Looks Like ANY Public Option is DOA YES!!!

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

CBO Puts House Health Bill Total Cost At $1.055 Trillion



By Martin Vaughan, Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The Congressional Budget Office said Thursday a U.S. House health-care system re-write would extend health insurance to 96% of the nonelderly U.S. population by 2019, and spend $1.055 trillion to do so.

Penalties imposed on individuals who did not purchase insurance, and employers who did not offer coverage to their workers, would raise $161 billion over that time-frame. That brings the net cost of the bill to $894 billion through 2019, CBO said.

House Democrats have seized on that net cost figure to claim that their bill is below President Barack Obama's upper limit which he set for health-care legislation of $900 billion.

The $1.055 trillion estimate also does not include $245 billion needed to stop Medicare payments to doctors from decreasing, which the House plans to address through separate legislation introduced Thursday.

The costs of the bill are fully offset by cuts to existing spending programs-- including the Medicare Advantage and other programs--saving $426 billion through 2019, and by tax increases raising $572 billion over that time, CBO said. In fact, the combined impact of provisions in the bill would be a net deficit reduction of $104 billion in the next decade, according to CBO.

CBO also said the House bill would not add to the deficit in the first decade beyond 2019--a key condition for support from fiscally conservative House Democrats.

CBO Director Doug Elmendorf, in a Thursday letter to House Democratic Chairmen, cautioned that his estimates are preliminary and "subject to substantial uncertainty."

House leaders capped weeks of internal negotiations among Democrats today by unveiling the sweeping legislation. They aim to bring the bill to a vote by the full House by the end of next week.

The bill would create exchanges where people who do not have access to health insurance from their employer could buy coverage. It would create a government- sponsored plan to compete with private plans.

The bill would reduce the number of uninsured in the U.S. by 36 million by 2019. By that time, 30 million people would be covered through the insurance exchanges, of which 6 million would be covered by the public option.

An expansion in eligibility rules for the Medicaid program would bring an additional 15 million enrollees to Medicaid by 2019, CBO said.

-By Martin Vaughan, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-9244; martin.vaughan@ dowjones.com

You're right. That IS a shocker. Congress actually proposed a bill that would more than pay for itself. Agree with the plan or not, that's quite an accomplishment for the Congress

This just in, as an homage to the "good old days" of a Republican run Congress and White House, John Boehner unveils the new Republican Health care strategy at a 2010 Election Campaign fund raiser which includes, but is not limited to, driving around around in pickup trucks and throwing out wads of cash.


I know sniping and running is a low blow, but this IS Speaker's corner and I have a boogie to get to.
Happy Halloween everyone!

And you believe it? wanna buy a bridge?

Do a little looking around. More info is coming out hourly on the actual "predicted" costs vs what you highlight.

And kallend, when the numbers hit the news I will share them. You could find them as easily as me however, the news orgs are ignoring the alternative plans as is the Dem controled house so the CBO or anybody has not published them that I know of.

However, I get the feeling you dont care if alternatives are even considered.

Oh, thats right, you dont cause we all need to send even more money to Washington huh.....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

HERE ARE SOME ESTIMATES FROM A GROUP. GOOGLE IT YOURSELF. THERE IS THE SAME BACK AND FORTH AS THERE IS FOR THE BILLS IN THE NEWS


http://www.physiciansforreform.org/index.php?id=17

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[airdvr 200]

I guess the issue for me is our gubment doesn't do a very good job of running things. The list is long and it's been debated here ad nauseum.

Do I beleive HC needs help...uh yea.

Do I think the department of HHS can do it and save us money...no f'in way. Take a look at where your tax dollars are spent now and HHS is at the top of the list...more than defense! Will it be less once we add the 'public option'? I don't think so.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

"So even though this bill tries to hide these costs as indirect taxes," Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, recently told a business symposium, "average Americans who purchase health plans, take prescription drugs, or use medical devices will end up footing the bill."

