• Bringing back the public option could have savings
    111 replies, posted
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/21/AR2010072105067.html[/url] [release]WASHINGTON - At a time when both political parties are worrying about the federal deficit, an unexpected and unorthodox proposal is coming back from the shadows of last year's health-care debate the "public option." The idea of creating a major government health insurance program was roundly rejected last year, but the 128 House Democrats pushing to reconsider the idea are now advancing the argument that it would help hold down federal spending. Their bill, which faces long odds, would allow Americans who do not get insurance at work to choose a government plan for their health coverage starting in 2014. "There is all this concern about the deficit," said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., a leading champion of the proposal. "Well, guess what, this would reduce the deficit because it saves so much money." Woolsey and her allies, including Reps. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois and Fortney "Pete" Stark of California, are armed with a new analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. It projects the public option could save the federal government $68 billion between 2014 an 2020, according to Democrats. A government plan could save money with lower administrative costs and by paying hospitals and doctors less than commercial insurance plans, analysts have said; that could result in lower premiums and lower government subsidies for Americans who choose that plan over plans offered by commercial insurers. Insurance companies, hospitals and other businesses say a public option would undermine existing employer-provided insurance and set the stage for a single-payer system. Don't expect any Republican budget hawks to sign on, either (even though the $68 billion coincidently matches the savings that the leading House GOP health-care proposal would have generated, according to CBO). Republicans lambasted the public option for much of last year as just more government. With a full plate of legislative business, House Democratic leaders also have little interest in restarting a health-care debate that split their own ranks. Woolsey said she is willing to wait. "This will be there for the next Congress," she said. [/release]
It may be there, but the ground work for it can still be undone. We don't want this, we want competition. We want multiple choices, not a government choice.
[QUOTE=Glaber;23577206]I don't want this, I want competition. I want multiple choices, not a government choice.[/QUOTE] Fixed because you don't speak for everyone. I support the public option, it's mostly why I voted for Obama in the first place. We spend more as a nation on our health care than any other country, and yet we have a disproportionately low life expectancy compared to nations with socialized health care.
you'll still have those multiple choices
[QUOTE=Glaber;23577206]It may be there, but the ground work for it can still be undone. We don't want this, we want competition. We want multiple choices, not a government choice.[/QUOTE] And so speaks glaber and fox, the voice of 100% of americans. He knows what everyone wants, and he knows what works best. In his deluded brain.
This is a stupid idea.
It is not a stupid idea.
No not 100%, but a good stinking majority none the less. Even if it's just one other person, it's still a "we". [QUOTE=Lambeth;23577253]you'll still have those multiple choices[/QUOTE] Yes, but not the Multiple choices we want. the kind of choices I speak of are if I want to get health insurance from say Illinois, Ohio, or Indiana. Today, I can't, and the companies there may have cheaper prices than what I currently have to chose from here. Do I know for sure? No. Would I like the chance to shop around and find out? Yes! The "public option" does not do this. Not only that, but why should I want the government to take care of me? If you want that kind of krud, why don't you go to where they already have it, like the UK? I don't care if you think National heath care works. Why should you force it on me or anyone else who doesn't want it? By the way, how many medical advancements come from national health programs compared to what we got here in the US?
[QUOTE=Glaber;23577544]Yes, but not the Multiple choices we want. the kind of choices I speak of are if I want to get health insurance from say Illinois, Ohio, or Indiana. [/QUOTE] Why would you want to outsource your health care insurance? [editline]05:45PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Glaber;23577544]Yes, but not the Multiple choices we want. [/QUOTE] How do you know?
This doesn't seem like a bad thing. A few Billion dollars isn't much money though. Especially not over a few years.
[QUOTE=Glaber;23577544]Why should you force it on me or anyone else who doesn't want it?[/QUOTE] There are people who need it who aren't you [editline]05:48PM[/editline] [QUOTE=redonkulous;23577713]This doesn't seem like a bad thing. A few Billion dollars isn't much money though. Especially not over a few years.[/QUOTE] Every little bit helps
True, but there are also people who don't need it who are not you. You want to force it on them?
then those people don't have to use it? [editline]05:51PM[/editline] I don't really use snail mail much but I don't mind paying taxes for it.
