The Public Option

[Arch Enemy]

I am quite naive to Health Insurance and Health Care, as I've never been sick enough, nor have I been old enough to experience the frustrations Americans are having with it.

As a side commentator, now I do fully believe that President Obama's Public Option was a scare tactic to get the issue on the table. The intensity that he had at the beginning of the discussion, looks like a feint attack-- to see how much room Congress was willing to give.

I think this is a tactic of the Obama Presidency. He throws the pendulum to the far left without the expectation that it could possibly stay there, and when it finally slows and the energy wanes, it stops over the Centrist/Moderate position.

Just musing.

 

[Diogenes]

The pendulum is already at far left in some segments of our society, but this administration proposes to double down on failed policies in spite of all the evidence that those policies are bad for the citizens.

This story is an example of government-run health care. It outrages me because this should never happen to any child in this country. :roll:

Broken Promises

Ta'Shon Rain Little Light, a happy little girl who loved to dance and dress up in traditional American Indian clothes, had stopped eating and walking. She complained constantly to her mother that her stomach hurt.

When Stephanie Little Light took her daughter to the Indian Health Service clinic, they told her the 5-year-old was depressed.

Ta'Shon's pain rapidly worsened, and she visited the clinic about 10 more times over several months, before her lung collapsed and she was airlifted to a children's hospital in Denver. There she was diagnosed with terminal cancer, confirming the suspicions of family members.

A few weeks later, a charity sent the whole family to Disney World so Ta'Shon could see Cinderella's Castle. She never got to see the castle, though. She died in her hotel bed soon after the family arrived in Florida.

 

[Cassandra]

I am quite naive to Health Insurance and Health Care, as I've never been sick enough, nor have I been old enough to experience the frustrations Americans are having with it.

As a side commentator, now I do fully believe that President Obama's Public Option was a scare tactic to get the issue on the table. The intensity that he had at the beginning of the discussion, looks like a feint attack-- to see how much room Congress was willing to give.

I think this is a tactic of the Obama Presidency. He throws the pendulum to the far left without the expectation that it could possibly stay there, and when it finally slows and the energy wanes, it stops over the Centrist/Moderate position.

Just musing.

You seem completely confused. The "public option" was never a "far left" idea and the so-called compromise will not be centrist. The spectrum you are visualizing is all wrong. The spectrum could better be viewed as a scale that measures how much the system protects corporate stakeholders vs. how much it protects citizens.

 

[formerroadie]

You seem completely confused. The "public option" was never a "far left" idea and the so-called compromise will not be centrist. The spectrum you are visualizing is all wrong. The spectrum could better be viewed as a scale that measures how much the system protects corporate stakeholders vs. how much it protects citizens.

Exactly. The conservatives seem more interested in corporate protections at the cost of the citizen and the progressive the citizen at the cost of the corporation. I frankly fall in the latter category.

The public option should have been the compromise in the first place. Obama should never have taken single payer off the table and the Congress should have gotten that done. It's the most streamlined and cheapest way for all US citizens to get proper health care.

 

[Boo Radley]

You seem completely confused. The "public option" was never a "far left" idea and the so-called compromise will not be centrist. The spectrum you are visualizing is all wrong. The spectrum could better be viewed as a scale that measures how much the system protects corporate stakeholders vs. how much it protects citizens.

Agreed. Most supported the public option. What went wrong with health care reform is not a new story. Make it ugly enough, and even those wanting reform will turn away. From death panels to socialism nonsense, opposition was able to make it ugly and proponents were too weak (in terms of overall support from congressfolks) to push it through.

:twocents:

 

[Arch Enemy]

You seem completely confused. The "public option" was never a "far left" idea and the so-called compromise will not be centrist. The spectrum you are visualizing is all wrong. The spectrum could better be viewed as a scale that measures how much the system protects corporate stakeholders vs. how much it protects citizens.

Yeah.

I tend to post nonsense when I'm drunk.

 

[Objective Voice]

I've monitored the health care debate almost from the beginning of this year and while I'm not claiming to be a "know-it-all" on the matter, I do know that the only way to bring down the cost of health insurance is to broaden access across state-lines. A public option whether at the federal or state-level would do this.

Since this debate hit a fever pitch in August of this year, I've firmly held the opinion that the Republicans, particularly in the Senate, would do everything in their power to halt any form of health care legistlation from coming to the full Congress. As much as they claim they are trying to do "the will of the people," their argument against health care reform continues to be NOT that it doesn't go far enough to provide better health care benefits to the people, but rather how health care reforms may increase financial burdens on Corporate America and possibly trickle down to the average citizens. Their every argument has been about economics, not about people's health or providing greater access to health care in the most efficient means to the maximum number of Americans. I watch the health care debates on C-Span (online) all day yesterday (12/21/09) and every time a Republican stepped to the podium to speak their argument was always about cost, never about the health and well-being of the people. And the polling data Republicans continue to point to concerning whether or not Americans are in favor of current health care legistlation has more to do with the people's dislike over the Senate bill because it does NOT include a public option. For example, a recent Bloomberg poll indicates that Americans are not in favor of the Senate health care reform bill, but if you look further into the polling data and actually go directly to the polling source, Quinnipiac University, what you will find is that the reason most Americans aren't in favor of the Senate bill is because it does NOT include a public option.

As the Senate prepares to vote on health care reform, American voters "mostly disapprove" of the plan 53 - 36 percent ...

While voters oppose the health care plan, they back two options cut from the Senate bill, supporting 56 - 38 percent giving people the option of coverage by a government health insurance plan and backing 64 - 30 percent allowing younger people to buy into Medicare.

And the poll conducted by Quinnipiac University (as reported by Bloomberg.com) isn't the only one where the numbers clearly show support by the people for a public option. A poll conducted by Time Magazine in July 2009 clearly showed that the American people are in favor of a public option.

On the details of the plan, respondents remained supportive of many of the rough outlines of the health-reform effort as originally described by President Obama. Sixty-three percent said they would support providing health-care coverage for all Americans, even if the government had to subsidize those who could not afford it. Fifty-six percent said they supported a "public health insurance option" to compete with private plans. Fifty-seven percent support raising taxes on those with annual incomes over $280,000 to pay for the plan. Eighty percent said they would support a bill that required insurance companies to offer coverage to anyone who applies, even those with pre-existing medical conditions.

So, don't be fooled by what one side (the opposition) is saying. Contrary to everything you hear concering recent polling numbers, the people don't like the Senate bill because it doesn't go far enough to provide more insurance options. It may address many of the health care needs and/or concerns people have, i.e., increasing the age limit on young adults/teens covered on their parent's health insurance from 24/18 to 26 as one positive improvement in the overall health care reform debate, but it falls short on providing a greater range of choice and competition.

 

[Objective Voice]

Agreed. Most supported the public option. What went wrong with health care reform is not a new story. Make it ugly enough, and even those wanting reform will turn away. From death panels to socialism nonsense, opposition was able to make it ugly and proponents were too weak (in terms of overall support from congressfolks) to push it through.

:twocents:

I think once the smoke clears and the Senate version of their health care reform bill is brought before the full Congress along with the House's version, you'll see the best parts of both bills spliced together. And when it's all said and done, I suspect that the new health care legistlation will include a public option of some sort. My hope is that the final bill will include access to the very same HIE that Congress now has (or a scaled down version), which was what Senate Democrats had proposed until that portion of the Senate bill was thrown out for whatever reason.

 

[samsmart]

The pendulum is already at far left in some segments of our society, but this administration proposes to double down on failed policies in spite of all the evidence that those policies are bad for the citizens.

This story is an example of government-run health care. It outrages me because this should never happen to any child in this country. :roll:

Broken Promises

Ta'Shon Rain Little Light, a happy little girl who loved to dance and dress up in traditional American Indian clothes, had stopped eating and walking. She complained constantly to her mother that her stomach hurt.

When Stephanie Little Light took her daughter to the Indian Health Service clinic, they told her the 5-year-old was depressed.

Ta'Shon's pain rapidly worsened, and she visited the clinic about 10 more times over several months, before her lung collapsed and she was airlifted to a children's hospital in Denver. There she was diagnosed with terminal cancer, confirming the suspicions of family members.

