Public Option dead!

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

So now it is "unspurprising" that the electorate is confused, whereas a page ago you "doubted" that people didn't understand the public option?

100% of the public is confused by your posts.

Regardless, I am amused at your inability to address the merits of health care reform. You constantly punt to what the public thinks (or seems to think) based on your pick of the day poll instead.

I don't think people are confused about what the public option means in principle: gov't run health insurance. What exact form that will take is unclear, even to the people who are voting on it.

The fact you can't seem to handle is that there's no poll out there showing a majority (or even a plurality) who want the variants currently on the table. You think the bill is getting better ... it's apparent most Americans disagree. Why you think they'd suddenly change their minds if they had your supreme understanding of all the details is still unclear.

[MikeWaters]

they are saying that the 55yo Medicare buy-in will likely cost $600 per month.

So who is going to buy this? People who expect to spend more than $600x12 in healthcare costs. Sick people.

We would likely see two things: 1) an explosion of cost due to sick people joining medicare, 2) 55-65yos demanding lower cost for medicare.

Then suddenly medicare becomes 55yo and older, instead of 65yo and older as it is now. Because Congress will cave and Obama et al. will be happy to sign it into law. Step closer to single payer.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

they are saying that the 55yo Medicare buy-in will likely cost $600 per month.

So who is going to buy this? People who expect to spend more than $600x12 in healthcare costs. Sick people.

We would likely see two things: 1) an explosion of cost due to sick people joining medicare, 2) 55-65yos demanding lower cost for medicare.

Then suddenly medicare becomes 55yo and older, instead of 65yo and older as it is now. Because Congress will cave and Obama et al. will be happy to sign it into law. Step closer to single payer.

My entire family costs less than six hundred. Yes sign me up immediately.

[Tex]

One more (that's 5 so far, if you're counting at home). CNN Poll today, on the health care bill:

61% Against
36% For

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

One more (that's 5 so far, if you're counting at home). CNN Poll today, on the health care bill:

61% Against
36% For

Polls only count if they prove what he wishes them to prove.

For some reason, health care reform gives him purpose. Go figure. People are needing work and jobs and he's worried about a fanciful overhaul of the health care system. As if that's going to stimulate the economy.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You criticize Tex for pointing to public confusion over the Health Care reform. Correct?

Yet, when I state, and there are others who agree with me, a public option is not something I can ever favor. You wish to repudiate that by, "well others do."

So which is it, is public opinion on the issue important or not?

Personally I'm not too impressed with the pandering to the baser aspects of public opinion to impose a public option upon the constituents, and will gladly accept public opinion which opposes it but it is not the end-all, be-all for me.

Really? Come on, Arch, you are smarter than this.

My point isn't that "others think health care reform is good." It is that others make really good arguments in favor of reform (and specifically the reform being considered right now). I am not citing public opinion here. I am giving you links to thoughtful analysis on the topic. If you choose to reject those, that's fine. It would be totally consistent with how you have approached this debate from the beginning.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I don't think people are confused about what the public option means in principle: gov't run health insurance. What exact form that will take is unclear, even to the people who are voting on it.

The fact you can't seem to handle is that there's no poll out there showing a majority (or even a plurality) who want the variants currently on the table. You think the bill is getting better ... it's apparent most Americans disagree. Why you think they'd suddenly change their minds if they had your supreme understanding of all the details is still unclear.

No, Texie. A public option doesn't mean "government run health insurance." It means an option to participate in government run health insurance. It isn't a takeover of all health insurance, which you imply.

And the facts that are out there are that people don't understand the health insurance reforms being considered. That's fine. The reforms are complex. But why you think people necessarily would oppose health insurance reforms which have a much higher chance of sucess than the current regime (which is the alternative on the table right now) if they learned more about the reforms is what is puzzling.

The reforms being considered are estimated by independent non-partisan groups to lower health care costs (bend the cost curve), lower deficits, insure 97% or more of the general public (with better plans than they have available now), and make it illegal for an insurance company to deny people on the basis of preexisting conditions.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Polls only count if they prove what he wishes them to prove.

For some reason, health care reform gives him purpose. Go figure. People are needing work and jobs and he's worried about a fanciful overhaul of the health care system. As if that's going to stimulate the economy.

