Total Posts:48|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Public Option

ToastOfDestiny
Posts: 990
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2009 7:31:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I am woefully ignorant. Educate me!
At 10/11/2009 8:28:18 PM, banker wrote:
Our demise and industrial destruction
At 10/11/2009 10:00:21 PM, regebro wrote:
Only exists in your head, as already shown.

At 10/11/2009 8:28:18 PM, banker wrote:
reveal why you answer with a question mark
At 10/11/2009 10:00:21 PM, regebro wrote:
Because it was a question.

RFDs Pl0x:
http://www.debate.org...
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2009 7:46:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Terrible. Expensive. Government takeover.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2009 7:47:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/3/2009 7:46:11 PM, mongoose wrote:
Terrible.

Opinion.

Expensive.

Not if properly managed.

Government takeover.

So?
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2009 7:49:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/3/2009 7:47:15 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 11/3/2009 7:46:11 PM, mongoose wrote:
Terrible.

Opinion.

Expensive.

Not if properly managed.

And the government can manage properly? Doubt it.

Government takeover.

So?

Destroys liberty.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2009 7:49:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/3/2009 7:47:15 PM, Volkov wrote:
Government takeover.

So?

Historically inefficient. Directs resources away from consumer demand. Limits liberty.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2009 8:02:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/3/2009 7:49:14 PM, mongoose wrote:
And the government can manage properly? Doubt it.

I would like to differ when a pure-public system like Canada can handle its healthcare costs much better than the pure-private system like the US has. Or are Canadians just that much healthier?

Destroys liberty.

Any government destroys "liberty"; that is the purpose of a government. Or are we going anarchist now?

The purpose of a government is to provide as much liberty as possible under a structure that guarantees rights and freedoms; a public option only enhances that purpose, as it gives those that are literally left to the wolves a chance to live, work, succeed, and prosper. Or do we not like prosperity?
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2009 8:08:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
How is the public option a government takeover? It is merely the creation of a health insurance company run by the government. Private companies will continue to exist. How is this a government takeover by any means?
MikeLoviN
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2009 8:08:56 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
From what I understand the government option:

- provides cheaper coverage for those that can't afford comprehensive health insurance

- will force private sector insurance companies to keep premiums at a lower level to better compete

- will likely provide better coverage at cheaper prices than private health insurance plans because there is no profit-margin to be thought about, no advertising costs etc...

- for that last reason, it is feasible to imagine that the government option will mean the gradual, yet eventual destruction of the private health insurance sector because the private companies will continue to lose customers to the cheaper and (possibly) more comprehensive government plan, forcing them to further slash premiums, resulting in huge revenue losses until they take their final swirl around the toilet bowl before going down the drain.

This could be a good or bad thing. Personally i think these companies are the same as the crooks on Wall Street and the bigger hit they take, the better. But if these companies start going down, two things are going to happen:

1) A large number of people will be forced to go with the government plan once no more feasible alternatives remain.
2) The government, stuck caring for more people than it can handle will need to generate more revenue to deal with the rising costs meaning either a) taxes go up OR b) deficit goes up.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2009 8:11:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/3/2009 8:02:16 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 11/3/2009 7:49:14 PM, mongoose wrote:
And the government can manage properly? Doubt it.

I would like to differ when a pure-public system like Canada can handle its healthcare costs much better than the pure-private system like the US has. Or are Canadians just that much healthier?

We don't have a fully private system. We have the AMA and FDA to contend with.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2009 8:13:47 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/3/2009 8:08:56 PM, MikeLoviN wrote:
- for that last reason, it is feasible to imagine that the government option will mean the gradual, yet eventual destruction of the private health insurance sector because the private companies will continue to lose customers to the cheaper and (possibly) more comprehensive government plan, forcing them to further slash premiums, resulting in huge revenue losses until they take their final swirl around the toilet bowl before going down the drain.

Does the U.S. Postal Service destroy private carriers like UPS orFedex?
Do library systems destroy prite book stores?

No.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2009 8:15:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/3/2009 8:11:55 PM, mongoose wrote:
We don't have a fully private system. We have the AMA and FDA to contend with.

The majority of coverage is private, with a small amount really being public. And remember, we're talking coverage here, not regulation.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2009 8:22:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/3/2009 8:13:47 PM, JBlake wrote:
Does the U.S. Postal Service destroy private carriers like UPS orFedex?
Do library systems destroy prite book stores?

No.

Which entity performs better? The private carriers like UPS or FedEx and the private book stores like Barnes&Nobles seem to work much more efficiently than USPS (fail: http://www.gao.gov...) or public libraries (eww).
MikeLoviN
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2009 8:29:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/3/2009 8:13:47 PM, JBlake wrote:
At 11/3/2009 8:08:56 PM, MikeLoviN wrote:
- for that last reason, it is feasible to imagine that the government option will mean the gradual, yet eventual destruction of the private health insurance sector because the private companies will continue to lose customers to the cheaper and (possibly) more comprehensive government plan, forcing them to further slash premiums, resulting in huge revenue losses until they take their final swirl around the toilet bowl before going down the drain.

