PDA

View Full Version : APP - Republicans cant have it both ways! Or can they?



Jarod
08-20-2009, 07:24 AM
On the public option I am hearing inconsistant arguments...

1) They say the government is inefficent and terrable at running things and having a government run health system will result in terrable medicine where people cant get the treatment they need and it will be so inefficent that it will waste way too much money!

2) They say we cant have a "public option" because private companies cant compete with the government program and will be run out of business because they have a government player in the arena...


How is an inefficent system that provides substandard health care going to run the "better" private insurance companies out of business?

cawacko
08-20-2009, 07:47 AM
Dude, it's not a matter of having it "both ways" and I think you know this. The issue is when government can set the rules its not honest and fair competition between a government insurance option and private insurance.

Jarod
08-20-2009, 07:51 AM
Dude, it's not a matter of having it "both ways" and I think you know this. The issue is when government can set the rules its not honest and fair competition between a government insurance option and private insurance.

But if Republicans are correct on point one, who would ever go to a public option for health care?

tinfoil
08-20-2009, 07:52 AM
On the public option I am hearing inconsistant arguments...

1) They say the government is inefficent and terrable at running things and having a government run health system will result in terrable medicine where people cant get the treatment they need and it will be so inefficent that it will waste way too much money!

2) They say we cant have a "public option" because private companies cant compete with the government program and will be run out of business because they have a government player in the arena...


How is an inefficent system that provides substandard health care going to run the "better" private insurance companies out of business?

OK idiot, we'll try to make it simple for you.

Company A must charge X to be able to pay its employees and provide the service.

The government can do it cheaper be cause the government doesn't need to make a profit since it gets it's money for doing nothing

If you don't understand the difference--and it would not suprise me if you didn't-- then you are clueless and will never understand.

cawacko
08-20-2009, 07:53 AM
But if Republicans are correct on point one, who would ever go to a public option for health care?

Like I said, when Government can set the rules it can set them so cost wise private insurance is not a viable economic option for most individuals and companies.

Jarod
08-20-2009, 07:53 AM
OK idiot, we'll try to make it simple for you.

Company A must charge X to be able to pay its employees and provide the service.

The government can do it cheaper be cause the government doesn't need to make a profit since it gets it's money for doing nothing

If you don't understand the difference--and it would not suprise me if you didn't-- then you are clueless and will never understand.

I understand what you are saying, but if they cant provide good healthcare, who cares what it costs.

cawacko
08-20-2009, 07:56 AM
I understand what you are saying, but if they cant provide good healthcare, who cares what it costs.

Delete

Jarod
08-20-2009, 08:08 AM
Delete

Its a perfictly legit point. You know you are beat so you just stop engaging in the discussion and say something like "delete"!

cawacko
08-20-2009, 08:11 AM
Its a perfictly legit point. You know you are beat so you just stop engaging in the discussion and say something like "delete"!

Excuse me, I am not beat and your point is not legitimate. Respond to my last post. I wrote delete because I posted something and then realize I had missread your post so I deleted what I wrote.

WinterBorn
08-20-2009, 08:19 AM
Its not a matter of whether the private insurance companies can't compete. Its that, as somone said, the gov't entities do not have to make a profit (or even break even) because they have access to huge amounts of money taken from the population as taxes.


*Deleted*

SmarterthanYou
08-20-2009, 08:36 AM
I understand what you are saying, but if they cant provide good healthcare, who cares what it costs.

those that end up paying for it anyway, like the american taxpayer.

Cypress
08-20-2009, 08:50 AM
Its not a matter of whether the private insurance companies can't compete. Its that, as somone said, the gov't entities do not have to make a profit (or even break even) because they have access to huge amounts of money taken from the population as taxes.


If you compare what private hospitals provide versus what a VA hospital provides, you can see the difference. The VA doesn't cost the patient much (if anything), but the quality of care sucks too.


But Jarod's point still stands.

We've been told by rightwingers that government insurance is a socialist nightmare, that will result in long lines, rationing, massive waiting lists, and atrocious healthcare.

If that's true, few people are going to choose the public option, no matter how much it costs, or how much the government "tweaks" the rules.


Not wanting government health insurance, is clearly about something else. There's some other agenda at play here.

Bonestorm
08-20-2009, 09:03 AM
Its not a matter of whether the private insurance companies can't compete. Its that, as somone said, the gov't entities do not have to make a profit (or even break even) because they have access to huge amounts of money taken from the population as taxes.


If you compare what private hospitals provide versus what a VA hospital provides, you can see the difference. The VA doesn't cost the patient much (if anything), but the quality of care sucks too.



What's with the VA bashing? The VA consistently outranks the private sector in patient satisfaction.

WinterBorn
08-20-2009, 09:05 AM
What's with the VA bashing? The VA consistently outranks the private sector in patient satisfaction.

I would be interested in seeing that linked. I have never known a vet who thought he was well taken care of, or satisfied with the care at a VA hospital.

WinterBorn
08-20-2009, 09:07 AM
Nevermind, I stand corrected.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1376238,00.html

Bonestorm
08-20-2009, 09:09 AM
I would be interested in seeing that linked. I have never known a vet who thought he was well taken care of, or satisfied with the care at a VA hospital.


WASHINGTON, Jan. 20, 2006 – Veterans continued to rate the care they receive through the Department of Veterans Affairs health care system higher than other Americans rate private-sector health care for the sixth consecutive year, a new annual report on customer satisfaction reveals.

For VA Secretary R. James Nicholson, the news is affirmation of what he called "the greatest story never told," that the VA offers top-quality care for its patients.

VA medical services received high marks during the annual American Customer Satisfaction Index, which has ranked customer satisfaction with various federal programs and private-sector industries and major companies since 1994.

Veterans who recently used VA services and were interviewed for the 2005 ACSI survey gave the VA's inpatient care a rating of 83 on a 100-point scale -- compared to a 73 rating for the private-sector health care industry. Veterans gave the VA a rating of 80 for outpatient care, five percentage points higher than the 75 rating for private-sector outpatient care and 9 percent higher than the average satisfaction rating for all federal services.

"Although VA has received many wonderful endorsements recently, the support of our veterans -- the people who know us best -- is the highest praise," Nicholson said.

The latest survey marks the sixth consecutive year that VA's health care system has outranked the private sector for customer satisfaction, Nicholson noted today during a joint interview with the Pentagon Channel and American Forces Press Service.

He called this year's results, like those over the past six years, a testament to the hard work of VA employees and generous funding from Congress and the president, who have increased the VA's budget by 57 percent over the past five years.

The results also reaffirm what Nicholson said the VA's 7.5 million enrollees have recognized all along: The VA continues to get better all the time. "It's been good for a long time, but now it's great," he said.

Over its 75-year history, the VA has created "the largest integrated health care system in the world and arguably the best," Nicholson said. Some 237,000 VA professionals provide health care to more than 7.5 million enrollees through 154 hospitals, 860 clinics and 200 veterans centers. These health care facilities are "on the leading edge of technology and safety" as they provide a model for the medical profession, Nicholson said.

A computerized medical record system -- one Nicholson said he hopes will serve as a model for the Defense Department and other organizations -- helps eliminate hospital mix-ups and ensures more thorough patient care, he said.

In addition, VA remains a leader in medical research, developing the pacemaker, helping pioneer the CT scan, and performing the first liver transplant, among other advances, he said. The VA has been involved in studies involving Parkinson's disease and a recent breakthrough in an immunization for shingles.

Meanwhile, the VA continues to strive to better serve its patients, Nicholson said. The department's staff is working to reduce waiting time for appointments and to ensure veterans of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan receive top priority for care, he said. "We have ramped up for them," he said, noting that the VA has already provided medical services to about 135,000 new veterans. "We are there for them and ready for them."

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=14560

SmarterthanYou
08-20-2009, 09:12 AM
I would be interested in seeing that linked. I have never known a vet who thought he was well taken care of, or satisfied with the care at a VA hospital.

what did they do? find the 5 vets that actually liked the VA? every vet that I know right now that has to use the VA hates it for the inefficiency alone.

WinterBorn
08-20-2009, 09:12 AM
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=14560

I did a quick search and found some interesting data. My own information was outdated (probably because I am old). Since the mid-90s the quality of care in VA hospitals has increased dramatically.

cawacko
08-20-2009, 09:20 AM
I understand what you are saying, but if they cant provide good healthcare, who cares what it costs.

