www.ditl.org

Sionnach Glic wrote:Why don't they want a public option? Is getting a public service not the whole f***ing point of this?

For the most part, because they've been bought by insurance companies. Therefore you have Democratic senators from places like Arkansas and Connecticut who oppose the public option even though a solid majority of their constituents want it.

Sionnach Glic wrote: Why don't they want a public option? Is getting a public service not the whole f***ing point of this?

If by public service you mean a single payer government run health care system, than no, that's not what this is supposed to do, and going there directly would probably be political suicide.

What the bill(s) are supposed to do is to provide a budget neutral expansion of the health care system where the "public option" is supposed to be government run but not taxpayer funded i.e. it brings in enough income to counter the cost. There are supposed to be an array of subsidies to allow more people to get health insurance, and there are a bunch of new restrictions placed on private insurers (no pre existing condition clauses for example).

In order to remain budget neautral while offering subsidies, those making over $250,000 a year see their taxes go up. To counter the blow to the industry from the new requirements, people are going to be forced to get health insurance or be fined, thus giving the health insurance companies more income, as typically the people who could afford insurance but don't get it are young and healthy.

The sticking points at the moment, at least the ones the Dems in question have officially given are:

-That the bill(s) have not be analyzed or in some cases even read yet. If this stuff gets passed and it doesn't even come close to being budget neutral or otherwise is viewed negatively than they'll be in deep trouble. Frankly I think anyone should be skittish about passing major legislation they haven't even read.

-That including a public option up front is unneccessary. They advocate passing the subsidies for the poor and requirements on private insurers and other elements of the bill, and seeing if that produces the desired results. Only if it does not should a public option be created. This lets them avoid the highest risk element of the bill which is the public option itself. See with subsidies and whatnot the Democrats can easily use creative accounting to say that costs for medicade or costs from the unisured would have skyrocketed if they weren't pumping money into subsidies, and so it'd be very hard to accuse that part of not being budget neutral. And it'd be very easy to point to the people the subsidies help. However with the public option it is much easier to prove if it is in the red, and it is much harder to prove it helps anyone if there are private insurers offering more for less and getting better customer approval ratings.

-There is also a lot of mincing about the various plans funding abortions with taxpayer money. There are a lot of single issue voters regarding abortion, and many more who find funding it distastful, so this could turn out to be a key factor.

sunnyside wrote: -That the bill(s) have not be analyzed or in some cases even read yet. If this stuff gets passed and it doesn't even come close to being budget neutral or otherwise is viewed negatively than they'll be in deep trouble. Frankly I think anyone should be skittish about passing major legislation they haven't even read.

If by saying not even close to being budget neutral you mean we save 100+ billion on the deficit then yes you're absolutely right. Must be horrible for the right to want to attack the health bill for being expensive when it is actually going to SAVE money.

-That including a public option up front is unneccessary. They advocate passing the subsidies for the poor and requirements on private insurers and other elements of the bill, and seeing if that produces the desired results. Only if it does not should a public option be created. This lets them avoid the highest risk element of the bill which is the public option itself. See with subsidies and whatnot the Democrats can easily use creative accounting to say that costs for medicade or costs from the unisured would have skyrocketed if they weren't pumping money into subsidies, and so it'd be very hard to accuse that part of not being budget neutral. And it'd be very easy to point to the people the subsidies help. However with the public option it is much easier to prove if it is in the red, and it is much harder to prove it helps anyone if there are private insurers offering more for less and getting better customer approval ratings.

Like 122 people in the US die every day due to lack of coverage. The right has had 8 years to sit around with their thumbs up their asses. I don't mean to be insulting but anyone who is not for public health reform (And for being on the Republican's side of this issue you're in favor of not doing shit) is in my opinion an evil bastard. So we can wait for a trigger and let 122 people die every day. Or we can not trust people who's sole interest in life is to make money and get a public option on the table.

-There is also a lot of mincing about the various plans funding abortions with taxpayer money. There are a lot of single issue voters regarding abortion, and many more who find funding it distastful, so this could turn out to be a key factor.

Sadly even though the majority of Americans are pro-choice the majority of our elected officials are pro-life.



Bottom line-
The democratic health care bills each save around 100 billion dollars over 10 years. One of them taxes the rich like .5% And 122 people die daily due to lack of health care. Sunny you're a nice guy, and I wouldn't group you with the evil bastards of the corporate evil doers but I am having a difficult time understanding why anyone would be in favor of letting 122 people die a day to give the health care providers a few more years when they've had over a hundred years already. Enough is enough. Its simple, no political crap. It needs to pass or more people will die. Every day that is delayed is 122 more people who die. 17 more children (not positive on the children number) who die without ever having a full childhood.

Not to sound offensive but if you're in favor of a trigger than you're in favor of killing children.

Monroe wrote:Like 122 people in the US die every day due to lack of coverage. The right has had 8 years to sit around with their thumbs up their asses. I don't mean to be insulting but anyone who is not for public health reform (And for being on the Republican's side of this issue you're in favor of not doing s**t) is in my opinion an evil b*****d. So we can wait for a trigger and let 122 people die every day. Or we can not trust people who's sole interest in life is to make money and get a public option on the table.

122 people per day? Jesus Christ. Even I didn't think it was that bad.

Where's that number from?

What the hell is a single payer system, it's a phrase that's meaningless here?

122/day is over 45,000 a year. That's 14 times more than died in 9/11. If they can find a sh*t load of funding for that many deaths then why can't the find it for this. I wouldn't be churlish enough to suggest that it's because those people were rich and these people are poor, but there has to be a reason.

