119 Million Americans Must Be Wrong
As the health insurance industry and its defenders in Congress lay out their case against permitting a public option in a reform bill, perhaps their most curious argument is that some 119 million Americans are ready to dump their private plans and jump to something more like Medicare – and that's why the choice can't be permitted.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 48
If you are a member of Congress or a lobbyist it makes sense. The rest of us are having a hard time with it.
I agree, it's just like WHAT?!
Of course they would. They think it's FREE! Duh.
Well, to be sure, it ain't free.
But the evidence from all over the world is that it is far less expensive. Only Americans pay so much for so little as your private health insurance provides.
And it makes absolute economic sense that public, single-payer health insurance would be cheaper. It benefits from the economies of scale. All that private insurance has on its side is the tired old argument that competition makes them leaner and more cost effective. We saw how that played out for AIG and GM and ENRON and so many other private companies who were bloated and corrupt despite the magic of the marketplace.
OF COURSE it's NOT free. Nobody, that I'm aware of, thinks it's FREE. I'd just rather what I pay go to the people who are actually doing the work. NOT the insurance company who looks for ways to keep those same people from doing their jobs.
Single Payer would streamline the system. It would take the "middleman" out of the equation and pay the people who actually do the work directly.
But we have a government that has paid $800 for a toilet that we could buy ourselves for 1/10th that. Why should we trust them with our health care?!?!?!?!?! I've seen how hard it is for people on Medicaid and Medicare to get the care they need. Why should anyone else want our government involved in their care?!?!?!?!
Here under a government supported public health plan my wife recently was diagnosed with a blockage in one of her arteries feeding her heart. In 22 days she had a stress test, an angiogram, a pre-op examination and the surgery in addition to the initial doctors visit to our family doctor whom we selected (no government employee has ever had any say in who I see for medical service in over 40 years under public health care). The cost to us was $0.
Why wouldn't we want the government involved?
Obviously different governments, Rory, and that's exactly the point. We're not other countries. The one thing Obama SHOULD be appologizing for is to the people for being so stupid about spending money.
Marilyn said: I've seen how hard it is for people on Medicaid and Medicare to get the care they need
Well at least they can get care. They're a heck of a lot better off than those of us who actually work for a living who have no insurance or insurance that covers next to nothing.
Just keep in mind that those goofballs in Washington will come up with some crappy program in a pinch, no one will read anything in the 1000 page bill, and everyone will be stuck with it for years. That's their record, Heather. Meanwhile, how would you pay for this health care that everyone wants so desparately?
I'd be satisfied if it was taken away from people who won't get jobs (not those who can't for genuine medical reasons) that would free up some money.
Heather your statement makes no sense.
Is it the workers fault that our living wage jobs were sold off to a communist country? How many burger flippers do you think McDonald's can handle?
Your right about the thousand page bill nobody will bother reading.
As to the rest, how do you figure government that has put the next three generations of your family into tremendous debt to fight corporate wars for profit but should not be able to give the wealthiest people in the free world health insurance when all other free world countries did it decades ago?
To many people seem to forget that government exists to serve not be served. The public has a right to anything it is willing to pay for.
But that's exactly the point, Jack. Most people are not willing to pay for anything, but they want everything. They want those of us who do pay taxes to pay for their health care. Meanwhile, I'm sorry, but if you are in a family with 4 cell phones, 3 TVs, cable, DSL, 2 cars, and 2 adults and 2 teens with jobs, and you don't have health care, it's not my responsibilty to pay for something you could afford. That's what you find all over the US, Jack. Yes, there are some people who can hardly feed themselves. But many of them are already covered by Medicaid or some other county medical service. But in families that have a house full of game consoles, DVD players, big screen TVs, new cars, etc. to say they cannot afford health care is pure bologna. They could, but they want the government to "give" it to them.
Jack said:
"Heather your statement makes no sense. Is it the workers fault that our living wage jobs were sold off to a communist country? How many burger flippers do you think McDonald's can handle?"
