Please read the post you’re replying to. I didn’t say you said that explicitly or even consciously.
Once again, so what if it doesn’t? Whose interests are primary to you?
I believe that the public option plan includes a “no cherrypicking” provision, I don’t know if they can underwrite and price discriminate, I think the whole “no pre-existing condition” thing would prevent that but…
Did he say that? Or did he you won’t have to give up private insurance if you don’t want to?
Bah. I’ve asked him before to cite what he claims he’s actually being sold, and got nothin’. This time he at least sort of admits he’s making it up.
I suspect, but cannot prove, that this is a “poisoned pawn” ploy. He’s playing on themes that have the most support, knowing full well that the opposition cannot or will not come around on that.
I suspect, but cannot prove, that the insurance companies are so bloated and inefficient that they could not amass the disgusting profits they think they are entitled to without such repulsive tactics.
At the risk of being tiresome: if they can make legitimate profits and remain decent and humane citizens, why don’t they? And if they can’t, what good are they?
I believe the tort reform isn’t to just lower the cost of malpractice insurance. It’s to reduce costs by not having the doctor have to request 12 tests performed to cover his/her ass when in reality 1 or 2 tests would suffice. This bloat is a big money gobbler.
What evidence is there of a lot of doctors being sued for malpractice for not ordering tests generally considered to be useless? Perhaps, as the New Yorker article stated, the extra tests (if such there be) comes from the money the medical center makes from doing them?
To interject here for a bit, I absolutely think he’s not being intentionally misleading. My reasons are:
-
At some point we’ll have the text of this thing to go over, and it should be pretty apparent whether or not it’s factually true.
-
Addressing what seem like your specific concerns, I see no reason why the “insurance morphing into not-really-insurance-as-we-know-it” scenario would have to happen if in fact this program is run as stated; as an independent financial entity run by the gov’t.
-
I think he’s being truthful because, for goodness sakes, at some point I need to be able to believe the words coming out of the mouths of the leaders of this country. Do I have a reason yet to think he’d be totally bullshitting this whole thing for the sake of some Greater Need for state-run health care, while at the same time asking his political allies to not put their personal ideologies ahead of some practical and vital decision-making?
If I wanted to second-guess Obama’s honesty and sincerity, I might as well have not listened to the speech; might as well not listen to anything politicians say ever.
Insurance companies are not the solution, they are the problem. They should have no input whatsoever.
Nosir! I refuse to support any plan that would deny them their opportunity to plead, beseech and cajole as the tumbril rolls closer to the public square.
Well, I’m sorry, but private insurance in Canada certainly does offer you things like single occupancy rooms (which is why my wife had her own room in hte maternity ward) different doctors (my grandmother has a private doctor) and, I suppose, could cut down on wait times if you bought a really sweet plan.
Funny you’d glom onto this as if this was THE proposed solution, with nothing else being offered. You know damn well that’s not the case. But by all means, gathering that straw. While you’re doing so, may I ask you, are you of the mind that we should NOT pursue tort reform?
Implicit in the statement that “I won’t have to give up private insurance” would be an existing private insurance market, no? Or is he playing word games like so many posters on here are doing?
I won’t be forced to give it up under pain of imprisonment, but, gosh darn it, look they all went out of business so I will have to go with the government plan as a direct consequence of the legislation. Since it is one step removed, I guess he can wash his hands of responsibility?
That is the main point of this thread, and I can’t see how it wouldn’t happen. With the government program not having to turn a profit and having literally unlimited reserves to cover losses, no private company could ever compete.
Since the things you accuse him of doing exist only in your head, absolutely.
Not in this province. Are you an Eastern Creep And Bum™? I’ve been offered private rooms, and maybe private insurance would have covered the cost, but getting the room or not didn’t hinge on my insurance situation. The room was available if I wanted it, it wasn’t the hospital’s concern whether the extra cash came from my wallet or Sun Life. They didn’t even ask about extra insurance.
But then you would have had to pay for it. Insurance gives you access to such things without having to pay. It’s not the ONLY way to get it, but those are some of the things they will pay for.
I got the impression you were saying these things are available to the privately insured because they were privately insured. They’re available to all regardless, and private insurance will pay for them. All is well with that. Unless your private insurers are dinks link mine.
Well, I can get shorter waits to see a doctor. The place I used to work provided insurance with sufficiently high reimbursement rates where I could usually find a doctor who would see me the same day. The place I work now is a lot bigger and I get the same insurance as the guys in the mail room and now my appointments are weeks out.
Ah, gotcha.
Pirivate insurance here is generally though one’s employer as part of your benefits package. I’ve had more or less the same insurance package since I sarted working, since as it happens my various employers all used the same one. To me it’s nearly invisible. I don’t even carry the card around anymore.