I hope you're smart enough to understand that this is just opinion, and cannot be considered proof.

Quote

The Committee and other experts say virtually all of those costs will be passed along to consumers in all tax brackets – despite President Barack Obama's pledge not to raise taxes "one dime" on those earning less than $250,000 per year.

This is something they SAY, which in other words is yet another opinion. That's why I request proof. If you said that, I'd ask you what facts your opinion is based on, so ask them.

Quote

Another likely frustration for consumers: The premium hikes will take effect right away, while the subsidies and benefits in healthcare reform won't completely kick in until 2014.

And yes another groundless statement.

Quote

Scott Gottlieb, a physician and American Enterprise Institute resident fellow, stated Thursday in a New York Post op-ed that by front-loading the costs and back-loading benefits, Congress is resorting to "a gimmick that imposes a stiff price on the public."

And again you just quoted what someone said, without any supporting evidence.

Quote

"These costs will be passed on to consumers by either directly raising insurance premiums, or by fueling higher health-care costs that inevitably lead to higher premiums," he wrote.

At least someone who explained WHY he thinks the costs will be higher. Ok, let's take a look:

1. Raised insurance premium. My own insurance rates went up 50% during last two years, and my insurance company claims the raise is the same for everyone. So current situation is that we already have yearly hikes, and the real question would be whether the hikes are higher or not. Since the major issue my insurer attributed to higher rate is the growing number of uninsured people, this would not be an issue anymore, and therefore the rates will be slower.

2. "fueling higher health-care costs" is a false argument. Uninsured will not have more treatment than they have right now - and some of them will be paying for the treatment they're now receiving for free. So it's also questionable argument.

Quote

"Most of astounding of all," Holtz-Eakin wrote, "is what this Congress is willing to do to struggling middle-class families. The bill would impose nearly $400 billion in new taxes and fees. Nearly 90 percent of that burden will be shoulders by those making $200,000 or less."

And again, no proof. Same as the rest of your post.

Next time please post something which proves your point instead of copy-pasting huge articles you didn't read yourself (if you did, you'd see that it is nothing more than a bunch of opinions with almost zero facts).

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

HERE ARE SOME ESTIMATES FROM A GROUP. GOOGLE IT YOURSELF. THERE IS THE SAME BACK AND FORTH AS THERE IS FOR THE BILLS IN THE NEWS

Hey man, do you have YOUR OWN opinion based on facts?
What happened about one's ability to THINK personally?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[kallend 1,678]

Quote

HERE ARE SOME ESTIMATES FROM A GROUP. GOOGLE IT YOURSELF. THERE IS THE SAME BACK AND FORTH AS THERE IS FOR THE BILLS IN THE NEWS


http://www.physiciansforreform.org/index.php?id=17

I recommend you try a non-partisan source like the CBO

www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/12/tort.reform/index.html

A 0.5% savings. That's better than a poke in the eye but hardly represents enough to make a difference overall.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

A 0.5% savings. That's better than a poke in the eye but hardly represents enough to make a difference overall.

It also mentions something I wonder if they have numbers:

Michigan Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow suggested that the Republican approach to malpractice reform was too simplistic. She said limits on damages imposed in Michigan had not stemmed increases in the malpractice insurance rates paid by doctors.

As far as I know, same happened in California too. There are no reasons for a private industry to pass their profits to consumers - they may as well keep them, resulting in no savings to consumers. And I find it funny that rushmc opposes paying more taxes to the government, but seems to have no problem paying more money to the private industry so their profits are larger. Rush, why wouldn't you just send your insurer a check?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

Michigan Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow suggested that the Republican approach to malpractice reform was too simplistic. She said limits on damages imposed in Michigan had not stemmed increases in the malpractice insurance rates paid by doctors.

As far as I know, same happened in California too. There are no reasons for a private industry to pass their profits to consumers - they may as well keep them, resulting in no savings to consumers.

