I couldn’t disagree more. I believe we need more competition, more capitalism, and much less government interference in the health care business.
Isn’t that what got us to this point in the first place?
Compete for what? They already compete to insure the young and the healthy, who’s going to compete to insure everybody else?
Tell me, do you think all those stories about health insurance companies rescinding coverage unjustly, those are all lies? Just a bunch of stuff made up by liberals? Like this one?
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles//?storyId=15012&bIndex=10
Insurance Cancellation Scandal Widens: WellPoint, Blue Cross & Blue Shield Sued For Illegal Denials of Health Coverage
Lies, all lies?
Or this one?
Pfizer pays a record $2.3 billion to settle criminal charges
More lies?
So, your plan is, give them enough money, totally satisfy their greed, and they’ll stop stealing?
Here’s the thing: it’s what many of the Democrats want too. The Dems in Congress are not all being wimps-- this is what many of them really want too. We all think that there’s some bright line between the Democrats’ agenda re: health care and the Republican’s, and unity on either side of those lines, but it just ain’t so. jayjay is exactly right in pointing out Dems like Max Baucus are as much the problem here as the Republicans. Baucus, as chair of the Senate Finance Committee, is in the perfect position to derail the whole thing, and he’s doing his damnedest to make it so. I hate to be nihilistic, but sadly, it’s not about what we the people want, it’s about what the insurance companies want, and will get via the legislators they bought and paid for on both sides of the aisle. They spread their money everywhere because they have plenty of it, and they’re not partisan.
A public option is competition.
Medicare, which is run by government, makes people happy.
Yes, we definitely need more capitalism in health care, if there is one thing that’s currently lacking, it’s capitalism 
You’re funny.
Er… you don’t? Or you set aside $40 million for an investigation into the existing co-ops and subsequent advertising campaign to raise awareness of this option? The creation of new laws should not be seen as a desirable objective, in and of itself, if there are other methods to achieve the same goal.
What they did is already illegal, under basic contract law. It means the system worked! You could legitimately argue that these cases demonstrate that harsher penalties should be levelled against the criminals, or that there is greater need to investigate these crimes, but trying to use these to justify expanding the powers of government against everyone else is illogical.
Only if it has to be self-supporting, without access to outside funding.
Well, OK, but why do they do it? Is it greed? I mean, could they make a legitimate profit by legitimate means, and only pull this shit because they want more? Or is it impossible to make a legitimate profit, so they are forced to do this stuff? If they can do it on the square, but don’t, then they should be run out of town. And if they can’t, then what fucking good are they?
I’m ready to give up a public option. I’ve never wanted a public option. I want to scrap the entire health-care industry and institute a publicly-funded National Health Service.
sigh
And I might as well ask for a pony while I’m at it.
Just to be sure a democracy does exist, what was it the people voted for when they voted for “change” with Obama?
Why are you trying to argue there’s a difference? They were not forced to do this stuff, regardless of whether there was legitimate profit available or not. Throw the book at them either way. The fact that they committed this crime is not evidence that they or anyone else is running an industry-scale Ponzi scheme.
This would not affect my opinion of Obama at all. It would lower my opinion of conservatives and Republicans even more, I’d have to start digging to find a new low they can reach. They’ve essentially turned an issue in which they want as well into something toxic. At this point, I say fuck 'em, use reconciliation and ram it through. If they wont play ball, then neither will we. We gave them plenty of chances to be reasonable and what we got in return was death panels and socialize medicine. As far as I’m concerned, Republicans do not deserve to have a say in the bill at all
It’s only a Democracy when the Republicans win.
A variety of reasons.
A public option would be cheaper. I have heard anywhere from 10-30% cheaper for a variety of reasons. For one public plans would spend less on overhead than private plans. A public option might only spend 5% on overhead, private plans might spend 20%. Also a public plan can negotiate for lower prices.
Because a public option would be cheaper, it would force insurance companies to improve, driving down health care costs.
“The CBO estimates that a public plan premium would be 10 percent lower than those of typical private plans offered in an insurance exchange—a cost break that would provide much-needed relief to families and businesses in every state in the country. The average family would save $2,200 per year by 2020 with reforms that include a public plan. President Obama pledged during the presidential campaign to save American families $2,500 a year through health reform. This goal needs to be on par with a deficit-neutral health reform plan.”
