UHC Public Option is Dead

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: OCguy
UHC != Public Option



UHC= Every man, woman, child is covered by government run healthcare

Public Option = A government backed insurance option as a low-cost alternative to traditional insurance

How to reach UHC:

1) Install public option. A black hole competitor to private industry with unlimited source of funds.
2) Sit and wait, eventually enough people will be on public option, with many switching from private.
3) Private insurers go bankrupt as it is impossible to compete with an entity with an unlimited balance sheet.
4) Public option becomes UHC.

Or this:

1. Install public option. A black hole competitor to private industry with unlimited source of funds. In that legislation dont infringe on the private sector. i.e. ditch the 5 year grace period, and dont allow the government to determine what minimum requirements are.
2. Sit and wait. Allow the private market to adjust to coverage and pricing, thus being a competitor to the government program.
3. Private insurers allow the market to determine it's needs, and deliver a product accordingly.
4. Offer a tax credit to those who choose a private plan as opposed to those who choose a public plan (dont tax me for services I dont use).
5. We have a competitve market with an optional public option.


Thats (in general) what I would like to see.

Same here, actually.

I'd actually prefer this change though:

(1) Cross out "with unlimited source of funds"
(4) Legislate that collections (premiums, deductibles, third-party collections) have to equal the total (mandatory + discretionary) spending

these are fine adjustments

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: JS80

The pricing speculation is not really opinion...it's more or less fact. It is 100% FACT that if you introduce the public option (which is assumed to be a net subsidized plan) prices for ALL medicine will increase as a whole. The real debate is how MUCH will the price increase.

based on what? :roll:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

what in a public option leads to an increase in demand/decline in supply?

uh, simple math. public option = more people insured, with the same amount of health care workers. Youre living up to your forum tag!

The uninsured are ALREADY priced into healthcare costs. When an uninsured person goes to the emergency room and can't pay, that gets passed onto everyone else. All UHC does is take the cost associated with an uninsured patient and spread that to everyone. Perhaps you could adopt the same tag!

Also, ironic you insinuating someone else is dumb:

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Its not given, nor is it reality. Look at any product....gasoline (Chevron, Shell), computer cases (Lian Li, Antec), postal services (FedEx, UPS), cars (Mercedes, Bugatti, Porsche), shoes (Nike, Adidas), watches (Rolex, Patek Philippe, Breguet), I could go on and on. None of these are hurting for money, even though there are hundreds of lower cost alternatives.

Haha, what? that's a terrible argument. I'm guessing you've never taken any economics or marketing classes. You're grouping firms that are commodities (i.e. oil, and you're still somewhat wrong about comparing this to healthcare) with monopolistically competitive companies.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: JS80

The pricing speculation is not really opinion...it's more or less fact. It is 100% FACT that if you introduce the public option (which is assumed to be a net subsidized plan) prices for ALL medicine will increase as a whole. The real debate is how MUCH will the price increase.

based on what? :roll:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

what in a public option leads to an increase in demand/decline in supply?

uh, simple math. public option = more people insured, with the same amount of health care workers. Youre living up to your forum tag!

The uninsured are ALREADY priced into healthcare costs. When an uninsured person goes to the emergency room and can't pay, that gets passed onto everyone else. All UHC does is take the cost associated with an uninsured patient and spread that to everyone. Perhaps you could adopt the same tag!

You win the WHOOSH award for the day. lol

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: JS80

The pricing speculation is not really opinion...it's more or less fact. It is 100% FACT that if you introduce the public option (which is assumed to be a net subsidized plan) prices for ALL medicine will increase as a whole. The real debate is how MUCH will the price increase.

based on what? :roll:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

what in a public option leads to an increase in demand/decline in supply?

uh, simple math. public option = more people insured, with the same amount of health care workers. Youre living up to your forum tag!

The uninsured are ALREADY priced into healthcare costs. When an uninsured person goes to the emergency room and can't pay, that gets passed onto everyone else. All UHC does is take the cost associated with an uninsured patient and spread that to everyone. Perhaps you could adopt the same tag!