One example, employeers. Ultimately employeers have to worry about their bottom line to stay competitive or to stay in existence. If the government 'tweeks' the market and thus makes it employeers choose the public option or just pay the penalty employees are stuck with it.

PostmodernProphet
08-20-2009, 10:08 AM
How is an inefficent system that provides substandard health care going to run the "better" private insurance companies out of business?

by restricting what the private companies may offer, and by operating on federal monies instead of funds generated from customers......it's quite elemental, actually.....

Jarod
08-20-2009, 12:47 PM
One example, employeers. Ultimately employeers have to worry about their bottom line to stay competitive or to stay in existence. If the government 'tweeks' the market and thus makes it employeers choose the public option or just pay the penalty employees are stuck with it.

And the Market will fix that because the better employees will go to employers who have better coverage!

WinterBorn
08-20-2009, 12:54 PM
And the Market will fix that because the better employees will go to employers who have better coverage!

Have you ever known anyone who changed jobs because of better insurance? Not going from none to having some, but to upgrade their coverage?

Jarod
08-20-2009, 01:26 PM
Have you ever known anyone who changed jobs because of better insurance? Not going from none to having some, but to upgrade their coverage?

Yes, I have, they were both single mothers with kids who came to work for the SAO because of the great insurance.

WinterBorn
08-20-2009, 01:42 PM
Yes, I have, they were both single mothers with kids who came to work for the SAO because of the great insurance.

Good insurance may be a reason to choose one job over another, but I have never known anyone to change jobs because the insurance was better.

These two single mothers had no insurance at their previous jobs? And the previous jobs paid as mcu or more than SAO?

Jarod
08-20-2009, 03:46 PM
Good insurance may be a reason to choose one job over another, but I have never known anyone to change jobs because the insurance was better.

These two single mothers had no insurance at their previous jobs? And the previous jobs paid as mcu or more than SAO?

I dont know the detales of the previous jobs, I know what they said about why they changed jobs. I also know that the SAO generally pays less than many such jobs in the private sector.

Cypress
08-20-2009, 04:26 PM
what did they do? find the 5 vets that actually liked the VA? every vet that I know right now that has to use the VA hates it for the inefficiency alone.


That’s because your friends are either already on gold plated government insurance, like Medicare or tricare, or they have a gold-plated corporate policy where the bargaining power of sheer size might (for a while) protect them from free market, profit considerations – like being denied for preexisting conditions, or getting denied care on a wonderful free market policy because they become unprofitable for the insurance monopoly.

The VA provides a niche service that your wonderful free market won’t. Period. It's a provider of last resort. Does Blue Cross want to cover a 70 year old quadriplegic Vietnam vet? Does Humana salivate at the prospect of making money off a vet suffering from neurological disorders and physical disability because of Gulf War syndrome? Is an 85 year old, infirm Korean War vet going to have much success surfing the internet to find an affordable and adequate private individual policy to cover his medical needs?

Of course not. Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck have so thoroughly propagandized you and lied to you that you are evidently unaware how the real world works. Sometimes I wonder if message board cons are overwhelmingly trust fund babies, who don’t have a freaking clue how the real world works for average people.

The VA is a niche service of last resort, to serve people, in large measure, who your wonderful internet free market of insurance products won’t fucking touch with a ten foot pole. And the VA isn’t as bad as Rush Limbaugh lied to you. Winterborn is right. The dude Clinton put in, made it a lot better. My stepdad would have died 15 years ago, without the VA. But, the point is, the VA is still a niche service provider. What liberals want is a cost effective, and high performing universal health care system, like the French, Australians, Germans, and Swedes have.

Minister of Truth
08-20-2009, 10:49 PM
YES WE CAN!

LadyT
08-22-2009, 07:25 AM
But Jarod's point still stands.

We've been told by rightwingers that government insurance is a socialist nightmare, that will result in long lines, rationing, massive waiting lists, and atrocious healthcare.

If that's true, few people are going to choose the public option, no matter how much it costs, or how much the government "tweaks" the rules.


Not wanting government health insurance, is clearly about something else. There's some other agenda at play here.

Bing bing bing!

If Alex's point wasn't valid, neighborhood free clinics would have driven doctors out of business a long time ago.

