Public option for healthcare

[TheGame]

I'm curious what people here think about the idea of having a new public option for healthcare created. I'm personally all for it as long as its just an affordable option (which it will be).

So far I've yet to hear a good arguement against it.

[Bond]

It's a poor idea for three key reasons:

1. Government intervention has historically raised health care costs, and will continue to do so if the government's role is increased (did you know that the government created today's insurance/HMO/PPO companies?).

2. A single-payer system and/or an insurer of last resort is a flawed idea, as Medicaid and Medicare have both proved to be flawed programs.

3. We have no money left. Our treasuries are depleted.

I can expand upon these three points if necessary, but I can't see this discussion end happily.

[TheGame]

Bond would you say the current state of US's health care is better then countries that have adopted this system? I don't. So using historic results for something they have not directly tried doesn't hold much water. And it shows that its not a flawed idea.

I'd rather not compare this specific plan to other plans that are not the same thing. The overall model itself has shown to work.

Last numbers I heard, US is the country that pays the absolute most for healthcare per year, and has the 37th best coverage. That's unacceptable. What would you propose we do to fix this system and change the results? (I only bolded because I'm curious about this and don't want it overlooked.)

I think the problem a system that is private-only is that the companies are more built to make a profit off of the healthcare industry. So they will take more steps towards trying to turn a greater profit opposed to trying to care for people's health. Which is the most simplistic problem with this system.

One thing to keep in mind is that healthcare is something that people need. Once again, lets throw in the example of education.. Private schools still exist, and public schools still exist. Just because a public school insures that everybody gets a chance, doesn't mean there won't be a place for private schools. Could you imagine if a country allowed their education system to be completly privately run? High costs for schools at all levels, and if you don't have the money you're just out of luck and have to be put into a world of debt?

Would you really be shocked if their system yielded bad results?

[Bond]

Before I reply, I would like to point out one potential issue with this discussion:

Health care reform is a very wide and complex field. To debate something that broadly would be nearly impossible. I would suggest the scope of the discussion be limited.

So, before I answer your many questions, I would first like to explain a little more of my argument, if possible, using my previous three points:

1. Government intervention has historically raised health care costs, and will continue to do so if the government's role is increased (did you know that the government created today's insurance/HMO/PPO companies?).

Allow me to first use a few relevant and important statistical charts:

http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/2209/gdpvspercapita.png

This chart depicts health care expenditures as percent of GDP and per capita. As you can see health care expenditures have nearly tripled as a percent of GDP since the 1960s, as well as the cost per capita of health care. This begs the question: what has lead to this enormous increase in the cost of health care?

http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/8404/allitemsvsmedicalcare.png

This chart depicts average annual CPI change (%) by component. Once again we see the rise in medical care significantly outpacing the change of all other items. And, again, this begs the question, why?

For the answer to this question, I harkon back to my original point, that the rapid (and recent) rise in health care costs is primarily due to the advent of insurance/HMO/PPO companies, which were mandated by, and heavily regulated, by the government. In fact, the health insurance industry is perhaps the most heavily regulated industry in our country.

For an exact explanation of what HMO/PPO companies are and how they function, I would recommend outside sources, as I don’t want to go into too much detail concerning them. Suffice to say, they are a middle man, between you and your doctor. Middle men naturally raise the price of any good, as they have raised the price of health care.

Let’s consult one more chart, which depicts who is paying for health care costs:

http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/7082/paymentsource.png

Here again we see a stark contrast from the 1960s to present day. During the 1960s, the majority of health care was paid by out-of-pocket, and a small fraction was paid by the federal government. Present day, only a small fraction is paid by out-of-pocket, and payments by the federal government have quadrupled. I would, again, correlate this back to the rise of the HMO/PPO, as mandated by the federal government.

(These charts are derived from numbers provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.)

2. A single-payer system and/or an insurer of last resort is a flawed idea, as Medicaid and Medicare have both proved to be flawed programs.

There are many misconceptions surrounding programs such as Medicaid and Medicare. Let me use an example from Medicaid to explain this. Medicaid is the federal health program for low income families and individuals. Now, many assume that, when an individual enters a hospital and requires immediate surgery that the government pays fully for this procedure, as the individual is covered under Medicaid. This, is not so. The government pays a mere 40 cents on the dollar, and the hospital must pay the remaining 60 cents. The hospital is, in effect, paying for the hospital to perform the procedure. This extra cost, that the hospital must legally incur, is passed on to the hospital’s paying clients (those with private insurance). This, in turn, raises the rates of private insurance. Of specific note, is that private hospitals that are not religiously affiliated will often pass Medicaid customers off to religiously affiliated hospitals, as they know that those hospitals will not turn them down. As I hope you can see, this is a broken system for the hospital, and those who own private insurance. A single-payer / insurer of last resort system would logically function in a similar way, and be equally damaging.

3. We have no money left. Our treasuries are depleted.

This is perhaps the simplest of my three points. In an ideal world, where our government has a surplus of funds, a public option may make sense financially (although number one and two would still be an issue), but this is not the case. Our country has an enormous debt, a devalued currency, and overstretched empire. If there is one thing we simply cannot afford, it is public health care. Perhaps if we had saved more wisely as a country that would not be the case, but, it is not.

Please reference this chart (which shows personal savings as a percent of disposable personal income) to enforce my point:

http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/1429/savingsrate.png

(Source: Federal Reserve Statistical Release: Flow of Funds Accounts of the United States, Historical Data [1975-200])

Lastly, I should note the majority of my knowledge concerning this subject is derived from an internship that I had last summer at a Top 30 health care system.

--------

I will now try to address a few of your questions.


Bond would you say the current state of US's health care is better then countries that have adopted this system? I don't. So using historic results for something they have not directly tried doesn't hold much water. And it shows that its not a flawed idea.
I don't which one is "better." This seems to be your personal opinion on the matter. I would say they are different, but without evidence to support your claim, it is hard to reply.

I'd rather not compare this specific plan to other plans that are not the same thing. The overall model itself has shown to work.
Evidence? I would in fact introduce the opposite, reference England's National Health Service, which in 2006 had a deficit of around 500 million pounds.

Last numbers I heard, US is the country that pays the absolute most for healthcare per year, and has the 37th best coverage.
Source? What was the methodology for these ratings?

What would you propose we do to fix this system and change the results? (I only bolded because I'm curious about this and don't want it overlooked.)
Generally speaking, I would advocate a return to less government intervention, when more payments for health care were made out-of-pocket. This would proportionatly decrease the cost that the individual pays for health care, as government intervention in industries inherently raises prices. I do not have a more specific proposal, as I have not given this issue the adequate amount of research it would deserve.

Would you really be shocked if their system yielded bad results?
Not entirely sure who the pronoun "their" refers to. If you are referring to the public option, then no, I would not be shocked if it yielded bad results.

[Angrist]

I don't care much about what system is used, but I'll tell the situation in Holland.

We have had a system of public healthcare for tens of years now. In the last 10 years or so they're slowly privatizing it again. Right now it's sort of an combination of governmental and private.

First of all: everybody has to have a health insurance. At the moment you have to pick a insurance company yourself. Prices, quality, services etc. vary a little, but not much. You have many options, for example a dental insurance.

I pay around €100 a month. I think it's like €90 basis + €10 optional insurances.

Here comes the interesting part: the government finances you, based on how much money you earn. I get almost €60 a month, which is probably around the max, because I'm a poor student.

So effectively I pay €40 a month.

I can go to any hospital, dentist, etc. I want, and give them my insurance information.
I'll have to pay the first €150 of my yearly costs myself, but after that 80%-100% gets paid by my insurance.

I like it. :) It works.

[TheGame]

I said:
Last numbers I heard, US is the country that pays the absolute most for healthcare per year, and has the 37th best coverage.

You said:
Source? What was the methodology for these ratings?

Wiki says: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States
Active debate over health care reform in the United States concerns questions of a right to health care, access, fairness, efficiency, cost, and quality. The World Health Organization (WHO), in 2000, ranked the U.S. health care system as the highest in cost, first in responsiveness, 37th in overall performance, and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study).[5][6] The WHO study has been criticized in a study published in Health Affairs for its methodology and lack of correlation with user satisfaction ratings.[7] A 2008 report by the Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States last in the quality of health care among the 19 compared countries.

I couldn't tell you about the methodology directly, that'd be something for you to research.

My reply to your first and second points would be the fact that the public option will only be an option. If the quality/prices of private healthcare are better then people can easilly just stick with them or go back. The point of the public option is to keep these companies in check without directly setting more regulations on top of them, to improve the quality of healthcare, and lower the price.

The public option isn't medicare, or medicaid.

As for the third point if there being no money.. I think healthcare is one of those things that government has to have a foot in period. Its not a luxury, its a basic human need. (If it isn't, then take it out of prisons) And as you pointed out, simply adding regulations to the existing companies doesn't work. And giving out govt money to people to pay for it does not solve the problem of quality or change anything for people who have coverage.

I would agree with the idea of the goverment backing out as far as regulations that raise the costs for the existing companies.. however I think that doing that alone won't cause prices to go down or quality to go up. In my opinion the public option needs to be made to help mode the standards for insurance. If the private companies want to offer better services and charge more, then they're free to do that.

[Bond]

I couldn't tell you about the methodology directly, that'd be something for you to research.
Actually, the burden of proof is on you to clarify evidence that you used to support your claim.


Other than that, I have very little to say in reply to your post, as you have presented your personal opinion, which is fine, but I cannot offer a rebuttal against a personal opinion.

I would only note that I have presented a historical overview of why healthcare costs are so high, along with statistical charts and graphs to support my view.

I hope that I have presented to you a "good" argument against a public option.

[TheGame]

Actually, the burden of proof is on you to clarify evidence that you used to support your claim.

I provided a reliable link to you that shows where the numbers came from(a link to a completly neutral online encyclopedia), and quoted the part that shows the source of the numbers. Which is more then you did to support those graphs. If you feel the source of the numbers are unreliable, and weren't suitible for this arguement (or suitable to be posted on wiki), then its your choice to persue that.

With that said, mind posting a link for everyone to see that shows those same graphs in that same context?

I would only note that I have presented a historical overview of why healthcare costs are so high, along with statistical charts and graphs to support my view.

I hope that I have presented to you a "good" argument against a public option.

