• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Strong Support for the "Public Option"

Joe Steel

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2007
Messages
3,054
Reaction score
560
Location
St. Louis, Missouri, USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
This is good news for America and bad news for Republicans and spineless Democrats. America wants the public option.

NATIONAL HEALTH PLAN ELEMENTS RATED HIGHLY: Between 68 percent and 88 percent of Americans either strongly or somewhat support health reform ideas such as national health plans, a public plan option, guaranteed issue, expansion of Medicare and Medicaid, and employer and individual mandates.

The 2009 Health Confidence Survey: Public Opinion on Health Reform Varies; Strong Support for Insurance Market Reform and Public Plan Option, Mixed Response to Tax Cap

The "public option" has the potential to destroy the American health care model and move the US toward a rational and far more equitable system. This is very good news.
 
This is good news for America and bad news for Republicans and spineless Democrats. America wants the public option.



The "public option" has the potential to destroy the American health care model and move the US toward a rational and far more equitable system. This is very good news.



Rational or RATIONED?
 
Rational.

We already ration health care...by price. This will distribute it equitably to those who need it and will allow anyone who wants to buy something else to buy what he wants.




nonsense. You will have the government telling you what healthcare you need.


It's a pathetic system. Good thing I can afford to pay cash. ;)
 
This is good news for America and bad news for Republicans and spineless Democrats. America wants the public option.



The "public option" has the potential to destroy the American health care model and move the US toward a rational and far more equitable system. This is very good news.
Wrong on many fronts. First off, it is not the governments business nor the governments RIGHT to provide many of the things it already does, even talking about getting in the healthcare business is unconstitutional, let's see, it violates the ninth and tenth amendments right off the bat, plus, this model would create a monopoly as nobody could compete by price so it violates just about every anti-trust law ever written.

On top of the illegality of a United States federal national healthcare plan, it's also IMPOSSIBLE to pay for it, the numbers don't work for the best case scenario of little waste and abuse and the federal government never sees the best case. Finally, taxes are going to go up for everyone and the quality of healthcare will go down, this happens in every UHC system, waiting time increases, personel evaporates, quality drops, and eventually cost increases will lead to rationing and waiting lists.
 
America wants the public option.
One more thing, "America wants" is not how the constitution was written, in fact it was written to prevent "America Wants" from becomming a valid argument just in case we started to dumb down as a society, like we are currently seeing with the pathetic public education system, horrid public sector in general, and the push by a portion of the population for socialism without even realizing what they are asking for or the consequences.
 
nonsense. You will have the government telling you what healthcare you need.

Not neccessarily. That could happen with a poorly devised plan, but it certainly does not have to happen. Any plan that is poorly devised is gunna suck, but that is not a legit argument against any plan.
 
Not neccessarily. That could happen with a poorly devised plan, but it certainly does not have to happen. Any plan that is poorly devised is gunna suck, but that is not a legit argument against any plan.





Uhm we ARE talking about the Government right?


When did they do anything right? :lol:
 
Not neccessarily. That could happen with a poorly devised plan, but it certainly does not have to happen. Any plan that is poorly devised is gunna suck, but that is not a legit argument against any plan.
I have never seen a well developed example of good Nationalized healtcare, Tim Geitner couldn't cite one effective program in his spiel on the topic during a press conference, and our own government cannot outperform the private sector when it comes to adjustments and planning, so I can't see this argument as solid. The plan that is being presented in fact scares me as an insurance professional, I don't even know where to start at the flaws I've seen in the presented plan, it will be a nightmare, I am guaranteeing that if it is passed.
 
Uhm we ARE talking about the Government right?


When did they do anything right? :lol:

We are the most powerful, strongest country in the world with the hands down best military. I think the government might just have contributed to that.

One example though...post office. Less than a dollar gets a letter to just about anywhere in the country in 2 days.
 
We are the most powerful, strongest country in the world with the hands down best military. I think the government might just have contributed to that.

One example though...post office. Less than a dollar gets a letter to just about anywhere in the country in 2 days.





DMV anyone?
 
nonsense. You will have the government telling you what healthcare you need.

You already have someone telling you what health care you need. Insurance companies do it all the time. It's called "case management."

If you want some specific treatment and your doctor says you should have it but your insurance company says you can't, guess what. You can't have it unless you pay for it yourself.

The public option would be no worse than that but at least you'd have public employees not money-grubbing capitalists telling you what care you could have.
 
You already have someone telling you what health care you need. Insurance companies do it all the time. It's called "case management."


Nah, My Insurance is wide open. I pay for it, but I am covered, if I am not, I have the cash.


If you want some specific treatment and your doctor says you should have it but your insurance company says you can't, guess what. You can't have it unless you pay for it yourself.

The public option would be no worse than that but at least you'd have public employees not money-grubbing capitalists telling you what care you could have.


Right because "public employees" will really care about you. :lol:
 
You already have someone telling you what health care you need. Insurance companies do it all the time. It's called "case management."
Not every plan does that, those are usually indemnity, HMO(a government creation), and small networkPPO plans, case management is done to manage costs, and what makes you think the government won't do this to a higher degree?

If you want some specific treatment and your doctor says you should have it but your insurance company says you can't, guess what. You can't have it unless you pay for it yourself.
Insurance contracts state what will and won't be paid for in the form of pre-existing conditions and conditions that aren't covered, it's the purchasers fault if they go cheap and get burned, not society's, so why should society foot the bill for it. I am sick and tired of this argument being thrown out, plans state in writing their scope of coverage.

