Can Public Option Work?

[Care4all]

Read this, it is the paper the article talks about:

HR 3200’s “public option” will not resemble Medicare - PNHP's Official Blog

That's what I have been saying ALL ALONG, the public option in HR 3200 is nothing like a single payer universal plan, EACH PERSON who chooses the Public option has to pay for it through their premiums and the plan has to be fully funded through premiums as with all other private insurance plans.

That part is correct.

Only problem with public option is that imposing public option to the states require one of two things, amending the constitution or changing state laws. Once public option is forced to the states as an alternate, state borders should be open for the other alternates too. Government want's to compete with the private sector, but preventing private sector to compete with government at the same time.

From what I read in HR3200, the Public option is offered within a State, and the price for the premiums for the public option will be priced for those who buy the Public insurance option WITHIN the state....

The way it is worded in hr3200, appears as though there will be 50 different public options...so there is no privileged Government plan that crosses State lines.

Of course, this is bad...the public and private plans should be able to cross state lines.....it limits true competitiveness keeping them within the state along with other measures each state has put forth through their own regulations which only causes the price of health insurance to stay higher than what the market really can support, though as you state, constitutional....

 

[The Rabbi]

That's what I have been saying ALL ALONG, the public option in HR 3200 is nothing like a single payer universal plan, EACH PERSON who chooses the Public option has to pay for it through their premiums and the plan has to be fully funded through premiums as with all other private insurance plans.

That part is correct.

Only problem with public option is that imposing public option to the states require one of two things, amending the constitution or changing state laws. Once public option is forced to the states as an alternate, state borders should be open for the other alternates too. Government want's to compete with the private sector, but preventing private sector to compete with government at the same time.

From what I read in HR3200, the Public option is offered within a State, and the price for the premiums for the public option will be priced for those who buy the Public insurance option WITHIN the state....

The way it is worded in hr3200, appears as though there will be 50 different public options...so there is no privileged Government plan that crosses State lines.

Of course, this is bad...the public and private plans should be able to cross state lines.....it limits true competitiveness keeping them within the state along with other measures each state has put forth through their own regulations which only causes the price of health insurance to stay higher than what the market really can support, though as you state, constitutional....

Why this is going to be preferable to the system that exists now, and how gov't is magically going to make reality, in the form of statistics, disappear.
And if you open each state to competition then why do you need a public option at all??

 

[Conservanoid]

No the public option is stupid

 

[AVG-JOE]

If I am delusional, there are drugs for that condition, but for your stupidity, there is no help, period. Anyways, since your understanding of the 10th Amendment is somewhat lacking, allow me once again to attempt to enlighten you.

The 10th Amendment specifically says:



What this means is that if it is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, the federal government can't do it. If it's not specifically prohibited to the states by the Constitution, the States and/or We The People can do it.

Now, if the people overwhelmingly decide that they want the federal government to provide health insurance for them, then they must first be able to invoke a part of the Constitution that specifically authorizes the federal government to do so.

If it's not there, and We The People really do want it, the founding fathers specifically provided a mechanism through which it can be done, it's called Article 5 of the US Constitution, which has been invoked exactly 17 times since the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. Lacking such an invocation of Article 5, any law that provides for the taxing and spending for anything not specifically authorized in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution is unconstitutional on it's face.

I doubt you got it, but at least I've tried.

The "founding fathers" owned slaves and the constitution counted black people as "three fifths of a person."

Taking care of the old and the sick is the right thing to do.

Do you know how many were slave owners and to what party they belong?
Do you know that slave owners wanted to count slaves as "whole person", but those against slavery opposed it. Do you know why was that?

We The People ended the slavery and amended the constitution. Do you know how?

I do agree that, taking care of the old and the sick is the right thing to do. I do NOT agree with the way that is proposed.

Would you be happy if all the states were to each do their own thing?

If nothing else, our children would have 50 to 20 working models to look at over the next 8 decades.....

 

[AVG-JOE]

Read this, it is the paper the article talks about:

HR 3200’s “public option” will not resemble Medicare - PNHP's Official Blog

That's what I have been saying ALL ALONG, the public option in HR 3200 is nothing like a single payer universal plan, EACH PERSON who chooses the Public option has to pay for it through their premiums and the plan has to be fully funded through premiums as with all other private insurance plans.

That part is correct.

Only problem with public option is that imposing public option to the states require one of two things, amending the constitution or changing state laws. Once public option is forced to the states as an alternate, state borders should be open for the other alternates too. Government want's to compete with the private sector, but preventing private sector to compete with government at the same time.

Nobody is forcing anything on anyone. The key word in Public Option is 'option'.

Option: You choose. Group with your fellow employees in a tiny little bullshit group with between some and not much influence in the insurance purchasing market or Group with your fellow Americans.

The bigger the Group the more stable the insurance. Bring profit down to the level of the middle-class bureaucrats required to run it and you have potential to create a very stable fund indeed.

 

[Ame®icano]

The "founding fathers" owned slaves and the constitution counted black people as "three fifths of a person."