I think the base problem with your arguement is that you fail to acknowledge the fact that a public healcare option is different from medicare and medicaid. Since the point of the public healthcare option is to help with the prices for people who CAN (or... shall I say 'should be able to') afford medical insurance and people who do have jobs, along with the elderly and people in poverty. This is a universal system, not something aimed directly at people who can't help themselves to an extent.

And you fail to acknowledge that fact that healthcare is not something that should be ran completly by the private sector, and that its a human need instead of a luxury. You completly ignored my comparision to public schooling. (The last thing you quoted in your second post was the closest you came to acknowledging it, and you completly missed the point making a reply out of context)

Do you honestly think the healthcare field is something that the government shouldn't have a foot in whatsoever?

[Fyacin]

Wait, Wikipedia is completely neutral now? LOL
And I don't think our Public school system is exactly a shining example to base health care on.

[Bond]

I would move to end this discussion, as I see it going no where positive. But, at the risk of sounding rude and/or a cop out, I will reply to your last post. I took care to reply to every single one of your sentences, as you criticized me for not doing in the past.

I provided a reliable link to you that shows where the numbers came from(a link to a completly neutral online encyclopedia), and quoted the part that shows the source of the numbers. Which is more then you did to support those graphs. If you feel the source of the numbers are unreliable, and weren't suitible for this arguement (or suitable to be posted on wiki), then its your choice to persue that.
Your position on this matter is not logical. You introduced evidence. I then questioned you as to the methodology of the evidence you presented. The burden is on you, in a logical argument, to explain that methodology. You can refuse to do so, which is fine, but I am just letting you know that is where the burden rests.

Secondly, I am not so sure if I would classify Wikipedia as a "reliable link." Perhaps it is, but this is debatable. I would also note a strong criticism of the methodology used within your very quotation of Wikipedia. See the bold sentence:

Active debate over health care reform in the United States concerns questions of a right to health care, access, fairness, efficiency, cost, and quality. The World Health Organization (WHO), in 2000, ranked the U.S. health care system as the highest in cost, first in responsiveness, 37th in overall performance, and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study).[5][6] The WHO study has been criticized in a study published in Health Affairs for its methodology and lack of correlation with user satisfaction ratings.[7]


With that said, mind posting a link for everyone to see that shows those same graphs in that same context?

The CPI composite information is provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics archives, found here: http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpi_dr.htm

The time composite of savings rates was compiled from the "Federal Reserve Statistical Release: Flow of Funds Accounts of the United States, Historical Data [1975-200]" as I already noted in my original post.

The charts were compiled by a professor that I worked with last year. He holds a PhD from Wharton, and teaches at the #2 Risk Management & Insurance school in the country. I consider him a reliable source.

I think the base problem with your arguement is that you fail to acknowledge the fact that a public healcare option is different from medicare and medicaid.
My showcase of medicare and medicaid is to use historical evidence that will infer how a public option would function. While I agree that medicare, medicaid, and a public option are different beasts, they are beasts that have the same mother. The inherent problems of medicare and medicaid as far as reimbursements (reference my hospital example in my second post) will remain, as well as other inherent issues of government intervention in the private sector.

Since the point of the public healthcare option is to help with the prices for people who CAN (or... shall I say 'should be able to') afford medical insurance and people who do have jobs, along with the elderly and people in poverty.
This is the same logic that the government used to create the very HMOs and PPOs that are now blamed for driving up the prices of health care.

This is a universal system, not something aimed directly at people who can't help themselves to an extent.
Okay.

And you fail to acknowledge that fact that healthcare is not something that should be ran completly by the private sector, and that its a human need instead of a luxury.
That is your opinion, which I respect, but you should be aware that there are adversarial opinions.

You completly ignored my comparision to public schooling. (The last thing you quoted in your second post was the closest you came to acknowledging it, and you completly missed the point making a reply out of context)
I did not consider your "public school analogy" to be germane to the discussion of a "Public option for health care." I did not want to divert our discussion to the education system. I acknowledge your comparison.

Do you honestly think the healthcare field is something that the government shouldn't have a foot in whatsoever?
I answered this question previously:

Generally speaking, I would advocate a return to less government intervention, when more payments for health care were made out-of-pocket. This would proportionatly decrease the cost that the individual pays for health care, as government intervention in industries inherently raises prices.

[TheGame]

I think our base disagreement is that in your opinion healthcare should be handled by the private setor, and in mine I think that healthcare is something that the government has to have a foot in no matter what because its a basic human need. Also you don't seem to trust that the government can make a change for the better, while I do.

Just because a collection of old programs that are completly different didn't work holds no bearing on on if this program will work or not. All I know is the system as is, is extremely broken and its going to take some major changes to fix it.

I guess my trust lies in the government, and I'm willing to give them a chance to change.. while your trust lies in the corperations. I personally think that it makes more sense to trust people who are pushing for fairness, then trust people who are pushing to make money and line a CEO's pocket. If regulations were lightened up, I wouldn't hold my breath for prices to drop. Though I could see those corperations getting their most profitable years.

[manasecret]

"Health Care Stories for America" (http://stories.barackobama.com/healthcare/)


Megan
Altadena, CA (http://stories.barackobama.com/healthcare/stories/near?query=Altadena%2C+CA)
http://dl6rt5cav460m.cloudfront.net/attachments/48723/MegansCircle_medium.jpg Blue Shield of California is denying me life-saving and life-prolonging treatments. I am 36 years old and have Blue Shield HMO health insurance coverage through my employer. In January 2009, I was diagnosed with metastatic (stage 4) breast cancer. When discovered, it had already spread to my bones, lungs, liver, and brain. My doctors prescribed a medication that targets and removes the cancer throughout the body like a "smart bomb"; however Blue Shield of California denied coverage of my doctors' recommended treatment. Blue Shield also denied a radiation procedure that would target and remove the two lesions in my brain. In both cases, Blue Shield denied the original requests and subsequent appeals I filed on the grounds that the treatments are not a medical necessity. I have learned that insurance companies will use "medical necessity" as an excuse to not cover treatment when it appears that the patient is "too sick" (read: not worth it). I am paying out-of-pocket for these life-saving and life-prolonging treatments, and intend to file an appeal to the State Dept. of Managed Care. A Seattle journalist who runs the website www.assertivepatient.com posted this article on my situation: http://www.assertivepatient.com/2009/03/ive-run-out-of-words-for-outrage.html My friends have started a group on Facebook called "Megan's Circle" which will provide updates on my battle with Blue Shield, and collect donations to help defer the costs of the denied treatments. Megan Jones Altadena, CA




Michael
Bham, MI (http://stories.barackobama.com/healthcare/stories/near?query=Bham%2C+MI)
http://dl6rt5cav460m.cloudfront.net/attachments/42270/McGill_medium.jpg In 1993 in Alabama, my wife and I were both employed by the same employer. The employer went bankrupt. When we looked into COBRA we found it was not available, because COBRA only regulates an existing insurance contract. In bankruptcy, the contract is suspended, hence no COBRA. Because of my unique medical history, I found it impossible to buy any health insurance for myself, at any price; my solution was to enroll as a UAB student solely to be able to qualify for the student health insurance. To cover my wife and two small children, I bought a family policy that covered them, but not me--although I was the policy holder and responsible for the premiums. THE MORAL OF THE STORY: employment-linked health insurance is a very bad idea. COBRA is more expensive even when it's available, and COBRA IS NOT ALWAYS AVAILABLE! In addition, it makes no sense at all from a public health standpoint to give to insurance companies the ability to cherry-pick their liabilities by excluding pre-existing conditions. As far as I'm concerned, the insurance industry has proven itself a poor steward steward of the public interest, and it does not deserve a place at the table for reform discussions. I support HR 676, and I think it's time to confront this issue instead of letting political fiction color the discussion.




James
Phoenix, AZ (http://stories.barackobama.com/healthcare/stories/near?query=Phoenix%2C+AZ)
http://dl6rt5cav460m.cloudfront.net/attachments/45153/Black_and_white_2Email_medium.jpg I have been an entrepreneur for 40 years. I have started several small companies providing hundreds of jobs over the years, many of which were in industries which did not typically offer employees health insurance. Often this made it impossible to offer employer paid insurance and still remain competitive. I have watched people I care about risking their financial security and health because care was unavailable and, or unaffordable. As buyers of individual health coverage, my wife and I have had to navigate the insurance company rules regarding preexisting conditions. At time we had different members of the family insured by different carriers because we could not get new affordable coverage when companies raised rates on policy groups in an attempt to drive out the sick and to cherry pick only healthy people always simply for profits. Those healthy peoplewill eventually become the ones who need care and will be "uninsurable." What an appalling word to describe a whole group of our fellow human beings who have become insurance outcastes facing not only their illness but financial ruin simply becuse they were not included in the system. I am now sixty, 5 years away from Mdicare and uninsurable. My wife is fifty eight and after paying premiums for 40 years, we can no longer afford coverage. The concept of insurance; pooling revenue to weather individual hardship, is one of the miraculous components of our communal lives. It does not work unless all of us participate, pay our way, help those who can't and recognize that taking care of each other is a moral obligation. I find it incredible that those who are leading the charge against national health insurance are often closely aligned with the religious community. How can they wail about the elimination of a clump of fetal cells but stand by idly while there fellow humans suffer.


Three of many more stories.



The health care system is broken if stories like these can happen. Health care is a basic need, and I think that there should at least be a public option that anyone can get.

[Professor S]

I am by no means orthodox in this area, but I am not surprisingly against public healthcare as the main source of healthcare for Americans, although I do support it as a backstop for those who have limited access. I've also written on this subject more than a couple times due to my experiences with public healthcare and it's mistreatment of my father in law, so I've exhausted most of my details on this matter.

Instead of rehashing ideas listed above, I'll try and simplify a few of my thoughts on this:

1) The current single payer proposal asks healthcare companies to reduce costs associated with healthcare. At the same time the goal is to add a supposed 40 million people on to healthcare benefit plans. IMO this will inevitably lead to a reduction in services or rationing them (basic mathematics). I know that part of the control is intended to help reduce waste and such, but see my comments below.

2) While government can be good at regulating and policing private bodies, it's always been proven to be woefully inadequate at RUNNING anything. Waste, quotas, corruption and politics tend to make decisions instead of professionals (see public education for an example). I've always found it curious that every public societal function that is controlled by the government is continually and unendingly ridiculed, yet the answer to all of this criticism is "make it bigger/throw more money at it".