In Georgia tort reform (actually just capping malpractice awards) also has not lowered malpractice premiums, and as a side effect has made it much more difficult for people who really have been harmed by medical malpractice to obtain any compensation. The reason for this should have been obvious to legislators from the beginning. The maximum award for "pain and suffering" is capped at $150,000, and you can also claim actual economic damages, which mostly includes lost earning potential if you are disabled, and the the actual future cost of medical care to treat the injury caused by the malpractice. At the same time the credentials required for the expert witnesses has been tightened a lot, so now these witnesses must be doctors who are currently practicing medicine (seeing patients) in the specialty they are testifying about. On the face of it those reforms seem reasonable. However, legal fees to sue, including the lawyer's payday and the cost of discovery and expert witnesses (now much higher as they have to be leading specialists) must be recovered from the "pain and suffering" (capped at $150,000) and "loss of income" part of the award, and the lawyers can't take all of that. So, the "loss of future income" part has to be quite large if the lawyer is to get anything after paying for the expert witnesses, court costs, etc. The lost future income is calculated based on the patients income at the time of the injury, and so the only patients who are worth representing are the ones with an income in the top 20% or so, especially if they are older (so not many years of income earning left before retirement). If you earn less than $75,000/yr the award will likely not be enough to cover legal costs. Even if the surgeon shows up drunk and cuts off an arm instead of a leg you'll be SOL if you're working a minimum wage job. That surely wasn't the intent of the "tort reform", but that's how it's worked out. On the other hand, malpractice premiums have continued to rise and some medical specialties (obstetrics for example) are still losing practitioners. The only ones to benefit have been the insurance companies, who now enjoy higher profits.

IMHO, tort reform should consist of requiring proof of actual malpractice, instead of just a less-than-perfect outcome. Probably those cases need to be decided by a judge with a high degree of medical knowledge, and not a jury who knows nothing about medicine, but that would require amending the state constitution. Awards should include legal costs. Ideally most cases would be settled by arbitration without having to go to court, which would minimize legal and third-party expenses.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[sundevil777 94]

Of course the Public Option is supposedly necessary for more competition. The only way the PO will be more competitive is for it to cost less than from private companies. That will be achieved by govt subsidy. If the PO is cheaper for a company, then companies will choose it for their employees (it won't matter to the company that the real cost including govt subsidy is more). So, the private insurance industry will vanish over time, by design. This should be no surprise, just Obama making happen what he wants to happen - he said that he wants it to happen.

I think the PO would not be able to withstand antitrust law scrutiny.

Jack Kemp long ago proposed changes that would help - getting away from the expectation that employers provide our health insurance. Let individuals get it from wherever they want, including associations and organizations to which they belong, whether it be USPA or NRA or NHRA, they are big enough groups that insurance companies would work out plans for their membership. Let employers simply pay employess what they would otherwise pay for insurance and make choices. The only way to reduce health care costs for real is to make it cost the individual something.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[likearock 1]

Quote

Of course the Public Option is supposedly necessary for more competition. The only way the PO will be more competitive is for it to cost less than from private companies. That will be achieved by govt subsidy. If the PO is cheaper for a company, then companies will choose it for their employees (it won't matter to the company that the real cost including govt subsidy is more). So, the private insurance industry will vanish over time, by design. This should be no surprise, just Obama making happen what he wants to happen - he said that he wants it to happen.

Whenever I hear this argument I wonder how all those other industries manage to do just fine with a mix of government and private management.

For example, public universities are also government-subsidized and relatively cheaper but no one would ever suggest they will be putting Stanford and MIT out of business. The post office may deliver most our mail but I don't see FedEx or UPS hurting because of it. We even have a mix of public and private management for our prisons.

So what's with this big fear that the public option will put private companies out of business? Answer: the fear of the private companies is not that they will go out of business but simply that they'll have to scale down their exorbitant profits somewhat. But of course that doesn't look as good on a bumper sticker.

[sundevil777 94]

Quote

Quote

Of course the Public Option is supposedly necessary for more competition. The only way the PO will be more competitive is for it to cost less than from private companies. That will be achieved by govt subsidy. If the PO is cheaper for a company, then companies will choose it for their employees (it won't matter to the company that the real cost including govt subsidy is more). So, the private insurance industry will vanish over time, by design. This should be no surprise, just Obama making happen what he wants to happen - he said that he wants it to happen.

Whenever I hear this argument I wonder how all those other industries manage to do just fine with a mix of government and private management.

For example, public universities are also government-subsidized and relatively cheaper but no one would ever suggest they will be putting Stanford and MIT out of business. The post office may deliver most our mail but I don't see FedEx or UPS hurting because of it. We even have a mix of public and private management for our prisons.

So what's with this big fear that the public option will put private companies out of business? Answer: the fear of the private companies is not that they will go out of business but simply that they'll have to scale down their exorbitant profits somewhat. But of course that doesn't look as good on a bumper sticker.

To compare it to Universities is very flawed. Universities have a limited supply of their service to offer. Do you suppose that the public option will limit enrollment? I think not.

If you operated a business, and suddenly the government decided they were going to undercut your prices with an unlimited supply of the same product because you're accused of making too much money, I think you would not like it. We should also assume that the govt would continue to undercut your prices no matter how much you were able to cut yours.


If the health insurance companies are making too much money, perhaps they are guilty of price fixing. If so, that should be investigated, but no, instead the Dems are too focused on achieving their actual goal.

Why doesn't the Dem congress remove the state boundary limits on companies? That would definitely increase competition. They don't do it because they aren't interested in that, they just want to start down the road of their ultimate goal of eliminating private health insurance.

I've brought up the issue of removing the the connection from employers that Jack Kemp brought up so long ago. I think that is really worth considering because it means individuals will carefully consider what they pay for insurance and how they incur health care costs. Right now, with small doctor visit co-payments, there is little to motivate you to limit your costs.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[likearock 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Of course the Public Option is supposedly necessary for more competition. The only way the PO will be more competitive is for it to cost less than from private companies. That will be achieved by govt subsidy. If the PO is cheaper for a company, then companies will choose it for their employees (it won't matter to the company that the real cost including govt subsidy is more). So, the private insurance industry will vanish over time, by design. This should be no surprise, just Obama making happen what he wants to happen - he said that he wants it to happen.

Whenever I hear this argument I wonder how all those other industries manage to do just fine with a mix of government and private management.

For example, public universities are also government-subsidized and relatively cheaper but no one would ever suggest they will be putting Stanford and MIT out of business. The post office may deliver most our mail but I don't see FedEx or UPS hurting because of it. We even have a mix of public and private management for our prisons.

So what's with this big fear that the public option will put private companies out of business? Answer: the fear of the private companies is not that they will go out of business but simply that they'll have to scale down their exorbitant profits somewhat. But of course that doesn't look as good on a bumper sticker.

To compare it to Universities is very flawed. Universities have a limited supply of their service to offer. Do you suppose that the public option will limit enrollment? I think not.

The university example was only one of three I made. Do you have an excuse for the other two as well?

[sundevil777 94]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Of course the Public Option is supposedly necessary for more competition. The only way the PO will be more competitive is for it to cost less than from private companies. That will be achieved by govt subsidy. If the PO is cheaper for a company, then companies will choose it for their employees (it won't matter to the company that the real cost including govt subsidy is more). So, the private insurance industry will vanish over time, by design. This should be no surprise, just Obama making happen what he wants to happen - he said that he wants it to happen.

Whenever I hear this argument I wonder how all those other industries manage to do just fine with a mix of government and private management.

For example, public universities are also government-subsidized and relatively cheaper but no one would ever suggest they will be putting Stanford and MIT out of business. The post office may deliver most our mail but I don't see FedEx or UPS hurting because of it. We even have a mix of public and private management for our prisons.

