• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The Public Option

TalonStrike

TalonStrike

Senior member
I know the Dems failed to include this into the health care law, but one thing makes no sense. Obama said something like, you would not lose your doctor with the public option. How can that possibly be true? Say I'm a small business owner who provides health care benefits to my employees. Then the public option is introduced, and as a smart business man, I cut my employee's health care benefits, since they can just use the public option instead. Those people would have different coverage, and therefore would have a different doctor. The government wouldn't directly assign you a new doctor, but that would be the indirect effect of the policy. How can Dems possibly refute this?
 
TalonStrike said:
I know the Dems failed to include this into the health care law, but one thing makes no sense. Obama said something like, you would not lose your doctor with the public option. How can that possibly be true? Say I'm a small business owner who provides health care benefits to my employees. Then the public option is introduced, and as a smart business man, I cut my employee's health care benefits, since they can just use the public option instead. Those people would have different coverage, and therefore would have a different doctor. The government wouldn't directly assign you a new doctor, but that would be the indirect effect of the policy. How can Dems possibly refute this?
Click to expand...

Exactly... When completely misrepresented in the manner you've done how could anyone disagree...
 
TalonStrike said:
how exactly was anything I said a misrepresentation?
Click to expand...

It ignores so much. Your employer decides to switch insurers you could lose your doctor too if they're not "approved". Happens all the time. And the original intent was to include disincentives to employers to prevent dropping coverage. Also 70-75% of doctors support a public option and it assumse the doctor for a person in your scenario is not participating in the public option.....

Could it happen? Sure. Does it happen already? All the time. Is it an absolutely certainty? No.

Edit: Opinion piece written by an internist.

http://www.blueoregon.com/2010/02/why-the-public-option-wont-die/
 
Last edited:
MomentsofSanity said:
It ignores so much. Your employer decides to switch insurers you could lose your doctor too if they're not "approved". Happens all the time. And the original intent was to include disincentives to employers to prevent dropping coverage. Also 70-75% of doctors support a public option and it assumse the doctor for a person in your scenario is not participating in the public option.....

Could it happen? Sure. Does it happen already? All the time. Is it an absolutely certainty? No.

Edit: Opinion piece written by an internist.

http://www.blueoregon.com/2010/02/why-the-public-option-wont-die/
Click to expand...

Translation: The public option would cause some people to lose their doctors. Obama was wrong.
 
MomentsofSanity said:
As does the private. Status quo for all. But fear on.
Click to expand...

lol so your argument is that they will lose their doctors but that's ok because similar situations happen currently? If the public option was introduced, many employees would lose the privately insured benefits from their employers, and they'd be forced to have different doctors under the public option.
 
TalonStrike said:
I cut my employee's health care benefits, since they can just use the public option instead. Those people would have different coverage, and therefore would have a different doctor. The government wouldn't directly assign you a new doctor, but that would be the indirect effect of the policy. How can Dems possibly refute this?
Click to expand...

Your fault for being cheap...not Obama`s...
 
TalonStrike said:
lol so your argument is that they will lose their doctors but that's ok because similar situations happen currently? If the public option was introduced, many employees would lose the privately insured benefits from their employers, and they'd be forced to have different doctors under the public option.
Click to expand...

Why do you continue to insist that a company's changing employees to the public option is any different from changing employees to a different insurance provider under current insurance regulations?

My company has had three different insurance carriers - United Health, BCBS, and Cigna - in the past four years. So if an employee at my company had an in-network provider at BCBS who was out-of-network at Cigna, that employee would be "forced to change doctors." This is totally typical of employer-provided health insurance these days. Yet you pretend that a public option would somehow be worse.

Yet the public option would - if anything - be better, because an in-network physician under the public option will be available to you as long as you choose to stay in the public option.

The public options is BETTER than the status quo, yet you criticize it for being the same as the status quo while pretending that it's somehow worse.
 
shira said:
Why do you continue to insist that a company's changing employees to the public option is any different from changing employees to a different insurance provider under current insurance regulations?

My company has had three different insurance carriers - United Health, BCBS, and Cigna - in the past four years. So if an employee at my company had an in-network provider at BCBS who was out-of-network at Cigna, that employee would be "forced to change doctors." This is totally typical of employer-provided health insurance these days. Yet you pretend that a public option would somehow be worse.

Yet the public option would - if anything - be better, because an in-network physician under the public option will be available to you as long as you choose to stay in the public option.

The public options is BETTER than the status quo, yet you criticize it for being the same as the status quo while pretending that it's somehow worse.
Click to expand...

My point is that Obama was wrong when he insisted that, under the public option, you would not lose your doctor. He was wrong.
 