3) While single payer systems are quite good at general health maintenance, they are HORRIBLE at providing specialist care and often deny service to those who need it (rationing) due to age, current health issues, lifestyle, etc. Manasecret cited several horror stories of American healthcare, and I'm sure there are many more, and I could cite just as many horror stories of people being denied care or dying while waiting for a specialist. There will always be these stories no matter who is in charge, and I don't see them getting any less frequent if the provider of halthcare gets larger and even more topheavy and impersonal.

4) We have to think about the insurance costs and how they are involved in all of this. Malpractice insurance is so high due to lawsuits and exorbinate payouts. Tort reform has to be part of this conversation or else much of our tax money for healthcare will be going into the pockets of lawyers when we think it's going towards service.

5) Before scrapping the American way of providing healthcare, we need to think about how that will affect the world's healthcare. America is currently the leader in creating and providing the highest level of individual healthare in the world. We are the home bases for international pharmacutical companies and when someone wants the best doctor in the world in any one particular area, they come to the US. These pharm companies and doctors created the latest and most innovative techniques, drugs and medical equipment in the world, which is then used by the rest of the world. To essentially castrate the center of medical innovation the world over could have disasterous effects on world health, not just American health.

6) Logistics need to be a part of this discussion. We're not talking about socializing the healthcare of th small country. We're talking about socializing the healthcare of the better part of 400 million people.

I'm not one to say hat the American healthcare system is perfect, it's absolutely not perfect... but nothing is. We keep pushing forward with these radical ideas with no real thought towards unintended consequences all because there are flaws in what we deem should be perfect.

We need to keep what makes American healthcare great for the best of us, and work to improve it for the rest of us.

Most importantly, we can't this become a means of controlling human behavior. Single payer options could quickly become a means for legitimizing intolerance and Big Brother like mandates in the name of the "greater good".

[Bond]

The Democratic health care bill appears to not be deficit neutral (as claimed), according to the CBO:

House Democratic legislation overhauling the nation's health care system would add more than $230 billion to the federal budget deficit over the next ten years, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the official scorekeeper of legislation on Capitol Hill.

That assessment means the legislation violates one of main principles that President Barack Obama has set for any health-care legislation: that it do nothing to increase the deficit. The report is likely to increase doubts that centrist Democrats have expressed about the $1 trillion package, and could stall action in the House.

The $239 billion gap is identified in a report sent late Friday by CBO to House Democrats. CBO analyzed the House bill as it was brought before the Ways and Means Committee.

Source: WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124791492292561969.html#articleTabs%3Darticle)

[TheGame]

I'm not one to say hat the American healthcare system is perfect, it's absolutely not perfect... but nothing is. We keep pushing forward with these radical ideas with no real thought towards unintended consequences all because there are flaws in what we deem should be perfect.

I hadn't seen this point before, prof you bring foward a very reasonable arguement.. But once again my base disagreement is in the fact that this should be handled 100% by the private sector.

The point of the public option is for healthcare to be available to anyone, instead of it just being a luxury. While you can talk bad about government run things like public schooling, social security, law enforcement etc.. the point of these things are to make these human needs available to everyone.

A public school is not the best for a student to go to, that's why there's private schools. Law enforcement isn't the best security for everyone, that's why people hire bodygaurds. I don't see any direct complaints from the public about social security.. but I'm sure if they hate it enough they don't have to go through such systems. (but good luck getting private insurance for a reasonable price if you're old and sick)

The point is to give people an OPTION that is not based in making a profit off of you, and that is not trying to deny you care when you really get sick.

If the government programs are so bad, why aren't politicians openly fighting against it. Why isn't anyone trying to get rid of medicare and medicaid? Why isn't anyone trying to get rid of the public schooling system? Of course I know why nobody does that, and yes there reasons for not doing it is reasonable.. But I think healthcare is something that should fit into the same category and shouldn't be handled by a regulated private sector.

I think the public option should be made, and once its there.. when it has some issues we should dow hat we can to try and fix it.

While government can be good at regulating and policing private bodies, it's always been proven to be woefully inadequate at RUNNING anything. Waste, quotas, corruption and politics tend to make decisions instead of professionals (see public education for an example). I've always found it curious that every public societal function that is controlled by the government is continually and unendingly ridiculed, yet the answer to all of this criticism is "make it bigger/throw more money at it".

I'd rather it be in this position then where it is now. Where politicians are taking 'donations' from these private health insurance companies to vote with them, even though its clear that they're breaking the system as it is now.

I'm a supporter of capitalism, but the fact is that it doesn't work for everything. These companies mindset is to make as much money as possible, while spending as little money as possible. That's the true reason for all of the stories in manasecret's post.

At this point, I don't think there's any reasonable regulations that can be done on the private healthcare insurance companies without pretty much destorying what makes them profitable in the first place. Like setting regulations in there about renegotiating healthcare or dropping healthcare, or making it manditory to provide it to anyone regardless of age.. or no longer being able to discriminate on the price based on age... like wild things like that.. And even if things like that were set in, they'd either find loopholes, or blame the government directly for all of their problems based on the regulation in an effort to get the regulations lifted.

So why waste our time and money regulating them? We should make them compete with a proper healthcare system to start.

Why shouldn't healthcare be a right instead of a luxury?

[Professor S]

I hadn't seen this point before, prof you bring foward a very reasonable arguement.. But once again my base disagreement is in the fact that this should be handled 100% by the private sector.

Where is the disagreement? I never said the private sector should handle 100% of healthcare. In fact, I made a point to say that I think there should still be a backstop to insure that people who need some form of heathcare get it.

And by the way, currently healthcare isn't 100% private sector with Medicare and Medicaid, and what is private is highly conrolled by government regulations (ex. not being able to sell insurance across state lines)

As for the rest of your statement, I've innumerated my feelings regarding many of it in my first post and you've done little to answer my basic challenges. Instead, you've once again ignored my complete thoughts on the subject and replaced them with the fictional argument you'd like me to have so you have something to complain about. It's gotten to the point that it's virtually impossible to have a honest conversation with you about politics or public policy.

You can continue this conversation if you like, but I see no reason to.

[TheGame]

Instead, you've once again ignored my complete thoughts on the subject and replaced them with the fictional argument you'd like me to have so you have something to complain about. It's gotten to the point that it's virtually impossible to have a honest conversation with you about politics or public policy.

I'm not argueing with you directly, see the line you quoted? I could have sworn that I said your arguement was "very reasonable". You're telling one side of the story, I'm telling the other. I wouldn't call your arguement reasonable if I disagreed with most of what you had said...

I simply believe that a public option is going to play a key part in healthcare reform. Do I think it will be perfect? No. Do I think that it is a good possibility that it can suffer from a lot of issues that public education, medicare, and medicaid may have? Yup. But, do I think its a better road to go down then adding further regulation to the current healthcare system? Yes.

Historically private sector companies react to government regulations by raising prices, lowering quality, and blaming the government for these changes. I think its time to put accountability back into the hands of private insurance and for the government to create their own program in my opinion.

[Bond]

These companies mindset is to make as much money as possible, while spending as little money as possible. That's the true reason for all of the stories in manasecret's post.
That's not true. There are several types of non-profit health insurance companies, as well as mutual insurance companies, whose object is not profit.

[TheGame]

That's not true. There are several types of non-profit health insurance companies, as well as mutual insurance companies, whose object is not profit.

Care to give an example of an insurance company that would provide health insurance to anyone regardless of age and medical condition who does not have any concern about profit?

[Professor S]

I'm not argueing with you directly, see the line you quoted? I could have sworn that I said your arguement was "very reasonable". You're telling one side of the story, I'm telling the other. I wouldn't call your arguement reasonable if I disagreed with most of what you had said...

Ok, I think the problem we have here is misassociation. When you quote me and then start talking against 100% private healthcare, the reader makes the association between my argument and 100% privately funded healthcare and they believe you are claiming that is my argument. That understood, I think we can continue.

That said, while you've supposedly agreed that there is no perfect option, you've continued to argue against imperfection, i.e. "Care to give an example of an insurance company that would provide health insurance to anyone regardless of age and medical condition who does not have any concern about profit?" At leats thats close enough to an ideal perfect world argument as we're likely to see.

In that vein, my response will be not to argue for private healthcare, which ihas shown provide excellent but not universal healthcare, but against public that has shown to provide horrible but universal healthcare.

Here are some huge problems with universal public options:

1) If a universal public option is available, why would a smaller business provide a private policy at their expense or why would most people, especially young people, spend their own money on insurance if they could afford it when there is a alternative that a) they are already paying for in their taxes or b) is being paid for by rich people if the current funding solutions are to be believed? What would likely happen is that most company plans would disappear and the industry would react and your moderate healthcare plans would disappear, and what would remain are gold plated/luxury options for those who can afford it and high profile corporations who can use those plans as recruitment tools for the best and brightest. So you end up with great healthcare for the wealthy few and then an overcrowded, undermanned ghetto options for "everybody else". This only continues my general theory that progressive social engineering does more to divide the classes than bring them together.

2) Equity. Everyone pays, but what if one person is a marathon runner and eats only organic brocolli, and someone else loves vodka, smokes and twinkies? Is that "fair"? Will healthy eating and weightloss be made legal mandates or a fineable offense? If so, who makes those determinations and what exactly will they be? Will regular checkups become an obligation that is enforceable? Will sin taxes be added to items that are deemed a detriment to our health? This is the problem whe people make the mistake of mixing the "right" of healthare with public funding.

3) Precedent. If we look towards Canadian and European examples for what to expect from universal healthcare, we would ask 70% of our populace to receive care that is vastly inferior to what they are receiving now, so that the 30% (15% of which qualify for public options now) can get care. Why are we abandoning the majority who have what works to accomodate the minority who have nothing, many of whom choose to have nothing? Why can;t we keep what works and then improve what doesn't instead of abandoning everything for a system that we know FAILS.

4) Recourse. Right now if someone wants to sue a doctor for malpractice, they have no issues and if they win they'll receive damages. If healthcare is made public, you would literally have to sue the government. Did you know you can only sue the government if they say you can? In fact, supposedly part of the current bill bans companies from suing the federal government, and prevents the judicial system from hearing cases on the constitutionality the ban. Ooops! They removed the wrong breast! Too bad cancer-lady!