So what's with this big fear that the public option will put private companies out of business? Answer: the fear of the private companies is not that they will go out of business but simply that they'll have to scale down their exorbitant profits somewhat. But of course that doesn't look as good on a bumper sticker.

To compare it to Universities is very flawed. Universities have a limited supply of their service to offer. Do you suppose that the public option will limit enrollment? I think not.

The university example was only one of three I made. Do you have an excuse for the other two as well?

No excuse is necessary.

My understanding is that the U.S. Post Office must operate from the revenues it gets from postage - it is not subsidized, the price for postage keeps going up as needed when they go in the red. That is why private competitors can do well compared to them. Very different than what is intended for the health care public option, where taxpayer money will make it cheaper than the private competition, whatever that takes.

My understanding is that private companies operating prisons are cheaper than when it is done by govt agencies. There are issues of accountability when they abuse prisoners, but not of cost.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[kallend 1,678]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Of course the Public Option is supposedly necessary for more competition. The only way the PO will be more competitive is for it to cost less than from private companies. That will be achieved by govt subsidy. If the PO is cheaper for a company, then companies will choose it for their employees (it won't matter to the company that the real cost including govt subsidy is more). So, the private insurance industry will vanish over time, by design. This should be no surprise, just Obama making happen what he wants to happen - he said that he wants it to happen.

Whenever I hear this argument I wonder how all those other industries manage to do just fine with a mix of government and private management.

For example, public universities are also government-subsidized and relatively cheaper but no one would ever suggest they will be putting Stanford and MIT out of business. The post office may deliver most our mail but I don't see FedEx or UPS hurting because of it. We even have a mix of public and private management for our prisons.

So what's with this big fear that the public option will put private companies out of business? Answer: the fear of the private companies is not that they will go out of business but simply that they'll have to scale down their exorbitant profits somewhat. But of course that doesn't look as good on a bumper sticker.

To compare it to Universities is very flawed. Universities have a limited supply of their service to offer. Do you suppose that the public option will limit enrollment? I think not.

.

Just because you "think not" doesn't make you correct. Your analysis is flawed. Many weaker private colleges have gone bust and disappeared following the opening of a public nearby. There is a finite customer base of students.

The presence of public universities pretty much ensures that only the strong private shools survive. No doubt that is why the right keeps going on about how private education is superior to public.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Very different than what is intended for the health care public option, where taxpayer money will make it cheaper than the private competition, whatever that takes.

And of course that claim is based on zero research or historical evidence. Since when has taxpayer money made anything cheaper?

Maybe it will be cheaper for the people actually in the public option (maybe. it could just go tits up like Hawaii)... but that's only going to be 2% of the population by 2019, according to the House bill.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[mnealtx 0]

I'd rather see Congress fix the public option they ALREADY have, first.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,470]

>I'd rather see Congress fix the public option they ALREADY have, first.

How would they do that?

[Amazon 7]

Quote

>I'd rather see Congress fix the public option they ALREADY have, first.

How would they do that?

Get rid of all those pesky entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security and use the money where it belongs... for military spending.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>I'd rather see Congress fix the public option they ALREADY have, first.

How would they do that?

A good start would be making it where Medicare (you know, that public option that the gov't ALREADY runs) wasn't rejecting 1.7 times the claims of the other insurance carriers, combined.

(Info from the AMA Health Insurer Report Card)

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,470]

>A good start would be making it where Medicare (you know, that
>public option that the gov't ALREADY runs) wasn't rejecting 1.7 times the
>claims of the other insurance carriers, combined.

OK. So how do we do that? Pass a law that says "Medicare must pay any claim no matter what?"

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

To compare it to Universities is very flawed. Universities have a limited supply of their service to offer. Do you suppose that the public option will limit enrollment? I think not.

Universities have limited supply, but the demand - the number of students - is also limited.

Quote

If you operated a business, and suddenly the government decided they were going to undercut your prices with an unlimited supply of the same product because you're accused of making too much money, I think you would not like it.

