09/03/2009 11:43:17 PM EST

The Public Option is not the end all to be all of Healthcare reform

posted by Erauprcwa

This is in response to Cenk's tyrants and people in the chat.  Concerning the public option and whether it lives or dies.

Cenk has been on a angry-spree lately, which is rightly deserved but I notice that Cenk is falling in line with Fox News way of commentating and that his opinions (somewhat based on facts) are becoming 100% Fact when in retrospect, it's only his opinions. I see people in the chat following that logic taking in Cenk's opinions but denying all reason and logic with Cenk's argument.  TYT is great, they tell it like it is. But at the same time, we need to be aware when opinions and emotions get in the way of real journalistic reporting (I know Cenk & TYT crew aren't journalist) but...

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook
First I want to ask everyone these questions.

-What is healthcare reform to you?
-What's the Public Option?
-What needs to be fixed in our current healthcare system?

Well, take a moment to think about those questions...

Okay, here's the thing, we can still get comprehensive healthcare reform in the United States without the public option.  The public option is nothing more than an alternative option for the public to buy into with lower premiums in competition with private insurance companies.  Everything else being proposed is nothing more than strict government regulation.  

We always hear people, mostly Fox News and right wing commentators constantly say that the Public Option is the government option, which is VERY disingenuous to the American people in that, yes, it is government but it's the government offering lower insurance premiums which in turn still leads you into a PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANY.

If we didn't have the public option, would that mean healthcare reform is dead? NO... HELL NO! We can still have VERY strict government regulation in the form of the things already being proposed. The only difference is that... well nothing.  If we can enforce regulation on Private Insurance companies to lower cost, change their profit margins with caps on executive compensation, malpractice lawsuits, fix the inefficiencies in Medicare by getting rid of waste, etc... in turn will lower cost, insure more Americans (because cost will be more affordable), cut down on the Malpractice law suits, if we have a fix of how many times a person can be readmitted the the emergency room (to which will save money for the patient), and all, didn't we accomplish the main points of what comprehensive healthcare reform really is and what we wanted all along?  Because the goal is to lower cost, insure more Americans, get rid of pre-existing conditions clause...

I hear the argument from Progressives and Liberals about Obama caving on the Public Option but what we should be asking ourselves is, when was Obama EVER strong behind the Public Option? the answer is, he wasn't.  Now, what do I mean by that? well, a couple weeks ago when people were questioning if Obama had changed his game plan because of what Robert Gibbs had said at a press conference and HHS sec. Kathleen Sabilius had said, I decided to back track Obama's words on the public option and what he was originally proposing. He has always said he "preferred" a public option, but his main points on healthcare, WEREN'T pertaining to the public option.

When did the Public Option become the Golden Child of the Liberal/Progressive movement? Now, I would love to see a Public Option but I just don't think that we can think healthcare reform without a public option is meaningless.  We can still accomplish what we truly want and that's well, regulation on Private insurance companies to which is what in retrospect the public option and its details mainly were.

Now, some will say, oh, regulation, yeah right they {government} won't enforce regulation... my response to that is, what makes you think that the public option would solve all the problems, because most the what's proposed WITH the public option is government regulation... to which Republican oppose. So if we can impose regulations on the private insurance companies WITH the public option, what makes you think we can't have those same regs. without?

We complain SO much about stuff and we complain about the Republicans being partisan but we need to take a step back and look at our own party and our own selves and see that were being REALLY partisan right now and thinking OUR IDEAS ARE THE ONLY WAY... which is EXACTLY how the Republicans think.  Sometimes what we see in the mirror is our own selves, it seems that when we look in the mirror we see ourselves looking at others, maybe it's time we stop looking at others in the mirror and realize that the other people are our own selves.

As long as we have enforced regulation on those particular topics which I laid out and others which I didn't, we will have accomplished what the public option would've accomplished... maybe even better.  Also, since progressives/liberals and Conservatives love to quote the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) on topics, maybe we should pay attention to what the CBO is projecting if we introduce the public option, it's being reported that only an estimated number of 10-15 million people will be covered under the public option, which is less than projected by the white house. Also the idea that jobs will move to the public option by the CBOs project is lower than what Republicans are preaching right now.

So ask yourself again, what is healthcare reform to me? If that answer still has the public option, okay, but if your questioning it now, then you have opened your mind to the possibility that REAL change of a broken system can still take place and that all isn't lost.

