# Attention anti health-care reformers **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 8, 2009, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-anti-health-care-reformers/516745 "2009-11-08T00:21:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2009, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-anti-health-care-reformers/516745/141 "2009-11-09T21:45:39Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Well, perhaps if we scrimp and save? Maybe not squander fortunes on futile military adventures? (This has the additional upside of not getting a big bunch of our kids dead…I like that part. A lot.) Maybe not spend billions of dollars for airplanes that cannot fly in the rain? Perhaps not send cargo jets aloft to rain metric buttloads of benjamins on our distressed stockbrokers? > > Perhaps we should spend our money taking care of our people? A radical notion, I’m sure, but maybe we could give that some thought? Yeah, I know, crazy ol’ \*\*'luc \*\*again with his wild-assed notions… But if they’re not _our_ people, who’s people are they? Holy Shit! Something we can agree on luci… ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2009, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-anti-health-care-reformers/516745/142 "2009-11-09T21:49:44Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > You think consumers are so dumb they shouldn’t be allowed to choose for themselves? > > You really need to read the bill. The House bill specifically prohibits the public option from running a deficit. > > Also, you should ask UPS and Fedex how they manage to compete against the US Postal Service under such onerous conditions. > > It will not happen, because employers need to offer private insurance to attract quality employees. Or are you admitting that the government can provide better service than private industry? Of course they aren’t going to run at a deficit, they will raise taxes… UPS and Fed EX do some job(s) better than the USPS or they wouldn’t be in business… I am not one proposing that private insurance will be done away with. I just think it will be the rich who receive better care than us regular old Joe’s (who happen to have no much else choice but go to the government) If you need to mail a letter than can be somewhere in 4 days you don’t use UPS… ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2009, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-anti-health-care-reformers/516745/143 "2009-11-09T21:58:11Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > Of course they aren’t going to run at a deficit, they will raise taxes… > UPS and Fed EX do some job(s) better than the USPS or they wouldn’t be in business… I am not one proposing that private insurance will be done away with. I just think it will be the rich who receive better care than us regular old Joe’s (who happen to have no much else choice but go to the government) > > If you need to mail a letter than can be somewhere in 4 days you don’t use UPS… Well that’s the whole point, isn’t it? The postal service is basic service. If you don’t care about the delivery date or don’t have a lot of large packages, USPS does the job fine. On the other hand, if it absolutely has to be there overnight, you’re not going to get that kind of service with a 42 cent stamp. That’s when you pay Fedex $20 to haul ass. A public option would be a basic level of care. You want better quality care, you’re gonna have to pay more on a private insurer. Yes, the rich would have better care than regular Joes. That’s fine, and I don’t think anyone not far to the left is disputing that. The whole point of this exercise is so that regular Joes will not have to go without _any_ kind of care at all, or will not have to be tied to their employer just for healthcare. Employers can still offer an attractive health insurance package as a benefit, and it will ideally still be as effective a benefit as it is now. But it shouldn’t be a mandatory thing to have to rely on your employer for. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2009, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-anti-health-care-reformers/516745/144 "2009-11-09T22:05:38Z")
Newsflash: the rich already receive better care than the not-rich already. Kinda easy to have that happen with so many of the not-rich are uninsured or underinsured. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2009, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-anti-health-care-reformers/516745/145 "2009-11-09T22:07:43Z")
> [@Nobody](#): > > This may be a stupid question, but why can’t insurance companies lower their prices to compete? Well, again the conservative argument would say, that the Government will offer the UHC at a rate far below what a private insurance company can compete at, due to the $1T (or more if you listen to talk radio) being added to the federal debt, a number which is already going to crush the economy of my kids, even if nothing is added to it (IMHO). Will it be as ‘good’ as private healthcare? Depends on your take I guess. If you are anti-gov all the time and cynical, you’ll say that the government rarely delivers services as efficient or user-friendly as the private marketplace. However I fully acknowledge the other side as well, that private healthcare companies have a vested interest in denying coverage when it’s not warranted (although I doubt that happens as much as some on this board claim, anectdotally) as a means of squeaking out a profit. And I do mean squeak. I know how this board tilts, having been a lurker forever. However, the profit margins of the private companies are not as high as some suggest. The profit from last year’s top 5 largest healthcare companies, last year: UHC did a profit of of $2.9b on a rev of $81.1b Wellpoint did a profit of $2.4b on a rev of $61.2b Aetna, $1.3b on $30.9b Humana, $647m on $28.9b Cigna, $292m on $19.1b That’s profit margins of 3.5%, 3.9%, 4%, 2.2%, and 1.5% respectively. Hardly confiscatory, again in my opinion. And don’t forget they paid taxes on those profits. I don’t have a link, sry, I got those numbers from a relative who is high up in AARP, who recently backed this bill, and it came from their talking points he emailed me. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2009, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-anti-health-care-reformers/516745/146 "2009-11-09T22:07:51Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > Well that’s the whole point, isn’t it? The postal service is basic service. If you don’t care about the delivery date or don’t have a lot of large packages, USPS does the job fine. On the other hand, if it absolutely has to be there overnight, you’re not going to get that kind of service with a 42 cent stamp. That’s when you pay Fedex $20 to haul ass. > > A public option would be a basic level of care. You want better quality care, you’re gonna have to pay more on a private insurer. Yes, the rich would have better care than regular Joes. That’s fine, and I don’t think anyone not far to the left is disputing that. The whole point of this exercise is so that regular Joes will not have to go without _any_ kind of care at all, or will not have to be tied to their employer just for healthcare. Employers can still offer an attractive health insurance package as a benefit, and it will ideally still be as effective a benefit as it is now. But it shouldn’t be a mandatory thing to have to rely on your employer for. You completely disregarded the first sentence though. If this fails how will they fix it? Peter/Paul v 2.0? If you give people an option of free healthcare for all or better healthcare at a certain price, the people will only want the better care when they actually really really need it no? When will all the governmental officials whom voted for this bill be joining the plan? ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2009, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-anti-health-care-reformers/516745/147 "2009-11-09T22:14:10Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > This ignores the reason most companies offer health insurance in the first place; it is a benefit to attract and keep the best employees. If conservatives are to be believed, government health insurance will be so inferior, any company who offers private health insurance will be able to hire the cream of the crop, and any company so short sighted as to drop health insurance altogether will soon find themselves with cubicles full of everyone else’s rejects. > > If the free market is everything touted by the conservatives, your scenario won’t play out, because it is not in the economic interest of companies to put themselves at a disadvantage when recruiting the best talent. This is most certainly the strongest argument I’ve seen for why privat healthcare will not be driven out of business by a public option. And I certainly hope it plays out that way: you could argue that SS might have driven pension plans and 401ks out of business with the same logic; the fact that they didn’t suggests that there’s some hope for increased healthcare choice being offered to new prospects as a means of recruiting the best and the brightest. However the blue collar, lower paid folks might get screwed. They are already largely viewed as expendable/interchangable by industry, and may (probably?) get shunted to the Govie option, with no private healthcare choice. I work for a gov contractor that does mostly call center work. This work is largely viewed as a commodity, and is fiercely cost competitive. Some of us are true knowledge workers, but most are low-level CSRs. Can they maintain a 2-tier system for benefits? Not sure that would fly. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2009, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-anti-health-care-reformers/516745/148 "2009-11-09T22:16:06Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > Peter/Paul v 2.0? Peter has been paying for Paul since progressive taxes were implemented. This really isn’t anything different. As for people who will decide the public option’s good enough for them, well, why not? I don’t think I’ve ever had to ship something via Fedex in my life, the USPS has always sufficed. And sure, there will always be people lazy enough to try to live off welfare and the government without being productive members of society, but that’s an acceptable price to ensure productive members aren’t screwed. Same reason I’d rather see a guilty man go free than an innocent man sentenced. And it still wouldn’t change the fact that private insurance will be better. If I have two job offers roughly the same, and one offers a good healthcare package while the other blows it off in favor of the public option, that package is gonna look pretty nice. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2009, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-anti-health-care-reformers/516745/149 "2009-11-09T23:41:27Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > I am not one proposing that private insurance will be done away with. I just think it will be the rich who receive better care than us regular old Joe’s (who happen to have no much else choice but go to the government) The rich already receive better care than the regular Joe. The only difference is, under the current system, the regular Joe has no alternative. At least with the public option, they have a choice. Why would you think having no insurance is better than having government insurance? ---
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2009, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-anti-health-care-reformers/516745/150 "2009-11-10T00:25:31Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > Yes, you can “opt out” of the liability you can cause to others on the road by simply not driving, however it’s a more complicated matter when it comes to health care. > > If you have a medical emergency, and are uninsured, they can’t turn you away. Not even if you’re flat broke. That means that other people are going to end up paying for you. **Merely by being alive** , and having a human body, and inhabiting a society with sympathetic humans, there is a risk that other people will have to pay for your health care. > > The only way you can get around that is to adopt a strict policy of turning away everyone at emergency rooms who don’t have insurance or don’t have enough cash to pay for the procedures up front. But the vast majority of people in our society don’t have the stomach to enforce that. Much as I love me some socialized medicine (and I would really prefer it to anything that has a hope of passing Congress), I have to point out that you are wrong. Not only that, you are wrong because you have been listening to Republican fairy stories and believing them. You only have a right to emergency care. It is not free; they will send you a bill. If you don’t pay it, it will be referred to a collections agency. The only people who receive free emergency care are those who care nothing for their credit rating. Also, non-emergency care, even if it is necessary to save your life, does not have to be provided. You have no right to chemotherapy, for example. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2009, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-anti-health-care-reformers/516745/151 "2009-11-10T00:51:28Z")