I am not talking about taking it away from people who had jobs and lost them. I am saying take medical away from the worthless bums who are generational welfare recipients who have never held a job because they are too lazy to get off their bum and get one.
If you want to pin down a burden to society maybe we should have stricter welfare laws?
I do not know what welfare laws you are talking about Heather.
Federal sponsored welfare was ended. All welfare today is state sponsored as far as I know.
If their was anything good about the draft its that many generational bums were taken off the streets and put to good uses and in the process they learned the meaning of pride of accomplishment, respect for themselves and the people they share the country with.
She still has a point, though, Jack. A crack down on people who have not ever tried to do anything but be on welfare is needed in most states.
A crackdown is definitely needed but that is a different issue than national health care.
Why wouldn't people want to shed useless company health care that has such high premiums and out of sight copay?
Rory is right and its been proven that national health care is not the unmanageable cost that is spouted by political hacks.
Perhaps not in other places, Jack, but we're talking about the US. Remember the horrific spending bill? Remember $800 toilets? They don't know how to do anything without wasting money - our money!!!
Why would I want to change insurance companies? My husband's company insures itself. Many companies do that now. You know what that means? If you have a problem with something not being covered, you pick up the phone and call personnel and discuss it with them. And it gets fixed, lickity-split.
I don't want government insurance. I spent almost 20 years without insurance and did fine without it. Why? Because I knew that going to the doctor was my responsibility. I planned and saved for that - from the time I was out of high school. There were times I had insurance and times I did not, but I was always prepared. That's the way I was raised - to take care of myself. And I knew that I should never have any kids until and unless I could provide for them in the same way, and that's why my ex and I had only one child. We were not wealthy. He was on SS retirement by the time our son was 5 (he was 24 years older than me). And the most I ever made was $40,000 one year - the rest of the time I earned between $8000 and $12000. If you start out early in life knowing that you have to provide for yourself and your family, you work towards doing that. If you think the government will take care of you, you spend and spend (just like the government).
Where your healthcare seems great, others can have it really bad. Be glad you haven't tried the flipside.
Marilyn, if you can't use your head, use mine. It's not the public who'd jump... it's their employers who'll push em. They've already done it to retirees, and they'll do it to us.
Yes, some companies will do that. But, Chuck, if you've been listening to PEOPLE, they ARE saying they'd prefer a government program over what they have. And most idiots really do think of it as free.
Featured in ! Healthcare for EVERYBODY !
If people coud afford healt care coerage, they would have it. Most has less than adequte coverage s it is.
Insurance BIG money & the best politicians that money can buy know best....just ask them!
You do realize that your comments makes no sense at all, I hope?
i just wish we could afford it and not have to go without
I was (and still am) exceptionally angry about the bailout of AIG. I want, and will work towards with all of my resources, to see EVERY insurance company in America go belly up. They have gotten away with ripping the public for far too long.
ABSO-FREAKING-LUTELY!
Bologna butts. My husband works for a great insurance company. There are many.
"great insurance company"
Oxymoron.
Well... never thought I'd use that phrase!
"....119 million Americans are ready to dump their private plans and jump to something more like Medicare – and that's why the choice can't be permitted."
Could you elaborate on this a little more, Walker??
Why is the fact that "119 million Americans are ready to dump their private plans and jump to something more like Medicare" the reason why the choice can not be permitted??....
I believe the inference was that this is because the private health insurance companies, who actually run the show, will not allow it because they would lose 119 million captive consumers. Your personal choice is not a factor in the equation.
Ahh....well, if that is what W.B. meant, then it makes a little more sense now.....
This Government you're so afraid of having in charge of health insurance... Would that be the same government that's in charge of the most effective and efficient military the world has EVER seen? The same government that launched the Hubble Telescope, and those to little machines on Mars. Would this be the same government that effectively finances more basic and applied scientific research than all the other governments in the world... combined?