Of course. After all, the health insurance company does not develop drugs, they do not do surgeries, they do not even see patients. They just collect and distribute money, and their way to get more profit is NOT to provide more or better service - it is to screw up their customers by raising premiums, and kick out everyone who becomes too expensive to them. At some point a reasonable business would expect the customers finally gonna be pissed off, and will fight back.

Quote

If the health insurance companies are making too much money, perhaps they are guilty of price fixing. If so, that should be investigated, but no, instead the Dems are too focused on achieving their actual goal.

Because such "investigation" would take years, and at the end if the company is found guilty and got like 10 billion fine - who, you think, is going to pay it? Don't you think the insurance company will just raise your premium to pay this fine?

Public option is a very good thing in terms of providing some basic comparison point - if you cannot provide service, which is better at quality/price than the service provided by the government, perhaps you should not run business at all.

But after all, I do not understand why those Republicans here, who are telling us that the government cannot run anything even close to the way the private industry does. At the same time, they are telling us that the government-based plan, which is very expensive and low quality (as everything the government does, according to R's), would still kill the private industry, which supposedly has higher quality and lower costs. I can't understand it.

Quote

Why doesn't the Dem congress remove the state boundary limits on companies? That would definitely increase competition.

The latest Senate bill does just that.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[sundevil777 94]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Of course the Public Option is supposedly necessary for more competition. The only way the PO will be more competitive is for it to cost less than from private companies. That will be achieved by govt subsidy. If the PO is cheaper for a company, then companies will choose it for their employees (it won't matter to the company that the real cost including govt subsidy is more). So, the private insurance industry will vanish over time, by design. This should be no surprise, just Obama making happen what he wants to happen - he said that he wants it to happen.

Whenever I hear this argument I wonder how all those other industries manage to do just fine with a mix of government and private management.

For example, public universities are also government-subsidized and relatively cheaper but no one would ever suggest they will be putting Stanford and MIT out of business. The post office may deliver most our mail but I don't see FedEx or UPS hurting because of it. We even have a mix of public and private management for our prisons.

So what's with this big fear that the public option will put private companies out of business? Answer: the fear of the private companies is not that they will go out of business but simply that they'll have to scale down their exorbitant profits somewhat. But of course that doesn't look as good on a bumper sticker.

To compare it to Universities is very flawed. Universities have a limited supply of their service to offer. Do you suppose that the public option will limit enrollment? I think not.

.

Just because you "think not" doesn't make you correct. Your analysis is flawed. Many weaker private colleges have gone bust and disappeared following the opening of a public nearby. There is a finite customer base of students.

The presence of public universities pretty much ensures that only the strong private shools survive. No doubt that is why the right keeps going on about how private education is superior to public.

Your argument seems to make MY point. The govt offers the service at a price that private companies cannot match, so it erodes the customer base of the private company, and of course the subsidized public univ causes some "weaker" private univ to fail. In the case of universities, the public univ ability to enroll students is limited, and there are still more students than seats in public univ. In the case of the public health care plan, I assert that Pelosi, Reed and Obama will be very happy to accomodate as many as want the service.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[sundevil777 94]

Quote

Quote

Very different than what is intended for the health care public option, where taxpayer money will make it cheaper than the private competition, whatever that takes.

And of course that claim is based on zero research or historical evidence. Since when has taxpayer money made anything cheaper?

Maybe it will be cheaper for the people actually in the public option (maybe. it could just go tits up like Hawaii)... but that's only going to be 2% of the population by 2019, according to the House bill.

Usually the govt doesn't do things more efficiently, but in this case, the entire point of the public option is to offer competition, and if that means what is implied, it will be less expensive, with taxpayer money making it so. If the public option isn't cheaper, then of course that would be very different.