Here is an interesting article about the current Healthcare bill in question, with a link to the source document. I will state ahead of time, I have not fact checked this article, but I'm at work and leaving so I'll research it better later this weekend.

http://www.examiner.com/x-17412-Macon-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m7d24-What-it-contains-Horrors-in-the-new-health-care-bill

[Bond]

Care to give an example of an insurance company that would provide health insurance to anyone regardless of age and medical condition who does not have any concern about profit?
That's not what I said.

The problem with this argument is that you keep asking all of these loaded questions.

[Professor S]

That's not what I said.

The problem with this argument is that you keep asking all of these loaded questions.

He's not asking loaded questions, he's attempting to redefine your argument to fit his rhetorical liking. This is exactly what I described in above posts and why it is so difficult to have a serious discussion with him.

Anyway, I think a realistic solution to healthcare is not to destroy the current system, but the supplement it. If the current paradigm is as follows:

1) Middle and Upper class with private care
2) Working poor and lower middle class that are uninsured
3) Poor that qualify for public options

We need not trash everything, but instead insert a new solution to the gap in the middle that will not sabotage the private plans that supply excellent care and promote medical advances enjoyed by all.

My proposal is four fold:

1) Create a universal "Catastrophic Care" option to cover people in serious health conditions that require immediate lifesaving or extended life sustaining care (ex. gunshot wounds, car crashes and cancer).

2) Couple this by expanding the health savings plans started/expanded by Pres. Bush (one of the few things he did right domestically) that save pre-tax dollars and can be spent for healthcare tax-free. BUT, if the money is not spent in that year, the money is then taxed and returned to the investor with a small fine. This will encourage people to get yearly check-ups or even elect to get maintenance procedures done (stress tests, etc.). This will also allow people to negotiate with their doctors to get the best rates, because all healthcare providers are horrible payers and doctors will likely give discounts for cash/check/bank card in hand rather than waiting MONTHS or longer for payment through a provider.

3) Tort reform: The cost of malpractice insurance is killing the medical industry and causing excessive tests to be performed and rates to be exorbitant.

4) Let free market principles work FOR you, not against you: a) allow people to shop for insurance across state lines. b) instate tax benefits to pharmaceutical companies that release medicines to generic before their mandate expires c) etc.


I don't believe this option would threaten far superior and "luxury" private plans that pay for nearly everything, but it would also cover the uninsured without deemphasizing personal success/ambition, and inspire people to take better care of themselves. Now I'm sure there are plenty of holes in this plan, but keep in mind, this version is not out of committee yet... and it's only 4 paragraphs long. But I think THIS is more in the correct direction than the nonsense being proposed now, and would FAR less intrusive into private lives, but then again, I think the entire point of the current bill is to social engineer, not insure.

[TheGame]

That said, while you've supposedly agreed that there is no perfect option, you've continued to argue against imperfection, i.e. "Care to give an example of an insurance company that would provide health insurance to anyone regardless of age and medical condition who does not have any concern about profit?" At leats thats close enough to an ideal perfect world argument as we're likely to see.

I'm not sure what your point is here, are you saying the public option is incapible of doing this? I didn't even mention two of the biggest factors.. price and quality. That quote easily can have imperfections attached to it.

1) If a universal public option is available, why would a smaller business provide a private policy at their expense or why would most people, especially young people, spend their own money on insurance if they could afford it when there is a alternative that a) they are already paying for in their taxes or b) is being paid for by rich people if the current funding solutions are to be believed? What would likely happen is that most company plans would disappear and the industry would react and your moderate healthcare plans would disappear, and what would remain are gold plated/luxury options for those who can afford it and high profile corporations who can use those plans as recruitment tools for the best and brightest. So you end up with great healthcare for the wealthy few and then an overcrowded, undermanned ghetto options for "everybody else". This only continues my general theory that progressive social engineering does more to divide the classes than bring them together.

I see where you're coming from with this part, however when I compare this option to how it is now.. I'd prefer it to end as-written by you. I'd rather everone be covered, but wealthy people have special care... Then mostly everyone having screwed up insecure overpriced insurance.

2) Equity. Everyone pays, but what if one person is a marathon runner and eats only organic brocolli, and someone else loves vodka, smokes and twinkies? Is that "fair"? Will healthy eating and weightloss be made legal mandates or a fineable offense? If so, who makes those determinations and what exactly will they be? Will regular checkups become an obligation that is enforceable? Will sin taxes be added to items that are deemed a detriment to our health? This is the problem whe people make the mistake of mixing the "right" of healthare with public funding.

I don't think that is something that you should fear. We're already the most over weight country in the world as is, the most I could see happening is the doctors promoting fitness but not enforcing it. But even when you consider that, the country as-is is still horrible when it comes to health. How dare the government care about people's health!

3) Precedent. If we look towards Canadian and European examples for what to expect from universal healthcare, we would ask 70% of our populace to receive care that is vastly inferior to what they are receiving now, so that the 30% (15% of which qualify for public options now) can get care. Why are we abandoning the majority who have what works to accomodate the minority who have nothing, many of whom choose to have nothing? Why can;t we keep what works and then improve what doesn't instead of abandoning everything for a system that we know FAILS.

This is why you look at what they did wrong with their system and learn from their mistakes. It does not change the fact that its a good concept, and that if we handle it properly it has better potential to fix issues that we currently face with our healthcare system.

4) Recourse. Right now if someone wants to sue a doctor for malpractice, they have no issues and if they win they'll receive damages. If healthcare is made public, you would literally have to sue the government. Did you know you can only sue the government if they say you can? In fact, supposedly part of the current bill bans companies from suing the federal government, and prevents the judicial system from hearing cases on the constitutionality the ban. Ooops! They removed the wrong breast! Too bad cancer-lady!

Very good point. That's a point that I have not heard before, and I'll have to research it when it comes to government programs. However I have heard of claims by medicaid and medicare users. I'm sure that there would be some type of accountability for mistakes, and if there isn't in the version of the bill that's out now, I'm sure that's something that can be added into it.

And lets say in the end, the government cant be sued directly for mistakes with that system. Consider it another reason to go with private insurance! Nobody is forcing people to use the public option.

[TheGame]

He's not asking loaded questions, he's attempting to redefine your argument to fit his rhetorical liking. This is exactly what I described in above posts and why it is so difficult to have a serious discussion with him.

I wasn't the one quoting a one liner out of context to support my arguement, he was. If you're going to give a misleading reply, I'm going to answer it by adding back in the full context of what I said to begin with.

As for your ideas Prof, those are good changes to try. The only problem with it is that it doesn't exactly help with the incentives of the private health care insurance providers. In fact, with that "Catastrophic Care" idea it may give private insurance even MORE incentive to dump people they don't want off onto the government.

And what about people with medical conditions that need a high amount of upkeep on them? Where would you draw the line between someone who is going to have to look for public insurance and someone who is going to have to have to have a stroke first to be helped?

[Bond]

I wasn't the one quoting a one liner out of context to support my arguement, he was. If you're going to give a misleading reply, I'm going to answer it by adding back in the full context of what I said to begin with.
I was correcting a factually inaccurate statement you made, not trying to further advance my argument. The latter would be futile at this point.

[TheGame]

I was correcting a factually inaccurate statement you made, not trying to further advance my argument. The latter would be futile at this point.

When you remove or misunderstand context, then you can misinterperate a quote.

Let me draw it out more clear for you..

"I'm a supporter of capitalism, but the fact is that it doesn't work for everything. These companies mindset is to make as much money as possible, while spending as little money as possible. That's the true reason for all of the stories in manasecret's post."-TheGame

Which got a reply of:

"That's not true. There are several types of non-profit health insurance companies, as well as mutual insurance companies, whose object is not profit."-Bond

So I'm referring to the stories in manasecret's post, and why these people were denied care. And you reply saying that there are serveral non-profit insurance companies... but... we're kind of missing the link to where these non profit companies have anything to do with what I said. Unless they would cover those people who are in question, with their medical issues and backgrounds.

So to make it fit the ORIGINAL CONTEXT of what you had quoted, I created a "loaded question" to move you back to the point I was argueing in the first place, instead of playing into your little "gotcha" game of pulling a one-liner out of context to make it sound untrue.

[Professor S]

Game, at this point your logic is so scattered, contradictory and absent minded to me that I can't continue. At one point you seem to agree with my points in theory but then argue against what you had previously agreed with.

You say that private healthcare being available to the rich is ok, but then defend the public option by saying people who don't like it can buy the private care we've already established they can't afford.

When the idea of universal public care is challenged with specific questions and severe issues, you respond with responses that amount to "good point, but they'll fix/avoid/overcome that." with no real explanation how and we should just go with universal care anyway.

When we mention real problems with the current legislation, you just say they'll avoid them when the actual legislation isn't overcoming any of them.

In the end, I have no idea what your ideas on the subject are, beyond being for public options "damn the torpedoes", with all arguments leading to that end regardless of leaps of reality that must be taken to get there. Public healthcare does not default GOOD. There must be real solutions and challenges overcome, not simply a unthinking movement toward an immediate goal.

I can't even say whether or not I agree or disagree with your thoughts on healthcare, because I have no clue what those thoughts are after paragraph after paragraph of attempted discourse. I wish to be enlightened in these conversations, and I leave utterly dumbfounded.:(

[TheGame]

You say that private healthcare being available to the rich is ok, but then defend the public option by saying people who don't like it can buy the private care we've already established they can't afford.

Ok to clarify this, there's two ways I see private health insurance going if the public option is created.

1) Private insurance will try to compete with the public option by offering better quality at a more reasonable price.
2) Private insurance will not be able to compete with the quality that the public option offers at it's price, so it will move into being something only available to wealthy people.

If option one happens, and private insurance becomes more affordable, and they become more focused on quality and legitamate coverage.. then the health care system is fixed. Even if the public option sucks enough that private is still viable, it will force private insurance to make a change for a good to keep their base.

If option two happens, and private insurance pretty much dies and becomes something that only wealthy people will dish out the money for. Then it just proves that private insurance was broken to begin with. And I'd be the first to say good riddens.

The way I see it, if the public option isn't better then what is offered now.. or if the private companies are willing to make the changes they need to compete.. then people will not switch to it. In the end its an option.. if its not a better option then we have now, then there's no reason to switch.

When the idea of universal public care is challenged with specific questions and severe issues, you respond with responses that amount to "good point, but they'll fix/avoid/overcome that." with no real explanation how and we should just go with universal care anyway.