< Who are the corporations? | Lets play a game. >

Poll

With strict regulation can we accomplish the intent of REAL healthcare reform without the public option?
yes 22%
no 61%
maybe 16%

Votes: 18
Results | Other Polls
 Display:
The Public Option is not the end all to be all of Healthcare reform | 13 comments (13 topical, 0 hidden)
Could they? Will they? NAW! (none / 0)

"caps on executive compensation"---LOL

"malpractice lawsuits" = bullshit Republican talking point

"fix the inefficiencies in Medicare by getting rid of waste" = another bullshit Republican talking point

The "inefficiencies" of Medicare are a minor problem in contrast to the other insanities that are going on in health care.

In order to truly attempt to enforce regulations, we have to form a whole agency, like the EPA---which proves to be easier to corrupt, slash funding for, etc. than a program that people have to live right in the middle of---like Medicare/Public Health Care. If someone mentions cutting Medicare---they're in trouble. But if they cut the EPA---it's good for business.

Also, if that's such a great idea, why don't we just "regulate" companies when it comes to the fire and police departments? Oh, I guess we ARE trying already to farm out the military work to contractors---under strict government regulations---that's working out well. Xe-g Heil!

Health care should be non-profit---period. The end.

I've been discussing public health care for 35 years---these are all tired old Republican smoke bombs. Seen-that-done-that. Anything other than the public option is bullshit in my opinion.

I won't be an Obama apologist. And I literally can't afford to live with a mere political win --- like Obama and Jonathan Alter can. They'll be fine---I won't.

All I can say is, get used to disappointment, son.

I hope I'm wrong---I really do.

by kurd55 on 09/04/2009 03:27:52 AM EST

contradiction? (none / 0)
So if the government can't regulate, what makes you think the public option will work? I mean most of what I mentioned is already being proposed and by your statements, it can't be done... so how is the public option going to work if they can't enforce those other things, which are nothing more than regulation?

by Erauprcwa on 09/04/2009 01:34:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
As I said before... (none / 0)

Well, it just seems that it's easier for Republicans to hack away at regulatory entities---like the EPA, than it is for them to whittle away at programs like Medicare.

However, after thinking about what you have said---there is good things in a lot of what you wrote.

Switzerland does not have what we'd call a public option---but they seem to be doing quite well with health care. I hear they do it with regulation. That’s worth investigating. (You may have stated this in your post---I can't remember---I read it like 4 am---sorry.)

Anyway---you make a lot of good points---that should be considered.

by kurd55 on 09/04/2009 04:07:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Switzerland... (none / 0)
I didn't post it someone else did, but after doing a little research on the Swiss, basically what I wrote about in this blog is somewhat if not mostly similar to what the Swiss have for healthcare.  Their system works, with strong regulation. Obviously, like I said Republicans won't like this because they're all about deregulation. But if they deregulate something like this, they will dismantle the entire healthcare industry and will be the ONLY people to blame.

Everybody has valid points. I very much want the public option but at the same time, we must keep our minds open to what actual healthcare reform really is.  What were fighting for isn't the public option to an extent and that's all I'm trying to point out.  

I've been taking a lot of crap on youtube and on TYT for not backing the public option like "I should" but to be frank, health reform isn't ONLY the public option and if we can accomplish some of the things I stated, then we came out on top, maybe not the way we wanted but, my expectations are so low right now, why bother thinking were going to get the best?

by Erauprcwa on 09/04/2009 04:31:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The Swiss Knife (none / 0)

I don't think now is the time to talk about/act on your ideas---now matter how good they are. That's for later.

I think we need to be pushing as hard as we can for the public option---for right now.

BUT! I agee with the crux of you blog---we're at a 10 and should be at a 7-8. When we get to 9-10 we start getting blind and lose our cool and sound like teabagger-birthers.

Not good.

by kurd55 on 09/05/2009 03:02:32 AM EST

[ Parent ]
good point... (none / 0)
I seriously want the public option and it would be a disappointment to not get it. I guess my initial purpose of this blog was for people to somewhat see the bright side of what healthcare reform could possibly be.  But because Obama has waffled on the issues it's not very clear about which way he will go or the idea of STRICT REGULATION would actually pan out.

But my intent was for us to take a step back and realize our own party is separating and were starting to look like the Republicans... more clear minded, mind you, but, it's almost the same.  

by Erauprcwa on 09/05/2009 05:56:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
In my opinion the crux of this argument is this... (none / 0)

...whether or not the government does any good with the public option in terms of the service is almost irrelevant to me...how could that be?