A few weeks later, a charity sent the whole family to Disney World so Ta'Shon could see Cinderella's Castle. She never got to see the castle, though. She died in her hotel bed soon after the family arrived in Florida.

You make an issue that the Indian Health Service system provided substandard care. What you don't point out is that the family is from a tribe too poor to buy private health insurance.

For example, you didn't point this out from the article:

Wealthier tribes can supplement the federal health service budget with their own dollars. But poorer tribes, often those on the most remote reservations, are stuck with grossly substandard care. The agency itself describes a "rationed health care system."

And you didn't point out this:

One of the main problems is that many clinics must "buy" health care from larger medical facilities outside the health service because they are not equipped to handle more serious medical conditions. The money that Congress provides for those contract health care services is rarely sufficient, forcing many clinics to make "life or limb" decisions that leave lower-priority patients out in the cold.

So why is it that Republicans are dumping trillions of dollars into Halliburton and KBR to wage war but funding health clinics for poor Native Americans is considered "pork-barrel legislation?" I'd rather money go to health care for Native Americans than to megacorporations profiting from war.

There's also the question of whether or not private insurance would have covered her.

American Indians have an infant death rate that is 40 percent higher than the rate for whites. They are twice as likely to die from diabetes, 60 percent more likely to have a stroke, 30 percent more likely to have high blood pressure and 20 percent more likely to have heart disease.

With statistics like that, it would be all too easy for private insurance companies to write them a policy and as soon as they tried to use it to drop them because of the number of pre-existing conditions the company could drop her on.

I don't see that story of how inadequate public health care is but rather how we need to provide it for everyone and make it more efficient.

 

[lizzie]

I don't see that story of how inadequate public health care is but rather how we need to provide it for everyone and make it more efficient.

Once you are on it, you will see that it is inadequate and that nothing government provides is more efficient. Have you ever utilized a county hospital or public clinic service?

 

[samsmart]

Once you are on it, you will see that it is inadequate and that nothing government provides is more efficient. Have you ever utilized a county hospital or public clinic service?

I've only had to go to the hospital a few times, as I am young and, I admit, lucky.

But you still neglect to mention that private health care did nothing for that little girl.

 

[Objective Voice]

For those who may be interested, here's a link to the Kaiser Family Foundation's summary of both pieces of health care reform legistlation (House bill HR3962 and Senate bill HR3590). Now, to be fair I tried looking for similar a overall summary of both bills at the Heritage Foundation's website, but they didn't provide such. However, I was able to find two separate summarys, one covering cost analysis of an old House proposal from Oct 2008 and another from the most recent Senate proposal.

What I find interesting about the Heritage Foundation's summary, specifically, that of the current Senate health care reform bill, is how some of their estimates are distorted. For example, under the bullet entitled, "Cause many Americans to lose their current health insurance", the Heritage Foundation said:

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that up to 10 million Americans would no longer be covered by their employers.

But if you go to footnote #6 and read the memo the estimate is referring to, what it really says is:

We estimate that between 9 million and 10 million other people who would be covered by an employment-based plan under current law would not have an offer of such coverage under the proposal.

My question is, "Who are these 'other people'?" Illegal aliens perhaps who are currently receiving employer-based health care coverage who may not be eligible same once health care reform legistlation is passed? Things that make you go, "Hmmmmm....!?!"

 

[lizzie]

But you still neglect to mention that private health care did nothing for that little girl.

I think I am missing the point you are trying to make. I was asking about your own personal experience.

 

[Cassandra]

Once you are on it, you will see that it is inadequate and that nothing government provides is more efficient. Have you ever utilized a county hospital or public clinic service?

I am all ears. What is your point?

 

[lizzie]

I am all ears. What is your point?

Just what it implies. That public health care is inefficient and quality of service is poor.

 

[Cassandra]

Just what it implies. That public health care is inefficient and quality of service is poor.

What public health care? Funded by whom? By what metric is the quality poor and the service inefficient?

Sorry, but making some general, unsubstantiated statement is completely unhelpful and unconvincing.

