Public Option dead!

[Archaea]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/1..._n_384591.html

Public option dead, a victory of sorts. But it looks like they're trying to sneak it in the back door.

[MikeWaters]

Public option / single payer isn't dead. Any compromise "against" merely means that its advocates have agreed to a temporary delay.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/1..._n_384591.html

Public option dead, a victory of sorts. But it looks like they're trying to sneak it in the back door.

And the compromise is even better. This bill is getting better by the day.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

And the compromise is even better. This bill is getting better by the day.

Nobody's, to this day, has made a cogent argument in favor of federal government health care reform.

It's not been proven that government manages services more efficiently than the private sector.

It's not been proven that government services are of equal quality to that of private services.

It's not been proven what the alleged numbers of non-voluntary uninsured are, due to costs or pre-existing conditions.

The only "proof" is that it will cost at least $1 Trillion Dollars. And if past overstatement regarding program costs are any indicator, i.e., Medicare, it should really about ten to one hundred times that. Glory Be, Hallelujah!

There is a perception of a problem which is inaccurately stated for purposes of creating a hysterical rush to a solution which is really no solution.

May history curse Obama for his fraud and deceit!

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Nobody's, to this day, has made a cogent argument in favor of federal government health care reform.

It's not been proven that government manages services more efficiently than the private sector.

It's not been proven that government services are of equal quality to that of private services.

It's not been proven what the alleged numbers of non-voluntary uninsured are, due to costs or pre-existing conditions.

The only "proof" is that it will cost at least $1 Trillion Dollars. And if past overstatement regarding program costs are any indicator, i.e., Medicare, it should really about ten to one hundred times that. Glory Be, Hallelujah!

There is a perception of a problem which is inaccurately stated for purposes of creating a hysterical rush to a solution which is really no solution.

May history curse Obama for his fraud and deceit!

There are plenty of people who have made a convincing argument for government health care reform. That you would even claim to the contrary suggests you aren't even trying to find information on the topic.

In the sake of saving you some effort, here are a few:

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009...re_journey.php

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Cont...th-System.aspx

http://www.urban.org/publications/411984.html

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc1078...0-Premiums.pdf

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3022

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...072802114.html

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...ave_healt.html

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

There are plenty of people who have made a convincing argument for government health care reform. That you would even claim to the contrary suggests you aren't even trying to find information on the topic.

In the sake of saving you some effort, here are a few:

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009...re_journey.php

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Cont...th-System.aspx

http://www.urban.org/publications/411984.html

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc1078...0-Premiums.pdf

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3022

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...072802114.html

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...ave_healt.html

That people unwisely advocate for health care reform to attract more voters is not my problem.

So government is going to try cost containment. Lol. Good luck with that. The only modification which could make a difference would be the medical profession's change of philosophy from a fee for service to a results oriented modeling. But then again that would come from the professional orientation not from government's heavy hand.

Does anybody see the irony here of government cost control?

Medicare, Government's great social experiment created the financing for costs spiraling out of control, so now the Great Conspirator says, "we're going to control costs by spending less after we make it available to everybody universally."

Yep, that's destined for great success.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

That people unwisely advocate for health care reform to attract more voters is not my problem.

So government is going to try cost containment. Lol. Good luck with that. The only modification which could make a difference would be the medical profession's change of philosophy from a fee for service to a results oriented modeling. But then again that would come from the professional orientation not from government's heavy hand.

Does anybody see the irony here of government cost control?

Medicare, Government's great social experiment created the financing for costs spiraling out of control, so now the Great Conspirator says, "we're going to control costs by spending less after we make it available to everybody universally."

Yep, that's destined for great success.

Do yourself a favor and read the links above (or at least some of them). If you are actually interested in this topic (other than just to fight against) I am confident you will have a more reasoned view afterwards.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Do yourself a favor and read the links above (or at least some of them). If you are actually interested in this topic (other than just to fight against) I am confident you will have a more reasoned view afterwards.

I did read some of them. Color me unimpressed.

Until we focus upon quality, coordination and medical cooperation, health care will not be improved. I am not upset about access to care and frankly don't know anybody other than Democratic pundits who are. It is NOT important to me that our country provide universal access to medical care, as I do not perceive access to be a fundamental human right. I simply reject that assumption. OTOH, I know I may have to be pragmatic in my battles, but this battle is not something positive IMHO.

Mike's nailed the strategy. It's all part of a long range strategy to undermine private systems, as Mike noted: "the strategy is 1) increase access, 2) wait for costs to implode, and then 3) trot out single payer as the only possible solution."

And humor me, what do you believe is the "Dutch System" and why do you believe it has worked on a small scale?

The two cultures are not identical at all and trying to follow the Dutch will fail miserably.

[MikeWaters]

Care for the indigent/uninsured won't change all that much in Texas given that the bill doesn't address illegal immigrants.

Dems know they can't take care of that on the first pass-through. Will wait til later.

When it becomes clear that some of these taxpayer-based charitable hospitals are essentially only in place to serve illegal immigrants (which is not that far-fetched if everyone else has insurance of one kind or another), I wonder what the public reaction is going to be.

We may very well find out.

[Archaea]

It's that Cali's cronies believe government can create healthy markets with adequate service.

Here's a quote from one of the articles:

This is what the health insurance exchange is designed to do. It is arguably the single most important element of health-care reform, because it is the bridge between the system we have and the system we want. But amid the clamor over public insurance options -- which, incidentally, would be housed on the exchange -- and employer tax exclusions and all the other points of controversy, the health insurance exchange is hardly being discussed. And there are signs that it, and thus the long-term promise of reform, might be in danger.
Compared with the crazy-quilt system we have now, the idea behind the health insurance exchange is almost weirdly simple: It's a single market, structured for consumer convenience, in which you choose between the products of competing health insurers (both public and private). This is not a new idea. It is how we buy everything from books to socks to soup. Everything, that is, except health insurance. The benefits of reversing that bit of accidental exceptionalism are obvious to anyone who has ever stepped inside a Target: Consumers will benefit from more choice, from direct competition between insurance providers hungry for their business, from regulations meant to protect them from deceptive products, from efficiencies of scale, and from the sort of purchasing power that only a large base of customers can provide. They will benefit, in other words, from an actual, working market -- something health insurers have managed to avoid for far too long.

So the Reformers want to shift the insurance forcibly.

And great, just what we need, another government concocted marketplace.

As Mike aptly analyzed, the structure of the Exchange is artificial so it will skew normal economics, destroy the insurance companies "compelling" Congress to pay for it all. The plan is brilliantly cloaked but devious and disastrous nonetheless.