 Because the entire point of the public option is to provide competition with the private insurers.  If the private insurers are forced to compete with a public option, they will be forced to bring down their prices, reign in spending, and offer more to their customers.

Without the public option you are basically trying to force them to bring prices down, but there is no real incentive for the companies as it becomes a game of trying to get around all the regulations.  They don't actually stand to LOSE anything, because no one is going to take their customers, they don't have competition.  

 So in that situation, I think certainly with regulation and changes to policy things will look better for consumers and the services will improve and less people will fall through the cracks...

 ...but as for controlling cost?  I don't think so.  Maybe you'll slow the rate of increase, maybe you'll make them cut costs in certain areas, but the costs I think will absolutely spiral OUT OF CONTROL.  Just wait and see.  There is no incentive whatsoever to control costs without a public option.

To me that one single point is what makes this argument.

by staticnz on 09/06/2009 11:34:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The "inefficiencies" of Medicare (none / 0)
"are a minor problem in contrast to the other insanities that are going on in health care."

I seriously doubt Medicare has 30% "inefficiency" so right out the gate it's going to be more "efficient" than a for profit health insurance policy that seeks every opportunity to dump your coverage if you file claim.

"No, you are a paid blogger assigned to counter anyone that posts something negative about the government or Obama." by Mcamelyne II on 05/17/2011

by Robrob on 09/04/2009 07:16:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
an example of reulation that works ok. (none / 0)

Of course regulation works and can get you the health reform you need. But you would end u in a de facto single payer system, since the regulation would force insurers to behave like a government program.

A real example is in swizerland : 

We have no public option, 100%  private insurance...

BUT

1. coverage is mandatory, if people can't afford it, the state covers it. No pre-existing conditions.

2. basic coverage (we call it mandatory coverage) is in a law, it's the same coverage for every insurance company. They have to publish their prices in advance for the year, and cant' change for the whole year.

3. Insurance companies can't make profit with basic coverage. They can cover cost, but not make profit. 

4. Insurance companies must accept everyone for the basic coverage . You can write to any insurance comany "Guess what, you're my insurer for next year"

5. On top of the basic coverage, we have additional coverage (private room in hospitals is one of the most popular). This additional coverage is unregulated, like in the US.

 So the system does not have a public option. But it's a De Facto single payer system. We emulate a single payer system, but we have private insurance companies to keep the right wing happy. We (the swiss people) voted, and rejected a true single payer system (for the basic coverage only) in 2007. I voted in favour of single payer.

My grandfather got kicked out of additional coverage at age 75, after having chiped in for 25 years, because it was very likely that his cost would exceed the benefits.

 

But in the US, it would be impossible to have such a system, because the private corporations woun't allow it. 

 

by moogly81 on 09/04/2009 05:46:47 AM EST

Hard for the conservatives to fault (none / 0)
a system that is 100 percent private insurers .

A conservative believes nothing should be done for the first time

by C D on 09/04/2009 07:20:11 AM EST

[ Parent ]
so the main point is confirmed (none / 0)
This Switzerland comment ends with "BUT (emphasis mine) in the US, it would be impossible to have such a system...."  Well, apparently in the US it's impossible to have a public option either. So which is more realistic or unrealistic, strict regulation or a public option? I don't know.  The point is there are more ways than one to transform our health care insurance system, more ways beside a Public Option. I don't think any of these transformations will be made into law, and for that I am very disappointed and disgusted. But I am not disappointed and disgusted just that the Public Option won't pass.

David

by davidk on 09/04/2009 12:24:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Erau: You might wanna read this (none / 0)
As long as 40% of every healthcare dollar goes to insurance companies the healthcare system will suck.

Let me ask you a question: are you OK with third world level healthcare for the American people? Do you support giving money to insurance companies for nothing?

Today, in America, we don't have healthcare insurance. People who do have insurance have nothing more than a discount card.

by smillis19 on 09/04/2009 12:13:01 PM EST

heheh yea. (none / 0)
i like the clip where that aid relief agency that normally work in places like ethiopia and namibia came tot he US to provide us citizens with basic healthcare. how shameful is it when your country a supposed first world country, and supposedly the best first world country, has to get aid from charities that normalyl work int he poorest of poor third world countries. it says alot to how broken your healthcare system really is, when a charity that normally helps people making less then 1 usd a day is going out to help YOUR citizens.

by kingbane on 09/04/2009 01:13:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The Public Option is not the end all to be all of Healthcare reform | 13 comments (13 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: