Not even the American public is that gullible -
No, you seem to be under the impression that health care costs will magically vanish if the government does pay for them. See above for the general impression of that bill of goods.
Regards,
Shodan
No, but we’ll pay less for better care, judging from other countries. Unless you just want to let people die, not paying isn’t an option.
Your quoted finding does not address the issue. It is plausible at least that subsidizing health insurance for those who can’t afford it will increase the deficit, if we don’t go after additional funding sources. Tracing the bottom line of a public option will be simple. Why is it that you doubt that massive purchasing power will decrease costs to the government? The government already knows how to run an efficient public option.
Please show us anyone who claims that health care costs vanish when paid for by the government. (What that even means is beyond me. ) Costs are costs no matter who pays. They can go down, as demonstrated all over the world.
It seems to be part of the Right’s mythology that we evil liberals think we can get services from the government for free.
Other people’s health problems vanish if the government doesn’t pay using my money, or money that could be spent to my benefit. Because really, if a health problem doesn’t effect me, does it really exist?
(to the OP)
Probably not a hell of a whole lot, really. I live in Texas, and if you were to call Cornyn’s office, you would get some bullshit about how the 57% isn’t true and it will kill God and all that crap.
(I am someone who is single, no kids, works for the State of Texas and pays 383 dollars a month for their HMO, while three years ago it was 11 bucks and a PPO)
ETA: Not three years, it was 4 years ago. But still.
It’s funny, the conservative certainty that Big Business can do everything right, except for the biggest business in the world, which can’t do anything right.
As to the poll the OP is asking about, it’s one poll out of many, and I wouldn’t put excessive weight on it just because it’s the most recent. Support for the public option in polls seems to vary tremendously based on things like who’s conducting it, and precisely how the question is worded. “Do you support the public option for health coverage” will give very different results from “Do you think the government should offer an alternative insurance plan to compete with private companies”, or “Would you switch to a public option if the government were to make one available”, or “Do you think the government should take measures which could drive private insurance companies out of business”.
Same here,…I recently looked into the costs of buying the same health plan I get through work as an individual policy and was astounded to find it would cost me $56,400.00 per year for family coverage
An efficient public option like Medicare, which has exceeded its original cost estimates by almost tenfold, is currently running at a deficit, and is scheduled to run out of money altogether in seven years? That efficient public option?
Well, then could you cite some of the countries whose health care costs went down after they implemented taxpayer funded health care? Please note that I am asking for what I said - the health care costs went down, relative to what they were before the plan was implemented. Not that they increased more slowly, not that they cost less than the US - that they went down, as you claimed happened all over the world.
Regards,
Shodan
Not only is it one poll out of many…it is also heavily weighted with democrats. Rasmussen and Pew pollls have the issue within the margin of error.
LBJ forced the initial estimates of the cost to be low in order to get it passed. He was indeed a true politician. None of the other stuff you mention says anything at all about efficiency. Things would be a bit better if Bush has allowed Medicare to negotiate drug prices, and if there wasn’t a giant subsidy for the private plans inside Medicare. Medicare doesn’t raise its rates 15% to keep Wall Street happy, and puts its customers above investors. Tsk, tsk.
Per capita costs with single payer plans are lower than what we have. If we moved to that kind of plan, our costs could moves towards the costs of Europe, and would go down. Things beyond the public option are required for this, of course.
Medicare costs less than private health insurance. It is going up slower than private insurance rates. It costs more than they expected because people are living longer. This is why we have to change the current system, both medicare and private health care are unsustainable at present rates of increase.
Our prices are higher because we have a spectacularly terrible system that has been flying out of control for decades. Any other country would have to have a similar system to what we have now to save money. Can you point out a country with a similar economy that overspends as much as we do for less service?
The Times today reports that insurance costs for small businesses are going up by 15% this year as the insurance companies rush to raise rates before legislation that could cut into their profits. This is double the increase from last year. Small businesses don’t have bargaining power. It appears that Wall Street makes it very clear that companies who don’t jack up rates quickly enough will be punished.
It looks like competition does not do much to prevent this. A public option, not driven by the needs of Wall Street, would seem to do a better job. Companies in a public option environment would seem to have to either figure out how to be more efficient to keep the same level of profits, or move to a lower return and a lower stock price. That will hurt them with investors, but the small businesses which will see lower costs should become more profitable, and/or have better paid and happier workers. Sounds like a good deal to me.
The free market is working - but it is working today for investors, not for people.
To add to that, IMHO this uncertainty regarding costs (oh, one of your most valued workers has a preexisting condition, your rates will go up!) was reported before as one big reason why small business owners are not hiring as many workers as they would want, the result is that competition with large companies is set already in very unfair terms.
I also think that currently small business owners, that are one of the main sources of employment in America, are essentially paralyzed by the uncertainty of what kind of reform we will get, so even if they feel more confident, hiring new workers has been put on hold until they figure out what is coming.
Those bastards politicians that decided to slow down the reform process can be blamed also for the lack of new jobs.
Are you implying that Obama is also lying about the costs of his health care initiative? I find that to be quite plausible, but not much of a counter-argument.
So you believe Medicare is efficiently run, and a good model for health care reform, even though original estimates of its costs were wildly off, it is running at a deficit, and is scheduled to go bankrupt altogether in a few years.
You have an interesting definition of efficiency.
For the second time, could you please cite some of the countries whose health care costs went down after they implemented taxpayer funded health care? Please note that I am asking for what I said - the health care costs went down, relative to what they were before the plan was implemented. Not that they increased more slowly, not that they cost less than the US - that they went down, as you claimed happened all over the world.
Well, then could you cite some of the countries whose health care costs went down after they implemented taxpayer funded health care?
Regards,
Shodan
OTOH, if Democrats are gonna say yes and Republicans are gonna say no, does that mean we could get an accurate pulse of what “America” thinks by just counting up the Democrats and Republicans? Or only polling Independents?
Do you have cites for these assertions?
Which ones are you having trouble swallowing? That ‘its original cost estimates by almost tenfold’…I think Shodan is being generous there. Originally, the Medicare Part B premium was $3/month (in 1965 when it was passed). Even given the devaluation of the dollar I’d guess it’s 10 times more expensive today (which it is…a quick Google search shows it’s $96/month). That it’s ‘is currently running at a deficit’…well, yeah. Do you dispute that? Seriously? That it ‘is scheduled to run out of money altogether in seven years’…well, that one is more controversial, I’ll give you that. However, it’s currently projected to cost over $500 billion annually by 2012…which doesn’t bode well. That’s a staggeringly huge amount of money, even for a government program. I think that (alone) rivals defense spending, for instance.
-XT
I know it must shock you that someone can agree with you, but I was saying that your assertion that the public estimate of Medicare cost when it was passed was way low was correct. But this was not because the CBO screwed up the estimate. It was because LBJ took the accurate estimate, cut it, and advertised it. This has nothing at all to do with efficiency.
Neither does it supposedly going bankrupt. Efficiency is a measure of the percentage of the dollars coming in being used for the purpose of the program, paying the medical bills of the aged. If Medicare accurately forecasts it expected expenses, and Republicans in Congress force the Medicare tax to be so low as not to cover this, Medicare will go bankrupt no matter how efficient it is. An efficient company might have a better chance of making money, but making money is not an indicator that you are efficient and vice versa. During the bubble my company was making money hand over fist (real money, real profits) but we we very inefficient. Today we are far more efficient, and we are losing money.