You win the WHOOSH award for the day. lol

Ironic considering you apparently don't consider hidden costs into the healthcare cost equation.

Also:

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Its not given, nor is it reality. Look at any product....gasoline (Chevron, Shell), computer cases (Lian Li, Antec), postal services (FedEx, UPS), cars (Mercedes, Bugatti, Porsche), shoes (Nike, Adidas), watches (Rolex, Patek Philippe, Breguet), I could go on and on. None of these are hurting for money, even though there are hundreds of lower cost alternatives.

Haha, what? that's a terrible argument. I'm guessing you've never taken any economics or marketing classes. You're grouping firms that are commodities (i.e. oil, and you're still somewhat wrong about comparing this to healthcare) with monopolistically competitive companies.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: JS80

The pricing speculation is not really opinion...it's more or less fact. It is 100% FACT that if you introduce the public option (which is assumed to be a net subsidized plan) prices for ALL medicine will increase as a whole. The real debate is how MUCH will the price increase.

based on what? :roll:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

what in a public option leads to an increase in demand/decline in supply?

uh, simple math. public option = more people insured, with the same amount of health care workers. Youre living up to your forum tag!

unfortunately for you, the economics is just a little bit more complicated than that. UHC does not and should not be about providing 'more' health care, its about better and more effective healthcare. As it stand simple adjustments (IT for instance) will lead to substantial productivity gains. Assuming that something sane comes out of congress, healthcare industry will finally be forced to compete on cost. It's not going to happen but it should; a better system of rationing care would go a long way as well.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CPA
[because the super rich are eeeeeevvvvvviiiiiilll :roll:

You are ignorant of the harmful effects of policies that disproportionately benefit the super-rich at the expense of the rest of society, to post such an asinine bit of sarcasm.

You really are, by posting that, implying that there is nothing at all to conern society about any concentration of power and wealth. You are advocating great harm, unwittingly.

It's funny how the same people who are so concerned about the idea of placing total blind faith in the government are happy to put blind faith in the super-rich.

 

[Rangoric]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: JS80

The pricing speculation is not really opinion...it's more or less fact. It is 100% FACT that if you introduce the public option (which is assumed to be a net subsidized plan) prices for ALL medicine will increase as a whole. The real debate is how MUCH will the price increase.

based on what? :roll:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

what in a public option leads to an increase in demand/decline in supply?

uh, simple math. public option = more people insured, with the same amount of health care workers. Youre living up to your forum tag!

The uninsured are ALREADY priced into healthcare costs. When an uninsured person goes to the emergency room and can't pay, that gets passed onto everyone else. All UHC does is take the cost associated with an uninsured patient and spread that to everyone. Perhaps you could adopt the same tag!

You win the WHOOSH award for the day. lol

What is the difference in cost between an ER visit for a heart attack vs. a doctor visit 1/year for a checkup to hopefully keep you healthy and not have one? Or perhaps have a non-emergency surgery to help?

Now that you have that all figured out, an uninsured person who goes to the ER drives up the cost for everyone else just like shoplifters are an excuse to raise prices in a store.

So, if you take those people away from having to go to the ER, that is less people at the ER, and more people making leasurly appointments.

But wait, those people are still there, the number of people getting care hasn't changed.

So your more or less fact, really needs a bit more to back it up. Farmers that form a co-op get lower prices and can more easily cover more people.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: JS80

What is your prediction on pricing for #2? Pricing will inevitably go UP. Medicine is not an economics of scale problem, it's a shortage of supply problem.

Regardless of whether or not medicine has economies of scale, both insurance and collective bargaining do

What is to prevent the masses to shift from private to public?

Private insurers. If the government is as bad at providing service as people say it is, why would people stay in the public option, let alone switch?

What will prevent corporate health benefits to drop private and opt for public?

What is preventing corporations from doing this now when there's no employer mandate?

How will private compete with public which will no doubt have superior pricing power and has no profit margin to achieve?

They'll innovate and offer either a better product or a lower price or some combination of the two.