[QUOTE=Glaber;23577544]No not 100%, but a good stinking majority none the less. Even if it's just one other person, it's still a "we". Yes, but not the Multiple choices we want. the kind of choices I speak of are if I want to get health insurance from say Illinois, Ohio, or Indiana. Today, I can't, and the companies there may have cheaper prices than what I currently have to chose from here. Do I know for sure? No. Would I like the chance to shop around and find out? Yes! The "public option" does not do this. Not only that, but why should I want the government to take care of me? If you want that kind of krud, why don't you go to where they already have it, like the UK? I don't care if you think National heath care works. Why should you force it on me or anyone else who doesn't want it? By the way, how many medical advancements come from national health programs compared to what we got here in the US?[/QUOTE] I'd rather have something than nothing.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;23577812]then those people don't have to use it? [editline]05:51PM[/editline] I don't really use snail mail much but I don't mind paying taxes for it.[/QUOTE] I don't even know why we still need the postal service. FedEx and UPS are much better. The government really needs to let them ship letters.
[QUOTE=Glaber;23577790]True, but there are also people who don't need it who are not you. You want to force it on them?[/QUOTE] There are also people that DO need it. You want to keep them from having it?
[QUOTE=Lambeth;23577674]Why would you want to outsource your health care insurance?[/QUOTE] Like that would out source the [b]care[/b]. You know how you can buy auto insurance now? That's how we want it with health insurance. [QUOTE=Lambeth;23577674] How do you know?[/QUOTE] Tea Party, Talk Radio, Fox. You should know this by now about me. Also Mass. voted in the traitor Scott brown on that he'd be a vote against this. (Well he did, but he also voted for other items his state didn't want)
[QUOTE=Glaber;23577916]Like that would out source the [b]care[/b]. You know how you can buy auto insurance now? That's how we want it with health insurance. [/QUOTE] All the auto insurers suck too. I spend $400 for 6 months of insurance, and they don't spend a dime on me. Fuck that shit.
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;23577910]There are also people that DO need it. You want to keep them from having it?[/QUOTE] They're poor, and poor people are 100% of the time lazy people. And lazy people don't deserve life. Right?
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;23577910]There are also people that DO need it. You want to keep them from having it?[/QUOTE] You want to force those who have their insurance through their work on to it? Don't think companies won't try to save money by shoving their employees on to it, because they more than likely will.
[QUOTE=Glaber;23577916] Tea Party, Talk Radio, Fox. You should know this by now about me. Also Mass. voted in the traitor Scott brown on that he'd be a vote against this. (Well he did, but he also voted for other items his state didn't want)[/QUOTE] Cool beans bro. The only way any of us should get our opinions; from listening to only one side of the argument by agenda driven media outlets.
[QUOTE=Glaber;23577971]You want to force those who have their insurance through their work on to it? Don't think companies won't try to save money by shoving their employees on to it, because they more than likely will.[/QUOTE] Companies already try to cut costs by providing healthcare that doesn't even cover enough things. The lack of a public option in the US is a step keeping it from the rest of the world. You may think it's this terrible evil system, but it keeps a lot of people that otherwise would not be able to live, alive.
[QUOTE=Glaber;23577971]You want to force those who have their insurance through their work on to it? Don't think companies won't try to save money by shoving their employees on to it, because they more than likely will.[/QUOTE] Big deal. Health insurance is pointless. The problem here isn't people with money it's people without money, who can't afford proper healthcare and that is a fucked up situation for people in a first world situation to be in.
[QUOTE=Glaber;23577916] Tea Party, Talk Radio, Fox. You should know this by now about me. Also Mass. voted in the traitor Scott brown on that he'd be a vote against this. (Well he did, but he also voted for other items his state didn't want)[/QUOTE] Do you see a problem with being informed on just one side of the argument but being totally ignorant on the other? You don't even know anything about the alternative arguments.
ITT glaber thinks public option means ONLY OPTION FOR ANYONE NO MORE PRIVATE CARE EVER
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;23578090]Do you see a problem with being informed on just one side of the argument but being totally ignorant on the other? You don't even know anything about the alternative arguments.[/QUOTE] That why you're here. [QUOTE=Mexican;23578171]ITT glaber thinks public option means ONLY OPTION FOR ANYONE NO MORE PRIVATE CARE EVER[/QUOTE] Close, it's step one to that.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xx02NKfmnWI[/media] I don't see why America doesn't switch to this.
[QUOTE=Glaber;23578241]Close, it's step one to that.[/QUOTE] Don't be such an idiot
[QUOTE=Glaber;23578241]Close, it's step one to that.[/QUOTE] That's like me saying that getting rid of regulations is the first step towards anarchy.
Glaber pretends he speaks for everyone once again.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.