Well, we can’t “know” what is in a bill who’s contents are still in flux, but I would bet you a large sum of money that any “public” option will not be required to pay for itself out of proceeds from people “choosing” it. It will be subsidized out of the general fund, and therefore it can be made cheaper to the consumer than what private companies can offer. At that point, it is going to grow and grow and grow, and the endpoint is that private insurance will be driven under. Takeover complete. It’s what the libs want, and it’s likely what they’ll get, seeing as they control the presidency and the congress. Of course the total cost will be more, probably drastically more, but never mind, the taxpayer can pick up that tab. This is what we are afraid of, and oppose.
Again, write the law so that the public option must pay it’s own way, and I have no problem with that. But it won’t be. Care to bet?
It’s not my argument. I make no such claim about private enterprise. It’s something libertarians say.
I’m not wrong. You say fair competition will not be possible, and I say “so what?” Pointing out that your claims in this thread are inconsistent with Approved Libertarian Thought is not germane to my point of view. Your refinements don’t change this.
You’re aware that private insurance companies exist in countries with actual single-payer systems, right? Something far weaker and less effective than single-payer can hardly accomplish what single-payer doesn’t. Also, Obama explicitly said that the public option would be paid for by premiums from subscribers, so either admit that you’re calling him a liar or retract the claim.
So you basically have no evidence for what you’re saying at all.
Nice post, Weston. Note that requiring the public option to pay it’s way would be a good way to keep it from becoming the only “option”. Won’t happen.
And a lot of this is nothing more than a sop to the real constituents of the Democrats, Big Labor. They are licking their chops over this one. The more of the economy they can governmentalize, the easier they can line their member’s pockets. Government is a poor negotiator with labor, because they are in freaking bed together.
I am calling him a liar. Even if the bill that is passed contains that wording, when the public option starts running at a deficit, as it certainly will before long, it will be bailed out. Perhaps the measure will be called an “emergency”, but it will soon become permanent. This is the nose of the camel coming into the tent. Once they get the nose in, the rest of the camel is sure to follow.
Why can’t we limit the government to a simple charitable role of helping the indigent. I wouldn’t have a problem with that. We do it to a large extent already through the public hospital system. What is wrong with building on that and improving it, and leaving the rest alone?
So you have no actual grounds for calling him a liar, you just think that if the public option is, in fact, implemented in 2013, it will do horribly and be bailed out, without any evidence whatsoever for either assertion. Got it.
I don’t have any evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow, either, but it’s a pretty fair bet, based on lots of past observation. Maybe Amtrak will start turning a profit next year, but I wouldn’t lay odds on that…
Obama also promised that new legislation would be posted to the White House website 48 hours before it comes up for a vote and several other things that have since fallen by the wayside. He also said during the campaign that he would not support fines for no coverage, and yet he has been curiously silent about it since Baucus proposed just that.
Obama is lying to us in a sense. He’s making bold claims and false assurances about certain elements of the proposed government health care plan that he can’t possibly know for a fact will be the case once the bill emerges from Congress. NOBODY knows at this point what will be in the bill, so anybody who makes concrete claims about what will or won’t be in it, and/or how people will be affected by it, is simply pulling those claims out of their ass.
Why don’t they get the bill finalized and then present it to the public to see if it flies? As it is, they look like they’re making tons of false promises in order to gain support for a bill that they know wouldn’t fly if the public knew what it would really contain.
And of course none of this speaks to what the government program would eventually morph into, just like no one at the time knew what the Social Security program would eventually morph into or what the Medicare/Medicaid programs would eventually morph into.
Has it not occurred to everyone here that the primary reason the government is having such difficulty getting this thing passed is because of its own dismal record in creating and administering government social programs in the past? Most people in this country know how inept and poorly funded and beaurocratic government anything is, and they are understandably very reluctant to place their health care in the hands of that very same government.
It was always a regressive tax (bad) linked rhetorically to a regressive benefit (bad). Individually they would never hold water. Poor people pay more in as a percent of income, and rich people get benefits they scarcely need. But never mind, it’s Social Security! It’s Good! (somehow)
Yup! As Phil McGraw has so accurately said, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior…and based on its behavior in creating and administering (and raiding) social programs in the past, I want nothing to do with a government-run health care system.
Not lying at all. He has to sign it for it to become law. If he says what he needs in the bill for him to sign it, they will likely use that for a guide. He can veto a bill ,you know.
Yeah, but will he? So far he seems content just letting Congress take the lead and seems willing to go along with whatever they come up with.
Plus, like I said he’s reneged on several promises already. How are we to know he won’t renege on these too?
Still and all, these concerns are rather minor. The real problem is what will become of a government health care system once it’s in place? Based on previous government social programs, I foresee long waits and beaurocratic red tape; minimal care due to underfunding; and a population even more indoctrinated to look to Big Daddy government to provide for them and tell them what they can and cannot have.
So the public option will do so poorly that it will need to be bailed out, yet it will also do so well as to drive private insurance companies out of business?
You should learn how bills are made. The house has to decide on one. Then the Senate. Then they hammer out a compromise. Then the president can sign or veto. Now is when the bills get ruined.
The lobbyists are out in full force protecting their financial interests. When Bush was in power ,the lobbyists were allowed to write the bills themselves. They are spending out 1.4 million dollars a day fighting health care changes.
Why do you think waiting times are good in America? I have to make appointments more than a month in advance. If you need a specialist ,you first go to your GP. Then you get to make an appointment with them. The process takes months.