#4 They are already talking about taxing medical benefits now (which are pre-tax deductions), what makes you think a tax credit will be offered?

N/A

#5 We will not have a competitive market, the only way for private to survive is to lower its standards to the public level. More likely that 99% insurers go bankrupt, and the only insurance that remains will be gold plated platinum plus insurance for the ultra rich.

You assume that price is the only factor in insurance.

How will they fund the public option?

Through premiums. That's how insurance works.

Although, even when it gets going, it will not actually be non-profit, because it has to earn back its seed money over a 10 year period. Have you guys even read the bill?

 

[her209]

In a government run co-op, does the government make the decision in the hiring of doctors, nurses, etc.?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Phokus
-snip-
The uninsured are ALREADY priced into healthcare costs. When an uninsured person goes to the emergency room and can't pay, that gets passed onto everyone else. All UHC does is take the cost associated with an uninsured patient and spread that to everyone. Perhaps you could adopt the same tag!

Hehe.

So, without UHC those costs are spread onto everyone else, whereas with UHC we'll fixed that by spreading those costs onto everyone else?

Sad thing is, that's the best explanation of UHC I've ever seen here. I mean it's accurate, cuz you just can't get something for nothing. Somebody's got to pay, it's either 'us', or it's 'us'. Those are the only two options available.

Fern

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Fern


So, without UHC those costs are spread onto everyone else, whereas with UHC we'll fixed that by spreading those costs onto everyone else?

Sad thing is, that's the best explanation of UHC I've ever seen here. I mean it's accurate, cuz you just can't get something for nothing. Somebody's got to pay, it's either 'us', or it's 'us'. Those are the only two options available.

Fern

there are ways of paying that are smarter than others

Originally posted by: her209
In a government run co-op, does the government make the decision in the hiring of doctors, nurses, etc.?

no

also i thought that the entire point of a coop was that it be not government run

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: JS80

The pricing speculation is not really opinion...it's more or less fact. It is 100% FACT that if you introduce the public option (which is assumed to be a net subsidized plan) prices for ALL medicine will increase as a whole. The real debate is how MUCH will the price increase.

based on what? :roll:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

what in a public option leads to an increase in demand/decline in supply?

uh, simple math. public option = more people insured, with the same amount of health care workers. Youre living up to your forum tag!

unfortunately for you, the economics is just a little bit more complicated than that. UHC does not and should not be about providing 'more' health care, its about better and more effective healthcare. As it stand simple adjustments (IT for instance) will lead to substantial productivity gains. Assuming that something sane comes out of congress, healthcare industry will finally be forced to compete on cost. It's not going to happen but it should; a better system of rationing care would go a long way as well.

So youre officially saying with UHC more people than now wont seek medical care?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Rangoric

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: JS80

The pricing speculation is not really opinion...it's more or less fact. It is 100% FACT that if you introduce the public option (which is assumed to be a net subsidized plan) prices for ALL medicine will increase as a whole. The real debate is how MUCH will the price increase.

based on what? :roll:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

what in a public option leads to an increase in demand/decline in supply?

uh, simple math. public option = more people insured, with the same amount of health care workers. Youre living up to your forum tag!

The uninsured are ALREADY priced into healthcare costs. When an uninsured person goes to the emergency room and can't pay, that gets passed onto everyone else. All UHC does is take the cost associated with an uninsured patient and spread that to everyone. Perhaps you could adopt the same tag!

You win the WHOOSH award for the day. lol

What is the difference in cost between an ER visit for a heart attack vs. a doctor visit 1/year for a checkup to hopefully keep you healthy and not have one? Or perhaps have a non-emergency surgery to help?

Now that you have that all figured out, an uninsured person who goes to the ER drives up the cost for everyone else just like shoplifters are an excuse to raise prices in a store.

So, if you take those people away from having to go to the ER, that is less people at the ER, and more people making leasurly appointments.

But wait, those people are still there, the number of people getting care hasn't changed.

So your more or less fact, really needs a bit more to back it up. Farmers that form a co-op get lower prices and can more easily cover more people.