Ok, I'll be more specific if you be more specific. Please, explain to me why universal coverage didn't work in other countries, and why there is no possible way for the US to handle these problems presented with the public option differently.

"It didn't work there, so its not going to work here" is no more or less of a legit arguement then saying "We can learn from their mistakes".

[Bond]

When you remove or misunderstand context, then you can misinterperate a quote.

Let me draw it out more clear for you..

"I'm a supporter of capitalism, but the fact is that it doesn't work for everything. These companies mindset is to make as much money as possible, while spending as little money as possible. That's the true reason for all of the stories in manasecret's post."-TheGame

Which got a reply of:

"That's not true. There are several types of non-profit health insurance companies, as well as mutual insurance companies, whose object is not profit."-Bond

So I'm referring to the stories in manasecret's post, and why these people were denied care. And you reply saying that there are serveral non-profit insurance companies... but... we're kind of missing the link to where these non profit companies have anything to do with what I said. Unless they would cover those people who are in question, with their medical issues and backgrounds.

So to make it fit the ORIGINAL CONTEXT of what you had quoted, I created a "loaded question" to move you back to the point I was argueing in the first place, instead of playing into your little "gotcha" game of pulling a one-liner out of context to make it sound untrue.
I honestly couldn't reply to your entire post even if I wanted to, and won't at the risk of taking what you say "out of context." Your informal logic is both perplexing and extremely confusing. It is hard to have a serious and honest discussion with you because you are constantly changing the context of the discussion: from general, to specific, and finally to misconstrued when something does not go according to plan. Also, little to no evidence is ever offered, and sound basis is rarely laid for your opinions. Rather, the discussion ends up being more-or-less composed of personal opinions and rants. I suppose this is fine, but even in an opinion-based argument, the burden of proof eventually falls on you. You can't constantly shift that burden back to the other person. That's just unfair.

[TheGame]

I honestly couldn't reply to your entire post even if I wanted to, and won't at the risk of taking what you say "out of context." Your informal logic is both perplexing and extremely confusing. It is hard to have a serious and honest discussion with you because you are constantly changing the context of the discussion: from general, to specific, and finally to misconstrued when something does not go according to plan. Also, little to no evidence is ever offered, and sound basis is rarely laid for your opinions. Rather, the discussion ends up being more-or-less composed of personal opinions and rants. I suppose this is fine, but even in an opinion-based argument, the burden of proof eventually falls on you. You can't constantly shift that burden back to the other person. That's just unfair.

How about you learn not to just reply to one liners? That would really go a long way into helping your replies stay on subject. If you don't understand how to carry a real arguement other then replying to one liners out of context, then I can't help you.

I clearly put into my last post evidence of you quoting a one liner out of context. Honestly I don't know how this thread is going in this direction, and why I'm letting it go there. But if you want to question the validity of my arguements, question the whole point, not just one line that you feel its convienient to reply to.

So with that I'll leave you with another example of you quoting out of context, and if you want to continue with this side discussion I'll put an example in each until you understand why I don't care for your one liner pointless replies. Lets go back to the begining of the thread.

Post #3 in this thread I said:

"One thing to keep in mind is that healthcare is something that people need. Once again, lets throw in the example of education.. Private schools still exist, and public schools still exist. Just because a public school insures that everybody gets a chance, doesn't mean there won't be a place for private schools. Could you imagine if a country allowed their education system to be completly privately run? High costs for schools at all levels, and if you don't have the money you're just out of luck and have to be put into a world of debt?

Would you really be shocked if their system yielded bad results?"-TheGame

Now if you take that all as one point, and not two seperate points, its logical. But how did you reply? See post #4 in this thread.

"Not entirely sure who the pronoun "their" refers to. If you are referring to the public option, then no, I would not be shocked if it yielded bad results."-Bond

Wait, that doesn't make any sense as a reply... does it? Oh wait, that's because you only quoted the question in the second line and ignored the whole point that it was linked to!

I have many more examples of you doing this over the course of the whole thread. If you chose to continue to argue that your replies are in-context.

[Professor S]

Game, do you realize you just proved his point? We've asked you to provide real ideas and evidence for your opinions, and you've responded by changing the argument to one of whether or not your taking people out of context, which you just did. You criticize for us responding to sentences, when you skip vast parts of our posts and then continue to ignore the points held therein, and then ADD ideas to our posts so you have something to argue with.

I really struggled with the idea of posting this, but at this point I see no more articulate or appropriate response to this thread:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/eEhDZN0RFjw&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/eEhDZN0RFjw&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[TheGame]

I can't watch youtube at work, but I'll check when I'm at home.

And no, I didn't prove his point, I replied to the whole point of his post. As for your post, I'm trying to get away from this whole 'arguement analysis' thing that you're trying to push the thread into, so I replied to the issues you said that you are confused about.

[Professor S]

I can't watch youtube at work, but I'll check when I'm at home.

And no, I didn't prove his point, I replied to the whole point of his post. As for your post, I'm trying to get away from this whole 'arguement analysis' thing that you're trying to push the thread into, so I replied to the issues you said that you are confused about.

So if by "getting away from argument analysis" you mean reinterpreting what has been written to fit your argument, changing the argument when it fits your needs and ignoring inconvenient evidence and logical thought, then congratulations, you've succeeded... in utterly destroying what most rational people consider discourse.

You have to realize what you are avoiding is called the "Socratic method" and it is what all real public discourse is based on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method

I've come the the conclusion having a reasonable conversation with you on political or social issues is impossible. In future political/cultural threads, I'm simply going to ignore you.

[KillerGremlin]

2) Equity. Everyone pays, but what if one person is a marathon runner and eats only organic brocolli, and someone else loves vodka, smokes and twinkies? Is that "fair"? Will healthy eating and weightloss be made legal mandates or a fineable offense? If so, who makes those determinations and what exactly will they be? Will regular checkups become an obligation that is enforceable? Will sin taxes be added to items that are deemed a detriment to our health? This is the problem whe people make the mistake of mixing the "right" of healthare with public funding.

I don't think that is something that you should fear. We're already the most over weight country in the world as is, the most I could see happening is the doctors promoting fitness but not enforcing it. But even when you consider that, the country as-is is still horrible when it comes to health. How dare the government care about people's health!

http://www.infoplease.com/world/statistics/obesity.html

We are actually the 9th fattest country. What would be more interesting to look at is annual deaths from conditions like Diabetes and Heart Disease. You could make the case that this country suffers from a ton of deaths from weight disorders:
http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html
Major Cardiovasular Diseases being the number 1 cause of death and diabetes being the number 4 cause.

Again, though, these statistics would need to be weighed against other country's statistics.

I do believe a moral issue would arise (should the public have to pay for the quadruple bypass of someone who chose their lifestyle?). Besides pointing out that you neglected to rebuttal the moral premise of 'the exploitative unhealthy body' in social health care that Prof S made, I ask; how could doctors or the government enforce exercise? I ask this question not with debate in mind but simply to suggest public health care or not, the weight epidemic will continue to be an epidemic.

Edit: I do also want to clarify that it's not so much an "epidemic" as a social reaction to our lifestyles and diets. The term epidemic does not do the complicated problem that obesity is justice. Furthermore, the BMI scale used to determine obesity is flawed and that is (IMO) a factor in the inflated obesity statistics. But that really is irrelevant in this discussion...I just didn't want anyone to think I felt a particular way about the way people weigh. :D

[TheGame]

Percentage wise, are 9th. But look at the countries that are 1-8...

The population is 10,000 people in Nauru, 155,000 in Micronesia, 20,000 in Cook islands, 112,000 in Tonga, a whopping 1,398 in Niue, 188,000 in Samoa, 21,000 in Palau, and last but not least, 2.7 million in Kuwait.

And there's 300,000,000 (or 300 million) in the united states.

So you're right, we're not the fattest country percentage wise, but we're the home to the most fat people. And we're worse percentage wise then any compareable free western countries. :D

-EDIT-

I think I may as well reply to the other half of your post too. The government would not have to enforce excersize any more then private health insurance would. Since the public option would not be manditory. It'd be subject to its own premium, and not some direct tax like social security is. I don't see how a reasonable conclusion could be drawn that they would force people to stay in shape. (I could imagine them supporting it by offering some type of discount, or doing different things to help people get into shape since that'd help with the costs of the program.. but actually making it illegal to be unhealthy? Yeah right.)

As for your thoughts on BMI, I agree completly, its very out dated. Everybody is different.

[TheGame]

So if by "getting away from argument analysis" you mean reinterpreting what has been written to fit your argument, changing the argument when it fits your needs and ignoring inconvenient evidence and logical thought, then congratulations, you've succeeded... in utterly destroying what most rational people consider discourse.

You have to realize what you are avoiding is called the "Socratic method" and it is what all real public discourse is based on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method

I've come the the conclusion having a reasonable conversation with you on political or social issues is impossible. In future political/cultural threads, I'm simply going to ignore you.

Haha ok.. that's your choice. What I was chosing not to respond to, however, was pointles rederick that wouldn't have led to any meaningful discussion. Lets go back and look at the rest of the post that I was refering to.

Game, at this point your logic is so scattered, contradictory and absent minded to me that I can't continue. At one point you seem to agree with my points in theory but then argue against what you had previously agreed with.

My untyped responce to that would be something along the lines of "Ok and...?". I'm not argueing against something I previously agreed with, and I already disproved that when you brought up your so-called examples of this.

When we mention real problems with the current legislation, you just say they'll avoid them when the actual legislation isn't overcoming any of them.

Once again, nothing meaningful can come from this quote.. My reply to this at most would be: "'It didn't work there, so its not going to work here' is no more or less of a legit arguement then saying 'We can learn from their mistakes.'" Which I said before.

You're discussing in theory why you believe it won't work, which I haven't really challenged other then discussing in theory why it can work.

In the end, I have no idea what your ideas on the subject are, beyond being for public options "damn the torpedoes", with all arguments leading to that end regardless of leaps of reality that must be taken to get there. Public healthcare does not default GOOD. There must be real solutions and challenges overcome, not simply a unthinking movement toward an immediate goal.

Once again another thing that I addressed in the last post I made but didn't quote directly. But I'll just quote myself for the sake of not having you scroll back up again. :)

"Ok to clarify this, there's two ways I see private health insurance going if the public option is created.

1) Private insurance will try to compete with the public option by offering better quality at a more reasonable price.
2) Private insurance will not be able to compete with the quality that the public option offers at it's price, so it will move into being something only available to wealthy people.

