There’s a certain level of “well obviously we didn’t mean that” implied in any statement, political or otherwise. When Obama said “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period” should I write to him and point out that I’m moving to the other side of the state later this year and I want him to arrange to have my doctor relocated so I can continue seeing him?
I think it’s pretty obvious that the real standard is “the government will not force you to change doctors or health plans if you wish to continue in your current plan.” If other people - doctors, employers, insurers, hospital administrators - discontinue your service then it’s not the government forcing you to change.
What’s the alternative? Obama stating “Under my rule any doctor who has provided you with health care or any business that has paid for that health care will be required to continue doing so by force of law as long as the patient wishs. They cannot refuse you service once they have given it.” That would actually be the kind of totalitarian policy that Obama’s opponents have been claiming he will make.
“Pathetic wheedling” is argument ad hominem. And to the extent that my OP suggests I am outraged – and I didn’t think it did, at all – let me clarify that I am not outraged.
Forgive me friend, Bricker for trusting your words:
Emphasis and de-emphasis, mine.
You’re suggesting that the government plan would be more attractive to an employer because it would provide comparable coverage for less money? Oh lawdy, how will we survive? :o
Obviously employers can shift around the health care they pay for. If you took Obama’s words to mean that because of health care reform employers couldn’t shift around the health care they pay for, you are the one with the comprehension problem.
Obviously, there are degrees. For example, if the government starts taxing benefits so that you can’t afford them anymore and have to change policies, that is still a forced change, even though the Secret Service didn’t show up with a SWAT team.
No, the alternative would be for Obama to say something like “Under my plan, you might have to switch doctors if it will save the government some money. We hope not, but it might happen that way.” That would be honest.
You can be like Lobohan and agree that a certain amount of exaggeration is OK in service of the greater good. Or you believe that Obama, who staked so much of his credibility on being a new kind of politician, should actually not make promises so explicitly when even his most partisan worshippers cannot spin it as truth.
My take on it is that Obama meant it when he said it. He has no experience in governing, and no business experience, and still thinks you can make anything happen if you wish hard enough and pass a law about it. It’s only been five months - a bit too soon to say “if he hasnt’ learned that by now, he never will”.
I think you’re misunderstanding the context here. The point of his words here is that existing insurance programs will remain intact, and therefore the additional option of having a government plan doesn’t take away already existing insurance and patient-doctor relationships.
But it very likely could, only in an indirect way. When some employers drop or change their current programs to buy into the government plan, then many people could be forced to change.
So this thread relies on a focused, esoteric meaning of “force”?
How bizarre.
Employers provide insurance options to attract better employees. It’s part of their compensation package. If an employer doesn’t offer insurance, the employee is free to go somewhere else. Or is capitalism being dropped from the rhetoric?
It seems to me that I have twice addressed illustrations of this type in this thread. Did you read them?
The alternative would be to say about the same thing he did with income tax: “Most of you won’t have to change, but this plan may cause a small number of involuntary switches as companies react to the availability of government-sponsored healthcare.” What’s wrong with that?
How is that governmental force? The government isn’t telling any business to change its medical program. It’s simply going to offer an alternative that people might freely prefer. You know - like a free market thing. And it’s only going to happen if the government alternative works better than the private programs.
I can see how its annoying for conservatives when Obama and the Democrats refuse to follow your imaginary script. But aren’t you a little bit happy that that America isn’t being turned into a Communist state as you predicted it would be? Sure it means you were wrong in your predictions, but did being proven right mean so much to you that you wanted the Obama administration to be a disaster just so you could say “I told you so” as you were dragged off to a gulag?
I don’t agree. I think any reasonable, non-hostile listener assumed Obama was saying, “My plan will not force you to…” In other words, Obama can speak only for the government, and the government will not mandate that you change plans or change doctors. Obama lacks the power to speak for all private employers in the country, of course; it seems you have to be a very hostile listener to assume that he intended to speak for all private employers.
OK. I agree now that it DID suggest I might be outraged. What an excellent opportunity you gave me to correct that misapprehension. Now, since it’s really irrelevant to the debate whther I am personally outraged or not, and since I’ve now had the chance to assure readers I am not, despite making the poor choice of using the word in my OP in a way that suggested I might be… perhaps now we can discuss the merits of the issue?
No, I took Obama’s words to mean something very clear: even though this plan is being implemented, if you like your system, you will be able to continue under it. And his words don’t allow for the very real possibility that implementing his plan will cause private decisions to shift.
I admit that I’m not an enthusiastic welcomer of his plan, and this may well color my perception of his words. But seriously: I believe if you read these words to an average group and then asked about the possibility of losing your current doctor because your company opted to change or delete health care coverage in reaction to the government plan’s appearance, most people would agree he didn’t suggest such a thing was possible.
Which happens, as has been pointed out above, all the time already, as employers shift their coverage from insurer to insurer based on the financial impact on them. Do you contend that more options = worse coverage?
No. And this is also something I addressed above. It’s very annoying to have to repeat points previously made. Capitalism would be in play if employers were simpyl choosing between private offerings. When the choice includes a government plan that doesn’t rely on profitability to set its prices, it has no barrier in place to prevent it undercutting the private plans. It does this undercutting “unfairly” – by which I mean it can set its costs by fiat, even if it loses money, an option not available to the private plans.
Is this average group of below average intelligence? Is this group incapable of distinguishing between the government and their employer? Is this group incapable of switching jobs? Is this group incapable of telling the difference between the government mandating regional health care centers and their employers’ choices? Is this group Fox News’ target demographic?
I’m assuming the group is of average intelligence, capable of distinguishing between the government and their employer, capable of switching jobs, aware of the difference between the government mandating regional health care centers and their employers’ choices, and I really couldn’t say what Fox News’ demographics are.
Surely, I was just clarifying why I thought you were outraged. I’m glad that you are calm-headed.
You can continue to use your plan. So long as the guy paying for it (your employer) decides to.
Look, presumably most employers don’t go with the cheapest health care option. So they weigh services vs. cost, right? If the public plan works better under that system, then an employer might shift. As they might for any other provider that offers a better service / cost package. American Healthcare is generally done by the employer, so you have just as much choice as you always have. You get whatever your employer says you get.