Are you also saying that you believe ~about~ the same amount of poeple will be utilizing health care in some way or another should UHC pass than are now? Really? Do YOU have any studies that show that? Because there are MANY studies that show the opposite.

Also, somewhere my beliefs got misconstrued (prolly from puckus's bizzare analysis of my posts) in that I think health care costs will somehow rise with a public option. In fact, I dont. I dont think that at all. What I stated is I believe with a public option, insurance companes will be forced to examine their own internal administration to compete in premium costs.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Phokus
-snip-
The uninsured are ALREADY priced into healthcare costs. When an uninsured person goes to the emergency room and can't pay, that gets passed onto everyone else. All UHC does is take the cost associated with an uninsured patient and spread that to everyone. Perhaps you could adopt the same tag!

Hehe.

So, without UHC those costs are spread onto everyone else, whereas with UHC we'll fixed that by spreading those costs onto everyone else?

Sad thing is, that's the best explanation of UHC I've ever seen here. I mean it's accurate, cuz you just can't get something for nothing. Somebody's got to pay, it's either 'us', or it's 'us'. Those are the only two options available.

Fern

:laugh:

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: her209
In a government run co-op, does the government make the decision in the hiring of doctors, nurses, etc.?

Government run, yes. Doesnt affect private practive though.

 

[Rangoric]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Are you also saying that you believe ~about~ the same amount of poeple will be utilizing health care in some way or another should UHC pass than are now? Really? Do YOU have any studies that show that? Because there are MANY studies that show the opposite.

No I think that cost wise, due to less ER visits, and the fact that the people involved in giving care will be much more likely to get paid (as opposed to never having a chance), will either be the same or less. I'd love to see ER costs go down because they are getting a larger percentage of the money that they should be and their demand goes down.

Wait, did I just say ER demand would go down?

Also, somewhere my beliefs got misconstrued (prolly from puckus's bizzare analysis of my posts) in that I think health care costs will somehow rise with a public option. In fact, I dont. I dont think that at all. What I stated is I believe with a public option, insurance companes will be forced to examine their own internal administration to compete in premium costs.

I know, I just see any argument that more people will seek health care as missing what is already happening with ERs as is.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Rangoric

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Are you also saying that you believe ~about~ the same amount of poeple will be utilizing health care in some way or another should UHC pass than are now? Really? Do YOU have any studies that show that? Because there are MANY studies that show the opposite.

No I think that cost wise, due to less ER visits, and the fact that the people involved in giving care will be much more likely to get paid (as opposed to never having a chance), will either be the same or less. I'd love to see ER costs go down because they are getting a larger percentage of the money that they should be and their demand goes down.

Wait, did I just say ER demand would go down?

Also, somewhere my beliefs got misconstrued (prolly from puckus's bizzare analysis of my posts) in that I think health care costs will somehow rise with a public option. In fact, I dont. I dont think that at all. What I stated is I believe with a public option, insurance companes will be forced to examine their own internal administration to compete in premium costs.

I know, I just see any argument that more people will seek health care as missing what is already happening with ERs as is.

I was looking at it overall, not just ER. I agree 100% ER visits will decrease; however, overall, the strain of another 15 million people into an already burdened healthcare system will be felt in other areas.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: JS80

The pricing speculation is not really opinion...it's more or less fact. It is 100% FACT that if you introduce the public option (which is assumed to be a net subsidized plan) prices for ALL medicine will increase as a whole. The real debate is how MUCH will the price increase.

based on what? :roll:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

what in a public option leads to an increase in demand/decline in supply?

uh, simple math. public option = more people insured, with the same amount of health care workers. Youre living up to your forum tag!

unfortunately for you, the economics is just a little bit more complicated than that. UHC does not and should not be about providing 'more' health care, its about better and more effective healthcare. As it stand simple adjustments (IT for instance) will lead to substantial productivity gains. Assuming that something sane comes out of congress, healthcare industry will finally be forced to compete on cost. It's not going to happen but it should; a better system of rationing care would go a long way as well.