 

[lizzie]

I said

Once you are on it, you will see that it is inadequate and that nothing government provides is more efficient

It was a general statement, not intended to convince or help anyone. I expect that most of us will eventually be on a public option plan, but I also expect, from working in both private and public health care facilities on a long-term basis, and experience being a consumer in both private and public health care facilities, that service and efficiency will decline from what most Americans are accustomed to. I don't feel the need to convince anyone when experience will be the teacher.

 

[Conservative]

Once you are on it, you will see that it is inadequate and that nothing government provides is more efficient. Have you ever utilized a county hospital or public clinic service?

I find it interesting how many people who obviously do not understand govt. run anything are for a public option that they also do not understand. it is easy to demonize faceless corporations that employ people with actual faces and families.

It is easy to claim that the govt. is capable of offering better services when history shows the govt. to provide only a greater bureaucracy and greater public expense.

It is easy to claim that healthcare is a right when the reality healthcare is a personal responsibility as no one can control the activities of individuals that lead to poor health.

It is easy to ask someone else to pay for another's healthcare bills when that money comes out of the bigger taxpayer pool but actually generates little or no actual healthcare benefits

I wonder why there is such passion for a bigger govt. and a European style govt. run healthcare program that has people from Europe coming here for healthcare?

So let's stop with the rhetoric and think for a change. Healthcare needs to be reformed but the lies coming from the Congress are almost criminal. Please explain to me why a healthcare bill that doesn't go into full effect until 2014 has to be passed before Christmas 2009 yet the taxes go inte effect immediately.

Why is it that the Senate is passing on increased costs to the states, collects 10 years of revenue but provides only 6 years of "benefits" and then claims it is deficit neutral?

I know there are people here capable of getting it, but would sure like the others to explain to answer those questions.

 

[lizzie]

I find it interesting how many people who obviously do not understand govt. run anything are for a public option that they also do not understand. it is easy to demonize faceless corporations that employ people with actual faces and families.

Agreed. Lack of real-world experience in dealing with health care is not preparing people to know what they are asking for.

It is easy to claim that the govt. is capable of offering better services when history shows the govt. to provide only a greater bureaucracy and greater public expense.

And POOR service. If one looks at the post office, almost any DMV, most county hospitals, and most VA hospitals, he will see what a huge public health care system will be like and how it will be run. There is one VA hospital in my state that I know first-hand is a good facility, but the vast majority of vets I know refer to the VA as the "G**D*** VA". Almost every time I go into a government-run business of any type, customer service appears to be low on the list of priorities. I can deal with it because I accept it for what it is. In this current America of self-absorption and I-want-it-now attitudes, there's going to be many dissatisfied customers when government health care gets into full swing.

I wonder why there is such passion for a bigger govt. and a European style govt. run healthcare program that has people from Europe coming here for healthcare?

Because most people are ignorant of what government health care really boils down to, especially in a country this size, and with the high percentage of people we have who are obese and have other unhealthy lifestyle habits.

Healthcare needs to be reformed but the lies coming from the Congress are almost criminal. Please explain to me why a healthcare bill that doesn't go into full effect until 2014 has to be passed before Christmas 2009 yet the taxes go inte effect immediately.

Health care definitely needs to be reformed, but not in the ways being considered by ANY politician, regardless of his party affiliation. The effective dates are designed to prevent people from getting a glimpse of the results before the '12 election imo.

I know there are people here capable of getting it, but would sure like the others to explain to answer those questions.

They don't want to get it.

 

[Objective Voice]

Just what it implies. That public health care is inefficient and quality of service is poor.

I beg to differ. Public Health care is very effective if you look at it from the standpoint for which it was intended - disease intervention, prevention and wellness. Most public health centers are not designed to function as "free clinics" tackling every illness out there. That's what your local "doc in the box" is for. But if you have a specific need, i.e., sexually transmitted disease, planned parenting (limited use birth control), environmental safety, WIC/well-baby care, and certain immunizations that affect entire communities, such as the H1N1 outbreak or seasonal flu vaccinations, then your public health center work very well.

 

[Conservative]

I beg to differ. Public Health care is very effective if you look at it from the standpoint for which it was intended - disease intervention, prevention and wellness. Most public health centers are not designed to function as "free clinics" tackling every illness out there. That's what your local "doc in the box" is for. But if you have a specific need, i.e., sexually transmitted disease, planned parenting (limited use birth control), environmental safety, WIC/well-baby care, and certain immunizations that affect entire communities, such as the H1N1 outbreak or seasonal flu vaccinations, then your public health center work very well.

The problem is, nothing being proposed directly affects public health, it is an attempt at insurance reform disguised as a healthcare bill. The fact is we don't need this monstrosity to "fix" the problems we have today.

What really bothers me are the lies coming out of the Administration with regards to the problem of healthcare.

First there aren't 30-47 million uninsured Americans today. There may be roughly 10 million that cannot affort health insurance whereas others are illegal's or can afford health insurance but CHOOSE not to purchase it.

Second, the bill proposed does nothing for the uninsured until 2014 but taxes kick in when passed.

Third, there are hundreds of new agencies created in this bill and costs are diverted to the states.

Fourth, there is no way this is deficit neutral as this is creative accounting, claim it is a 10 year projections when the costs for the program don't kick in until 4 years from now

Fifth, this is step one towards National Healthcare which will destroy private business and affect millions of Americans that work in that industry.

Five, the hurry to pass a bill that doesn't go into effect until 2014 should send a signal to ALL that this is a POS

Six, there is no guarantee that you can keep your own doctor or insurance company as there is no guarantee that they can compete with the govt. mandates in this bill.

Seven, mandating that people purchase insurance is probably unconstitutional and this bill will be challenged in court.

Want me to go on? Before supporting the bill, get the facts about the bill and answer the concerns I raised.

 

[Cassandra]

I find it interesting how many people who obviously do not understand govt. run anything are for a public option that they also do not understand. it is easy to demonize faceless corporations that employ people with actual faces and families.

It is easy to claim that the govt. is capable of offering better services when history shows the govt. to provide only a greater bureaucracy and greater public expense.

Sometimes this is true, sometimes it is not. Do you want corporations to take control of the military? judicial system? municipal water ? highways? I am quite happy with the service the post office provides. Meanwhile, in the realm of H.C., private insurers win the medal for waste and bureaucracy.

It is easy to claim that healthcare is a right when the reality healthcare is a personal responsibility as no one can control the activities of individuals that lead to poor health.

Be sure to remember that when you get cancer or receive injuries in a car accident!

It is easy to ask someone else to pay for another's healthcare bills when that money comes out of the bigger taxpayer pool but actually generates little or no actual healthcare benefits

I am not sure what you are talking about, here, but unless you are paying out of pocket, you are part of some sort of risk pool in which healthier people are paying for less healthy people.

I wonder why there is such passion for a bigger govt. and a European style govt. run healthcare program that has people from Europe coming here for healthcare?

Europeans come here, seldom, for H.C. whereas underinsured American citizens are flocking to other countries: Mexico, India, Thailand.

So let's stop with the rhetoric and think for a change. Healthcare needs to be reformed but the lies coming from the Congress are almost criminal. Please explain to me why a healthcare bill that doesn't go into full effect until 2014 has to be passed before Christmas 2009 yet the taxes go inte effect immediately.

It takes some time to implement significant changes but the compromise bill will probably reduce the time interval- it is too long.

Why is it that the Senate is passing on increased costs to the states, collects 10 years of revenue but provides only 6 years of "benefits" and then claims it is deficit neutral?

I think the medicaid expansion will be a problem for many states. Is that the increase cost you are referring to ? I think that each state will have to decide how to deal with medicaid expansion. I believe that medicaid benefits are too generous and beneficiaries should be expected to contribute some amount on a sliding scale. If this is not what you are talking about, you need more specifics and a link.

I

 

[Cassandra]

The problem is, nothing being proposed directly affects public health, it is an attempt at insurance reform disguised as a healthcare bill. The fact is we don't need this monstrosity to "fix" the problems we have today.

What really bothers me are the lies coming out of the Administration with regards to the problem of healthcare.

First there aren't 30-47 million uninsured Americans today. There may be roughly 10 million that cannot affort health insurance whereas others are illegal's or can afford health insurance but CHOOSE not to purchase it.

