By definition, a single-payer system can't exist alongside the current system. If you have the option to have private insurance, then it's not single payer.
OK then I mean a system where all of the additional to be unsured and paid for by the public are in an entire system. The providers and everything only accept those under it. Most of the arguments I hear are cover those without, so do it 100% but outside of the system. I think combining a public plan with the current is just a bad idea. It will lead to initial problems and then a complete Canadian like system.
There is a couple of problems with that. First this is a right, if it can be called that, that isn't under threat since there is nothing being proposed that wouldn't allow you to choose private health insurance. Second it is a right that is dependent upon forces beyond what we as an individual can control. Lets say I can't afford private health insurance should I then claim my rights are being violated? Lets say the extreme scenario painted by public option opponents comes true and private health insurers close shop because they can't compete then would the government have to prop up those companies to guarentee a right to choose?
Wait - do you mean having totally separate doctors, hospitals, ERs, etc for the new system? That seems like it would be extremely inefficient, especially in small towns where you currently only have (and need) 1 doctor or hospital.
Yeah, it seems to me MN would be shooting itself in the foot with a guarantee like that. That could lead to more government intervention in health care then a government insurance plan.
I think this is all very silly. Since when was it right that your personal health and medical care depends on how much money you have?
I've seen parts of Sicko on a few occasions; I need to sit down and watch it through. The part I saw this morning was about French healthcare. Very interesting... and appealing. In the last scene, he was sitting around a table with a dozen or so Americans living and working in Paris. They offer their citizenry lengthy hospital stays and doctor housecalls... I had to leave when they were getting to the part about how they "pay" for it. Does anyone know the answer? Taxes, I'm sure... but how much?
Looks to me they are just preparing a preemptive strike based on various ideas floating around which may or may not be in the final bill.
We don't really have one "healthcare" thread so I thought I'd put this here. this is a great read via TPM -- ...the Institute of Medicine--an organization that's part of the National Academies--is about to release a new study which confirms the view that the CBO's projections are stingy and that current reform proposals will likely yield hundreds of billions of dollars in savings that the CBO didn't account for. “The whole objective is to have comprehensive health-care reform, but we have to control costs first because costs are going to kill the country,” U.S. Health-Costs Panel to Rebut ‘Stingy’ Budget Office Savings Sept. 15 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. can cut health-care spending by $250 billion a year within a decade, a congressionally chartered panel will say this month in a bid to show costs can be contained even if all Americans are insured. A report from the Institute of Medicine, which advises the federal government on health care, will counter “stingy” estimates from the Congressional Budget Office, said Arnold Milstein, planning chairman of the institute’s working group on health costs. The panel’s annual figure is five times the amount the budget office says the U.S. will save under a bill in the House of Representatives, according to the budget office’s July 17 letter to House Ways and Means Committee chairman Charles Rangel. The preliminary findings from the institute, part of the National Academies in Washington, will be issued amid a growing debate over the health-care overhaul proposals that President Barack Obama is urging Congress to pass. The report will help bolster the argument that covering the nation’s 46 million uninsured won’t bust the budget, advocates of the bill say.
Amazing. That is exactly what is being proposed. A public option. Not a public mandatory system. If you have private insurance that you like...keep it. If you don't, then here is a government option. The natural reaction from opponents is that it is only the start and eventually the government will take over the whole thing. If that were to occur, it will not happen during any of our lifetimes. It has taken 40 years to get to this point. It will take a lot longer to incrementally take it over.
And that is what they said when they introduced it but their solution could likely lead to many more problems than it solves. This idea seems half baked at best and likely nothing more than political posturing. Especially since Rep. Emmers is planning a gubanatorial run.
No mention here of Bill O'Reilly endorsing the public option? That's got to confuse the hell out of his viewers.
^^^ sure is quiet around here anyway, again Snowe gives some reason for hope and sanity Here's the latest development in the Snowestakes: Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) says that though she'd prefer health care reform legislation to have broader Republican support, she's not going to let her party dictate her vote on the issue. "Obviously, I'm a Republican, but I'd like to have more Republicans," she told CNBC's John Harwood. But asked whether having more Republicans is a requirement, she said, pointedly, "no...I'm going to support the right policy." http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...ate-my-vote-on-health-care-reform.php?ref=fpa
She talked in similar language during the Bush years and for every vote of consequence I guess she thought the Bush way was the "right policy." Color me unimpressed.
Unfortunately, she also supports a key part of the Baucus bill that is absolutely absurd - I don't see why ANYONE would support this concept: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/experts-baucuscare-would-leave-poor-out-of-work.php