The public option would be no worse than that but at least you'd have public employees not money-grubbing capitalists telling you what care you could have.
Public opinion does not make law or change the protections of the constitution, this isn't American Idol, so this argument is absolutely vapid.

Edit- p.s. Many public employees are some of the laziest and least effective people out there because no private market factors exist for them to be otherwise, it's damn near impossible to fire them, and you have no choice when the public sector pirates business from the "money grubbing" private sector, the private sector must provide quality and a satisfactory outcome to exist and succeed whereas the public sector does not.
 
Last edited:
We are the most powerful, strongest country in the world with the hands down best military. I think the government might just have contributed to that.
One example though...post office. Less than a dollar gets a letter to just about anywhere in the country in 2 days.
But who produced the equipment and ammunition? The private sector. I would hate to have our guys and gals out there in the field with government built equipment, the funeral industry would boom I'm afraid.
 
Wrong on many fronts. First off, it is not the governments business nor the governments RIGHT to provide many of the things it already does, even talking about getting in the healthcare business is unconstitutional, let's see, it violates the ninth and tenth amendments right off the bat, plus, this model would create a monopoly as nobody could compete by price so it violates just about every anti-trust law ever written.

The United States has the power to tax for the general welfare. See Article 1, Section 8. That implies a power to legislate for the general welfare.

On top of the illegality of a United States federal national healthcare plan, it's also IMPOSSIBLE to pay for it, the numbers don't work for the best case scenario of little waste and abuse and the federal government never sees the best case. Finally, taxes are going to go up for everyone and the quality of healthcare will go down, this happens in every UHC system, waiting time increases, personel evaporates, quality drops, and eventually cost increases will lead to rationing and waiting lists.


Nonsense. The plan hasn't even been developed yet. No one knows what it will cost. Your fear-mongering and distortions are premature.

Secondly, this is national health insurance not national health care. There a big difference. You should try to understand it.
 
One more thing, "America wants" is not how the constitution was written, in fact it was written to prevent "America Wants" from becomming a valid argument just in case we started to dumb down as a society, like we are currently seeing with the pathetic public education system, horrid public sector in general, and the push by a portion of the population for socialism without even realizing what they are asking for or the consequences.

"...petition Congress for a redress of grievances."

See the First Amendment.
 
The United States has the power to tax for the general welfare. See Article 1, Section 8. That implies a power to legislate for the general welfare.
The general welfare does not include things like the "Great Society", the "New Deal", or any other pet issue people have, it was meant very specifically to apply to small scope things like bridges, roads, and other infrastructural items that people could use that the average person could not provide yet all of the public would be able to use. Once again, you lose.




Nonsense. The plan hasn't even been developed yet. No one knows what it will cost. Your fear-mongering and distortions are premature.
Horse ****, the intent of the plan and basic premise has been stated, and it all involves throwing money taken from taxpayers into the system. It mimics other systems to the letter, watch CSPAN some time and hear it from the very mouths of it's supporting members of the legislature.

Secondly, this is national health insurance not national health care. There a big difference. You should try to understand it.
Again, bull ****, the way the process is being structured is not conducive to private competition, it will drive insurers out of the market and you won't have a choice when things play out.

"...petition Congress for a redress of grievances."

See the First Amendment.
Grievances can only be met when they do not exceed the law, regardless of the first amendment.
 
This is good news for America and bad news for Republicans and spineless Democrats. America wants the public option.



The "public option" has the potential to destroy the American health care model and move the US toward a rational and far more equitable system. This is very good news.

Good for who?

Politicians, maybe.

Not Americans.

Whatever happened to freedom in this country?
 
The United States has the power to tax for the general welfare. See Article 1, Section 8. That implies a power to legislate for the general welfare.




Nonsense. The plan hasn't even been developed yet. No one knows what it will cost. Your fear-mongering and distortions are premature.

Secondly, this is national health insurance not national health care. There a big difference. You should try to understand it.

Lol if the general welfare allows for anything, then why would the Constitution have to list powers of Congress such as a "judicial system" and a military? By any standard a military and a system to carry out laws is for the general welfare, but it is still in the enumerated powers of Congress.

Just admit that important programs such as SS are unconstitutional, even if you support them, like me :D


And about the "public option" of Americans. I just saw in the New York Times today or yesterday that most Americans are AGAINST the current plans that are being created.

It is simillar to people in Afganistan being "supportive" of democray but that is only in theory, when they don't believe in any of the specific principles of democracy.
Most people like the idea of universal healthcare, but when they see what it entails, they are against it.
 
Last edited:
It's not necessary for the government to take over healthcare providing services. However, the current model is certainly not the most effective. I would suggest, however, that the problem is not in the distribution method or the source of funding for healthcare, but in the way the system allows competition to drive prices up instead of down, which happens in other markets.

Cost management needn't be done by eliminating services. The idea might be worth some research before declaring it a viable solution, though.
 
One example though...post office. Less than a dollar gets a letter to just about anywhere in the country in 2 days.

You are of course aware that the USPS contracts to FedEx for it's shipment of mail by air...

...good ole' private enterprise, can't beat it.
 
It's not necessary for the government to take over healthcare providing services.

It's not necessary for the government to get involved at all. Not only that, the Constitution does not permit the federal government to do so.
 
Back
Top Bottom