Yeah, there've been $800.00 hammers and $600.00 toilet seats (but, to be fair, that was sort af a special seat), and the Bradley is the least effective version of that family of vehicles. But, since in all the time available since Hillary first ran this flag up a pole, no one has made any attempt to come up with a better plan, I want to go with this one.
This will be interesting to watch and see what develops.
All it's about is insurance companies afraid of this cutting into their profits, and I think a majority of adults understand that this wouldn't be free; it would be supported with our tax dollars. So much of this debate is being framed, from the propaganda of the insurance companies; only concerned with their profits. There's talk about the government taking away choice from people, by telling people which doctor they can see, the government telling people what medical treatments they can recieve; ECT. Don't insurance companies to some degree, tell you what doctor you can see; or what hospital you can go to? you have to see a doctor, or go to a hospital, in the insurance company's network. If you need a certain medical treatment, it has to be on the list of what that insurance company covers; or you have to try to get them to cover it.
I also don't know why the government couldn't handle this, even if the system had some kinks that needed to be worked out; at first. Our tax dollars support things like the police and fire departments for example, as well as road repairs. Saying all that though, I do have to admit; I think there is one thing about the HR676 bill that is keeping it from being passed. The bill says that insurance companies could still sell policies for services not covered by the government plan, but that duplicate coverage would be illegal.
I say that that should be changed just a bit, allow insurance companies to continue selling coverage for the same health services they do now; while at the same time- still allowing a public health option that covers everything. Allow people the choice of having the option of either staying with private insurance, or going with the public option; as well as allowing someone to switch- if they would later change their mind. I think this would make a lot more people much more comfortable with the bill, and would go a LONG WAY to dispelling the propaganda surrounding the subject. It would also motivate insurance companies to improve their services, if they knew they'd have to compete with a universal healthcare option. I think doing it this way, would make it much harder for people to argue about choice being taken away.
But for this to come about the right way, we should do like Canada did and spend YEARS designing a program. Our politicians would never do that. They'll put something stupid together in a matter of weeks, then give everyone 24 hours to read it and they won't be able to do that. Then they'll put some stipulations in that say it cannot be changed for decades. I don't trust them one bit, especially with my health care.
You think they're handling what money they have (and don't have) right now?
You think they're actually taking care of roads?
Police and fire are local government issues, aren't they? If the federal government handled them that would be a whole other mess.
The HR676 bill says that it will be implemented over a 15 year period though. and yes, the police and fire departments are local government issues; but government is nonetheless involved. The police and fire departments are still supported through people's tax dollars, we don't pay the police or fire department money out of our pocket if they come to our house. And no, the roads in this country aren't taken care of perfectly; but what would they look like if their repair wasn't supported at least to some extent with tax dollars? Just because a new way of doing something isn't perfect, doesn't mean we should be afraid to try a new way.
But you should never give more money to any institution that is failing. Our government does not know how to handle money. Why toss more at it? And you do realize that it will take much more money to have nationalized health care, don't you? Check out how much other countries pay in taxes (rates).
We are accorded "equal protection under the law" - that should include healthcare. These countries believe that healthcare is a right of citizenship -here it's "protect the profits .. screw the patient". It happend to my family - so don't speak for the rest of us. You don't have to worry unless your husband loses his job .. and God forbid you get sick .. you'll be dropped like the rest of the people.
I have VA and wouldn't trade it for anything
and if you feel the Republican can do a better job - why didn't they come up with a plan to "tweak" healthcare - other than introduce Part D
In a Democratic Republic, the representatives of the people are supposed to actually represent their wishes, not the wishes of the party.
If 119-million voted for John McCain, you would assume that he would be President.
If 119-million vote for single-payer health insurance, you should also assume that would become fact.
535 people on Capitol hill cannot override the will of the electorate.
Charles its not your elected representatives that decide whats right and wrong for you, they were elected to represent you not dictate to you.
I will refer you to the "Washington Post" Saturday June 6 edition. By line Dan Eggan, 'Single-Payer' Supporters Challenge Democrats.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2266444/posts