Does the U.S. Postal Service destroy private carriers like UPS orFedex?
Do library systems destroy prite book stores?

No.

Very poor analogies.

UPS and Fedex are massive international corporations that provide far more than the same services as the US Postal Service on a global level, so there is no comparison there.

Generally speaking, libraries let people borrow books and not buy them to keep indefinitely. So once again, they are not providing the same service.

Here we are talking about a government run company providing health insurance vs a private insurance company, providing health insurance, both exclusively in the US to US citizens. The overlap in services provided is much more focused and targeted. The only difference is that government is capable of providing cheaper coverage because it doesn't need to turn a profit.

I'm not saying that it's likely that a government option will kill private insurance companies. I'm just saying that it's possible.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2009 8:45:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I don't like socialized medicine. We've had corporate medicine now for about 30 years which is managed medicine by the government, and it has been a total disaster and it didn't do much more than push the costs up. And it didn't work, so now we only have one other choice, it seems, and that is going towards total government medicine. I would like to see that medicine be delivered in the marketplace like other goods and services.
There is no proof that single-payer socialized medicine has ever been beneficial. I mean, that's why in Canada we find many people leave and come here because we do have more freedom here than they have in Canada, and you don't have to wait in lines. We just have the problem costs.

we need to see market factors, we need control by the patient, we need an incentive not to waste our services, we need some tax incentives and we need the control back in the hands of the patient.

with socialized medicine coming, believe me, quality will down, costs will go up, there will be shortages, there will be lines and nobody is going to be happy.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2009 8:59:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/3/2009 8:45:50 PM, comoncents wrote:
There is no proof that single-payer socialized medicine has ever been beneficial.

There isn't proof that private health care has been better either. In fact, if anything, both systems seem relatively on par - at least when you compare the US and Canada. The difference is that Canadians have a longer life expectancy and other better statistics, though I'll be the bigger man and admit that many agree this might not have anything to do with the system used.

And, plus, in relation to your next few statements; Canada does not have socialized medicine. That is quite the common misconception. What we have is state-funded insurance. Delivery and administration is done through private companies and individuals.

I mean, that's why in Canada we find many people leave and come here because we do have more freedom here than they have in Canada,

Yes, which is why all of our population goes south of the border to get treatment and there is such dissatisfaction here with our system that 99% of Canadians hate it....

Oh, that is an exaggeration, sorry. I was just copying what you do, which is make up facts out of thin air.

and you don't have to wait in lines.

That is quite the lie and a half.

Americans must wait in lines as well; the difference is that if you have more money, you can jump the queue. But don't act as if there are zero wait times in the US, because that is what is called bullsh*t.

with socialized medicine coming, believe me, quality will down, costs will go up, there will be shortages, there will be lines and nobody is going to be happy.

Socialized medicine is not coming. State insurance is. There is a big, big difference.

The US has had a public-private hybrid system for years, anyways. The issue people find is that 16% go uninsured and cannot get proper coverage. Should they be left to rot? Do they not matter? Or is this going to be similar to some social darwinist saying "they didn't make the cut."
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2009 9:03:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/3/2009 8:29:04 PM, MikeLoviN wrote:
Very poor analogies.

ORLY?

UPS and Fedex are massive international corporations that provide far more than the same services as the US Postal Service on a global level, so there is no comparison there.

Federal Express was founded in 1971. It did not begin international service until 1981.

Generally speaking, libraries let people borrow books and not buy them to keep indefinitely. So once again, they are not providing the same service.

You have a better point here. They don't perform precisely the same service. I still feel it is related because they are both related to reading books. Libraries even allow these books to be read for free. This would seem to be better for people than paying money to read books.

I'm not saying that it's likely that a government option will kill private insurance companies. I'm just saying that it's possible.

Sure it is possible. I'm saying it is not inevitable, as some seem to be claiming.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2009 9:04:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/3/2009 8:59:07 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 11/3/2009 8:45:50 PM, comoncents wrote:
There is no proof that single-payer socialized medicine has ever been beneficial.

There isn't proof that private health care has been better either. In fact, if anything, both systems seem relatively on par - at least when you compare the US and Canada. The difference is that Canadians have a longer life expectancy and other better statistics, though I'll be the bigger man and admit that many agree this might not have anything to do with the system used.

And, plus, in relation to your next few statements; Canada does not have socialized medicine. That is quite the common misconception. What we have is state-funded insurance. Delivery and administration is done through private companies and individuals.

I mean, that's why in Canada we find many people leave and come here because we do have more freedom here than they have in Canada,

Yes, which is why all of our population goes south of the border to get treatment and there is such dissatisfaction here with our system that 99% of Canadians hate it....

