What we know is that the best health care out there now is government run. Satisfaction rates among people on Medicare and the veterans health care plan are far higher than they are with private insurance. We also know that it is projected to reduce the deficit, and certainly won't add to it. We also know that it isn't a govt. takeover of the health care, but actually provides consumers with more options, freedom and choice.
It has nothing to do with political correctness. It's about basic human decency. You shouldn't diminish the suffering and deaths of tens of millions of people by comparing those responsible to every politician with views differing from your own.
They are fairly vague and based upon some other vague assumptions. True they are independent but that doesn't change how vague they are. And how often do we see Washington make spending cuts? Every President since Reagan said they would make spending cuts to address the deficit and we have seen that happen only a twice by my count and in both cases those cuts were soon erased by even greater spending. One of the easiest things to do in politics is to promise to cut spending but the hardest is to actually do it. ON top of that since there isn't a line item veto anymore cutting spending is largely out of any president's hands. IN many things I tend to be skeptical and Its more than gut feeling but based upon the history of Washington in regard to spending. Are you saying we should just ignore that history and accept the current projections without question? I think in anything like this skepticism is very warranted.
Exactly. It isn't about disputing the numbers based on "gut" feel. The analysis is based on what is in the bill, which calls for cuts, but Congress will just get around that. Heck, Congress couldn't even stand for the lack of a COLA adjustment this year even though the benefits were actually more valuable due to deflation. I'm also unsure why Obama is tying healthcare to reducing the deficit. He should make the case for spending more on healthcare while reducing deficit elsewhere. But of course, Congress won't stand for cuts elsewhere.
Except the assertions you are making are way more misleading. No one knows for sure that a public option would drive private insurance out of business and given the history of government run business more than likely it will be the private businesses that outcompetes the government run business. Your assertions are based purely on your own speculation which means that if you run a poll with those question you are not polling people's own opinions but running a push poll meant to shape opinion.
Its more than that. While I am still skeptical about whether the current health care reforms, including public option, will be deficit neutral the current situation is unsustainable. The lack of adequate insurance for many and also a system of health care that discourages preventive medicine is already driving health care cost up. Also the cost of providing health care for employees puts a burden on American business to compete against countries that provide universal health care.
I understand you are making inferences about this based on reasons. I understand being skeptical. However, this is something new. We don't have past examples of this type of program. We do have the best available data provided, and I would think that carries art least as much weight as guesses, no matter how educated you feel those guesses are. While you might hold on to those guesses when looking at evidence it just doesn't seem to hold the same weight. I will also add that if it isn't deficit neutral I think that isn't the end of the world. There are far less important things passed all the time that aren't deficit neutral, and add to our debt.
Actually we can look at the growth of other welfare, entitlement and business programs. For instance we can look at programs like food stamps for health insurance subsidies, we can look at Medicare and Medicaid, and we can look at the USPS and Amtrack for government's track record on running businesses. For that matter we have the example of Mass. regarding health insurance subsidies were they are having to cut back on them because the state can't afford it. So true this is something new but it doesn't mean it is completely unique. The main problem with a public option program is that by nature it is meant to be a safety net to cover those who can't afford other insurance. What that means is that it has to either be the lowest cost possible, or even free, in which case will make it difficult to payout coverage or it has to be so heavily subsidized to make up for the shortfall. If it decides to make its premiums enough to cover payouts its going to run into the same problem that other insurance does in that it might not be able to offer coverage to everyone. The current projections are based on a lowering of health care cost overall so that even an exceedingly low cost insurance program can still afford it. The problem is though if that is the case then private insurers will benefit too and provide more competitive packages. That will leave a government program stuck with the poorest segment of the population that private insurance won't touch since they would have to cover them at a loss. And that is my point that even if it isn't deficit neutral the current situation is unsustainable.
The problem here is that the financing in the laws is different. Medicare/etc weren't designed to be self-financed - they were open-ended programs. The law here would require a public option to be. You'd have to change the law to change that. But the public option is designed to compete with the other insurers on a level playing field, minus the profit motive. It's not supposed to be free or anything of the sort. Where the real cost comes in is the subsidies for the poor to buy health insurance. Those subsidies can be used to by the individual to buy the public option or private insurance. Those subsidies exist independent of the public option. If the public option can't be cheaper than private insurance, it just becomes a bad choice for the consumers - it doesn't cost the gov't anything more.
And if the public option isn't meeting the need because of a shortfall in spending do you suspect they will just leave it alone or change the law? Granted that they could say that a public option is deficit neutral if they provide subsidies so the poorest of the poor to afford it but I would say that is a backdoor way of getting around its affect on the deficit when you are shifting the cost for one program over to another.
Again those are either health care on a more limited basis, or aren't health care at all. As far as the public option only having the most costly patients, I thought part of almost all the current bills forbade private insurance from denying based on pre-existing conditions or previous illnesses
I think you misunderstood my post. I was referring to MojoMan's unapologetic use of the Democrats as Nazis analogy.
Then they raise the premiums they charge - just like any other insurance company would do. I think you're missing the point. The subsidies exist with or without the public option. The only difference is that without it, you have to use the subsidy to buy private insurance. With the public option, you can use the subsidy to buy private or public insurance. The subsidy itself is unrelated to the public option. There's no additional cost associated with the public option.
Yes they can't discriminate regarding previous conditions but that doesn't mean they have to provide health insurance that is affordable to everyone or free.
Which goes to my original point that I doubt the health care reform as currently debated is going to be revenue neutral. I was using the public option as one example.
They have to be able to compete if they want to stay in business though. That's the point. Right now they don't have to compete.