If option one happens, and private insurance becomes more affordable, and they become more focused on quality and legitamate coverage.. then the health care system is fixed. Even if the public option sucks enough that private is still viable, it will force private insurance to make a change for a good to keep their base.

If option two happens, and private insurance pretty much dies and becomes something that only wealthy people will dish out the money for. Then it just proves that private insurance was broken to begin with. And I'd be the first to say good riddens.

The way I see it, if the public option isn't better then what is offered now.. or if the private companies are willing to make the changes they need to compete.. then people will not switch to it. In the end its an option.. if its not a better option then we have now, then there's no reason to switch."

In my opininon its win-win, if its relitively bad compared to what private insurance is willing to offer, it will only be for extreme cases that private inurance refuses to touch. But, if private insurance doesn't get their act together enough to compete, then it will become something bigger and private insurance will likely be pushed into something that the wealthy use only.

[Bond]

I'm going to try a new tactic, since nothing else has been effective.

In my opininon its win-win, if its relitively bad compared to what private insurance is willing to offer, it will only be for extreme cases that private inurance refuses to touch. But, if private insurance doesn't get their act together enough to compete, then it will become something bigger and private insurance will likely be pushed into something that the wealthy use only.
Who pays for the public option?

You do know that the premiums paid by citizens who choose to opt-in will not be enough to cover the entire cost of the program, correct?

Do you believe a public option would truly be deficit-neutral as President Obama claims it would be? Reference this article from the WSJ citing the CBO's (which is non-partisan) findings:

But the most damaging news came from Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Douglas Elmendorf, who said last week that the White House’s health-care proposals would not “reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount.” This shattered the central claim Mr. Obama has been making: that his health-care plan controls costs. In a July 17 letter, Mr. Elmendorf added that the House’s health-care bill would result in a “net increase in the federal budget deficit of $239 billion” over 10 years. That’s likely a low-ball estimate because it assumes that Congress will increase taxes by $583 billion over the next decade.

[Professor S]

Once again another thing that I addressed in the last post I made but didn't quote directly. But I'll just quote myself for the sake of not having you scroll back up again. :)

"Ok to clarify this, there's two ways I see private health insurance going if the public option is created.

1) Private insurance will try to compete with the public option by offering better quality at a more reasonable price.
2) Private insurance will not be able to compete with the quality that the public option offers at it's price, so it will move into being something only available to wealthy people.

If option one happens, and private insurance becomes more affordable, and they become more focused on quality and legitamate coverage.. then the health care system is fixed. Even if the public option sucks enough that private is still viable, it will force private insurance to make a change for a good to keep their base.

If option two happens, and private insurance pretty much dies and becomes something that only wealthy people will dish out the money for. Then it just proves that private insurance was broken to begin with. And I'd be the first to say good riddens.

The way I see it, if the public option isn't better then what is offered now.. or if the private companies are willing to make the changes they need to compete.. then people will not switch to it. In the end its an option.. if its not a better option then we have now, then there's no reason to switch."

In my opininon its win-win, if its relitively bad compared to what private insurance is willing to offer, it will only be for extreme cases that private inurance refuses to touch. But, if private insurance doesn't get their act together enough to compete, then it will become something bigger and private insurance will likely be pushed into something that the wealthy use only.

Game, I already addressed the illogical nature of your points one and two multiple time in this thread. Re-posting old arguments that we've already answered does not make our responses not exist.

It's not my or Bond's fault if you refuse to see them, or answer "Haha, Ok..." and then continue with your nonsensical argument ignoring the ideas and evidence placed in front of you. You are oblivious and I think perhaps have some kind of pathological disorder.

[TheGame]

You are oblivious and I think perhaps have some kind of pathological disorder.

Nah I just think you're getting old and can't accept that ideas other then yours work. And you don't seem to understand that I'm not in direct opposition to your concepts and ideas. You refuse to acknowlege that when I have an opinion supporting the public option that you disagree with, that I'm not using that idea as a direct arguement to what you have said. You don't seem to understand that I'm the only one here being open minded, and you are the only one being completly closed minded. You don't understand that you have no basis for bashing the logic of my posts and you have yet to present a valid example that shows otherwise.

And lastly, you don't understand that this whole discussion is about different concepts and ideas about how to fix healthcare, and that its based 100% off of opinion.

So yeah, if you feel like I ignored any of your points against private insurance feel free to bring it back up. But I think I've noted very clearly the things I agree with and disagree with. For opinions and facts that I do agree with, I usually don't waste as much time touching on.

[TheGame]

I'm going to try a new tactic, since nothing else has been effective.

Ok

Who pays for the public option?

You do know that the premiums paid by citizens who choose to opt-in will not be enough to cover the entire cost of the program, correct?

Initially it will not be enough to cover the costs, you're right. Tax dollars will give birth to this program.

If it becomes the standard type of healthcare for the country and private insurance is pushed into being something for the wealthy.. then it will eventually get to the point where it pays for itself. Though it will pay for itself without pushing for making a profit, and without dealing with as much upper management as private health insurance has. Which will keep the costs at a lower then average rate (in theory).

Now, if it fails to become the standard, and private health insurance companies find a way to keep their price and quality comparable.. then the public option will be pushed into a corner and would be like Prof S's "Catastrophic Care" which will only deal with cases private insurance reasonably would not want to handle. If this happens, tax dollars will continue to pay for it, but it would still address issues that people have with the healthcare system as-is.

I would not mind either result.

The biggest fear I have about the public option, however, is that the governemnt will not play fair with it and continue to push private health insurance into failure by directly making changes in laws that make it impossible for them to compete. As long as the public option remains an OPTION, its win win.

As you (and prof) mentioned earlier in the thread, loosening up regulations on private health insurance would do some good. However I don't feel that it would help without the public option playing some role in it. My problem with a "Catastrophic Care" type thing is that there's no potential for it to pay for itself whatsoever. If the public option morphs into that, we can at lest say we tried to save government money.

Do you believe a public option would truly be deficit-neutral as President Obama claims it would be? Reference this article from the WSJ citing the CBO's (which is non-partisan) findings:

That would depend completly on how sucsessfull the program is as I stated above. Of course to start, it will not be deficit-neutral. Anyone with common sense knows that it will take money to get this thing rolling. As for the projection in the article, that would be unfortunate, but I think that it would be reasonable. It doesn't specify how much per year it would be exactly, because the truth is nobody knows. But it's a safe assumption that it will start off high then lower over time... but it depends on too many factors.

[Bond]

Initially it will not be enough to cover the costs, you're right. Tax dollars will give birth to this program.
So, if one already possesses private health insurance, and wants nothing to do with a public option, is it moral to require that that person pay for the public option through mandated taxation?

If it becomes the standard type of healthcare for the country and private insurance is pushed into being something for the wealthy.. then it will eventually get to the point where it pays for itself.
How would it pay for itself if the program simply had more citizens who wish to opt-in?

Though it will pay for itself without pushing for making a profit, and without dealing with as much upper management as private health insurance has. Which will keep the costs at a lower then average rate (in theory).
Statistically speaking, workers in health care management are significantly underpaid compared to management in other fields with similar education levels (MBAs, fields such as financial companies, accounting firms, etc).

Is it not possible that the reason why health care is so expensive is because of excessive government intervention (as the graphs I originally posted eluded to)?

Now, if it fails to become the standard, and private health insurance companies find a way to keep their price and quality comparable.. then the public option will be pushed into a corner and would be like Prof S's "Catastrophic Care" which will only deal with cases private insurance reasonably would not want to handle. If this happens, tax dollars will continue to pay for it, but it would still address issues that people have with the healthcare system as-is.
Okay (I wanted to make sure to quote every single paragraph so nothing was taken "out of context").

I would not mind either result.
Okay.

The biggest fear I have about the public option, however, is that the governemnt will not play fair with it and continue to push private health insurance into failure by directly making changes in laws that make it impossible for them to compete. As long as the public option remains an OPTION, its win win.
This is the exact problem with medicare and medicaid, I hope you realize. The assumption with medicare and medicaid is that the government burdens the majority of the cost of the programs, but this is false. Rather, the majority, sixty cents on every dollar, is paid for by hospitals and health systems that must treat medicare and medicaid patients. Do you see that this is one of the reasons why insurance premiums are so high for private paying customers?

As you (and prof) mentioned earlier in the thread, loosening up regulations on private health insurance would do some good. However I don't feel that it would help without the public option playing some role in it. My problem with a "Catastrophic Care" type thing is that there's no potential for it to pay for itself whatsoever. If the public option morphs into that, we can at lest say we tried to save government money.
The theory of insurance is to save the end consumer money by pooling together similar risk exposures. This is why insurance companies are picky when choosing customers, otherwise, the theory of insurance collapses as the risk exposures are no longer similar in nature, which would in turn no longer save the end consumer money. If the public option were to accept any consumer, with varying risk exposures, the option would not operate in the traditional form of an "insurance company." Therefore, how do you propose that the option operate? How would it be able to pay out the money necessary if too many of the consumers had highly correlated risks, or were prone to have the same risk over and over again?

That would depend completly on how sucsessfull the program is as I stated above. Of course to start, it will not be deficit-neutral. Anyone with common sense knows that it will take money to get this thing rolling. As for the projection in the article, that would be unfortunate, but I think that it would be reasonable. It doesn't specify how much per year it would be exactly, because the truth is nobody knows. But it's a safe assumption that it will start off high then lower over time... but it depends on too many factors.
Okay.

[TheGame]

So, if one already possesses private health insurance, and wants nothing to do with a public option, is it moral to require that that person pay for the public option through mandated taxation?

That depends on if they're satisfied with the state of their insurance. Unfortunately, this is a democracy, so the majority of the people will have a say in what tax dollars should be spent for and what it shouldn't. By people elecing Obama president they have voted for healthcare reform, by people allowing democrats to have so many seats in the house and senate they have voted for healthcare reform, and polls have shown that most people are for a public option for healthcare.

I don't want to pay for a lot of programs that I will never use, but I dont' disagree with the process that got things to this point. I believe that healthcare is a right, not a luxury. And like any rights I feel that its moral for it to be protected by the law.

How would it pay for itself if the program simply had more citizens who wish to opt-in?

Because people who opt in would have to pay a set premium to get the insurance.

Statistically speaking, workers in health care management are significantly underpaid compared to management in other fields with similar education levels (MBAs, fields such as financial companies, accounting firms, etc).

