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?

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

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-Maco...alth-care-bill

[Bond]

Originally Posted by TheGame

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]

Originally Posted by Bond

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]

Originally Posted by Professor S

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]

Originally Posted by TheGame

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]

Originally Posted by Bond

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]

Originally Posted by Professor S

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]

Originally Posted by TheGame

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]

Originally Posted by Bond

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.