Wrong, as usual. The Kaiser Foundation and the Census bureau disagree with you. Furthermore, many of the insured have such poor coverage that they really have no safety net at all.

"As members of Congress vote on controversial health-care-reform legislation, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation has analyzed census data to provide a closer look at the people without health insurance in the U.S. Its report, focused on people younger than age 65, found 45.7 million "nonelderly" uninsured people in the U.S. last year (including the elderly, the number of uninsured was 46.3 million). Low-income adults without dependent children — who generally do not qualify for government programs like Medicaid — were hit hardest. Despite heated rhetoric on the issue, immigrants are not driving the problem; 80% of the uninsured under age 65 are native-born or naturalized citizens. The uncompensated cost of providing health care to the uninsured last year was $57 billion, three-quarters of which was picked up by the Federal Government."

Read more: Which Americans Are Uninsured? Kaiser Foundation Report - TIME

Second, the bill proposed does nothing for the uninsured until 2014 but taxes kick in when passed.

Yeh, that rots. I hope it will be altered.

Third, there are hundreds of new agencies created in this bill and costs are diverted to the states.

Hundreds? Your link.

Fourth, there is no way this is deficit neutral as this is creative accounting, claim it is a 10 year projections when the costs for the program don't kick in until 4 years from now

Depending on what occurs in the final bill it may be deficit neutral but just like Republicans for 8 years , the Dems have caved in to the insurance and pharmaceutical lobby. Your ire should be directed at lobbyists and their masters.

Fifth, this is step one towards National Healthcare which will destroy private business and affect millions of Americans that work in that industry.

That would be great but you are seriously silly, now.

Five, the hurry to pass a bill that doesn't go into effect until 2014 should send a signal to ALL that this is a POS

Just politics

Six, there is no guarantee that you can keep your own doctor or insurance company as there is no guarantee that they can compete with the govt. mandates in this bill.

Where did you get that bit of misinformation?

Seven, mandating that people purchase insurance is probably unconstitutional and this bill will be challenged in court.

Like car insurance? Is that unconstitutional too?

 

[Conservative]

Sometimes this is true, sometimes it is not. Do you want corporations to take control of the military? judicial system? municipal water ? highways? I am quite happy with the service the post office provides. Meanwhile, in the realm of H.C., private insurers win the medal for waste and bureaucracy.

Be sure to remember that when you get cancer or receive injuries in a car accident!

I am not sure what you are talking about, here, but unless you are paying out of pocket, you are part of some sort of risk pool in which healthier people are paying for less healthy people.

Europeans come here, seldom, for H.C. whereas underinsured American citizens are flocking to other countries: Mexico, India, Thailand.

It takes some time to implement significant changes but the compromise bill will probably reduce the time interval- it is too long.

I think the medicaid expansion will be a problem for many states. Is that the increase cost you are referring to ? I think that each state will have to decide how to deal with medicaid expansion. I believe that medicaid benefits are too generous and beneficiaries should be expected to contribute some amount on a sliding scale. If this is not what you are talking about, you need more specifics and a link.

I

When you read the Constitution regarding govt. it is their role to "provide for the common defense" so no that isn't a function you provide anyone else. "Promoting the General Welfare" today has been changed by those wanting power to PROVIDE for the General Welfare. I am sure you see the difference.

You seem to have little regard for corporations. Maybe that is due to the media reporting on those corporations that did something wrong. That is a very small percentage of corporations. Do not judge them all by a few. By the way people work for corporations, never lose sight of that.

You don't see a problem with starting the taxes immediately but not offering the so called benefits until 2014 then claiming a program with 10 years of taxes paying for 6 years of benefits is deficit neutral? That doesn't bother you?

The medicare expansion is part of the increasing costs. There is no way to insure another 30 million Americans and have that not add costs. Read the bill as you surely remember Obama will have it on line for 5 days prior to final vote.

 

[lizzie]

Like car insurance? Is that unconstitutional too?

Car insurance is madated by the states, thus the Constitution has no bearing. The purpose of car insurance is to insure that idiot/ negligent drivers aren't destroying the property of good drivers without having the means for the damage and/or loss of life they cause to be paid for.