I contend that congress and the pres will make any public option accomodate as many people that want it.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[likearock 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Of course the Public Option is supposedly necessary for more competition. The only way the PO will be more competitive is for it to cost less than from private companies. That will be achieved by govt subsidy. If the PO is cheaper for a company, then companies will choose it for their employees (it won't matter to the company that the real cost including govt subsidy is more). So, the private insurance industry will vanish over time, by design. This should be no surprise, just Obama making happen what he wants to happen - he said that he wants it to happen.

Whenever I hear this argument I wonder how all those other industries manage to do just fine with a mix of government and private management.

For example, public universities are also government-subsidized and relatively cheaper but no one would ever suggest they will be putting Stanford and MIT out of business. The post office may deliver most our mail but I don't see FedEx or UPS hurting because of it. We even have a mix of public and private management for our prisons.

So what's with this big fear that the public option will put private companies out of business? Answer: the fear of the private companies is not that they will go out of business but simply that they'll have to scale down their exorbitant profits somewhat. But of course that doesn't look as good on a bumper sticker.

To compare it to Universities is very flawed. Universities have a limited supply of their service to offer. Do you suppose that the public option will limit enrollment? I think not.

.

Just because you "think not" doesn't make you correct. Your analysis is flawed. Many weaker private colleges have gone bust and disappeared following the opening of a public nearby. There is a finite customer base of students.

The presence of public universities pretty much ensures that only the strong private shools survive. No doubt that is why the right keeps going on about how private education is superior to public.

Your argument seems to make MY point. The govt offers the service at a price that private companies cannot match, so it erodes the customer base of the private company, and of course the subsidized public univ causes some "weaker" private univ to fail. In the case of universities, the public univ ability to enroll students is limited, and there are still more students than seats in public univ. In the case of the public health care plan, I assert that Pelosi, Reed and Obama will be very happy to accomodate as many as want the service.

Newsflash: the ability to accommodate as many people as possible is also limited with respect to health care. No matter how much anyone wishes, there's only a finite amount of resources. And since it's a public option sitting besides the private options, there's no reason to suspect it wouldn't play out in a similar manner to the way universities divvy up the demographic. That is, basic low-cost coverage will go the the public plan while people who are willing to pay can get more comprehensive coverage in the private sector.

BTW, you do know that many countries, some of which are even single payer, already accommodate public and private health care providers. A quick look netted Australia, Argentina, and Germany, among others. Apparently, it's not as easy to put those private insurers out of business as their lobbyists would lead you to believe.

[kallend 1,678]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Of course the Public Option is supposedly necessary for more competition. The only way the PO will be more competitive is for it to cost less than from private companies. That will be achieved by govt subsidy. If the PO is cheaper for a company, then companies will choose it for their employees (it won't matter to the company that the real cost including govt subsidy is more). So, the private insurance industry will vanish over time, by design. This should be no surprise, just Obama making happen what he wants to happen - he said that he wants it to happen.

Whenever I hear this argument I wonder how all those other industries manage to do just fine with a mix of government and private management.

For example, public universities are also government-subsidized and relatively cheaper but no one would ever suggest they will be putting Stanford and MIT out of business. The post office may deliver most our mail but I don't see FedEx or UPS hurting because of it. We even have a mix of public and private management for our prisons.

So what's with this big fear that the public option will put private companies out of business? Answer: the fear of the private companies is not that they will go out of business but simply that they'll have to scale down their exorbitant profits somewhat. But of course that doesn't look as good on a bumper sticker.

To compare it to Universities is very flawed. Universities have a limited supply of their service to offer. Do you suppose that the public option will limit enrollment? I think not.

.

Just because you "think not" doesn't make you correct. Your analysis is flawed. Many weaker private colleges have gone bust and disappeared following the opening of a public nearby. There is a finite customer base of students.

The presence of public universities pretty much ensures that only the strong private shools survive. No doubt that is why the right keeps going on about how private education is superior to public.

Your argument seems to make MY point.

NO, because, my forgetful friend, what you wrote was "So, the private insurance industry will vanish over time, by design." The university precedent shows that this does NOT happen.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.