IanKennedy wrote:What the hell is a single payer system, it's a phrase that's meaningless here?

More or less, the term "single-payer system" is what we use to describe a system vaguely similar to Canada's. There is one single insurer that covers everyone, and (while not necessary by the term's definition) that single insurer is usually meant to indicate the government.

Sonic Glitch wrote:Because the rich people shouldn't have to give up their fat paychecks and benefits for the poor lazy bums who aren't willing to get off their fat lazy asses and get a job and get insurance.[/right-wing loonie]

That's one reason, even though it's a fallacious one. A public option was never intended to mean a nationalized plan like the UK's; rather the public option (in it's original conception) was meant to be a mutual plan, administered the same way as private plans, but tun by the government and possibly subsidized in order to compete with those plans (and relax employment conditions for qualification.)

Monroe wrote: The democratic health care bills each save around 100 billion dollars over 10 years.

I believe it was Rochey who mentioned a while back that most people are in support of a public option and of the health care bill. However I believe support for the war in Iraq was something like 85% with over half the population strongly in favor.

Many, including a number of Democratic Sentaors it would appear, believe that the "savings" are the WMDs of health care reform. As with the WMDs, if they aren't found than it'll be very bad news for those that backed the thing.

but I am having a difficult time understanding why anyone would be in favor of letting 122 people die a day

The subsidies are independent of the public option. Even in the ideal situation, where the public option is cheaper because it isn't persuing profit, we're only talking about a few percentages off of the cost of health care here.

What will make some people able to get health care are the subsidies, and those could be used to get existing insurance plans. Some others may be able to get insurance because of the new federal laws making it so private industry can't descriminate based on pre-existing conditions, again, this is independent of a public option.

Every day that is delayed is 122 more people who die. 17 more children (not positive on the children number) who die without ever having a full childhood.

If the public option were dropped, strong language added to prevent funding of abortion, and a solid and transparent accounting of the rest to insure that the tax hikes will cover the costs, they'd have had their insurance months ago. Actually any two out of three of those might have done it. Now the kids may not get it at all because some people are dogmatic about having something, anything, in there called a public option and they won't let the abortion issue go.

I think much of this stems from misconceptions about what the public option is. It is not, in any of the bills, the British or Canadian systems, and is not the mechanism by which the poor will get insurance, and it does not mean cheap insurance for you. Actually, with a college education and savings they'll like as not be looking to fine you if you don't pick up a plan. There will probably be a subsidy, however presumably the pre-existing condition business will mean you also don't get a young and healthy discount and so you'd be paying as much as you would today, you just get a fine if you don't pay up.

I wouldn't be churlish enough to suggest that it's because those people were rich and these people are poor, but there has to be a reason.

I'm not sure about the figure given, and would be dubious of it. But I'm sure there is some rate of deaths that could have been prevented. I think the distinction is that 9/11 was a sudden dramatic murder, whereas since emergency treatment is covered deaths from lack of insurance are things like someone dying due to a cancer that could have been detected if they had a better plan. Much more spread out and less dramatic. Though the poor thing probably comes into play as well in all honesty. As well as the perception that this will all result in either the bankruptcy of a nation already on the brink or of a reduction in quality of care of the middle class. Take from the rich and give to the poor is easy to sell, however putting ones own loved ones in jeapordy while paying for someone else to have better treatment is a harder sell, and is why the GOP is working that angle.

But that's a bit off topic as this thread is more about why Democrats aren't supporting the plan, which has more to do with the earlier stuff in this post.


Anyway to be clear I do support health care reform, and I'd be behind the stuff Obama described in his big speech. I just have misgivings about all that being right, and due to the sheer volume of these bills few if any in Congress really have a good idea how correct any of that is. I'd support meaningful but simple reform. Add the tax hike proposed and put that exact sum annually towards the subsidies needed to extend coverage to those with pre-existing condition and those who don't make enough for coverage. Keep it short, run it though a critical accounting, and pass it.

Than start working on some other aspect as needed, if needed.

I may be complete and totally wrong, but from what I can understand, this health care "reform" is exactly the same as the existing health care insurance biased policy, only the government is the insurer.

Sionnach Glic wrote:

Monroe wrote:Like 122 people in the US die every day due to lack of coverage. The right has had 8 years to sit around with their thumbs up their asses. I don't mean to be insulting but anyone who is not for public health reform (And for being on the Republican's side of this issue you're in favor of not doing s**t) is in my opinion an evil b*****d. So we can wait for a trigger and let 122 people die every day. Or we can not trust people who's sole interest in life is to make money and get a public option on the table.

122 people per day? Jesus Christ. Even I didn't think it was that bad.

Where's that number from?

An independent study done by Harvard if I recall correctly. I'll try to find a link to it. MSN and CNN were quoting it all day the other day I'll try to find a vid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRhN9Hzl1TM
3:55 into the clip.

Reliant121 wrote:I may be complete and totally wrong, but from what I can understand, this health care "reform" is exactly the same as the existing health care insurance biased policy, only the government is the insurer.

Not really. That would be a single-payer system. The current reform is a requirement to carry insurance for the populace and enhanced ecouragement for employers to provide such. The public option, which may be from where your confusion stems, does not turn the government into the sole provider - it offers government-provided insurance as an alternative to still-extant private insurance, and not for free.

So, In my layman's term, the public option is basically making the government another health insurance company to compete with the others?

Reliant121 wrote:So, In my layman's term, the public option is basically making the government another health insurance company to compete with the others?

Yup

Can I ask, how on earth that benefits...well anyone? It'll still be payed for just like private healthcare, just via taxes if not directly.