First... I don't want government in the business of health care... period.
Second... if they, in the face of the people not wanting and the constitution not allowing it, are going to do it anyway... then offer what they want to offer... but it should NEVER... EVER... be illegal for me to get health care outside ANY policy if I go and get that health care myself.
The plan does not say it will be illegal to get health care yourself. Please show where you think it says that.
A lot of people want a government option. The great thing about it is you don't have to choose it if you don't want to. Don't let your fear ruin it for the people that want it.
Well the difference is, if I don't like what one insurance company offers I can always choose another.
I get it by the way, I'm afraid you are clueless to what this really means.
And what, you don't think you will be able to choose a different plan anymore? Hello, government OPTION. You don't want it, you don't CHOOSE it. Someone else wants to, they have the OPTION to.
And what, you don't think you will be able to choose a different plan anymore? Hello, government OPTION. You don't want it, you don't CHOOSE it. Someone else wants to, they have the OPTION to.
How do people get public OPTION and government run healthcare out of the same bill? It's as simple as third grade reading.
__________________
In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity. Augustine
Isn't he reading that same incorrect thing that someone posted here? It's supposedly this list of reprehensible things from HR 3200, but it's been twisted by someone on the right to be less than truthful.
Secondly, I've got to do some digging to find out what was behind this guy. I'll bet at the end of the day, he's got some health insurance special interest money behind him. This isn't just some farmer who decided to grab the home video camera and his wife and head out to the pasture to tell everyone what he really thinks about healthcare.
This is another scare tactic from someone who stands to lose big $$ if the system changes, IMO.
__________________
In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity. Augustine
And what, you don't think you will be able to choose a different plan anymore? Hello, government OPTION. You don't want it, you don't CHOOSE it. Someone else wants to, they have the OPTION to.
This is the problem seen in Obama's words:
Quote:
Some have suggested that that the public option go into effect only in those markets where insurance companies are not providing affordable policies. Others propose a co-op or another non-profit entity to administer the plan. These are all constructive ideas worth exploring. But I will not back down on the basic principle that if Americans can’t find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice. And I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need.
One of the little-noted details of all the health care reform bills floating out of congressional committees everywhere is they don’t take full effect until 2013.
The state-level insurance exchanges — basically, a list of the private insurance products available to small businesses and individuals, plus (perhaps) a public insurance “option” something like Medicare — aren’t slated to go into effect for four years.
That seems to mean that the insurance industry has four years to figure out how to offer good, affordable insurance products in every state. And if it doesn’t — if one overpriced United Health or Blue Cross product continues to be a monopoly in Alabama or North Carolina, for example — reform would then “trigger” the introduction of a public option in the aggrieved state(s)?
And what, you don't think you will be able to choose a different plan anymore? Hello, government OPTION. You don't want it, you don't CHOOSE it. Someone else wants to, they have the OPTION to.
One of the little-noted details of all the health care reform bills floating out of congressional committees everywhere is they don’t take full effect until 2013.
The state-level insurance exchanges — basically, a list of the private insurance products available to small businesses and individuals, plus (perhaps) a public insurance “option” something like Medicare — aren’t slated to go into effect for four years.
That seems to mean that the insurance industry has four years to figure out how to offer good, affordable insurance products in every state. And if it doesn’t — if one overpriced United Health or Blue Cross product continues to be a monopoly in Alabama or North Carolina, for example — reform would then “trigger” the introduction of a public option in the aggrieved state(s)?
And I am trying to find out why that is such a bad thing. The public option is just another option that we will have to choose from. D4T and Esther seem to think the public option will take away their right to choose from any other health care option, which simply isn't true.
And I am trying to find out why that is such a bad thing. The public option is just another option that we will have to choose from. D4T and Esther seem to think the public option will take away their right to choose from any other health care option, which simply isn't true.
It is misleading to characterize a “public-option” as insurance because insurance implies that a beneficiary has contractual rights against the provider. Under a public benefit program, a citizen’s rights would not be contract-based, but would rather be statute-based. Contract-based healthcare leaves the beneficiary with contractual rights that she can enforce against the insurance company. In contrast, a public option program would be statute-based and would thus be subject to the whims of the populace.
Americans are looking for in any health care reform proposal: affordability, accessibility, portability, and quality. I've heard several say that we could, eventually, change the healthcare system if we had open transparency on quality and price. Competition included, opening across state selection would help. There are some companies that insure a great number of people in one state and need some healthy competition to come their way - from the American sector and not the Government. Who can compete with tax dollars?