Jon Cohn over at The New Republic is reporting that, in early estimates, the Congressional Budget Office is finding that a robust public option, along the lines of the one recommended in the House health care bill, could save about $150 billion over 10 years–a notable chunk of the approximately $1 trillion Congress will need to finance an overhaul package.
Another reason is that most people want a public option, anywhere from 60-80% of the public support the concept.
Another is that many of us on the left have moral opposition to individual mandates with private insurers. Private insurers spend billions denying care to people and use part of the premiums they are given to fund movements designed to kill the public option. Many of us do not want to be forced to pick from private insurers when they have proven themselves morally questionable and not very good at providing health care to people who need it. The reason the system is so insecure now is because private insurers run it, and denying people care is good business practice.
So those are the main reasons to me. A public option would be cheaper, would drive down costs, much of the public supports one and many of us do not want to be forced to pick from private insurers.
If we can’t get a public option with supermajorities and a mandate, then we live in a plutocracy. Private insurance companies do not want the competition from a public option, and if we don’t get one then that proves corporations have a far stronger grip on our country than we thought, and it’ll be a massive letdown to those of us who wanted to end corporate rule of our country.
It’s not a “let down”, it’s the equivalent of being encircled at Stalingrad. The first pincer is an enormous victory for every anti-democratic force inside the Beltway and a huge boost to the type of corporate rule it personifies.
The second pincer is the media’s refusal to conduct a rational, informed debate to the point where the public believe it is in their best interest is to continue with the biggest, longest con in the history of universal suffrage.
In the context of the election campaign and result, the political response to the proposals and the media’s role I cannot see a democracy?
Quoth Crafter_Man:
Pick two of the three: A public option is the best way anyone’s proposed to get more competition and more capitalism into the health insurance business. So if you dislike government involvement just for the sake of disliking the government, that’s one thing, but if your underlying motive is to promote capitalism, then you should be supporting the public option.
We should forgo a public option and rely on private insurers and providers, like Japan,
But since there’s no chance in hell of that happening here, a public option is an acceptable compromise.
You guys keep framing the battle as politician vs politician - that the Democrats shouldn’t ‘concede’ to the Republicans.
But last I checked, America was still a representative Democracy. Have you considered the possibility that the American people don’t want a public option? And if that’s the case, doesn’t fighting to the bitter end just mean you’ll wind up getting hammered in the next election?
To me, the backpedaling of Obama is an indication that Democracy works. He wants a public option, but his poll numbers are sinking like a rock. So now it’s either come up with some new formulation, or risk being thrown out of office in 2012, or having his party lose control of the House and/or Senate next year, at which point the grand liberal experiment will come to a crashing halt.
I really don’t get this point of view when it comes to healthcare. Do you honestly think that insurance companies are going to compete for the elderly, the sick, the poor, or anyone else that actually will dip into their funding. If you ran an insurance company, would you? They will and do compete for the young and healthy, who pay in more than they take out… and then would drop them, if given the opportunity, when they become old or sick. Hell, even car or homeowners insurance companies will drop you if your risk becomes too high, irregardless of how many years you have been paying them.
This obviously produces poor results, so your belief is wrong. Whether you pretend a bunch of dead guys in wigs would agree with you or not makes no difference, because A) they’re dead, and B) they’re just dead guys in wigs, not any sort of authority at all.
Pretty crafty, Sam, gotta hand it to you. Canadians are sneaky? Who knew?
Google “public option polls”, tell me what you see. Tell you what I saw, and that is pretty healthy majorities. Which is likely why Obama ran on it, he figured it was a winner.
But you artfully craft your sentence:
allowing the reader to think that its because he supports a public option that his numbers are falling. And that’s partly true, no doubt, because the opposition is lying through their teeth with crapola like “death panels”.
But its also true because people to the left of Obama are disappointed that he doesn’t seem willing to fight it out. We not only want a public option, we want single payer public option.
Still, nicely spun. The dummies on this Board might have fallen for it, but neither of them counts for much.
But answer me this one, if the case against the public option is so good, how come they’re screaming their heads off and lying their asses off? Hmmm?