Is it not possible that the reason why health care is so expensive is because of excessive government intervention (as the graphs I originally posted eluded to)?

It is very possible. This is why I promote them going about it a different way other then making more adjustments to private healthcare itself. Making a public option sets a standard for them to try and reach, trying to manipulate private insurance directly can yield questionable results, and pin accountability for the failures of a private sector buisness on the government.

Government should support change, not enforce it on a private company.

This is the exact problem with medicare and medicaid, I hope you realize. The assumption with medicare and medicaid is that the government burdens the majority of the cost of the programs, but this is false. Rather, the majority, sixty cents on every dollar, is paid for by hospitals and health systems that must treat medicare and medicaid patients. Do you see that this is one of the reasons why insurance premiums are so high for private paying customers?

I'll be perfectly honest with you, I don't understand this question as you have worded it. Are you asking me if private insurance companies are forced to raise their prices because there are people on medicaid and medicare?

The theory of insurance is to save the end consumer money by pooling together similar risk exposures. This is why insurance companies are picky when choosing customers, otherwise, the theory of insurance collapses as the risk exposures are no longer similar in nature, which would in turn no longer save the end consumer money.

correction

The theory of insurance is to make the most money by pooling together similar risk exposures. This is why insurance companies are picky when choosing customers, otherwise, the theory of insurance collapses as the risk exposures are no longer similar in nature, which would in turn no longer making as much money.

It depends on perception. You feel like they're doing it to save the customers money, I feel like they handle it that way to turn a profit. Both things could be true for some private insurance companies. But before I give a full reply, lets go to the meat of your question:

If the public option were to accept any consumer, with varying risk exposures, the option would not operate in the traditional form of an "insurance company." Therefore, how do you propose that the option operate? How would it be able to pay out the money necessary if too many of the consumers had highly correlated risks, or were prone to have the same risk over and over again?

They could do something that most private healthcare companies don't do these days.. and that's run the company with integrity, and with the health of their customers in mind. The pricing will be reasonable, but not made with profiting in mind. And when someone who is covered actually does get sick, they won't have to worry about the public option going over their health history to find an excuse to drop care.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-hUVzcOTMo

(I can't watch youtube at work, so I can't say for 100% sure if I linked the right video.)

As for the bottom line costs for the consumers, its very much possible that private insurance companies will be able to pull off comparable prices. There's even a possiility that the public option could turn out to be the expensive option (for the monthly premium anyway). But the point of the option is to not deny people based on the state of their health, and to actually take care of people when they do become sick. Which our current insurance companies do not specialize in.

[Bond]

That depends on if they're satisfied with the state of their insurance. Unfortunately, this is a democracy, so the majority of the people will have a say in what tax dollars should be spent for and what it shouldn't. By people elecing Obama president they have voted for healthcare reform, by people allowing democrats to have so many seats in the house and senate they have voted for healthcare reform, and polls have shown that most people are for a public option for healthcare.
The United States is a republic, not a democracy. In a democracy your majority claim would be correct, not in a republic. See this distinction between republics and democracies:

Republic. That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. [NOTE: The word "people" may be either plural or singular. In a republic the group only has advisory powers; the sovereign individual is free to reject the majority group-think. USA/exception: if 100% of a jury convicts, then the individual loses sovereignty and is subject to group-think as in a democracy.]

Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. [NOTE: In a pure democracy, 51% beats 49%. In other words, the minority has no rights. The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.]

I don't want to pay for a lot of programs that I will never use, but I dont' disagree with the process that got things to this point. I believe that healthcare is a right, not a luxury. And like any rights I feel that its moral for it to be protected by the law.
Healthcare being a right is your personal opinion, although it is currently not defined as a right by law. The question that arises form a belief that healthcare is a right is: where does that right begin and end? If someone is dying of terminal cancer is it their right to receive continuous and costly treatment to prolong their life by only a few months? If someone chooses to live an unhealthy lifestyle and take on extravagant risks, is it their right to receive continuous and costly care?

Because people who opt in would have to pay a set premium to get the insurance.
Correct, but if the plan were to cover all sorts of varying health risk exposures, then the premium would not be able to cover the aggregated expected loss of the risk pool. This is how insurance operates. As I said before, because this law of insurance would not hold in a public option, the option would not operate as an insurance company. Therefore, the option would have to derive money from an alternate source in addition to premiums, ie. taxing those who do not opt-in.

It is very possible. This is why I promote them going about it a different way other then making more adjustments to private healthcare itself. Making a public option sets a standard for them to try and reach, trying to manipulate private insurance directly can yield questionable results, and pin accountability for the failures of a private sector buisness on the government.

Government should support change, not enforce it on a private company.
I don't understand how a public option would be "going about it a different way" than medicare or medicaid, but I will concede this point, as I don't think it is especially pertinent.

I'll be perfectly honest with you, I don't understand this question as you have worded it. Are you asking me if private insurance companies are forced to raise their prices because there are people on medicaid and medicare?
I'm not asking you, I am telling you this is the case. Private health systems must bear the burden of sixty cents on every dollar of medicare and medicaid coverage of health consumers. Because these consumers do not pay anything into the private health system, the health system must raise the premiums on paying members to generate additional revenue. This is a fact. I have worked in a health system and know it to be true.

correction



It depends on perception. You feel like they're doing it to save the customers money, I feel like they handle it that way to turn a profit. Both things could be true for some private insurance companies. But before I give a full reply, lets go to the meat of your question:



They could do something that most private healthcare companies don't do these days.. and that's run the company with integrity, and with the health of their customers in mind. The pricing will be reasonable, but not made with profiting in mind. And when someone who is covered actually does get sick, they won't have to worry about the public option going over their health history to find an excuse to drop care.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-hUVzcOTMo

(I can't watch youtube at work, so I can't say for 100% sure if I linked the right video.)

As for the bottom line costs for the consumers, its very much possible that private insurance companies will be able to pull off comparable prices. There's even a possiility that the public option could turn out to be the expensive option (for the monthly premium anyway). But the point of the option is to not deny people based on the state of their health, and to actually take care of people when they do become sick. Which our current insurance companies do not specialize in.
As I have stated previously, risk pooling (which insurance is based upon) lowers the average premium of consumers by aggregating similar risk exposures. If insurance companies (risk pooling agents) did not lower said premiums, then no consumer would pay the premium. Rather, they would decide to not pool their risk exposure.

From your last few paragraphs, I am unclear as to how familiar you are with the concept of risk pooling and insurance? It is hard to have a proper discussion on the health insurance industry if you are no familiar with the key tenants that ground its operation.

[TheGame]

Republic. That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. [NOTE: The word "people" may be either plural or singular. In a republic the group only has advisory powers; the sovereign individual is free to reject the majority group-think. USA/exception: if 100% of a jury convicts, then the individual loses sovereignty and is subject to group-think as in a democracy.]

Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. [NOTE: In a pure democracy, 51% beats 49%. In other words, the minority has no rights. The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.]

Ok.

Healthcare being a right is your personal opinion, although it is currently not defined as a right by law. The question that arises form a belief that healthcare is a right is: where does that right begin and end? If someone is dying of terminal cancer is it their right to receive continuous and costly treatment to prolong their life by only a few months? If someone chooses to live an unhealthy lifestyle and take on extravagant risks, is it their right to receive continuous and costly care?

In my opinion, yes its their right.

Correct, but if the plan were to cover all sorts of varying health risk exposures, then the premium would not be able to cover the aggregated expected loss of the risk pool. This is how insurance operates. As I said before, because this law of insurance would not hold in a public option, the option would not operate as an insurance company. Therefore, the option would have to derive money from an alternate source in addition to premiums, ie. taxing those who do not opt-in.

That is purely speculation. I agree that tax dollars will be used to help create this program, and I agree that in the long run there is a possibility that it could rely on tax dollars. This is something that I've said both directly and indirectly multiple times before.

I don't understand how a public option would be "going about it a different way" than medicare or medicaid, but I will concede this point, as I don't think it is especially pertinent.

Ok.

I'm not asking you, I am telling you this is the case. Private health systems must bear the burden of sixty cents on every dollar of medicare and medicaid coverage of health consumers. Because these consumers do not pay anything into the private health system, the health system must raise the premiums on paying members to generate additional revenue. This is a fact. I have worked in a health system and know it to be true.

Ok ok, so it was rhetorical question? Understood.

As I have stated previously, risk pooling (which insurance is based upon) lowers the average premium of consumers by aggregating similar risk exposures. If insurance companies (risk pooling agents) did not lower said premiums, then no consumer would pay the premium. Rather, they would decide to not pool their risk exposure.

From your last few paragraphs, I am unclear as to how familiar you are with the concept of risk pooling and insurance? It is hard to have a proper discussion on the health insurance industry if you are no familiar with the key tenants that ground its operation.

I completly understand the concept of risk pooling and insurance. If I directly said something that conflicts with this understanding feel free to point it out directly.

[Bond]

I completly understand the concept of risk pooling and insurance. If I directly said something that conflicts with this understanding feel free to point it out directly.
Well, if you completely understand risk pooling and insurance then you are way ahead of me! I only understand the basics of how insurance companies function. They are quite complex organizations, and they fact that they are one of the most regulated industries in the world makes them even more complex to dissect and understand.

That being said, I believe the concept you are missing is that the public option would simply not be able to function as a normal insurance company. This is not speculation. It is a fact. Here is why:

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/193/58595684.png

Just to be clear, this is a graph I made for one of my classes last year, which demonstrates the principle of risk pooling. The specific numbers are not important for this example, but simply the principle.

As you can see, the graph converges at 500, the expected value of this risk pool. As you know, the expected value never changes, but rather the probability of that expected value, and therefore the standard deviation, does change. This graph is an example of effective risk pooling, as the expected value has a high probability, and the standard deviation is rather low (there is a low likelihood of a long tail loss).

This model only functions in this manner if those within the risk pool face similar risk exposures, which is, again, why insurance companies are so picky. If the public option will accept any type of consumer, regardless of precondition, as you say it will, then this model will cease to function properly (unless you can come up with a new way to pool risk).

Therefore, the standard deviation will rapidly increase, and in turn the probability of extreme outcomes will increase. With the probability of those extreme outcomes increased, the chance of the collective risk pool's premium being able to handle the group's losses is severely diminished.