So youre officially saying with UHC more people than now wont seek medical care?

seeking care doesn't mean you'll get it, and considering how unless or even harmful alot of the care people are receiving is, this isn't a bad thing.

anyways what you apparently read from my post has nothing to do with whats actually in my post; with sane health care reform doctors will have incentives to use their time and resources more effectively, which can easily be done, and hopefully lead to a more reasonable system of rationing.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

seeking care doesn't mean you'll get it, and considering how unless or even harmful alot of the care people are receiving is, this isn't a bad thing.

anyways what you apparently read from my post has nothing to do with whats actually in my post; with sane health care reform doctors will have incentives to use their time and resources more effectively, which can easily be done, and hopefully lead to a more reasonable system of rationing.

Well thanks for indirectly aqnswering my question.Looks like you and I agree on that.

As far as your last paragraph....it is similar to my wishes-unrealistic. Nothing on the house floor resembles what youre saying. And if we could find a way to allow doctors to spend MORE time with patients, and see LESS patients per day (which is what doctors want also) THAT would be a good thing. unfortunately a public option wont do that.

 

[DealMonkey]

Does anyone care what Max Baucus thinks or says. No. No, they don't.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Does anyone care what Max Baucus thinks or says. No. No, they don't.

I'm sure those in Montana he supposedly "represents" care, or at least they should. He equals 1/99th of the current decision-making power in the US Senate, which is substantially more than you or I.

So, for that reason, I think we should ALL care about what he thinks and says.

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: OCguy
UHC != Public Option



UHC= Every man, woman, child is covered by government run healthcare

Public Option = A government backed insurance option as a low-cost alternative to traditional insurance

How does one make a "government backed insurance option as a low-cost alternative to traditional insurance"?

You charge people a fraction of what the market rate for medical insurance is, and cover the rest with taxpayer money. Just like any other welfare/subsidy program.


Hawaii tried this same thing, and too many people started dropping private for government. It was over in months.

http://www.breitbart.com/artic...3SBEUG0&show_article=1

I know. The tards think that no one will switch from their "more expense" private insurance to the "cheaper" government option.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: OCguy

You charge people a fraction of what the market rate for medical insurance is, and cover the rest with taxpayer money. Just like any other welfare/subsidy program.


Hawaii tried this same thing, and too many people started dropping private for government. It was over in months.

http://www.breitbart.com/artic...3SBEUG0&show_article=1

I know. The tards think that no one will switch from their "more expense" private insurance to the "cheaper" government option.

People who think that would be 'tards'. Luckily for both of us, no one is making that argument. Don't you feel better now?

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

seeking care doesn't mean you'll get it, and considering how unless or even harmful alot of the care people are receiving is, this isn't a bad thing.

anyways what you apparently read from my post has nothing to do with whats actually in my post; with sane health care reform doctors will have incentives to use their time and resources more effectively, which can easily be done, and hopefully lead to a more reasonable system of rationing.

Well thanks for indirectly aqnswering my question.Looks like you and I agree on that.

As far as your last paragraph....it is similar to my wishes-unrealistic. Nothing on the house floor resembles what youre saying. And if we could find a way to allow doctors to spend MORE time with patients, and see LESS patients per day (which is what doctors want also) THAT would be a good thing. unfortunately a public option wont do that.

We'll have to strongarm the AMA to make that happen.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: brandonbull

Originally posted by: OCguy

You charge people a fraction of what the market rate for medical insurance is, and cover the rest with taxpayer money. Just like any other welfare/subsidy program.


Hawaii tried this same thing, and too many people started dropping private for government. It was over in months.

http://www.breitbart.com/artic...3SBEUG0&show_article=1

I know. The tards think that no one will switch from their "more expense" private insurance to the "cheaper" government option.

People who think that would be 'tards'. Luckily for both of us, no one is making that argument. Don't you feel better now?

But the general public walks around thinking that it'll be "cheaper." It's just like the rest of the stupid public who screams death panels!!!!!!!