TalonStrike said:
My point is that Obama was wrong when he insisted that, under the public option, you would not lose your doctor. He was wrong.
Click to expand...
Was he wrong or was he lying?

Anyway, I'm getting very scared about the future of America.

What's so fucked up is that so many people blame employer-based health insurance on the free market when it was in fact the government that was responsible for it. I've never understood why they can't take employer tax breaks for health insurance away and replace them with personal tax deductions for ALL health care expenses. The fact that they won't do that pisses me off to no end.
 
TalonStrike said:
My point is that Obama was wrong when he insisted that, under the public option, you would not lose your doctor. He was wrong.
Click to expand...

It's impossible to argue with these people so you might as well give it up. The just fling the logical fallacies like a monkey flings poo.

Although, in their defense, your post was designed to incite a flame war.
 
shira said:
Why do you continue to insist that a company's changing employees to the public option is any different from changing employees to a different insurance provider under current insurance regulations?
Click to expand...

A lot of people are comparing Obama saying you will not lose your doctor (if such a claim was made) to the private industry which made no such claim.

The issue is not what people wish the discussion was about (private vs public), but instead on another broken promise by Obama.

The only way he can keep said promise is if he forces all doctors to accept the public option and forces all current doctors to not stop practicing when the public option is put in place.

He can do the former, he cannot do the latter.
 
Darwin333 said:
I think the point was that Obama said you would not lose your doctor with the public option. If he really said that or not, I have no clue.
Click to expand...

What he said was if you were happy with your doctor you can keep them. Which in essence was true. Governments would not be deciding. Yes it did not address the possibility of your employer dropping coverage but that was not a cause of Obamacare but a decision of an employer.

This was all played out 3 years ago and clarified by the administration back then the intent of the message. Your employer can impact your ability to use the same doctor at any time, public or private. Nothing was changing.

And again, doctors will participate in a public option to. Very large majority. It's very probable your doctor will accept it as well. Rather 50 million more people have health coverage while some are inconvenienced by a new doctor, which most would be used to happening when their employers change coverage providers anyway. Difference would be it would likely be the last change unless the doctor retired.
 
Last edited:
Why would you lose your doctor under the public option?
What's to stop the doctor from taking it? And if all the employers drop coverage and shift employees to the public option, wouldn't doctors have to take it to stay afloat?
 
Anarchist420 said:
Was he wrong or was he lying?

Anyway, I'm getting very scared about the future of America.

What's so fucked up is that so many people blame employer-based health insurance on the free market when it was in fact the government that was responsible for it. I've never understood why they can't take employer tax breaks for health insurance away and replace them with personal tax deductions for ALL health care expenses. The fact that they won't do that pisses me off to no end.
Click to expand...

Just because the current healthcare system we have isn't purely free-market does not mean that to fix it, we must double down on stupid. Free-market healthcare systems are highly problematic as their effects conflict with societal goals. That does not mean that markets can't have a productive role in healthcare - if it is structured correctly. The reforms that have been enacted the past 60 or so years have been done with good reason to correct these problems, even if they aren't perfect.
 
TalonStrike said:
Translation: The public option would cause some people to lose their doctors. Obama was wrong.
Click to expand...

Translation: You are misrepresenting facts on purpose.

Obama is not preventing or forcing your employee's existing doctors from taking the new insurance which is just the same as if you had simply switched your employees from Blue Cross to HAP on the first of the year. Obama wrong not found.... Agenda however...
 
TalonStrike said:
It's not cheap. Companies need to find ways to cut expenses so that they have more funds to expand their businesses.
Click to expand...

So cut employee health coverage. I'm sure that's good for the long term prospects of your employees productivity and general wellbeing.
 
Carmen813 said:
So cut employee health coverage. I'm sure that's good for the long term prospects of your employees productivity and general wellbeing.
Click to expand...

Hey I have this great idea! Let's have people like you and me and other healthcare providers get together with health care advocates and health care actuaries and do an assessment of our system, develop options which plan for our future needs along with a non partisan estimates of likely costs along with the advantages and disadvantages of each then have government facilitate real reform. Naa, no one would want something that a political entity couldn't take credit or use against😛 the other side.
 
Politifact on the Obama claim:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-obama-promises-you-can-keep-your-health-ins/

Summary: Obama's point was that his plan did not requiring switching to the public option, so 'if you like your current provider, you can keep it.'

But the public option was expected to be cheaper and attractive so that many would prefer it and switch.

That's not much of a 'lie' by Obama - it was more countering the people who tried to claim the government was going to 'force you to give up your doctor' as a scare tactic.

It was basically a political argument - one I'm not crazy about since it seems to agree that single-payer would be bad, but it helped his bill.

Because many people might choose to switch to the public option, they rated his statement as 'half true', which seems too low to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top