Public option for healthcare

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

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]

Originally Posted by Professor S

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]

Originally Posted by TheGame

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]

Originally Posted by Bond

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?

[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

[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