Re: Public option for healthcare
 

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.

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.

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.

Re: Public option for healthcare
 

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Re: Public option for healthcare
 

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'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.

:lol:

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.

Re: Public option for healthcare
 

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

So lets see...

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 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.

Re: Public option for healthcare
 

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