These concerns are very real to consider for a public option:
A diminishing control over personal health care decisions
Undermine state autonomy and authority in health policy which could undercut both innovation and experimentation to expand coverage and deliver quality care - especially for the poorest and most vulnerable citizens.
Perpetuate and generate unsustainable federal spending and in the face of serious budget crises it leads to government rationing of care and services.
History shows that the bureaucracy always spends far more on programs than the Beltway experts say it will.
One program that has spun wildly out of control is Medicare. Projected costs for 1990 was at $10 billion. Yet actual outlays were $107 billion. Now the program is spending more than it is taking in through the payroll tax that funds it, leaving Washington with only two options: ration Medicare or raise taxes.
Medicare, for instance, is considering cutting $1.4 billion in benefits beginning on Jan. 1, 2010. If the new schedule is adopted, the reductions will be in fees paid to cardiologists and oncologists.
I believe that Congress should provide tax relief for those who purchase coverage on their own and redirect other health care spending to help low-income individuals and families purchase private health insurance coverage.
The U.S. spends over $2.4 trillion on health care. Instead of spending an additional $1.6 trillion on a plan financed by tax increases and unproven savings from Medicare and Medicaid that may never materialize, Congress should restructure and redirect existing health care spending to make it more effective.
To address long-term health care costs, Congress needs to focus on fundamental reform of the tax treatment of health insurance and entitlements. At the very least, Congress should require that savings be realized before appropriating them to any expansions.
It's not too hard to realize that Congress needs to allow the states to develop solutions that will transfer direct control of health care dollars and personal health care decisions to individuals and families, not further Washington's control.
It is misleading to characterize a “public-option” as insurance because insurance implies that a beneficiary has contractual rights against the provider. Under a public benefit program, a citizen’s rights would not be contract-based, but would rather be statute-based. Contract-based healthcare leaves the beneficiary with contractual rights that she can enforce against the insurance company. In contrast, a public option program would be statute-based and would thus be subject to the whims of the populace.
Americans are looking for in any health care reform proposal: affordability, accessibility, portability, and quality. I've heard several say that we could, eventually, change the healthcare system if we had open transparency on quality and price. Competition included, opening across state selection would help. There are some companies that insure a great number of people in one state and need some healthy competition to come their way - from the American sector and not the Government. Who can compete with tax dollars?
These concerns are very real to consider for a public option:
A diminishing control over personal health care decisions
Undermine state autonomy and authority in health policy which could undercut both innovation and experimentation to expand coverage and deliver quality care - especially for the poorest and most vulnerable citizens.
Perpetuate and generate unsustainable federal spending and in the face of serious budget crises it leads to government rationing of care and services.
History shows that the bureaucracy always spends far more on programs than the Beltway experts say it will.
One program that has spun wildly out of control is Medicare. Projected costs for 1990 was at $10 billion. Yet actual outlays were $107 billion. Now the program is spending more than it is taking in through the payroll tax that funds it, leaving Washington with only two options: ration Medicare or raise taxes.
Medicare, for instance, is considering cutting $1.4 billion in benefits beginning on Jan. 1, 2010. If the new schedule is adopted, the reductions will be in fees paid to cardiologists and oncologists.
I believe that Congress should provide tax relief for those who purchase coverage on their own and redirect other health care spending to help low-income individuals and families purchase private health insurance coverage.
The U.S. spends over $2.4 trillion on health care. Instead of spending an additional $1.6 trillion on a plan financed by tax increases and unproven savings from Medicare and Medicaid that may never materialize, Congress should restructure and redirect existing health care spending to make it more effective.
To address long-term health care costs, Congress needs to focus on fundamental reform of the tax treatment of health insurance and entitlements. At the very least, Congress should require that savings be realized before appropriating them to any expansions.
It's not too hard to realize that Congress needs to allow the states to develop solutions that will transfer direct control of health care dollars and personal health care decisions to individuals and families, not further Washington's control.
That was a very well thought out post, and was quite reasonable for the politics forum. lol.
I understand all of the reasoning behind your post. I do not necessarily disagree with all of it. However, where you see this (I think) as government increasing their control on our lives, I see it as the only option being seriously considered at this point. While not the best option out there, at least it is an option, and in my view, a betterment to the system we have now. As for who can compete with tax dollars, UPS and Fedex have been for years. I see this as a way to get affordable coverage to many families that are paying out the nose for sub-par health insurance. If they can have a government option that offers the same coverage as they have now, or more, for less than they pay now, I think every effort needs to be made to make it happen.
Linear Mode