The big mother insurance companies are telling you what you can do now. They are motivated for profit. Can you figure out that they make more money by rejecting your procedures? Can you see that if you become ill, they can dump you and make money? Can you understand that is fundamentally wrong?
That’s a beautiful contortion you did there, Starving Artist. In the first paragraph, you say that a number (which has been cited in this thread and elsewhere; it’s from the World Health Organization) can’t possibly be right, at least not until you finish your white paper on the subject. In the very next paragraph, you declare as truth something that not only has no proof, but quite possibly cannot even be proven. (What would that survey look like? “Why have you insurance companies raised rates? (a) People are fatasses and therefore more expensive to treat, (b) Technology is better and therefore more expensive, (c) Greed, (d) Compact with Devil?”)
So you go from “I demand exhaustive proof!” to “Here’s something I said; it’s true” in 2.8 seconds. That might be some sort of record…
That’s odd. I’m not saying you’re wrong; I’m saying it’s odd, because I’ve ridden on trains many times in my life in this country, and they weren’t always Amtrak. So perhaps it’s not as ironclad as you make it sound. But nevertheless, as Obama stated last night, we have both private and public universities, and I see no evidence that the latter are interested in shutting down the former. (Sure, they compete, but not at gunpoint :rolleyes:). Would you be willing to take the peaceful coexistence of, say, Princeton and Rutgers as a point of evidence that, actually, government doesn’t ALWAYS muscle out the private sector?
I’m going to make a slight tweak to your quote, SA; tell me if you (a) agree with it and (b) if the new sentence is better or worse than your original. Here’s my new sentence: “Private industry is not benevolent. It will always act in its own best interest, and when its best interest collides with yours, guess who wins?”
Thoughts?
I agree. And I’d like to believe that, when Obama comes up short, he actually will implement some spending cuts, but I’m sure he’ll kick the can further along, just like every other politician ever. I guess I disagree with you when I say that if he can’t come up with every red cent to pay for his plan, that’s OK by me, because the system sucks and has to change.
Sure, people fear change. I don’t quite see how that’s Obama’s fault, given that people have feared change, since about the time Ug stepped out of his cave then ran screaming back inside of it.
I like you, and I’d like to believe that there are lots of people like you – wary of health care reform but willing to educate themselves. But I just don’t see it. It’s a little tricky, because there’s not a single bill that is THE bill. But once THE bill exists, my guess is that you won’t see a whole lot of, “Hmm, I think this should be 5% instead of 7.2%” or “Shouldn’t we raise that exemption from 20 to 25?” Instead, you’ll have Betsy McCaughey (sp) and Sarah Palin and Michael Steele saying, “THE bill says that the government will have the right to force feed you vitamins!” when in reality THE bill will say, “Vitamins are good.”
That’s what conservatives ALWAYS ask – as long as there’s a Democrat in the White House. If you watch Fox News (I can’t stomach it for more than two or three minutes at a time), I’ll ask you: How often did these talking heads ask this question when the expenditure was The Iraq War or Another Giant Tax Cut? To put it another way, I find their concern disingenuous. Not that you can’t be right – the question should be answered – but these people aren’t interested in an answer. They just love the question, so if you’re listening to them for an answer, you’ll always be disappointed.
Doesn’t the Congressional Budget Office always do just that? (They “score” the bill.) I know the CBO has had a crack at some of the proposals thus far; I presume they’ll do the same for THE bill. Can you keep an open mind about the cost until then?
I’m not sure why Obama would get the blame for that instead of the employer. Honestly – and you might not like that answer – if an employer tries to screw over its employees by choosing an inferior health plan (which can happen TODAY, absent the government option), I guess your options include taking it up with management, quitting, going on strike, buying your own private insurance plan, etc. And I’m sure if he made it illegal for employers to do this, there’d be endless cries of “Let the market dictate!” It’s no win for him, really.
Obama is not creating the problem of employers screwing over their employees vis a vis health insurance. Exacerbating it? Maybe. But still, why wouldn’t you get mad at the employer?
Agree to disagree, I guess. Presidents are big picture guys, by design. I’m not sure when the appropriate forum for PowerPoints by the big guy would ever be.
Look, let’s get off this evil insurance company meme, shall we? As I’ve said before, if insurance company malfeasance is the problem then institute legislation and serious penalties to bring them in line.
But as I’ve said also, insurance company wrongdoing isn’t the primary motivation behind the push for government health care. It’s merely a convenient stalking horse to achieve what the left always wants to achieve, which is more and more government control over our lives. You guys love to govern because it’s the only way you can get people to do what you want. It would be fine with you guys if the government ran everything. That way nobody could have more than someone else and no companies would be making (gasp) profits and everything would be ‘free’!
The only problem with that type of government is that it has failed every time it has been tried, and it requires totalitarianship and more murders than we have people dying in the streets from lack of health care by many orders of magnitude.
And yes, bills are created like you said. That’s my point. Nobody knows what the end result will be so no one can say what it will or won’t contain. Therefore people who are telling you not to be concerned over this aspect or that, or that the bill won’t contain this provision or that, are making phony assurances and talking out of their ass.
If that’s true and how that’s true. Are people losing and/or being denied health care to increase execs salaries and bonuses? To pay for inflated overhead? Simply put, 3% is not an obscene profit margin but there are plenty of other considerations.
Admittedly, the problem isn’t just insurance companies.
The question isn’t the profit margin, the question is how that profit is obtained. I see abundant evidence that it is done badly, and unless and until that evidence is addressed and refuted, then so far as I can see those companies who engage in those policies and practices should not be permitted to exist, much less prosper.