Taking care of the old and the sick is the right thing to do.

Do you know how many were slave owners and to what party they belong?
Do you know that slave owners wanted to count slaves as "whole person", but those against slavery opposed it. Do you know why was that?

We The People ended the slavery and amended the constitution. Do you know how?

I do agree that, taking care of the old and the sick is the right thing to do. I do NOT agree with the way that is proposed.

Would you be happy if all the states were to each do their own thing?

If nothing else, our children would have 50 to 20 working models to look at over the next 8 decades.....

Not sure I understand your questions.

 

[Ame®icano]

That's what I have been saying ALL ALONG, the public option in HR 3200 is nothing like a single payer universal plan, EACH PERSON who chooses the Public option has to pay for it through their premiums and the plan has to be fully funded through premiums as with all other private insurance plans.

That part is correct.

Only problem with public option is that imposing public option to the states require one of two things, amending the constitution or changing state laws. Once public option is forced to the states as an alternate, state borders should be open for the other alternates too. Government want's to compete with the private sector, but preventing private sector to compete with government at the same time.

Nobody is forcing anything on anyone. The key word in Public Option is 'option'.

Option: You choose. Group with your fellow employees in a tiny little bullshit group with between some and not much influence in the insurance purchasing market or Group with your fellow Americans.

The bigger the Group the more stable the insurance. Bring profit down to the level of the middle-class bureaucrats required to run it and you have potential to create a very stable fund indeed.

Read again. I made it easy for you this time.

 

[AVG-JOE]

That part is correct.

Only problem with public option is that imposing public option to the states require one of two things, amending the constitution or changing state laws. Once public option is forced to the states as an alternate, state borders should be open for the other alternates too. Government want's to compete with the private sector, but preventing private sector to compete with government at the same time.

From what I read in HR3200, the Public option is offered within a State, and the price for the premiums for the public option will be priced for those who buy the Public insurance option WITHIN the state....

The way it is worded in hr3200, appears as though there will be 50 different public options...so there is no privileged Government plan that crosses State lines.

Of course, this is bad...the public and private plans should be able to cross state lines.....it limits true competitiveness keeping them within the state along with other measures each state has put forth through their own regulations which only causes the price of health insurance to stay higher than what the market really can support, though as you state, constitutional....

Why this is going to be preferable to the system that exists now, and how gov't is magically going to make reality, in the form of statistics, disappear.
And if you open each state to competition then why do you need a public option at all??

I'd be happy if We, The People offered to put me and everyone else under 65 and not disabled on Medicare for a fair premium based exclusively on our age.

Folks 'round here in Florida seem to like the service Medicare offers and it travels well...

 

[AVG-JOE]

Do you know how many were slave owners and to what party they belong?
Do you know that slave owners wanted to count slaves as "whole person", but those against slavery opposed it. Do you know why was that?

We The People ended the slavery and amended the constitution. Do you know how?

I do agree that, taking care of the old and the sick is the right thing to do. I do NOT agree with the way that is proposed.

Would you be happy if all the states were to each do their own thing?

If nothing else, our children would have 50 to 20 working models to look at over the next 8 decades.....

Not sure I understand your questions.

Just thinking out loud. About your post - if the bill before The People sucks, would you have more confidence in the government involvement if it were more localized?

Would our children's children thank us for giving them many plans to evaluate instead of the one.......?

Just out loud.....

 

[The Rabbi]

From what I read in HR3200, the Public option is offered within a State, and the price for the premiums for the public option will be priced for those who buy the Public insurance option WITHIN the state....

The way it is worded in hr3200, appears as though there will be 50 different public options...so there is no privileged Government plan that crosses State lines.

Of course, this is bad...the public and private plans should be able to cross state lines.....it limits true competitiveness keeping them within the state along with other measures each state has put forth through their own regulations which only causes the price of health insurance to stay higher than what the market really can support, though as you state, constitutional....

Why this is going to be preferable to the system that exists now, and how gov't is magically going to make reality, in the form of statistics, disappear.
And if you open each state to competition then why do you need a public option at all??

I'd be happy if We, The People offered to put me and everyone else under 65 and not disabled on Medicare for a fair premium based exclusively on our age.

Folks 'round here in Florida seem to like the service Medicare offers and it travels well...

I'd be happy if anyone, I don't care who, offered to pay my bills and subsidize my life-style.
But the chances of that happening are nil. Nor would I particularly support such a move since inevitably it will become unsustainable and the whole system will come crashing down.

 

[Chris]

Why this is going to be preferable to the system that exists now, and how gov't is magically going to make reality, in the form of statistics, disappear.
And if you open each state to competition then why do you need a public option at all??

I'd be happy if We, The People offered to put me and everyone else under 65 and not disabled on Medicare for a fair premium based exclusively on our age.

Folks 'round here in Florida seem to like the service Medicare offers and it travels well...

I'd be happy if anyone, I don't care who, offered to pay my bills and subsidize my life-style.
But the chances of that happening are nil. Nor would I particularly support such a move since inevitably it will become unsustainable and the whole system will come crashing down.