With the assertion that the public option will not be able to operate as a normal insurance company, this now begs the question how will the public option be able to make up the extra capital that is required? I see two options: One. Charge an excessively high premium (higher than what one would find on the private market). Two. Force taxpayers to pay the rest through mandated taxation. Option one would not be politically popular, and would defeat the point of the so-called "public option." Option two would further tax citizens in excess of the required premium of citizens who chose to opt-in. Therefore, the program would cost much more, in the long run, than simply the premiums of those citizens who chose to opt-in.

In conclusion, as long as you are fine with taxpayers, who choose not to opt-in to the system, having to bear the brunt (or a significant portion) of this public option, then I have no further issue. But I do hope you find this to be an extremely disturbing prospect at best.

[TheGame]

I follow the logic of your post from begining to end. I would rather not have a conversation on risk pooling though.. when it was explained to me, and when I was asked to create a very vauge model of it, it had to do with housing insurance and natural disasters. In my opinion that subject is a lot less complicated then health insurance. I will not knock what you said point by point, or even question it because it will lead off onto a tangent that I don't even have time to think about here at work. (And trust me I started to let it go that way, but that resulted in me sitting here a very inturrupted hour)

So I'll just leave it at this, your conclusion is right, it will not operate as a normal insurance company. It will operate as an option people can chose if they don't want to deal with a normal insurance company.

With the assertion that the public option will not be able to operate as a normal insurance company, this now begs the question how will the public option be able to make up the extra capital that is required?

Valid question, but the answers to your questions are not the only options. There are ways to cut corners on costs and generate revenue to pay for it besides just raising the price or increasing taxes.

(Before I say the following, I'd like to say keep in mind that we've already established that the public option in theory would cost more to run then a normal private insurance company due to high risk, so I'm only looking at the revenue side of things now.)

For one, the government's goal will not be to turn a profit. At this point its very argueable about how much insurance companies really profit, but from every report I've read from 2008 and 2007 the major insurance companies like Aetna, CIGNA, and United health have all gained a profit in the billions.

The government, unlike private insurance, would not have to use advertising. That's not a huge corner cut, but its a corner. I'm sure the government has other tools at its disposal too. I've read articles before that mentioned the government has a large amount of negotiating leverage with drug companies that can allow for some types of discounts.

I'd also say that the appeal of a legitamate plan with less bureaucracy will give it universal appeal opposed to only being appealing to high risk consumers.

In conclusion, as long as you are fine with taxpayers, who choose not to opt-in to the system, having to bear the brunt (or a significant portion) of this public option, then I have no further issue. But I do hope you find this to be an extremely disturbing prospect at best.

I don't find it to be disturbing, and I'm ready to accept it even if tax payers eventually take the large majority of the tab. As I've expressed before. But I only see that happening if it does not get very popular, or if it manages to only get popular with people private insurance wouldn't touch or kicked off to begin with. I believe that its a well calculated risk.

[Professor S]

And lastly, you don't understand that this whole discussion is about different concepts and ideas about how to fix healthcare, and that its based 100% off of opinion.

No, a discussion is a EXCHANGE of ideas, and when you refuse to acknowledge another person's ideas and then IGNORE them when those ideas expose your own as folly, that is called having a speech or at the very best, a conversation with yourself. Also, opinions can change in the face of logical argument and contradictory evidence. This is what Socrates meant when he intended his form of debate to be "enlightening". You "style" enlightens nothing, and your ideas couldn't be less clear. Opinions are like assholes: everyone has one so in the having having one is meaningless. Those who treat their opinions with respect are the ones treated with some level of seriousness.

So yeah, if you feel like I ignored any of your points against private insurance feel free to bring it back up. But I think I've noted very clearly the things I agree with and disagree with. For opinions and facts that I do agree with, I usually don't waste as much time touching on.

I don't need to bring them back up, you need to recognize what I've already written IF you wish to have a normal conversation about... well... anything. And if you'd care to pay attention to anything we've said to you these many pages of thread, you'd see that we're not talking about the ideas you agree with, we're talking about your refusal to acknowledge/respond to any argument that contradicts yours on it's own terms. See, this is what I mean when I say you are oblivious.

Say what you will about my ideas, I certainly am no expert, but I at least acknowledge the ideas of others when in debate and that is certainly more respect than you've given anyone else in this conversation.

Nah I just think you're getting old and can't accept that ideas other then yours work.

No, we've exposed how you're ideas DON'T work and I guess you're too young to understand that (see how silly that is?). I'm open to ideas that work as soon as you propose one that has half a chance of providing universal care without sabotaging the quality of care for the vast majority of American citizens.

And you don't seem to understand that I'm not in direct opposition to your concepts and ideas. You refuse to acknowlege that when I have an opinion supporting the public option that you disagree with, that I'm not using that idea as a direct arguement to what you have said. You don't seem to understand that I'm the only one here being open minded, and you are the only one being completly closed minded. You don't understand that you have no basis for bashing the logic of my posts and you have yet to present a valid example that shows otherwise.

You don't seem to understand that when a doctor prescribes you meds, you are supposed to take them.

I follow the logic of your post from begining to end. I would rather not have a conversation on risk pooling though..

LOL!! Of course you would! GOODNIGHT, EVERYBODY. PLAY ME OUT, PORKY!

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/w7CclVneVpw&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/w7CclVneVpw&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[TheGame]

No, a discussion is a EXCHANGE of ideas, and when you refuse to acknowledge another person's ideas and then IGNORE them when those ideas expose your own as folly, that is called having a speech or at the very best, a concversation with yourself. So congratulations, you've achieve rhetorical masturbation.

No, we've exposed how you're ideas DON'T work and I guess you're too understand that. I'm open to ideas that work as soon as you propose one that has half a chance.

You've exposed for a fact that my ideas don't work? How do you define 'working'? How do I define 'working'? And I've acknowleged every point you've made before.

I don't need to bring them back up, you need to recognize what I've already written IF you wish to have a normal conversation about... well... anything. Say what you will about my ideas, I certainly am no expert, but I at least acknowledge the ideas of others when in debate and that is certainly more respect than you've given anyone else in this conversation.

I'm not sure what thread you have been reading, but its not this one apparently. The only examples you provided of things I ignored were invalid. I feel like I've acknowleged every point you have made on some level or another. You should give up on making this point unless you have something constructive to show for it.

When you guys tried to call me out on saying bond is replying out of context, I gave full valid examples of this. If you feel like I'm ignoring a point (even though I know I haven't), then feel free to bring it back up. Otherwise you should just give up on this point.

You have had nothing legitamate to add to this conversation for a long time.

You don't seem to understand that when a doctor prescribes you meds, you are supposed to take them.

:lol:

LOL!! Of course you would!

Yup I didn't want to discuss it at work. The thing about the public option that makes it unlike normal insurance is that there is no effort to work with other insurance companies to establish a reasonable service level. It appeals to high risk people (and not just health risk, financial also) because they otherwise would have no other option. But unlike your "Catastrophic Care" idea it won't be ONLY for high risk people.

I find it funny that in your own idea, you presented an option that would have no choice but to be carried by tax payers forever. Granted that is a risk pool that some non profit heavily state supported programs do take on. But that is fundamentally different from a public option. Usually non-profit tax supported insurance options that deal with high risk patents will not even be available for lower risk customers to pay for, and they usually don't play off of the fact that normal private insurance is not legitamate insurance to pull in more people and more revenue.

[TheGame]

Way to edit your post. :p Not that I'm going to blame you for it.

So lets see...

No, a discussion is a EXCHANGE of ideas, and when you refuse to acknowledge another person's ideas and then IGNORE them when those ideas expose your own as folly, that is called having a speech or at the very best, a conversation with yourself. Also, opinions can change in the face of logical argument and contradictory evidence. This is what Socrates meant when he intended his form of debate to be "enlightening". You "style" enlightens nothing, and your ideas couldn't be less clear. Opinions are like assholes: everyone has one so in the having having one is meaningless. Those who treat their opinions with respect are the ones treated with some level of seriousness.

You're taking the high ground now after saying I was rhetorically masturbating? Hahahah.

Anyway, I think that your problem is that you want me to be 100% opposed to what you are saying when I am not. You want me to not acknowlege the downsides of the public option, even though I am. You're problem with me is that I have a realistic outlook on things, and that I'm willing to point out the faults in the public option openly.. but I point out those faults in a way to where I think that the positives of having that program out weigh the negatives.

In your world, the public option has no upside that you're willing to acknowlege, and you feel like you've proven 100% that it won't work. But the fact is that you haven't.

I'm open to ideas that work as soon as you propose one that has half a chance of providing universal care without sabotaging the quality of care for the vast majority of American citizens.

I'm not sure how many times I have to go over this, but the public option would be an OPTION. And that is the key reason why I accept it. If it provides less quality, then people simply will not use it unless its their only choice.

[Bond]

It appears as though this conversation may soon be about "what could have been":

AP Sources: Senate group omitting Dem health goals

WASHINGTON – After weeks of secretive talks, a bipartisan group in the Senate edged closer Monday to a health care compromise that omits a requirement for businesses to offer coverage to their workers and lacks a government insurance option that President Barack Obama favors, according to numerous officials.

Like bills drafted by Democrats, the proposal under discussion by six members on the Senate Finance Committee would bar insurance companies from denying coverage to any applicant. Nor could insurers charge higher premiums on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions.

But it jettisons other core Democratic provisions in a reach for bipartisanship on an issue that has so far produced little.

The effort received a boost during the day from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, normally a close ally of Republicans. In a letter to committee leaders, the business group called for the panel to "act promptly, preferably before" the Senate's scheduled vacation at the end of next week. In doing so, the business organization dealt a blow to the Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and other GOP lawmakers who have called repeatedly for Democrats to slow down.

In yet another boost for the drive to enact legislation, PhRMA, which represents drug companies, has purchased more than $500,000 worth of television ads to air during the week in nine states.

Obama's top domestic priority has suffered numerous setbacks in recent weeks, and Republicans have stepped up their criticism. Administration and Democratic leaders hope to show significant progress before lawmakers begin their monthlong recess in hopes of regaining momentum.

Source: Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090727/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul;_ylt=AoTv2NhEu8bAbyU_iC7feLGs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTM5bjZoZzBoBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwN zI3L3VzX2hlYWx0aF9jYXJlX292ZXJoYXVsBGNwb3MDMQRwb3MDMgRwdANzZWN0aW9uc19jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc 2xrA2Fwc291cmNlc3Nlbg--)