Public Option

lol - but he does, since he will still drag his sick ass into the ER when he falls out of his tree.

It's hypocrisy, and it's, frankly, selfish.

 

It think if this is the main goal, which it seems to be for most health care takeover people, why not just start a brand new service? Make it all government controlled and don't have it involved with current healthcare providers or insurance.

To me this seems like a less invasive plan than a public option AND one that would not be hurt by current problems with the healthcare we have now.

This would be much more similar to the USPS argument people make.

 

I'd refer you first to rhad's answer.

Complicate the example a little. If an insurance company is faced with insuring one person who will certainly cost more than he'll pay, but along with him, you'll get thousands of healthy adults who will cost less and make an overall profitable portfolio, of course they will be willing to take him. I don't think it is a question of the insurer, it's a question of the insurees.

As healthy consumers of insurance, are we willing to partially subsidize the financial risk of less healthy consumers? I think we are, since we do it now with employer-based insurance. And, it is rational to do so because the benefits we gain from the efficiencies we get from insurance dwarf the burden of the unhealthy. Even the benefits healthy people subsidize for the unhealthy give the healthy (and unhealthy) secondary benefits in communal prosperity, the reduction of volatility, and the like.

 

Here's some more craziness out of MN.

Three Republican legislators are going to introduce an amendment (sorry about the spelling in the other thread) to the State Constitution guarenteeing the right to private health insurance.

http://www.startribune.com/politics...7K_0c::D3aDhUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUr

[rquoter]Reps. Tom Emmer, Mark Buesgens and Peggy Scott held a Capitol news conference today to announce a proposed state constitutional amendment that would guarantee Minnesotans the right to choose private health care plans.

Such an amendment, which would have to be approved by voters, would "protect health care freedom of choice."

The bill would also prohibit fines for those who decline to participate in government health care mandates.

For Emmer, who's running for governor, it's a rerun of a proposal he has made three other times, most recently in this year's legislative session when he sponsored a bill stating "that the State of Minnesota hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States."

Invoking state sovereignty under that amendment was raised as a possibility by Pawlenty last week as he roundly criticized President Obama's health care plans. At one point he suggested that a lawsuit could be the best recourse.

By Sunday, however, Pawlenty was inching away from using the 10th Amendment to block any federal health care reforms that ultimately become law.
[/rquoter]

More at link.

 

That is pretty much the idea behind having a public option.

 

You got me. Feel free to write to Reps. Emmers, Buesgen and Scott and ask them.

 

Majority Of Doctors Back Public Option: Study

A Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) study published in Monday's New England Journal of Medicine shows that 63 percent of physicians support a health reform proposal that includes both a public option and traditional private insurance. If the additional 10 percent of doctors who support an entirely public health system are included, then approximately three out of four physicians nationwide support inclusion of a public option. Only 27 percent support a private-only reform that would provide subsidies for low-income individuals to purchase private insurance.

 

But there is no need to scrap what works in the private healthcare sector. Fix the growing cost in those plans, but no reason to get rid of them.

 

It looks like the bill is trying to guarantee the right to choose private health insurance.

 

Got to the party early and then left. I'm trying to figure out your post. My friend isn't a horse. My friend doesn't have an expensive, life threatening illness. He has a couple of health problems easily controlled with meds. He's more than happy to pay a reasonable co-pay for the medications. My PPO has co-pays of around $10-$20-$35 bucks for meds. And what are you babbling about regarding your "I am health conscience and i don't make stupid and foolish risks on my life. My premiums should not be the same as the person next to me, who refuses to put down the fork and develops diabetes or other major and costly medical issues." That is patently absurd. You could have a cancerous mole on you right now on, say, your back, where you might not notice it. It is serious. You suddenly discover that you are not only NOT HEALTHY, but you have a very expensive health problem.

Do you seriously not have insurance? If so, you should be very afraid.

 

I don't think anyone is trying to get rid of private health insurance plans?

 

that is how it is being sold, but most are scared that since it is in the same system and can take trillions in losses, the competitive edge might be slightly on its side.

If a small single payer system is started it would be a complete bubble separate from the current system. No one can call that a takeover.

 

How can it take trillions in losses? It's independently funded by premiums paid by participants.

 

It can take them because the government is unlikely to let it default.

 

Or it could raise premiums, as it's designed to do.

 

Or they could cover people without coverage through a small single payer system and do some real reform on our current system.

Once people have confidence in the small single payer system and see the awesome results, they will be demanding it for themselves.