Horseshit.

Every other industrialized country in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF what we pay for healthcare.

It is our system that is crashing.

 

[elvis]

I'd be happy if We, The People offered to put me and everyone else under 65 and not disabled on Medicare for a fair premium based exclusively on our age.

Folks 'round here in Florida seem to like the service Medicare offers and it travels well...

I'd be happy if anyone, I don't care who, offered to pay my bills and subsidize my life-style.
But the chances of that happening are nil. Nor would I particularly support such a move since inevitably it will become unsustainable and the whole system will come crashing down.

Horseshit.

Every other industrialized country in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF what we pay for healthcare.

It is our system that is crashing.

Go move to one of those countries, you Goddamned leech.

 

[jeffrockit]

I love it....gubbermint run healthcare.

Every other industrialized nation in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare.

hey Chris if this thing passes close to the way you want it,and is a disaster....will you say you were wrong or, we just wont see Chris in any threads about this....???

What we have now is a disaster.

What they pass probably won't be close to being enough, thanks to the swines in the Senate.

Meanwhile the rest of the industrialized world pays HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare and laughs at us.

Yeah and those other countries have much higher tax rates in order to fund the "free" health care. I don't think they are laughing about that.

 

[Care4all]

hey Chris if this thing passes close to the way you want it,and is a disaster....will you say you were wrong or, we just wont see Chris in any threads about this....???

What we have now is a disaster.

What they pass probably won't be close to being enough, thanks to the swines in the Senate.

Meanwhile the rest of the industrialized world pays HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare and laughs at us.

Yeah and those other countries have much higher tax rates in order to fund the "free" health care. I don't think they are laughing about that.

no they don't....not when you take what we pay in insurance for our own health care...and add that to our taxes paid.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

What we have now is a disaster.

What they pass probably won't be close to being enough, thanks to the swines in the Senate.

Meanwhile the rest of the industrialized world pays HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare and laughs at us.

Yeah and those other countries have much higher tax rates in order to fund the "free" health care. I don't think they are laughing about that.

no they don't....not when you take what we pay in insurance for our own health care...and add that to our taxes paid.

That would add 6% to my "tax" burden. Still well under the rates of european countries.

That is from a 5 figure salary. If i made more it would be an even smaller percentage.

 

[Care4all]

Yeah and those other countries have much higher tax rates in order to fund the "free" health care. I don't think they are laughing about that.

no they don't....not when you take what we pay in insurance for our own health care...and add that to our taxes paid.

That would add 6% to my "tax" burden. Still well under the rates of european countries.

That is from a 5 figure salary. If i made more it would be an even smaller percentage.

good morning plymco
i can see that for someone making over 100 grand that it may not up your tax percentage that much compared to your income....but 80% of Americans do not make 6 figures in salary in our great country and many of them are paying 20-50% of their salaries in health care insurance costs....and some do not have it at all.

Edit: my mistake, thought you said 6 figures

 

[NYcarbineer]

Did anyone else see this?



Public option likely to be managed by private insurance company | Raw Story

Read this, it is the paper the article talks about:

HR 3200’s “public option” will not resemble Medicare - PNHP's Official Blog

That's what I have been saying ALL ALONG, the public option in HR 3200 is nothing like a single payer universal plan, EACH PERSON who chooses the Public option has to pay for it through their premiums and the plan has to be fully funded through premiums as with all other private insurance plans.

This is widely misunderstood, or, in many cases, purposely misrepresented by the anti-reformers.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yeah and those other countries have much higher tax rates in order to fund the "free" health care. I don't think they are laughing about that.

no they don't....not when you take what we pay in insurance for our own health care...and add that to our taxes paid.

That would add 6% to my "tax" burden. Still well under the rates of european countries.

That is from a 5 figure salary. If i made more it would be an even smaller percentage.

Then, you have to add what you pay out of pocket towards your healthcare, i.e., that which your plan/insurance doesn't cover.

 

[AVG-JOE]

hey Chris if this thing passes close to the way you want it,and is a disaster....will you say you were wrong or, we just wont see Chris in any threads about this....???

What we have now is a disaster.

What they pass probably won't be close to being enough, thanks to the swines in the Senate.

Meanwhile the rest of the industrialized world pays HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare and laughs at us.

Yeah and those other countries have much higher tax rates in order to fund the "free" health care. I don't think they are laughing about that.

Just pretend for a moment that the premiums you pay and the premiums paid on your behalf paid by your employer are health insurance 'taxes'. Who pays more in 'taxes' now?

Not to mention the sensitive health and financial data that we trust to private corporations that don't give a shit about protecting our privacy...... thank (insert your preferred Deity here) that there is some regulation on the buying and selling of that information.

Can you imagine what the Social Security data base would go for on the open market?

 

[Care4all]

matt and I pay about 30% of our household income for healthcare insurance and out of pocket deductibles that we have had to use.... I have tried everything to find a cheaper insurance that covers more than his work's piece of crap insurance plan and it is triple the cost than what we get through his work on the group plan, so there is no hope...