Public option for healthcare

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

I'm not one to say hat the American healthcare system is perfect, it's absolutely not perfect... but nothing is. We keep pushing forward with these radical ideas with no real thought towards unintended consequences all because there are flaws in what we deem should be perfect.

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.

The point of the public option is for healthcare to be available to anyone, instead of it just being a luxury. While you can talk bad about government run things like public schooling, social security, law enforcement etc.. the point of these things are to make these human needs available to everyone.

A public school is not the best for a student to go to, that's why there's private schools. Law enforcement isn't the best security for everyone, that's why people hire bodygaurds. I don't see any direct complaints from the public about social security.. but I'm sure if they hate it enough they don't have to go through such systems. (but good luck getting private insurance for a reasonable price if you're old and sick)

The point is to give people an OPTION that is not based in making a profit off of you, and that is not trying to deny you care when you really get sick.

If the government programs are so bad, why aren't politicians openly fighting against it. Why isn't anyone trying to get rid of medicare and medicaid? Why isn't anyone trying to get rid of the public schooling system? Of course I know why nobody does that, and yes there reasons for not doing it is reasonable.. But I think healthcare is something that should fit into the same category and shouldn't be handled by a regulated private sector.

I think the public option should be made, and once its there.. when it has some issues we should dow hat we can to try and fix it.

While government can be good at regulating and policing private bodies, it's always been proven to be woefully inadequate at RUNNING anything. Waste, quotas, corruption and politics tend to make decisions instead of professionals (see public education for an example). I've always found it curious that every public societal function that is controlled by the government is continually and unendingly ridiculed, yet the answer to all of this criticism is "make it bigger/throw more money at it".

I'd rather it be in this position then where it is now. Where politicians are taking 'donations' from these private health insurance companies to vote with them, even though its clear that they're breaking the system as it is now.

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.

At this point, I don't think there's any reasonable regulations that can be done on the private healthcare insurance companies without pretty much destorying what makes them profitable in the first place. Like setting regulations in there about renegotiating healthcare or dropping healthcare, or making it manditory to provide it to anyone regardless of age.. or no longer being able to discriminate on the price based on age... like wild things like that.. And even if things like that were set in, they'd either find loopholes, or blame the government directly for all of their problems based on the regulation in an effort to get the regulations lifted.

So why waste our time and money regulating them? We should make them compete with a proper healthcare system to start.

Why shouldn't healthcare be a right instead of a luxury?

[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.

[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

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]

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]

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]

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.

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by Professor S

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.

Originally Posted by TheGame

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!

http://www.infoplease.com/world/statistics/obesity.html

We are actually the 9th fattest country. What would be more interesting to look at is annual deaths from conditions like Diabetes and Heart Disease. You could make the case that this country suffers from a ton of deaths from weight disorders:
http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html
Major Cardiovasular Diseases being the number 1 cause of death and diabetes being the number 4 cause.

Again, though, these statistics would need to be weighed against other country's statistics.

I do believe a moral issue would arise (should the public have to pay for the quadruple bypass of someone who chose their lifestyle?). Besides pointing out that you neglected to rebuttal the moral premise of 'the exploitative unhealthy body' in social health care that Prof S made, I ask; how could doctors or the government enforce exercise? I ask this question not with debate in mind but simply to suggest public health care or not, the weight epidemic will continue to be an epidemic.

Edit: I do also want to clarify that it's not so much an "epidemic" as a social reaction to our lifestyles and diets. The term epidemic does not do the complicated problem that obesity is justice. Furthermore, the BMI scale used to determine obesity is flawed and that is (IMO) a factor in the inflated obesity statistics. But that really is irrelevant in this discussion...I just didn't want anyone to think I felt a particular way about the way people weigh.

[TheGame]

Percentage wise, are 9th. But look at the countries that are 1-8...

The population is 10,000 people in Nauru, 155,000 in Micronesia, 20,000 in Cook islands, 112,000 in Tonga, a whopping 1,398 in Niue, 188,000 in Samoa, 21,000 in Palau, and last but not least, 2.7 million in Kuwait.

And there's 300,000,000 (or 300 million) in the united states.

So you're right, we're not the fattest country percentage wise, but we're the home to the most fat people. And we're worse percentage wise then any compareable free western countries.

-EDIT-

I think I may as well reply to the other half of your post too. The government would not have to enforce excersize any more then private health insurance would. Since the public option would not be manditory. It'd be subject to its own premium, and not some direct tax like social security is. I don't see how a reasonable conclusion could be drawn that they would force people to stay in shape. (I could imagine them supporting it by offering some type of discount, or doing different things to help people get into shape since that'd help with the costs of the program.. but actually making it illegal to be unhealthy? Yeah right.)

As for your thoughts on BMI, I agree completly, its very out dated. Everybody is different.