Public option makes a leap toward socialism

The public option would not "require every American to sign up for health insurance". You are confusing the public option with the individual mandate. The individual mandate would require everyone carry health insurance, whether through private carriers or the public option (should there be a public option).

Also, the government is not going to set up an "insurance program to cover anyone who wants to receive coverage through it". Both the Senate HELP bill and HR3200 have the public option available only to those individuals who are eligible for the exchange. Anyone who has Medicare, Medicaid, employer coverage, or coverage through the Indian Health Service, Dept of Defense, or Tricare, would not be eligible for the exchange. Essentially, those who are eligible for the exchange (and therefore the public option, if there is one) are those who are currently uninsured or already in the individual insurance market. This market is currently relatively small (46m uninsured and 15m in the individual market). This is why the estimated enrollment in the public option is pegged at 10m.

Lastly, you mention the role of free markets. The free market does not work in health care and never really has. Ever since the advent of managed care in the late 1980s, the free market has tried everything under the sun (discounts, utilization review, disease management, centers of excellence, etc) and nothing has halted the steady rise of health care costs. They have and continue to increase at a rate exceeding general inflation. We have had choice and competition amongst doctors and health plans and it has gotten us nowhere. This mantra sounds catchy but does not work.

So, maybe removing profit to reduce the burden of these costs on the economy, businesses and individuals, would not be such a bad thing. A little health care reform will not be the end of the world as we know it.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by semessic on August 31, 2009 at 10:07 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Public option makes a leap toward socialism

Chet's right, y'all. We can't let these small business owners be rolled over by Big Government. There is no way we can preserve the American way of life under a Socialist Government Healthcare. Write to your senators and congressmen now, and tell them that you don't want a public option in your healthcare. Tell them that it's not like a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup Healthcare System.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by pantheon on September 1, 2009 at 9:08 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Public option makes a leap toward socialism

Under the Senate Finance HELP bill and HR 3200, small businesses would not be required to carry health insurance. There would be tax credits (that decline over time) that are designed to encourage small business to offer health care by offsetting some of the expense. But the bottom line is small business is not required to offer health insurance.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by semessic on September 1, 2009 at 3:52 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Public option makes a leap toward socialism

To clarify: when I said small business owners, I was talking about shareholders of insurance companies.

PUT THAT IN YOUR PIPE AND SMOKE IT YOU DIRTY LIBERAL HIPPIE.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by pantheon on September 1, 2009 at 4:11 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Public option makes a leap toward socialism

Could you really not come up with any better argument against health care reform, Chet? Maybe one that has not been repeated ad nauseum by Glenn Beck? Sure, let's all just yell "SOCIALISM" as loud as we can to scare people.

Honestly, I could care less about what effect this bill has on the insurance companies. They should absolutely be forced to play by the government's rules, by our rules. What other choice do we have, when their objective is to provide as little care as possible for as much money as possible. I really don't care if the insurance industry isn't a level playing field, I only care about getting those 50 million uninsured (and rising) people in this country the health care they deserve. Is it not just a little messed up that we think of our health and well-being as an industry, rather than an intrinsic right? Besides that, we have a government-run postal service, but UPS and FedEx seem to keep up and compete, right?

And you say socialism like it's a dirty word, something you've got to throw at least 50 cents in the swear jar for even mentioning. You probably treat "France" and "Canada" with the same amount of contempt, nevermind that the U.S. health care system was ranked far below either of those countries on World Health Organization's assessment of health care delivery systems worldwide.

Let's cut the insurance companies out of the equation and focus on what doctors and patients think is best for them (A survey published last year in the Annals of Internal Medicine found that doctors support a national health insurance system almost 2 to 1. But surely they're biased, no?), and what economists think is best for rebuilding and retaining our economic viability and competitiveness worldwide.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by dlowell on September 1, 2009 at 5:21 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Public option makes a leap toward socialism

A shareholder of an insurance company is a small business owner? Hmmm.

One would hope that we as a people do not cave to corporate interests over what is right for society at large. Uninsurable citizens is a travesty. Medical bankruptcies are a travesty. Uninsured and underinsured citizens are a travesty.

I don't want socialism, I don't want to be like Cuba. But to have a health system that functions more like the Swiss, French, Germans, etc would be fine by me.

Lastly, I want this debate to be on the facts of the two bills, not the talking points from FOX and MSNBC. Just today I heard someone quoting the Senate Finance bill (which does not yet exist).

• Upvote 0
• Posted by semessic on September 1, 2009 at 6 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal