Clear Majority Now Supports Public Option
Rebounding from low numbers during the summer, a clear majority of Americans now support a public health care plan that would compete with private insurers, according to a new Washington Post/ABC News poll.
On the issue that has been a flash point in the national debate, 57 percent of all Americans now favor a public insurance option, while 40 percent are opposed. Support has risen since mid-August, when a bare majority, 52 percent, said they favored it. (In a June Post-ABC poll, support had been at 62 percent.)
The president’s ratings are still positive, but losing altitude with liberals.
Overall, 57 percent approve of the way Obama is handling his job as president and 40 percent disapprove. While those numbers have moved only marginally over the past few months, here too, there are fresh signs of issues among the party faithful: “strong approval” among liberal Democrats is down 16 percentage points over the past month.
So much for the center-right country lie.
EricG Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 4:02 pm
It goes well beyond that.
The Luntz Lie that this is a “center-right” country was true about five years ago.
Now the US is done with that noise.
Now we are center-left.
In fact it’s looking like we might just be left.
Straight-up, no “center”.
If only 20% of people identify with the Republican Party then this just might be so…
October 19th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
“This Washington Post-ABC News poll was conducted by telephone Oct. 15-18, 2009, among a random national sample of 1,004 …” Alan, according to WP’s own methodology summary this wasn’t a very scientific poll in that it was merely a random sampling of those people with phones. Perhaps a more accurate and scientific poll could be found at rasmussenreports.com but that wouldn’t support your argument would it?
OldLefty Reply:
October 19th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
There has ALWAYS been support for a public option….it just wanes when you the industry lies about it.
June 20, 2009
Americans overwhelmingly support substantial changes to the health care system and are strongly behind one of the most contentious proposals Congress is considering, a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
Sept 2003
NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll,
And 53 percent felt either that “creating a public health care plan administered by the federal government that would compete directly with private health insurance companies” must be included in legislation (26 percent) or that they would prefer that it be included (27 percent).
Oct 2009
CBS News poll shows that the public backs, by 62-31, inclusion of a public option in health care reform. This result is consistent with several other recent polls showing support for a public option.
In Aug
In the Kaiser poll, 59 percent favor “creating a government-administered public health insurance option similar to Medicare to compete with private health insurance plans,” exactly the same as July’s 59 percent.
Lee Reply:
October 19th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
“Perhaps a more accurate and scientific poll could be found at rasmussenreports.com but that wouldn’t support your argument would it?”
(From Rasmussen Reports October 04):
“The first question finds that 46% favor the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option that people could choose instead of a private health insurance plan. Thirty-seven percent (37%) are opposed. ”
So yes even Rasmussen shows that more people favor the public option than are against it.
Depending on which analysis you look at, government-run options are anywhere from about 20% to 1000% more cost-effective. There is not a single study I’ve seen that shows government-run options to have greater or even equal costs. In addition, the people responsible for choosing whether your healthcare gets covered are not ultimately reporting to shareholders but instead reporting to you.
But hey, if you are a Conservative, why let logic, common sense and the whole picture get in the way of profit, selfishness, selective truths and denying countless fellow Americans the healthcare they need to live a better life..
JaredfromTexas Reply:
October 20th, 2009 at 1:35 am
LEE,
So yes even Rasmussen shows that more people favor the public option than are against it.
“selective truths”
Uh…that may have been the case in 2004…but we’re knocking on the door to 2010. Need some help? rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform
Depending on which analysis you look at, government-run options are anywhere from about 20% to 1000% more cost-effective.
HUH? $1.6M dollar space station toilet???? Who are you trying to convince with this bull-shiat, LEE?
But hey, if you are a Conservative, why let logic, common sense and the whole picture get in the way of profit, selfishness, selective truths and denying countless fellow Americans the healthcare they need to live a better life..
Oh…instead of the liberal arguments to common sense (how’s the $14T deficit working out?), and the whole picture (yeah…about that 10% unemployment…), selfishness (hmmm…tax cheats anyone?), selective truths (now THAT’s a good one, LEE! We could go one-for-one on this point, if you’d like…or maybe you wouldn’t like).
denying countless fellow Americans the healthcare they need
“selective truths” – take 2.
Lee Reply:
October 20th, 2009 at 8:24 am
Jared,
“So yes even Rasmussen shows that more people favor the public option than are against it.
“selective truths”
Did you even bother to read the quote from RASMUSSEN that I posted? It is quite specific about the public option. I don’t think you seem to understand how polls work..
“Depending on which analysis you look at, government-run options are anywhere from about 20% to 1000% more cost-effective.
HUH? $1.6M dollar space station toilet???? Who are you trying to convince with this bull-shiat, LEE?”
Will you do SOME research please before calling me a liar? Please? If you look at Medicare, on a very raw basis about 3% of each dollar spent goes to admin costs. This compares to 30% of each dollar for private insurance companies i.e for those of us with at least a rudimentary understanding of mathematics, this is a 1000% more cost-effective.
However, I’ve seen some analysis that when you take away the fact that private insurance companies pay taxes, their profit as well as projecting additional cost inefficiencies Medicare would get from supporting the same demographics, the difference goes to around 20% more cost-effective. The truth is somewhere in between these two numbers but clearly the trend is indisputable.
“(how’s the $14T deficit working out?),”
Ah yes, the deficit that as usual the Democrats are left to sort out and fix. Well according to even the CBO, the current version of the healthcare bill will reduce the deficit.
“10% unemployment” – Yeah, Pres. Obama’s fault right!?
“hmmm…tax cheats anyone?” – You’re seriously equating a few thousand dollars in cheating to the millions and billions gouged from taxpayers by corporations, good grief!..
selective truths (now THAT’s a good one, LEE!) – I know, don’t you guys love doing it. Where would you like to start? Healthcare selective truths seems to be the Conservative favorite at the moment or we can talk about the deficit (e.g ignoring the effect of tax cuts, ignoring the the economic situation when berating public spending or Iraq (the big one.. i.e ignoring the fact there were/are no WMD’s)..
JaredfromTexas Reply:
October 20th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
LEE,
Did you even bother to read the quote from RASMUSSEN that I posted?
Yes…I read your post from a poll conducted in 2004. Nice try, though.
If you look at Medicare, on a very raw basis about 3% of each dollar spent goes to admin costs.
Will YOU do some research??? You’re using Medicare as an example of gov’t efficiency??? How ’bout reigning in that blatant fraud before claiming the program is “cost-effective”?
Ah yes, the deficit that as usual the Democrats are left to sort out and fix.
Another one of your “selective truths” here…You seem to be implying that Dems had NOTHING to do with the current deficit…again…nice try.
“10% unemployment” – Yeah, Pres. Obama’s fault right!?
I didn’t say it was Obama’s fault…stop putting words in my mouth. HOWEVER, since you brought it up, Obama did promise the unemployment rate would NOT get above 8.5% – how’s that working out for him?
You’re seriously equating a few thousand dollars in cheating to the millions and billions gouged from taxpayers by corporations
Billions gouged from taxpayers who are all too willing to pay for their service, LEE. Last time I checked, an American isn’t REQUIRED to participate in a program where a fee is paid. Again…nice try.
Healthcare selective truths seems to be the Conservative favorite at the moment
Such as? So vague…
we can talk about the deficit
Sure, let’s talk about the deficit, then. How many Dems voted for the tax cuts again?
ignoring the fact there were/are no WMD’s
Yawn…how many times are you libs going to bring this up? Bush and Co. apologized to the American people for this mistake. Oh, by the way…the absence of actual WMDs doesn’t mean there wasn’t the capability to create WMDs. THAT fact seems to escape you time and time again.
Lee Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 9:12 am
Jared,
For a start the Rasmussen poll I referred to was from October 4th 2009! not 2004.. When comparing cost efficiency yes Medicare is THE only sensible comparison and trying to shift an overall comparison of cost to a specific issue such as fraud just makes my point about your ’selective truth’ taken out of context.
The deficit is invariably equated to public spending alone (ignoring tax revenue) and the context of the spending explosion is invariably ignored. You are again, a poster child for this.
I don’t think you understood the ‘gouging’ I was referring to. I’m talking about tax subsidies to folks that don’t need them (but have powerful lobbies) or war profiteering by using no-bid contracts etc
For Healthcare, let me give you a few ’selective truths’.. focusing on cancer survivability but ignoring cancer mortality, focusing on access/quality of emergency care but ignoring preventative/primary care.. bringing up cross-state competition, tort reform etc but just hand-waving about how much it will reduce costs..Spinning results from polls like Rasmussen to create a misleading position.. I really could go on and on but my posts are long enough as it is..
And as for WMD’s, given the hundreds of thousands of people, American’s, Iraqi’s, Brit’s and others that have died in the name of this sheer folly. Yes, you are darn right I will keep bringing it up and also make sure that my children know about one of the most foolhardy and yet avoidable presidential decisions ever made in this country.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 2:39 pm
LEE,
For a start the Rasmussen poll I referred to was from October 4th 2009! not 2004..
Hmmm…I must’ve gotten confused, because your original post (From Rasmussen Reports October 04):
Post the link to this study you found from ‘09 if you wouldn’t mind.
trying to shift an overall comparison of cost to a specific issue such as fraud just makes my point about your ’selective truth’ taken out of context.
You sure are trying hard..I’ll give you that. HOWEVER, YOU made the claim that Medicare was a model of gov’t efficiency…did you not? Tell me then…how can you possibly claim the program is “cost-effective” when it’s ripe with million dollar per year fraud???? Now, let’s revisit your “selective truths” point…it seems you may be guilty of the same thing you’re accusing me of.
The deficit is invariably equated to public spending alone (ignoring tax revenue) and the context of the spending explosion is invariably ignored.
Well, no sh!t, high speed. How’s Obama doing in the “public spending” and “spending explosion” categories? Oh, by the way, I’m going to need to you explain how I’m the “poster child” for this though.
I don’t think you understood the ‘gouging’ I was referring to. I’m talking about tax subsidies to folks that don’t need them (but have powerful lobbies) or war profiteering by using no-bid contracts etc
All I’m hearing with this statement when related to your original is: “No, what I meant to say was…”
focusing on cancer survivability but ignoring cancer mortality
You’ll have to be more specific. What are “the conservatives” (as if that wasn’t intentionally disingenuous) saying/not saying?
focusing on access/quality of emergency care but ignoring preventative/primary care
No…you seem to be confused. When asked if 100% of Americans have access to health care, the answer is YES. You can take obviously take it one step further and define the characteristics of what constitutes “health care” depending on your political agenda. Which, BOTH sides have done.
bringing up cross-state competition, tort reform etc but just hand-waving about how much it will reduce costs.
Sheesh…this is getting boring because you’re not using that head of yours. All you have to do to INFER cost savings is to look at related services being provided across state lines. All you have to do to INFER cost savings from tort reform is to look at states that have had success with this program.
Spinning results from polls like Rasmussen to create a misleading position
I’m sensing that you think only Republicans are guilty of this???? Welcome back to earth, my friend.
Lee Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 7:07 pm
“(From Rasmussen Reports October 04):
Post the link to this study you found from ‘09 if you wouldn’t mind.”
Well maybe it did look I posted from 2004 but nevertheless goto the website and they have recent polls archived. Click on October 4th and go about halfway down the page.
“Tell me then…how can you possibly claim the program is “cost-effective” when it’s ripe with million dollar per year fraud???? ”
Because the waste (’fraud’ in this case) is still insignificant compared to the overall costs. It’s also ironically linked to abuse by private providers so its hardly a good line of attack..
“how I’m the “poster child” for this though. ”
It’s because you never blame lack of tax revenue or previous tax cuts.. I’ve never seen you do it. A deficit is simply Tax revenue/interest minus Public spending and debt payments. Therefore, it’s disingenuous to decry public spending as being the cause of the deficit and ignoring the tax cuts.
In addition, large does of public spending is a well-known, accepted economic remedy to a recession or depression. Almost every other country in the Western world similarly exploded public spending to boost their economies.
However, again like most Conservatives you ignore this and pretend that the economic situation has nothing to do with the reason why government invoked these spending programs and instead they are reckless/socialist/blah blah blah.
“No…you seem to be confused. When asked if 100% of Americans have access to health care, the answer is YES.”
I’m not confused. I’m sadly, extremely well-informed on this issue. All Americans have ‘access’ to emergency care and depending on whether there is a free clinic nearby, limited access to preventative (’check-ups’ etc) and primary care such as follow-up’s and treatment for longer term diseases like hypertension that don’t get covered by Medicare.
These definitions are not political, they are Medical. Our ‘healthcare system’ is more accurately described as a ‘disease management system’ (Thankyou Dr Andrew Weil).
“All you have to do to INFER cost savings is to look at related services being provided across state lines”
*sigh* the ’savings’ you refer have nothing to do with competition between Insurance companies as Conservatives preach but the truth is it’s competition between different state legislature. That is, the states with weak protection for patients offer cheaper rates. It’s like allowing a state that builds cars without airbags/seatbelts and other safety features to be able to sell those to states trying to protect their citizens..
“All you have to do to INFER cost savings from tort reform is to look at states that have had success with this program. ”
Good grief.. what ’success’!? It simply hasn’t worked in the 26 odd states that have tried it. Unlike you (and other conservatives), I’ll give you the numbers to back this up if you still don’t believe me. It’s actually RAISED insurance rates in many states including your own!
“Spinning results from polls like Rasmussen to create a misleading position
I’m sensing that you think only Republicans are guilty of this???? Welcome back to earth, my friend.”
Sure, I have no doubt the Dem’s would do the same. The problem though is that on health care reform in particular, only one side needs to spin the results and it isn’t the Dems.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 10:36 pm
LEE,
While I admire your energy…giving me a report that’s more than 2 weeks old is a bit of a stretch. There was a study that Rasmussen did on Oct 19 that says most Americans oppose the current health care plans.
It’s also ironically linked to abuse by private providers so its hardly a good line of attack.
So, let me get this straight…the failure of the gov’t to provide effective oversight of the monies involved in the gov’t program IS NOT the responsibility of the gov’t?
but the truth is it’s competition between different state legislature.
Car insurance comes to mind. The reason why we keep hearing about ridiculous savings per year on car insurance premiums is because I can buy Geico insurance regardless of the state I live in. That’s just not the case with health insurance. Your analogy just doesn’t fly, LEE. There is NO WAY state governments would allow such a thing to occur because there are FEDERAL requirements for vehicle safety.
It’s actually RAISED insurance rates in many states including your own!
Remember your “selective truths” statement? Well…this is one of them. Yes, insurance premiums have risen in Texas…but at what rate comared with the national average?
The problem though is that on health care reform in particular, only one side needs to spin the results and it isn’t the Dems.
Perhaps I spoke a bit too soon when I congratulated you on coming back down to earth. How ’bout the whole “budget neutral” thing? Or the inevitable increased taxes? Or the “if you like your plan and doctor…you can keep it!? Or the “national plan will increase competition with private insurers!”? Would you like me to keep going?
Lee Reply:
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:13 am
“was a study that Rasmussen did on Oct 19 that says most Americans oppose the current health care plans. ”
But it didn;t ask about the public option! Even I don’t support the current bill but thats a totally separate question to do you support the public option. The last time Rasmussen asked that specific question was October 4th and more people wanted it than opposed!
“the failure of the gov’t to provide effective oversight of the monies involved in the gov’t program IS NOT the responsibility of the gov’t? ”
Uh? What has that got to do with evaluating whether something is ‘cost-effective’. This is a simple matter of math. If you want to state there is ‘waste’ then it’s a sidebar argument thats irrelevant in itself. The fact is that even if you include this ‘waste’ in the costs, Medicare is still much more cost-effective than for profit companies.
But again, this is a typical Conservative tactic. Bringing up corruption is as irrelevant as bringing up the fact its underfunded (i.e the ‘Medicare is bankrupt’ mantra). The issue was ‘cost-effectiveness’ and unless you put the corruption in the full context of how much it affects the overall cost, its a spurious argument.
“Your analogy just doesn’t fly, LEE”
Jared. I’m simply stating the facts. There is significant intra-state competition in every state ALREADY. For example, some version of Blue-Cross, UHC, AETNA etc is present in virtually every one. The _only_ reason why there is differences in costs is because some states crack down on insurance more than others and make it tougher for them to drop coverage etc. In these states, insurance is more expensive.
What you gain from bringing down the inter-state barriers is that someone can ‘choose’ to buy insurance from a state that won’t protect them as much if some adverse event happens.
If you are pretty poor and have an option to buy a car a few thousand dollars cheaper but knowing it hasn’t gone through all the safety standards another similar car has gone through, people will tend to buy the cheaper car with the ‘it won’t happen to me’ perspective. If there was such federal protection for health insurance then you’d have a point. But there isn’t and if there was then prices would be largely the same from state to state because the actuarial risk is the same.
“Well…this is one of them. Yes, insurance premiums have risen in Texas…but at what rate comared with the national average?”
Ok look at tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/mahabarbara/2009/06/seducing-the-states-with-tort.php
for a start but this quote is quite pertinent to your misconceptions:
“The problem with that picture is that health care costs in Texas not only continued to rise after 2003; they rose more than in most of the rest of the country. In 2008, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that Texans enjoyed the third fastest increase in health insurance premiums in the nation. ”
“Perhaps I spoke a bit too soon ..”
Yes, there is some spin with the ‘doctor fix’ additional bill etc but even so I still contend it’s nowhere on the scale of the Right. Also, it’s not spin to suggest you’ll be able to keep your plan and that a national option will increase competition. Both statements still make sense and until I see actual evidence that neither is the case, I would contend arguments to the contrary are misleading interpretations and spin from the Right.
EricG Reply:
October 20th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Bernie,
Would you support a piece of data at any conjuncture?
On any topic?
because throwing about this poll is fine with me but saying that people are not in support of health care reform is just plain uneducated and wrong. Sounds like somebody slurps up the FOX News spin like so many others chose to.
MIX YOUR MEDIA AMERICA!
–
I’ll look at Rasmussen but I find you need a collaboration of data or you are looking at only a piece of the picture.
That’s what conservatives mainly talk about these days:
A small, tiny, fractional percentage of the truth.
–
http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1593
Two-thirds (66%) favor the so-called “individual mandate,” which would require that all Americans have insurance, with the government providing financial help to those who cannot afford it. Nearly six-in-ten (59%) favor requiring employers to pay into a health care fund if they do not provide insurance to their employees, and a similar percentage favors raising taxes on upper-income families to help pay for the changes (58%). The so-called “public option,” described to respondents as “a government health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans,” is supported by 55% of the public, essentially unchanged from July (52%).
October 19th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
New York Times/CBS News poll.
The Times and CBS are just a wing of the Democrat Party.
OldLefty Reply:
October 19th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
I guess we ALL have our own polls, and our own facts.
What’s the “Democrat” party?
Is that like Edith Bunker’s “groinocologist?”
John Galt Reply:
October 19th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Is that like Edith Bunker’s “groinocologist?”
THAT is funny. Awesome.
TDro319 Reply:
October 20th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
“The Times and CBS are just a wing of the Democrat Party.”
Yeah so is NBC, ABC, PBS, CNN, CBC, TNT, TBS, C-Span, etc., etc… In short, every television station is a wing of the democratIC party – except Fox “News” which is obviously fair and balanced
jasperjava Reply:
October 20th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
That’s because we all know that truth and facts have a well-known liberal bias.
If you want to immerse yourself into the bizarro fantasy world of faith-based “news”, then by all means watch FOX. It’s a la-la land where Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were best buddies, the 9/11 highjackers were Iraqi, and there were WMDs in “Baghdad and Tikrit and North, South, East, and West somewhat”. Tax cuts increase government revenue, and tax cuts to the rich “trickle down” to the rest of us, and Reagan was a fiscal conservative despite record-breaking deficits. George W. B*sh was a strong, respected, admired leader who “kept us safe”, and paying bonuses to insurance company executives help keep healthcare costs down, etc. etc.
EricG Reply:
October 20th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
The Times and CBS are just a wing of the Democrat Party.
Well okay.
But that means they are not news orgs.
On that note, FOX News, The Wall Street Journal and The NY Post are just a wing of the Republican Party.
Which means they are not news orgs. They are political lobbies.
All of them.
Glad we agree, John.
The media and the press are corrupt and controlled by corporate greed instead of journalistic ethics.
FOX News and all the crud you pick up your nonsense from is like a propaganda machine for the GOP and it’s not “news” it’s “comedy”.
That’s what I remind people about watching Countdown with Keith Olberman or maybe listening to the Alan Colmes Radio Show.
These people are political comedians, just like Beck – O’Reilly – Hannity – Limbaugh – Ingram – Savage – etc.
October 19th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
ALAN,
This sampling seems a bit confused…how else could you explain the majority being FOR a public option…but then a majority being AGAINST the gov’t running it…the majority being OPPOSED to the currently proposed reforms (generally)…the majority being OPPOSED to the overall cost…etc.
Interesting…don’tcha think?
Rocky the Liberal Rottweiler Reply:
October 20th, 2009 at 3:02 am
Alan isn’t from Texas, so he’s not “interested” by the banal.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
October 20th, 2009 at 3:07 am
Not surprising that you left-wingnuts wouldn’t be interested in the “routine” and “boring” conflicting responses in this report. As long as you can tout an increase in support for the public-option – all the while denying the existence of conflicting information within the same report. So sad…
EricG Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 4:05 pm
you prick-wad conservatives always lump everyone together in your statements that I see no reason not to return the favor.
All Republicans are racists. All of them.
They are all liars, too.
And all conservatives are fascists. All of them.
Every single one you ever met, loves Hitler like a father.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Hey, you stay classy, little ERIC.
Otherwise, I’d like you to point out where I’ve “lumped everyone together in my statements”.
karthiks030977 Reply:
October 20th, 2009 at 6:52 am
Another case of Jaredstics, which is Jared’s version of Statistics…
“all the while denying the existence of conflicting information within the same report”
This of course is conjured by the Jaredstics method through the following M.O.:
Take question 10 of the survey,which answers the above Jaredstics hypothesis, but not with the answer Jaredstics wants to tout: Pretend you didnt see the statistics on that direct question.
Take question 12 or any other question of your choice, that has options “support,oppose,no opinion”.
This statistic of course must fit the Jaredstics hypothesis that Jared set out to tout.
Copy this answer, paste it on top of Question 10, and Voila, you have the Jaredstics conclusion that there’s “existence of conflicting information within the same report”…Now put on a “tch-tch” act and hopefully noone will go check the survey and see the divergence between Jaredstics and statistics.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
October 20th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
Apu,
I figured you were smarter than this…what with your cracker-jack “PhD” and all…boy was I way off.
Nice attempt at convoluting the intent of my comments by posting irrelevant drivel – this is me NOT being surprised.
Since you’re having a hard time parsing English, let me help you out:
Take Question #8 (the question about which ALAN posted this topic) – 57% SUPPORT a public option (which, if you don’t know…is at gov’t run insurance plan).
Then you take Question #13 – 42% (majority) think the current plans equate to TOO MUCH gov’t control.
Even YOU should be able to figure out the conflict here. I honestly doubt you could intelligently argue there aren’t conflicting results here…I’m pretty sure you’re only pulling this stuff out of your arse because it was me who pointed out the discrepancy. So sad…
By the way…you still haven’t provided an educated response to the obvious conflicts. If you’re OK with “projecting” (uh-oh…there’s your favorite word!) your inability to understand the poll results onto my regurgitation of the FACTS contained within the poll…then be my guest.
karthiks030977 Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Dear Jarhead:
“Then you take Question #13 – 42% (majority) think the current plans equate to TOO MUCH gov’t control.
Even YOU should be able to figure out the conflict here. I honestly doubt you could intelligently argue there aren’t conflicting results here
”
Yes, they arent conflicting results.
Because you are assuming that those who think there’s “too much government control” automatically do not want it, or think its a bad thing.
Once you stop distorting the statistics by superimposing YOUR views on the measured stat, you will see you have what you usually have…NOTHING.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 2:48 pm
APU,
you are assuming that those who think there’s “too much government control” automatically do not want it, or think its a bad thing.
Which is an entirely fair assessment based entirely ON THEIR OWN RESPONSES. When a person states there is “too much” of something…the implication is they didn’t want that much. By the way…when was the last time the phrase “too much gov’t control” implied anything other than a “bad thing”?
Saying you want a government-run insurance plan…but then saying the plan would have too much government control is a conflict of ideas. What don’t you get???
You’re wrong on this one, APU…it’s too bad that you’re too steeped in your blind dislike for me to even realize that what you’re saying makes no sense.
OldLefty Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 2:55 pm
About this question #13
13. Do you think the health care plan creates too much government involvement in the nation’s health care system, not enough government involvement or about the right amount?
Too much Not enough Right amount No opinion
42 21 34 2
Between Not enough (21) and Right amount (34), doesn’t that equal 55%?
karthiks030977 Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 2:57 pm
“When a person states there is “too much” of something…the implication is they didn’t want that much”
That’s not true: In fact, you are blinding yourself to the statistic IN the survey: Among those who felt it was “too much”, they were ASKED if they were OK with that much “government control”. A sizeable % answered YES. Now, if you wanna blind yourself to the stats as you usually do, go ahead, its a free country.
“when was the last time the phrase “too much gov’t control” implied anything other than a “bad thing”?”
Since people figured Republicans use this “topic” as a smokescreen to evade accountability. When you wake up and smell the coffee, you’ll realize it doesnt necessarily have to be bad: Its necessarily bad is ideology.And like with all ideologies, it doesnt have basis other than blind belief.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 3:06 pm
APU,
You’re a riot today…a “sizeable” amount DOES want that much gov’t control…but that’s not the point, is it?
No…the point was to indicate the MAJORITY does NOT want that much gov’t control. Stop trying to spin the information to suit your lame…and wrong…argument. You were saying something about “blinding yourself to the stats”…do you want to retract that now that you’ve decided to ignore the poll numbers?
When you wake up and smell the coffee, you’ll realize it doesnt necessarily have to be bad:
That’s what I thought…no example of my question…but plenty of obfuscation. Typical response from you.
karthiks030977 Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 3:21 pm
“You’re a riot today…a “sizeable” amount DOES want that much gov’t control…but that’s not the point, is it?”
It doesnt take much to amuse a childish mind like yours. But I didnt see you answer to the point,AGAIN:
How come many people said “too much control” is OKAY? I thought you said the people who say “too much control” automatically feel its bad: HOW come the survey YOU quote itself says “a good % of those people felt it was OK?”
“That’s what I thought…no example of my question”
Thats because you skip the direct answer to your question:
Pasting it again: Lets see how you will skip it again:
Question was:
““when was the last time the phrase “too much gov’t control” implied anything other than a “bad thing”?”
”
Answer was:
“Since people figured Republicans use this “topic” as a smokescreen to evade accountability”
Did you read it?Did you skip it as usual? Or did you have problems parsing simple English?
JaredfromTexas Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 3:58 pm
APU,
Let’s review, shall we…because it’s quite obvious you’re an idiot.
YOU made the claim “a sizeable # said they were okay with the amount of gov’t control”…NOT ME. So, crediting YOUR statement as MINE is just plain ignorant.
I stated the facts in the study: THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WHO ANSWERED SAID THIS PLAN EQUATES TO TOO MUCH GOV’T CONTROL.
THAT IS A FACT OF THE STUDY and NOT my opinion, buttercup.
Oh, and another thing…NOWHERE in the study does it say “many people said “too much control” is OKAY” – There you go again…intentionally obfuscating the data in an attempt prove your deluded and ignorant point.
Answer was:
“Since people figured Republicans use this “topic” as a smokescreen to evade accountability”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! God you’re a flaming idiot today. THIS STATEMENT IS YOUR OPINION. However, YOU made the case that “too much gov’t control” isn’t necessarily a bad thing. To which I asked for examples where “too much gov’t control” is perceived as a good thing. Still waiting. ..and don’t give me your ignorant opinion again.
EricG Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Wait no longer!
I would say govt control of gang warfare or meth cooking or public fighting or acquiring heavy-explosives or mass rape … all those things is where we want more govt control.
Because you are not going to do a damn thing about it, Jared.
The “free market” is not going to do anything about it but make it worse.
So we need govt control.
this unpatriotic and un-American ideal that govt can do nothing is plain disgusting and mainly just based on bad information.
If you like to talk about the flaws of govt control, you are talking to the right guy.
But if you want to make ignorant statements and generally be a snarky undeserving of your freedoms BS spreader (like you always try to do) then there is no point in this, waste of my time.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
October 22nd, 2009 at 3:11 pm
little ERIC,
It was an attempt at least…but not a very educated one…Let’s take a look at it:
govt control of gang warfare or meth cooking or public fighting or acquiring heavy-explosives or mass rape
No where did I see evidence of “too much gov’t control” as the deciding factor here…as a matter of fact, an educated person could argue the items you listed above are garnering “adequate” gov’t attention…and in some cases “in-adequate” gov’t attention. But certainly not “too much”.
Because you are not going to do a damn thing about it, Jared.
And neither are you, little one.
The “free market” is not going to do anything about it but make it worse.
Typically stupid of you. The “free market” concept is an economic tool and not a law enforcement tool.
this unpatriotic and un-American ideal that govt can do nothing is plain disgusting and mainly just based on bad information.
And where are you getting this from?
But if you want to make ignorant statements and generally be a snarky undeserving of your freedoms BS spreader
Who the he11 do you think you are, little ERIC? YOU do not have the authority to tell ANYONE they are undeserving of their freedoms. YOU are the classic example of an idiot with an benighted opinion. Keep up the good work, little ERIC…you only serve to prove your resounding ignorance to the blogosphere.
October 20th, 2009 at 1:51 am
Fox network is “a no news organization”.
luv2lift48 Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Fair and balanced..LOL
October 20th, 2009 at 9:15 am
Don’t We already have a public option? To have no insurance but recieve the required care anyways (under federal law).
Southern Girl Lib Reply:
October 20th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Ever tried going to the emergency room for a bad knee? They will send you to an Orthopedic Specialist. And will the Doc provide you the surgery for free?
Hellno.
Lee Reply:
October 20th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
In short, there is primary care, preventative care and emergency care.
Everyone has access to emergency care.
Uninsured have almost no access to primary or preventative care.
And if they do get access.. they pay even more than someone insured.
EricG Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 4:07 pm
That’s pretty stupid, Atomaino.
Saying that the federal law that doesn’t let people die in waiting rooms is a “public option”.
But then again I bet you ripped that off some idiot radio AM neo-con fascist.
So you are not to blame.
You’re just the link in the stupid-chain.
October 20th, 2009 at 10:54 am
Have u ever seen an AMERICAN dying in the streets because of lack of healthcare?
Last time I checked a bad knee wasn’t an emergency.
A bad knee is a quality of life issue….just like having a big nose or fat thighs! My money shouldn’t be used to pay for your nose, thighs or knees. At some point people need to take care of their own needs. if you don’t want to pay for health insurance each month instead of digital cable or a cell phone then so be it.
average james Reply:
October 20th, 2009 at 11:17 am
A bad knee may mean that one cannot work,
ya know, be an unproductive member of society, on the public dole.
Kinda flies in the face of the whole ‘people should work and not sponge off the government teat’ attitude.
Thinking ahead is sometimes daunting.
People actually do die on skid rows across our nation.
Reagan’s legacy continues.
Southern Girl Lib Reply:
October 20th, 2009 at 11:18 am
Nobody’s asking you to pay for someone’s coverage. A public option requires a premium that you pay.
Lee Reply:
October 20th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
“you don’t want to pay for health insurance each month instead of digital cable or a cell phone then so be it”
Wow, you must have expensive cable or a satellite phone maybe?
This idea that health insurance is available for 100-200 dollars a month ‘if you look’ is BS. Sure you can get plans for that amount of cash but they are so limited with huge deductibles and/or large coinsurance that they have limited use.
Health insurance that gives you easy access to physicians and preventative care runs much higher and is simply out of reach for a lot of Americans.
JaredfromTexas Reply:
October 20th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
LEE,
you obviously latched onto the cell-phone and cable comments…but are conveniently forgetting the 2-pack-a-day cigarette habit…the designer clothes…the 22″ rims on your car…the expensive shoes…the dining out…the movie rentals…the jewelry…internet…etc.
ATOM was obviously trying to imply there might be a lack of budget prioritization occurring throughout this country.
EricG Reply:
October 21st, 2009 at 4:09 pm
A “lack of budget prioritization” would be the issue of how very little we spend out of the public tax payer funds to help the less fortunate while we spend billions on defense contracts that we don’t need and often don’t even use.
The matter hardly stops there and any conservative you can find will only make these problems worse and more expansive into our national budget.
October 20th, 2009 at 11:04 am
Man-o-man you guys are in a conflict. Makes me dizzzy!
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:43 am
Moving to a new thread; too long.
Medicare is still much more cost-effective than for profit companies.
Define. I don’t think that Medicare is more cost-effective but am interested to know why you think it is.
For example, some version of Blue-Cross, UHC, AETNA etc is present in virtually every one. The _only_ reason why there is differences in costs is because some states crack down on insurance more than others and make it tougher for them to drop coverage etc. In these states, insurance is more expensive.
I admit, this is a tough one. One of the tenants of Conservative thought is that States Ought to have the right to decide for themselves. On the other hand, no one thinks that it would be okay for Alabama to outlaw the purchasing of books from Amazon which is based in Washington.
But the point is, those companies you mention have to set up virtually independent instances of themselves in order to compete in those states. So yes, when those states restrict those companies, the price of a premium is going to go up. This is because the government can not legislate cost. It may try to legislate price, but it can not affect cost.
What you gain from bringing down the inter-state barriers is that someone can ‘choose’ to buy insurance from a state that won’t protect them as much if some adverse event happens.
You understand that what the “protection” has done is price many many people out of care?
If you are pretty poor and have an option to buy a car a few thousand dollars cheaper but knowing it hasn’t gone through all the safety standards another similar car has gone through, people will tend to buy the cheaper car with the ‘it won’t happen to me’ perspective. If there was such federal protection for health insurance then you’d have a point. But there isn’t
There is. Its called a deductible. I can buy a policy for less than 80 bucks a month.
The point is this. Obama is not talking about bringin costs down. He’s talking about bringing prices down. And if he thinks he can just “do that” he may as well just make it illegal to contract cancer or have a heart attack. It would be just as valid.
Lee Reply:
October 22nd, 2009 at 1:43 am
“Define. I don’t think that Medicare is more cost-effective but am interested to know why you think it is.”
I would define it as:
What percentage of payments for healthcare goes directly to the providers versus administration costs of the ‘payer’.
cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/CAHIMedicareTechnicalPaper.pdf
Now, what’s interesting about the above link is that ‘Cahi.org’ is basically an advocacy group for insurance providers. Despite this, even their own study shows that they are not as cost-effective as Medicare. You can also find less partisan studies (or ones favoring single-payer) that make an even greater distinction between the costs.
“I admit, this is a tough one.”
Sure if you are a libertarian it’s great. But my point is that inter-state ‘competition’ is a concept sold under false pretences as it implies lower prices due to companies competing versus the reality of lower prices due to more ‘lax’ legislation.
But you are right, it also destroys any power of the states to rein in insurance companies and completely abdicates that role to the federal govt.
“There is. Its called a deductible. I can buy a policy for less than 80 bucks a month.”
This is a similar argument made by Glenn Beck but here is the reality.. For 80 bucks a month you will get a policy with such high deductible and such high coinsurance etc that it is useless except in the case of so called ‘catastrophe’. Even then, if you cannot afford a proper insurance policy it’s quite likely that the 10-15000 deductible will be enough to put you in a serious debt mess anyway.
A real insurance policy should allow you to seek medical care when you need it and get preventative care when you need it and be affordable. It’s that simple. Unfortunately, for millions of Americans, thats not a reality today.
“Obama is not talking about bringin costs down. He’s talking about bringing prices down”
You know, this is a fair point. For all the attacks on the insurance industry (myself included), even a public option in the current system will only reduce ‘costs’ by a factor of 10% or so. There are greater cost savings to be made by looking at those at the point of treatment. For example, making more effective use of Physician Assistants, Nurse Practioners and to a lesser extent RN’s to take care of more mundane medical issues.
I’m still a big opponent of for-profit payer’s in the system but my objection is as much or more on ethical grounds as it is on cost-saving potential.
Unfortunately, the debate has largely silo’ed into a battle against insurance companies and ultimately this may prove a little short-sighted.
John Galt Reply:
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:59 am
What percentage of payments for healthcare goes directly to the providers versus administration costs of the ‘payer’.
Okay.
So Medicare services say, 100 people for a cost of $1031. Of that $1031, 3% is admin or overhead. So, $1000 is actually spent on the patients. Or, $10 per person. And in total they are running at $1031/100 or $10.31 per person.
Private care services those same 100 people for a cost of $552. But, private firms take a profit and admin expenses of 10%. So, $500 is actually spent on the patients. Or $5 per person. IN total they are running at $552/1000 or $5.52 per person.
Medicare certainly spends a higher % of their overall cost on the patient, but their overall cost is SO high that they can’t overcome the efficiency of the private sector. Even though the private companies are running at 2-3 or more times the “admin fees and profits” they are still delivering the same, most times better, care for LESS MONEY PER PATIENT.
For 80 bucks a month you will get a policy with such high deductible and such high coinsurance etc that it is useless except in the case of so called ‘catastrophe’. Even then, if you cannot afford a proper insurance policy it’s quite likely that the 10-15000 deductible will be enough to put you in a serious debt mess anyway.
You are switching. In your original post you said:
I am simply saying that you CAN in fact, buy the “poor car of insurance”. It’s a very affordable plan [like a cheap car] where you are taking the risks on yourself [like the cheap car] in the form of a deductible.
The deductibles are high, in the case I quoted above it was $5k. However, if something awful were to happen and you needed to to pay up to that deductible and that caused you to declare bankruptcy, that is a $5,000 debt wiped you out, then you are in a position financially much much more serious than you health care options.
I’m still a big opponent of for-profit payer’s in the system but my objection is as much or more on ethical grounds as it is on cost-saving potential.
I get that. If you force yourself to view this through the lense that someone is “making money” off someone elses “bad luck” then yes, you are going to struggle. But the profit motive actually reduces cost, increases quality and extends availability to every single commodity it has been allowed to influence. Further, insurance companies are not about making medical costs go down, they are about spreading risk. That is, 100 people all pay into a pot on the off chance that if they get sick or hurt, the pot will cover them. Funny that in an insurance system, the healthy are the ones that are being taken advantage of; they never take from the pot.
Anyway–your close Lee; I’ll getcha to walk over and leave the Dar Side ;-)
karthiks030977 Reply:
October 22nd, 2009 at 9:22 am
“Private care services those same 100 people for a cost of $552″
I’d like to see the evidence for that.
” Even though the private companies are running at 2-3 or more times the “admin fees and profits” they are still delivering the same, most times better, care for LESS MONEY PER PATIENT.”
That is patently untrue. Same, most times better care is just impossible. You yourself admitted that the premiums etc are aimed at forcing people to NOT put themselves in a situation to make claims. People SYSTEMICALLY receive less care in a for-profit setup which explicitly/implicitly perforce must go through a middleman.
“That is, 100 people all pay into a pot on the off chance that if they get sick or hurt, the pot will cover them. Funny that in an insurance system, the healthy are the ones that are being taken advantage of; they never take from the pot.”
You are again, and again, and again taking the position on the general insurance proposition. The insurance proposition in Healthcare does NOT fit this. The offering ALWAYS is:the less healthy ones ANYWAY pay for their bills through higher premiums. Once you do that, the argument “the more healthy are taken advantage of” is no longer valid!!! When will you stop trying to have the cake and eat it too?
John Galt Reply:
October 22nd, 2009 at 9:34 am
I’d like to see the evidence for that.
Its an example meant to demonstrate a point. The numbers were created to easily make a point.
That is patently untrue.
It IS true. Medicare does not have the quantity of care, the quality of care and its more expensive. This is not surprising. What IS surprising is that I even have to debate you about it.
You yourself admitted that the premiums etc are aimed at forcing people to NOT put themselves in a situation to make claims.
I said no such thing. I said that its ironic that the people who end up “getting taken advantage” are the healthy. But even that’s not true. We are buying risk avoidance. And sick or healthy, that’s exactly what we have.
the less healthy ones ANYWAY pay for their bills through higher premiums.
Of course. This is about risk avoidance; not magic. Car accidents are going to happen. People who have had a lot of them are more likely to have another one. Similarly, if a person has had medical bills due to cancer, he is likely to have more medical bills. He is higher risk and his premium is going to be higher. Is it fair? Yes. Is it unlucky? Yes.
It sounds less and less like you want to make medical care cheaper [reduce costs--not price mind you]. Less and less like you want to see true insurance reform. And more and more like you just want people who get sick not have to pay. That somehow that is the ethical or moral thing to do.
If that is the case, come clean. Say it. Say that what we are forcing the country to do is contribute to a charity. A worthy one, but a mandatory one none the less. Just because it FEELS good to mandate this forced contribution does not mean that you can arbitrarily suspend the laws of mathematics.
Just don’t be surprised if people don’t like the mandatory contribution thing. And don’t be surprised that as a result of this, both costs and prices go up as well as availability and quality go down.
John Galt Reply:
October 22nd, 2009 at 9:37 am
explicitly/implicitly perforce must go through a middleman.
That’s my favorite argument of yours. That a middle man somehow makes things more expensive.
You understand that it is precisely this “middle man” that makes things cheaper? Without this middle man, you would have to bare the entire cost of medical care alone. That is, you want to have an MRI done, you foot the whole bill. Minor surgery for your child’s ear infection? $12k. See a doc for an annual checkup? $130. Blood pressure medication? All of it yours.
No matter how you slice it, the cost of delivering medical care is what it is. And it has to be paid. If it isn’t, you are simply going to break the system down the road. Ignore this or not, that choice is yours.
karthiks030977 Reply:
October 22nd, 2009 at 9:47 am
“You understand that it is precisely this “middle man” that makes things cheaper?”
WRONG,WRONG, WRONG.
It is a different SERIES of payments. The NPV of the series of payments ALWAYS equals the COST of the service PLUS profif/loss of the middleman. middleman makes profit through ME ALWAYS IMPLIES I bear the FULL COST ANYWAY.
karthiks030977 Reply:
October 22nd, 2009 at 9:51 am
“That is, you want to have an MRI done, you foot the whole bill. Minor surgery for your child’s ear infection? $12k. See a doc for an annual checkup? $130. Blood pressure medication? All of it yours.”
The minor surgery is at 12 k BECAUSE the service provider has no choice but to go through the middleman: Because of THEIR monopolistics tieups with the rest of the system, especially Pharma. That Prevents the option of NOT having insurance from EVER being cheap. THIS is the big game played by Health Insurance companies. Jack up the costs from the back end, forcing people to not have a viable no-insurance option (without bankrupting themselves).
Lee Reply:
October 22nd, 2009 at 9:53 am
“Private care services those same 100 people for a cost of $552″
Herein lies the key flaw in your argument.. It is not the ’same’ 100 people.. far from it. Medicare covers Seniors and those with long term disease like renal disease. Private healthcare covers everyone else. Given that Seniors use the healthcare system much more this is why its more costly..
But that aside, step back a second. Medicare still uses the same doctors, same drug companies etc and actually makes them charge LESS for services (this is why we have the ‘doctor fix bill’ for example). In short there is no scope within the ‘private system’ to be more cost-efficient as there is really no such separate entity.
“However, if something awful were to happen and you needed to to pay up to that deductible and that caused you to declare bankruptcy”
I did my own research on esurance the other day to look at what you could get for 100 dollars. I certainly didn’t see 5k deductible and then 100% coverage. Also, in my case, I have to cover a family and even a deductible of 1500 per person (3000 family) was 650 dollars a month. Where I live in Mississippi, that’s a huge amount of money for most folks.
But that aside.. you are essentially trying to tell me that ‘poor’ people should accept they cannot afford basic/preventative healthcare and instead should make sacrifices to buy insurance against medical-induced bankruptcy.
“But the profit motive actually reduces cost, increases quality and extends availability ”
Firstly, I would argue it’s proven above that it doesn’t reduce cost. Secondly, there is no evidence that for-profit ‘payers’ improve quality. Thirdly, the ‘availability’ argument is false as well. Certainly, the for-profit ‘payers’ don’t affect availability at all. But even if you look at healthcare providers, profit has actually created more problems e.g the tendency for medical graduates to choose lucrative specialties like cardiology, radiology etc versus primary care which is needed more but doesn’t pay as well. Or you can look at the way tort has driven some doctors to leave certain states (e.g MA) and even cross the border into Canada.
“Further, insurance companies are not about making medical costs go down, they are about spreading risk”
Right, but you need to take this to the logical conclusion which is that the larger the pool, the greater the risk is ’spread’ and the cheaper per person costs. Unfortunately, with private entities you will never get as big a pool as you would with single-payer models and this is another reason why
it is as cost-effective.
“Anyway–your close Lee; I’ll getcha to walk over and leave the Dark Side”
No, although as I’ve stated, I am sure the cost savings are better. The ethical benefit of having the person in charge of payment ultimately responsible to voter’s versus some shareholders who just want them to spend as little money as possible, is the clincher in this case.
I doubt either of us will ever switch our positions on the issue, but I enjoy the challenge.
John Galt Reply:
October 22nd, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Herein lies the key flaw in your argument.. It is not the ’same’ 100 people.. far from it. Medicare covers Seniors and those with long term disease like renal disease. Private healthcare covers everyone else. Given that Seniors use the healthcare system much more this is why its more costly..
I don’t cede that there is a statistically meaningful difference in treating elderly vs non-elderly. However, for the sake of discussion, then consider medicaid. Again, private companies are much cheaper, efficient and are containing costs better than the government.
Further, the rise in spending between medicaid matches that of its government sister; medicare.
I certainly didn’t see 5k deductible and then 100% coverage. Also, in my case, I have to cover a family and even a deductible of 1500 per person (3000 family) was 650 dollars a month. Where I live in Mississippi, that’s a huge amount of money for most folks.
I just found a plan for a family of 3. 100% coverage after a 7k deductible; $300 a month.
you are essentially trying to tell me that ‘poor’ people should accept they cannot afford basic/preventative healthcare and instead should make sacrifices to buy insurance against medical-induced bankruptcy.
This is true in all aspects. The poor are not able to afford the same houses, cars, entertainment or food as the wealthy. But this isn’t MY argument, it’s Obama’s and the Left’s. It is not my that says we have to make sure that getting sick or hurt doesn’t bankrupt you; it’s Obama. So, if that’s the goal, here is the solution. Buy catastrophic insurance and contribute to an HSA. Save your money.
Unfortunately, with private entities you will never get as big a pool as you would with single-payer models and this is another reason why
it is as cost-effective.
This I do cede and agree with you on. If you force the young and the healthy to purchase something they otherwise wouldn’t, it will be cheaper.
although as I’ve stated, I am sure the cost savings are better.
Glad to see we agree.
The ethical benefit of having the person in charge of payment ultimately responsible to voter’s versus some shareholders who just want them to spend as little money as possible, is the clincher in this case.
Remember, the Dems won’t be in charge forever. In time you will be giving the responsibility for care to the next Bush and Cheney.
Good luck with that.
Lee Reply:
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:37 am
“I don’t cede that there is a statistically meaningful difference in treating elderly vs non-elderly”
I’ll give you simple proof..
On Esurance I could get 5k deductible ppo plan for 60 dollars a month (I’m in my late 30’s).
If I make myself 63 years old and do the same query, the best comparable plan (5k deductible) is 286 dollars a month. Remember, this is actuarial (statistical) risk that determines the difference.
“However, for the sake of discussion, then consider medicaid. Again, private companies are much cheaper,”
No, wrong again.. see link below although I’m curious if you have some data to actually back up your statement. Btw, in the link below you’ll also see that Medicaid patients are generally more unhealthy than privately insured so again its not even apples-to-apples.
aspe.hhs.gov/medicaid/jan/Holahan.pdf
“I just found a plan for a family of 3. 100% coverage after a 7k deductible; $300 a month.”
So over the course of a year I need to spend over 10k to start getting something back. Or in my 650/dollar a month 1.5/3k deductible plan about 10k before I get something back i.e it’s not really any cheaper so I’m not sure what your point is. I would want a real policy versus a ‘catastrophe plan’.
“But this isn’t MY argument, it’s Obama’s and the Left’s. ”
No, I think its part of the argument but the other equally important part is that we should all have access to affordable healthcare when we need it, like other Western countries.
“Remember, the Dems won’t be in charge forever. In time you will be giving the responsibility for care to the next Bush and Cheney.”
There is a reason that Medicare is known politically as the ‘third rail’. One area politicians won’t negatively meddle with, is healthcare. Once you have the public option, it won’t go away. What a Republican government may do though is to give business (insurance) a piece of the pie where possible.
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:49 am