Am I the only one who thinks that having great health care in this country is kind of meaningless when it is available to those with insurance? Do we really need Rolls Royces, when everyone could get by on a civic and if someone wanted something else well they can trade it is? Yes, we have agreat health care system but not everyone has access to it. That’s the problem. And it is pretty disgusting that we have this problem when we are so prosperous. We have public options in education, mail delivery, etc. Why is this so hard? ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2009, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-anti-health-care-reformers/516745/152 "2009-11-10T01:12:36Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > You completely disregarded the first sentence though. If this fails how will they fix it? > Peter/Paul v 2.0? Simple. Scrap the whole insurance-for-profit model, and go directly to single-payer. Sooner the better, IMHO. Wait. Scratch that last bit. I don’t claim there’s anything humble about it. In fact, I reject the notion that it’s an opinion. So: _Sooner the better [del]IMHO[/del], in **point of FACT**._ ---
**Author:** ![Crafter\_Man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crafter_man/32/458_2.png) [@Crafter\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crafter_Man)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2009, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-anti-health-care-reformers/516745/153 "2009-11-10T01:36:32Z")
> [@silk1976](#): > > What is your thoughts on Medicare? If you disagree with its existence and think it unconstitutional, then at least you are consistent. Wrong, but consistent. I do not think the federal government should have _any_ involvement in healthcare. This includes Medicare and Medicaid. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2009, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-anti-health-care-reformers/516745/154 "2009-11-10T03:11:43Z")
Forward, then, into the past! ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2009, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-anti-health-care-reformers/516745/155 "2009-11-10T06:34:40Z")
Perhaps a little off topic, but I’d like to know what 'dopers think. I see the argument come up time and again that Medicare is losing money, Social Security is losing money, therefore a public health option can do nothing but fail. Because that’s gov’ment for ya! But- isn’t the reason MC and SS are having trouble is because of the demographic bubble? We have an aging population and more and more demand for these services. Basic math, not really government incompetence. And the demographic bubble traces back to Hitler not being able to keep his tanks out of Poland instead of in his pants where they belonged. Again, not really the government’s fault. Is that wrong? I’d rather straighten out my views with good info than pretend to be a genius. ---
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2009, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-anti-health-care-reformers/516745/156 "2009-11-10T07:36:15Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > Perhaps a little off topic, but I’d like to know what 'dopers think. > > I see the argument come up time and again that Medicare is losing money, Social Security is losing money, therefore a public health option can do nothing but fail. Because that’s gov’ment for ya! > > But- isn’t the reason MC and SS are having trouble is because of the demographic bubble? We have an aging population and more and more demand for these services. Basic math, not really government incompetence. Except for the fact that the government should have foreseen this. > [@](#): > > And the demographic bubble traces back to Hitler not being able to keep his tanks out of Poland instead of in his pants where they belonged. Again, not really the government’s fault. 😕 ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2009, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-anti-health-care-reformers/516745/157 "2009-11-10T07:37:47Z")
At that, we are deep into fundamentalist conservatism, here, with an emphasis on “mental”. The premise is that any endeavor, regardless, will prosper under a free enterprise and will invariably fail if a government entity does it. Its kinda like if NASA had completed the moon mission as a General Dynamic/Lockheed project, and then suddenly the paychecks were being issued by the government, even if everybody and everything else remained the same, the launch tower would burn up, fall down and sink into the swamp. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2009, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-anti-health-care-reformers/516745/158 "2009-11-10T07:48:26Z")
> [@Nobody](#): > > 😕 I just wanted to use the phrase ‘tanks in his pants’, sorry. Point is, no WWII, then no post-war baby boom, then no demographic bubble. Doesn’t that make more sense? ---
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2009, 7:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-anti-health-care-reformers/516745/159 "2009-11-10T07:51:22Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > I just wanted to use the phrase ‘tanks in his pants’, sorry. > Point is, no WWII, then no post-war baby boom, then no demographic bubble. Doesn’t that make more sense? I see. Well, there would still be people in their 50’s or older…maybe not as many, but I think no baby boom would only delay the problem, not eliminate it. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2009, 8:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-anti-health-care-reformers/516745/160 "2009-11-10T08:00:16Z")
> [@Nobody](#): > > Except for the fact that the government should have foreseen this. A fair point, but then, isn’t attempting to do something about this now, if belatedly, also part of the UHC program? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-anti-health-care-reformers/516745.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-anti-health-care-reformers/516745.md?page=9)