If the conservative bitching and moaning turns out to be legit and insurance companies end up being a better option, people will stay with them. END.OF.STORY. If you can get better service at a cheaper rate through the gov't you'll go with them.

LadyT
08-22-2009, 07:26 AM
Have you ever known anyone who changed jobs because of better insurance? Not going from none to having some, but to upgrade their coverage?

I have. Someone in my family actually.

Cancel5
08-22-2009, 03:23 PM
I have. Someone in my family actually.

My son, who is 22, can yo believe it! A youngin who wants health care!

Jeff
08-22-2009, 03:45 PM
Good insurance may be a reason to choose one job over another, but I have never known anyone to change jobs because the insurance was better.

These two single mothers had no insurance at their previous jobs? And the previous jobs paid as mcu or more than SAO?

People leave jobs all the time to receive better health Ins.

example .... state workers, they don't get paid a whole lot of money but have fantastic benefits

I worked for the State of NJ years ago and at least a 3rd of the people working there were there cause of the benefits

MY wife took a job for the state, she lost some money but the ins. she has far out weighs the loss she took

Damocles
08-22-2009, 04:06 PM
But Jarod's point still stands.

We've been told by rightwingers that government insurance is a socialist nightmare, that will result in long lines, rationing, massive waiting lists, and atrocious healthcare.

If that's true, few people are going to choose the public option, no matter how much it costs, or how much the government "tweaks" the rules.


Not wanting government health insurance, is clearly about something else. There's some other agenda at play here.
From what I read the employer is going to pick for you. The option is theirs, not yours. So long as it stays just an "option" there is a possibility that it won't turn into the mess we see elsewhere where there is no option.

Again, I support a program where only the people who do not get health care from an employer would be on any government insurance program and then only those who could not afford it would then be forced into government insurance. Otherwise centralizing regulation and making it easier to shop across state line, making it easier for small businesses to pool together for equitable insurance options... All of these are better than a government option. Government options should be the last resort, IMO. And they should be targeted and basic with a tiered pay system based on cost of living in each area. If you make too much, you will pay a premium for this basic insurance... If you make a lot, you will pay a larger premium... And if you can afford to supplement, then there should be options to supplement.

Jarod
08-26-2009, 06:56 AM
From what I read the employer is going to pick for you. The option is theirs, not yours. So long as it stays just an "option" there is a possibility that it won't turn into the mess we see elsewhere where there is no option.

Again, I support a program where only the people who do not get health care from an employer would be on any government insurance program and then only those who could not afford it would then be forced into government insurance. Otherwise centralizing regulation and making it easier to shop across state line, making it easier for small businesses to pool together for equitable insurance options... All of these are better than a government option. Government options should be the last resort, IMO. And they should be targeted and basic with a tiered pay system based on cost of living in each area. If you make too much, you will pay a premium for this basic insurance... If you make a lot, you will pay a larger premium... And if you can afford to supplement, then there should be options to supplement.

Sounds like a good plan to me... Why dont you debate some of your more conservative brotheren on this issue, see what supercandy thinks about it!

Cancel 2016.2
08-26-2009, 08:18 AM
On the public option I am hearing inconsistant arguments...

1) They say the government is inefficent and terrable at running things and having a government run health system will result in terrable medicine where people cant get the treatment they need and it will be so inefficent that it will waste way too much money!

2) They say we cant have a "public option" because private companies cant compete with the government program and will be run out of business because they have a government player in the arena...


How is an inefficent system that provides substandard health care going to run the "better" private insurance companies out of business?

Its called SUBSIDIES Jarod. The government will subsidize its inefficient program to the point that it drives off private companies.

SmarterthanYou
08-26-2009, 08:22 AM
Its called SUBSIDIES Jarod. The government will subsidize its inefficient program to the point that it drives off private companies.

unless the gov decides to regulate what minimum salaries are applicable for the subsidies, which would then leave the same large class of people making just over the threshold and still be unable to afford insurance, then to add salt to the wound, fine them the 1200 dollars for not having insurance.

hooray for government healthcare.

Jarod
08-26-2009, 08:41 AM
Its called SUBSIDIES Jarod. The government will subsidize its inefficient program to the point that it drives off private companies.

But will it provide good healthcare?