Health care reform will help the economy. I honestly am shocked you would suggest to the contrary. Health care costs already comprise too high of a slice of GDP. They already burden business owners far too much. The reforms under consideration would hugely alleviate business burdens, insure more people for less money, and slow an unsustainable growth rate of health care costs as a percentage of GDP. If you don't see health care reform as necessary for improving the economy, you simply don't understand the issues at play.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Health care reform will help the economy. I honestly am shocked you would suggest to the contrary. Health care costs already comprise too high of a slice of GDP. They already burden business owners far too much. The reforms under consideration would hugely alleviate business burdens, insure more people for less money, and slow an unsustainable growth rate of health care costs as a percentage of GDP. If you don't see health care reform as necessary for improving the economy, you simply don't understand the issues at play.

The mosaic which comprises our health care systems, (it's not one system), is complex.

There are inefficiencies as is true in any market economy.

You already make a bunch of assumptions.

Health care costs already comprise too high of a slice of GDP.

This is a value judgment and are we counting apples or oranges.

They already burden business owners far too much.

Again another value judgment. I agree some aspects of health care are expensive. It's expensive to buy a Rolls too.

And there are inefficiencies. And there's waste. Now the quantity is not fairly established but rather established by those with an axe to grind.

The reforms under consideration would hugely alleviate business burdens, insure more people for less money, and slow an unsustainable growth rate of health care costs as a percentage of GDP.

Wow, you sure are the student of hyperbole.

We have no real proof of that and you're quite the gambler, willing to risk it all in order to have your social experiment. Nothing of this magnitude has ever been attempted and people want radical reforms without any idea if they will work or crash the system. I am especially skeptical of any system actually designed to crush the current payment system when the real desire is for a single government payer system.

If you don't see health care reform as necessary for improving the economy, you simply don't understand the issues at play.

I think our economy is more related to the banking and fiscal issues tied to that, our sagging industrial base, bloated bureaucracies than tied to health care.

And this is the crux, liberals are wont to shy away from the real issues, because one does not buy votes that way and thereby subjugate voters to their will. By socializing the masses you slyly gain control of them.

Other than a Democratic pundit, who really believes our current economic crisis is largely related to health care costs?

I favor a free market system, with certain insurance reforms such are repeal of the McCarran-Ferguson antitrust exemption, without any additional government insurance, and incentives for wellness.

We reward unhealthy lifestyles and that should be a key point in health reform. We are sickly, stupid and lazy population, so it costs a lot to take of us. And when we can't afford our sicknesses self-inflicted we want somebody else to pay the costs.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The mosaic which comprises our health care systems, (it's not one system), is complex.

There are inefficiencies as is true in any market economy.

You already make a bunch of assumptions.



This is a value judgment and are we counting apples or oranges.



Again another value judgment. I agree some aspects of health care are expensive. It's expensive to buy a Rolls too.

And there are inefficiencies. And there's waste. Now the quantity is not fairly established but rather established by those with an axe to grind.



Wow, you sure are the student of hyperbole.

We have no real proof of that and you're quite the gambler, willing to risk it all in order to have your social experiment. Nothing of this magnitude has ever been attempted and people want radical reforms without any idea if they will work or crash the system. I am especially skeptical of any system actually designed to crush the current payment system when the real desire is for a single government payer system.



I think our economy is more related to the banking and fiscal issues tied to that, our sagging industrial base, bloated bureaucracies than tied to health care.

And this is the crux, liberals are wont to shy away from the real issues, because one does not buy votes that way and thereby subjugate voters to their will. By socializing the masses you slyly gain control of them.

Other than a Democratic pundit, who really believes our current economic crisis is largely related to health care costs?

I favor a free market system, with certain insurance reforms such are repeal of the McCarran-Ferguson antitrust exemption, without any additional government insurance, and incentives for wellness.

We reward unhealthy lifestyles and that should be a key point in health reform. We are sickly, stupid and lazy population, so it costs a lot to take of us. And when we can't afford our sicknesses self-inflicted we want somebody else to pay the costs.

The fact that you can't even agree that health care costs currently comprise too high a percentage of GDP means we aren't going to get anywhere. You want to call THAT a value judgment (while ironically claiming that reform will "cost too much?")? Then you aren't interested in actually discussing the topic.