles kept to a minimum and individual options/choice.
Lastly, how do we pay for the program?
Mike Protack
How do we pay for all the bullshit wars ?
Anything less than single – payer is just a “health” insurance industry preservation act.
http://finance.yahoo.com/insurance/article/107216/obamas-doctor-knocks-obamacare.html;_ylt=ArcGEtjgJqpNyyWMLatV3idO7sMF?mod=insurance-health
Competition implies a profit motive. Do you think it is appropriate for the government to profit for supplying the basic human right of healthcare ?
So which approach should the New Castle County Democratic Party’s Executive Committee take on this issue–the be a leader (US House Dem’s) or the too-wimpy-to-stand-up-to-the-insurance-lobby (US Senate Dem’s) approach?
If you have an opinion, let your RD committee know.
The stand up for the american people and reduce government intrusion approach, easy.
#17–let me get this right. You are preaching what universal coverage requires, arguing that the current proposals cost too much, while at the same time listing what additional it needs to include. Can you please explain–do you want it to include more or less?
#14: “Competition? Riiiiiight. Because the federal government won’t mind a fair competition, even if they lose. They’ll simply fold the program if it doesn’t work, right?” The federal government provides basic health insurance for seniors, and fair competition is available for private insurance companies that provide medigap policies. Perhaps you’ve heard of it.
Can you explain to me how the private companies are competing for the health insurance needs of the millions and millions of uninsured Americans?
“The federal government provides basic health insurance for seniors”
While we’re on the subject of fair competition:
“Well, folks, now that you’re 65, you can have for ‘free’ this health care program where we’ve forced you to pay in for your entire working life OR you can pay to get a private policy…”
That’s about the kind of “level” playing field we’re going to get.
And most of the seniors choose the Medicare and most think it works just fine. You’d think that if this was a market private insurance even wanted (think about it) they’d actually — wait for it — compete for it.
This is the thing about private insurance. There isn’t a level playing field in the first place. Between the denial of care, denial of payments, out of control costs, recissions, and the general game playing to keep as much of your premium dollar for their shareholders as possible, there is nothing level about this playing field. And since most of them have the same business model, there isn’t much competition to be had. Just new schemes to pay out very little of your premium.
So as always the solution must be a government plan. There is little to be done to stop you from getting your way at this point. Just understand the inevetiable result is the destruction of the companies the currently provide this service. Say goodbye to the employment provided and the assets they represent to stockholders, bondholders and others. Say goodbye to another industry to government control. Next comes the federal government further modifying behavior to suit the needs of ‘saving healthcare costs’. No more tobacco, no more alcohol, no more hiking in the woods you might turn an ankle.