Oh, that is an exaggeration, sorry. I was just copying what you do, which is make up facts out of thin air.

and you don't have to wait in lines.

That is quite the lie and a half.

Americans must wait in lines as well; the difference is that if you have more money, you can jump the queue. But don't act as if there are zero wait times in the US, because that is what is called bullsh*t.

with socialized medicine coming, believe me, quality will down, costs will go up, there will be shortages, there will be lines and nobody is going to be happy.

Socialized medicine is not coming. State insurance is. There is a big, big difference.

The US has had a public-private hybrid system for years, anyways. The issue people find is that 16% go uninsured and cannot get proper coverage. Should they be left to rot? Do they not matter? Or is this going to be similar to some social darwinist saying "they didn't make the cut."

sorry i am sick and exited.. i forgot to add this...

i was just seeing what you guys thought... but i got what you thought
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2009 9:09:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/3/2009 9:06:07 PM, JBlake wrote:
How about another analogy?

No matter how many analogies you give, it doesn't refute my argument above.

Did Public universities put private universities out of business?

No. But are public universities mandating what the private universities can and can not do? No. Public health care will mandate what private health care can and can not do. Weak analogy.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2009 9:19:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/3/2009 9:09:52 PM, Nags wrote:
At 11/3/2009 9:06:07 PM, JBlake wrote:
How about another analogy?

No matter how many analogies you give, it doesn't refute my argument above.

Did Public universities put private universities out of business?

No. But are public universities mandating what the private universities can and can not do? No. Public health care will mandate what private health care can and can not do. Weak analogy.

Wrong, sir. Private universities may not discriminate.

Also, the regulations on private insurers are mainly related to denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, or retroactively denying coverageor pre-existing conditions.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2009 9:28:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/3/2009 9:19:01 PM, JBlake wrote:
Wrong, sir. Private universities may not discriminate.

You pointed out one regulation that applies to everything in the United States. Well done...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2009 9:55:32 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/3/2009 8:08:53 PM, JBlake wrote:
How is the public option a government takeover? It is merely the creation of a health insurance company run by the government. Private companies will continue to exist. How is this a government takeover by any means?
It takes over your money

And uses it to subsidize the public option it runs.

If someone would guarantee that not a single dollar of tax was involved in paying for the public option and not a single regulation was applied to the private sector that was not also applied to the public option, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Does the U.S. Postal Service destroy private carriers like UPS orFedex?
http://www.washingtontimes.com...
It only fails to by incompetence, it's not for lack of trying.

Do library systems destroy prite book stores?
They have obviously prevented private book lending services (You see Netflix, no NetBoox) from taking off. And they cost lots of tax money. Comparing a lending service to a store is kind of silly.

Wrong, sir. Private universities may not discriminate.
If this were true BYU among other universities would be out of business.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2009 3:53:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/3/2009 9:55:32 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If someone would guarantee that not a single dollar of tax was involved in paying for the public option and not a single regulation was applied to the private sector that was not also applied to the public option, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
But then, why made it government-run? Why not have Obama start his own non-profit healthcare coverage called Obamacare?

And I think the references to FedEx and such are hilarious. Especially when the U.S. Mail is extremely inefficient, losing our tax dollars. That's essentially what a public option would be. Horribly inefficient, a huge defecit, but people will still get it anyway, because it is cheap. Why are we so crazy?
ToastOfDestiny
Posts: 990
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2009 5:39:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Lol at all the above. Thanks for the opinions everyone, but can anyone tell me about the specifics of the plans?
At 10/11/2009 8:28:18 PM, banker wrote:
Our demise and industrial destruction
At 10/11/2009 10:00:21 PM, regebro wrote:
Only exists in your head, as already shown.

At 10/11/2009 8:28:18 PM, banker wrote:
reveal why you answer with a question mark
At 10/11/2009 10:00:21 PM, regebro wrote:
Because it was a question.

RFDs Pl0x:
http://www.debate.org...
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2009 5:42:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The 2000+ page bill should tell you everything you need to know!
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2009 7:28:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
By the way, the vote is going on very shortly on the Health Reform Bill in the House of Representatives. It's like watching a close sporting event. Go Team Democrats!

Also, the Stupak Amendment did pass 234 - 192, I think).
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2009 7:32:58 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/4/2009 3:53:26 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 11/3/2009 9:55:32 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If someone would guarantee that not a single dollar of tax was involved in paying for the public option and not a single regulation was applied to the private sector that was not also applied to the public option, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
But then, why made it government-run?
To coopt liberals without any substantive policy cost? :P
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2009 8:13:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Augh. It should die in the Senate.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2009 8:16:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Yuck. I wanted to gauge my eyes out after watching the Dems count down from 10, clap and scream like dumbasses, and then listen to Pelosi babble.