Public Option Bill

[Anonymous]

You think toll roads may be more economical?. I read that the gasoline tax of 40 cents/gallon has not kept up with inflation from the original tax of 16/cents a gallon in the 1950s, but I noticed that tolls on private roads meet or exceed inflation. I would rather pay tax for a service if the alternative is getting gouged by a corporate profiteer!

I can't speek for SS, but you have to admit some govt. programs have been beneficial.
Economist say the GI bill in the 1940s fueled the post war economic expansion because it increased the % of Americans going to college.


I agree govt. is not the answer to everything. However, if the profit motive conflicts with the common good then the service should be run by the govt. If fire depts. were run for profit llike HMOs would fire trucks go to every home? I believe HC should be avaliable to all taxpayers like fire protection.

Thanks for your replys. I will read one more email and acknowledge that I read it. Let me have it.
------Dude from Orange County, CA

What is the common good? Why doesn't the goverment run housing? There is profit motive all around the housing market. Why not let the government, according to your argument, build houses for people and then sell them to people? Good housing has gotten very expensive. According to your logic, since good housing is out of the reach of many people, I guess government housing makes sense to you?

Your fire department is well taken. I agree that is what government is there for, BASIC protections. A PO isn't basic protection. It is mettlesome.

 

[Anonymous]

What is the common good? Why doesn't the goverment run housing? There is profit motive all around the housing market. Why not let the government, according to your argument, build houses for people and then sell them to people? Good housing has gotten very expensive. According to your logic, since good housing is out of the reach of many people, I guess government housing makes sense to you?

Your fire department is well taken. I agree that is what government is there for, BASIC protections. A PO isn't basic protection. It is mettlesome.

Society can still function even if a homes, BMWs, and boats are not affordable for everyone. One the other hand societies function best when certain things are affordable to all. Without tax payer subsidized tuition we would have even bigger shortages in critical occupations like engineers, nurses, doctors. Fire protection for all is needed for a sound econmy.

Yes, a PO is not basic protection, but EVERYONE has a medical emergency once in their life, but not everyone needs to call a fire department. If you think single a payer system is mettlesome then the PO is a good compromise. Those who are denied coverage by HMOs can pay premiums for a PO while the rest of society pays nothing for the program. You may think HC is not a right. However, people who lose homes due to fire and those who file medical bankruptcy can't buy consumer goods that fuel the economy, or worse--they end up on the welfare rolls. That would be expensive for society. That is why HC needs to be widly available like fire protection.

 

[Anonymous]

Society can still function even if a homes, BMWs, and boats are not affordable for everyone. One the other hand societies function best when certain things are affordable to all. Without tax payer subsidized tuition we would have even bigger shortages in critical occupations like engineers, nurses, doctors. Fire protection for all is needed for a sound econmy.

Yes, a PO is not basic protection, but EVERYONE has a medical emergency once in their life, but not everyone needs to call a fire department. If you think single a payer system is mettlesome then the PO is a good compromise. Those who are denied coverage by HMOs can pay premiums for a PO while the rest of society pays nothing for the program. You may think HC is not a right. However, people who lose homes due to fire and those who file medical bankruptcy can't buy consumer goods that fuel the economy, or worse--they end up on the welfare rolls. That would be expensive for society. That is why HC needs to be widly available like fire protection.

Your argument keeps failing. A public option will cost everyone else money. There is no way the government will keep the program solvent. You trust that because the government says the PO would be paid in full by premiums, that it really would be. Sorry, the government has an AWFUL record sticking to its word on ANYTHING.

 

[Anonymous]

Your argument keeps failing. A public option will cost everyone else money. There is no way the government will keep the program solvent. You trust that because the government says the PO would be paid in full by premiums, that it really would be. Sorry, the government has an AWFUL record sticking to its word on ANYTHING.

Thanks for your reply. We disagree on this subject. You say govt. does not stick to its word. Tell that to people who filed bankruptcy during a hospital stay because the HMOs used "application fraud" as an excuse to cancel coverage. Recipients of VA or Medicare don't get shafted like HMO policy holders do.

---Dude from Orange County, CA

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks for your reply. We disagree on this subject. You say govt. does not stick to its word. Tell that to people who filed bankruptcy during a hospital stay because the HMOs used "application fraud" as an excuse to cancel coverage. Recipients of VA or Medicare don't get shafted like HMO policy holders do.

---Dude from Orange County, CA

Of course they don't get shafted, that is the problem. The PO is painted as a "nobody gets denied for anything, ever." and THAT is the problem.

You have stated before that medicare has a lower operating cost than an HMO. Okay, fine. But in your fantasy world of a PO, nobody would get denied for anything. How would your PO balance being this altruistic fantasy plan versus keeping a balanced budget WITHOUT dipping into tax dollars? Specifics please, not general arguments like "the PO would have a lower cost."

 

[Anonymous]

Of course they don't get shafted, that is the problem. The PO is painted as a "nobody gets denied for anything, ever." and THAT is the problem.

You have stated before that medicare has a lower operating cost than an HMO. Okay, fine. But in your fantasy world of a PO, nobody would get denied for anything. How would your PO balance being this altruistic fantasy plan versus keeping a balanced budget WITHOUT dipping into tax dollars? Specifics please, not general arguments like "the PO would have a lower cost."

I know this is long, but you asked for specifics on why the PO would work.

You have very valid concerns. The PO like Medicare would not have the expense of paying for dividends, CEO bonuses, sales commissions, expensive one page ads that I see national puplications. That explains why Medicare's overhead is only 3% vs 20%-30% for private insurance according to the GAO. Medicare's financial problem is that its premiums of only $90/month are much lower than private insurance, and they need to be raised.

You may look at the red ink of the POst Office to justify your doubt about the PO. Private companies are also losing revenue for the same reason as the Post Office : bad economy and loss of customers to the internet. You may doubt that the Post Office will be able to change its business model for the internet age, but one thing is almost certain: If private companies took over the post office they would probably charge much more than 44 cents to mail a letter across the nation. Why? I noticed that businesses charge as much as they can when there is a big demand. Tuition at private nursing colleges is $25k vs only $2,500 for nursing programs at the junior colleges. A non-profit Post Office is needed because if people had to pay $4 to mail a letter, commerce could suffer. Meanwhile business are moving to Candada because HI premiums have more than 2x in 10 years. For the sake of keeping jobs it is worth tying a PO that would not gouge businesses in order to enrich shareholders.

--Dude in Orange County, CA

 

[Anonymous]

I know this is long, but you asked for specifics on why the PO would work.

You have very valid concerns. The PO like Medicare would not have the expense of paying for dividends, CEO bonuses, sales commissions, expensive one page ads that I see national puplications. That explains why Medicare's overhead is only 3% vs 20%-30% for private insurance according to the GAO. Medicare's financial problem is that its premiums of only $90/month are much lower than private insurance, and they need to be raised.

You may look at the red ink of the POst Office to justify your doubt about the PO. Private companies are also losing revenue for the same reason as the Post Office : bad economy and loss of customers to the internet. You may doubt that the Post Office will be able to change its business model for the internet age, but one thing is almost certain: If private companies took over the post office they would probably charge much more than 44 cents to mail a letter across the nation. Why? I noticed that businesses charge as much as they can when there is a big demand. Tuition at private nursing colleges is $25k vs only $2,500 for nursing programs at the junior colleges. A non-profit Post Office is needed because if people had to pay $4 to mail a letter, commerce could suffer. Meanwhile business are moving to Candada because HI premiums have more than 2x in 10 years. For the sake of keeping jobs it is worth tying a PO that would not gouge businesses in order to enrich shareholders.

--Dude in Orange County, CA

Granted, no CEO bonuses, etc etc. But in your PO idea, would a patient ever be turned down for anything? I am guessing NO, because politics would get involved. Old Sally gets denied chemo (or would she?) Then she writes her congressman. The congressman writes PO Bureaucrat and writes "I can't believe you denied Sally for chemo! If you don't approve her I will have your job." The bureacrat complies...



You know that would happen...Not a good thing.

 

[Anonymous]

Granted, no CEO bonuses, etc etc. But in your PO idea, would a patient ever be turned down for anything? I am guessing NO, because politics would get involved. Old Sally gets denied chemo (or would she?) Then she writes her congressman. The congressman writes PO Bureaucrat and writes "I can't believe you denied Sally for chemo! If you don't approve her I will have your job." The bureacrat complies...



You know that would happen...Not a good thing.

You have a good point there. Yes, VA recipients write their Congressmen if a treatment has been denied. Every system (public or private) can't say yes to every treatment. It is hard to use the VA as an example because it is tax payer financed. The PO in theory would be more like the Post Office which is financed by the users. That example you brought up would be unchartered territory for implementing a PO. Regulations would need to be in place where a Congressman can't lead a lynch mob against a PO bureacrat who was simply trying to work within the budget. The Feds might have similar protections in place for the Post Office becasue I have not heard of many Post Office officials fired by Congressional investigations. That is a good point your brought up, but I think our country should still experiment with a PO as an alternative to the health insurance monopoly that is gouging businesses. The alternative would be to do the Swiss model which is run by insurance companies, but their insurance companies are heavily regulated. However, it is hard to regulate a monopoly when it can pay off politicians.

--------Dude from Orange County, CA

 

[Bubble Burster]

So where does it end?

Housing prices out of reach of the common person: Why not have government issued housing? Oh wait a minute, the government sort of did that by offering loans to losers who should have never had loans int he first place, *Cough* housing bubble. You know, the losers who took out 400k a year making 40 grand a year. And yet the government thought it was a good idea.

The government in my town can't fix the damn pothole that has been at the end of my street for months, despite calls and emails from me and others asking for it to get fixed.

If you think the government cares about you, you are full of it. Try calling the IRS, the DMV, your local state Representative, etc. You will notice the ambivelence towards.

I wish I could feel your belief that the government is looking out for me, that they care about me, that they will wrap me in a warm blanket and hug me.

All government is corrupt, self serving, and incompetent. From Blago to Ted Stevens the list goes on and on of idiots who "love" you. I am not saying corporations are better, but at least corporations are the ones who produce something in this society, IE jobs which are actually needed, not some bureacratic type job.

If you're so darned concerned about a pothole on your street, why don't you just go down to the hardware store, buy a bag of quick drying cement, and fix it yourself. You could combine fixing the pothole with a neighborhood block party. It would cost the street department $25,000 to fill the pothole. You could do it for practically nothing.

But then you wouldn't have anything to whine about.

 

[Anonymous]

If you're so darned concerned about a pothole on your street, why don't you just go down to the hardware store, buy a bag of quick drying cement, and fix it yourself. You could combine fixing the pothole with a neighborhood block party. It would cost the street department $25,000 to fill the pothole. You could do it for practically nothing.

But then you wouldn't have anything to whine about.

No Sir, I pay my taxes so they fix stuff like that. That is the point.

I have no expertise in "pothole filling."

Your point is moronic, if I could do it for free why would it cost the incompetent government so much money? And you think this sort of government mentality could handle health care.

I paid $70,000 in tax last year (roughly). Tax payers have a right to demand basic infrastructure repair.

 

[Bubble Burster]

No Sir, I pay my taxes so they fix stuff like that. That is the point.

I have no expertise in "pothole filling."

Your point is moronic, if I could do it for free why would it cost the incompetent government so much money? And you think this sort of government mentality could handle health care.

I paid $70,000 in tax last year (roughly). Tax payers have a right to demand basic infrastructure repair.

It costs the government so much money to complete simple tasks because the unions in your city have taken control. Street department workers under SEIU are making $80,000/year. Taxpayers have a responsibility to monitor government and keep it honest. You obviously would prefer to whine.

A pothole is not "basic infrastructure". It is a pothole. Get off your lazy dead ass and make a contribution to society. If all you want to do is whine, you're part of the problem.

 

[Anonymous]

It costs the government so much money to complete simple tasks because the unions in your city have taken control. Street department workers under SEIU are making $80,000/year. Taxpayers have a responsibility to monitor government and keep it honest. You obviously would prefer to whine.

A pothole is not "basic infrastructure". It is a pothole. Get off your lazy dead ass and make a contribution to society. If all you want to do is whine, you're part of the problem.

my contribution to society is paying taxes. I am in the 2nd highest bracket, so I more than pay for my fair share.

I am not going to fix a pot hole. I didn't get to where I am today doing that kind of shit work.

 

[Anonymous]

It costs the government so much money to complete simple tasks because the unions in your city have taken control. Street department workers under SEIU are making $80,000/year. Taxpayers have a responsibility to monitor government and keep it honest. You obviously would prefer to whine.

A pothole is not "basic infrastructure". It is a pothole. Get off your lazy dead ass and make a contribution to society. If all you want to do is whine, you're part of the problem.

I agree with Bubble Boy. Cities should be repairing pot holes. What do we have municipal governments for ? Answer - Water, Sewer, Waste, Police, Fire and Pot Hole Free Streets.

 

[Anonymous]

Granted, no CEO bonuses, etc etc. But in your PO idea, would a patient ever be turned down for anything? I am guessing NO, because politics would get involved. Old Sally gets denied chemo (or would she?) Then she writes her congressman. The congressman writes PO Bureaucrat and writes "I can't believe you denied Sally for chemo! If you don't approve her I will have your job." The bureacrat complies...



You know that would happen...Not a good thing.

A few days ago I posted a response. If you read this again I want to thank you for replying. You brought up good conerns about the PO. Unfortunately, Obama did not fight for a PO. He signed a bill that would enrich the health insurance monopoly at the expense of the taxpayer.

-----Dude from Orange county, CA

 

[Anonymous]

You have a good point there. Yes, VA recipients write their Congressmen if a treatment has been denied. Every system (public or private) can't say yes to every treatment. It is hard to use the VA as an example because it is tax payer financed. The PO in theory would be more like the Post Office which is financed by the users. That example you brought up would be unchartered territory for implementing a PO. Regulations would need to be in place where a Congressman can't lead a lynch mob against a PO bureacrat who was simply trying to work within the budget. The Feds might have similar protections in place for the Post Office becasue I have not heard of many Post Office officials fired by Congressional investigations. That is a good point your brought up, but I think our country should still experiment with a PO as an alternative to the health insurance monopoly that is gouging businesses. The alternative would be to do the Swiss model which is run by insurance companies, but their insurance companies are heavily regulated. However, it is hard to regulate a monopoly when it can pay off politicians.

--------Dude from Orange County, CA

Single payer equals government monopoly... The government is supposed to be anti-monopoly, remember The Sherman Antitrust Act? Probably not because most liberals think history started the day they were born... I guess the government is anti-monopoly unless of course they are the monopoly. Name one instance where a monopoly helped to reduce cost. Explain to me how many different private insurances competing for business is a monopoly? Then explain to me how a public option which is designed to destroy private insurers, isn't a monopoly. Name one thing the government does, outside its Constitutional duties, which is superior to the private sector. Social Security vs. Private Savings, Public School vs. Private, Fed Ex vs. Post office.... And please don't tell me that you honestly think a stamp costs 44 cents. The Post Office charges you 44 cents for your mail only after it is massively subsidized by our tax-dollars. With that said, the Post Office still runs in the Red. Government, unlike private business, has NO incentive to be effective or to be responsive to those it claims to serve. If business is not effective or non-repsonsive to its customers it goes out of business. Government will never go out of business... when government programs suck, they will just claim to be under-funded and as a result will expand and remain ineffective.

What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

 

[Anonymous]

Single payer equals government monopoly... The government is supposed to be anti-monopoly, remember The Sherman Antitrust Act? Probably not because most liberals think history started the day they were born... I guess the government is anti-monopoly unless of course they are the monopoly. Name one instance where a monopoly helped to reduce cost. Explain to me how many different private insurances competing for business is a monopoly? Then explain to me how a public option which is designed to destroy private insurers, isn't a monopoly. Name one thing the government does, outside its Constitutional duties, which is superior to the private sector. Social Security vs. Private Savings, Public School vs. Private, Fed Ex vs. Post office.... And please don't tell me that you honestly think a stamp costs 44 cents. The Post Office charges you 44 cents for your mail only after it is massively subsidized by our tax-dollars. With that said, the Post Office still runs in the Red. Government, unlike private business, has NO incentive to be effective or to be responsive to those it claims to serve. If business is not effective or non-repsonsive to its customers it goes out of business. Government will never go out of business... when government programs suck, they will just claim to be under-funded and as a result will expand and remain ineffective.

What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Before you bash every govt. program consider what REPUBLICAN Eisenhauer did. He instituted a gas tax to finance the interstate highway system. Economist say this stimulated the economy. The gas tax has never kept up with inflation, but tolls on private roads always exceed the rate of inflation. If highways were privatized and lined with toll booths the cost of goods shipped across the nation would go up. My point is I would rather pay a tax for a service rather than get fleeced by some corporate profiteer like the HMOs. You may think it is ok for the HMOs to fleece people, but polls showed most Americans wanted a Public Insurance Option. IF YOU THINK THE GOVT. IS INEPT IN EVERYTHING THEN YOU MUST BE SCARED ABOUT THE PROSPECT OF govt. running fire departments or the military.

 

[Anonymous]

Before you bash every govt. program consider what REPUBLICAN Eisenhauer did. He instituted a gas tax to finance the interstate highway system. Economist say this stimulated the economy. The gas tax has never kept up with inflation, but tolls on private roads always exceed the rate of inflation. If highways were privatized and lined with toll booths the cost of goods shipped across the nation would go up. My point is I would rather pay a tax for a service rather than get fleeced by some corporate profiteer like the HMOs. You may think it is ok for the HMOs to fleece people, but polls showed most Americans wanted a Public Insurance Option. IF YOU THINK THE GOVT. IS INEPT IN EVERYTHING THEN YOU MUST BE SCARED ABOUT THE PROSPECT OF govt. running fire departments or the military.

Government simply can NOT compete with the private sector. Private roads are better maintained and more efficient. Besides, your road example is ridiculous... clearly roads and infra-structure are legitimate jobs for the federeal government as is the military. Fire Departments are more of a state and local affair. The bottom-line is that government has no incentive to ever be effective or accountable to anyone. When business sucks, it goes out of business. When government sucks, it only gets larger and more costly. When the private sector steals from its customers in a ponzi scheme, the guilty go to jail like Bernie Madoff. When the government does it, they called it social security. You are evidently the product of public education. Public insurance and the individual mandate is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and NOT a legitimate function of government unlike your examples of roads and military.

 

[Anonymous]

Before you bash every govt. program consider what REPUBLICAN Eisenhauer did. He instituted a gas tax to finance the interstate highway system. Economist say this stimulated the economy. The gas tax has never kept up with inflation, but tolls on private roads always exceed the rate of inflation. If highways were privatized and lined with toll booths the cost of goods shipped across the nation would go up. My point is I would rather pay a tax for a service rather than get fleeced by some corporate profiteer like the HMOs. You may think it is ok for the HMOs to fleece people, but polls showed most Americans wanted a Public Insurance Option. IF YOU THINK THE GOVT. IS INEPT IN EVERYTHING THEN YOU MUST BE SCARED ABOUT THE PROSPECT OF govt. running fire departments or the military.

So you would rather pay for a public option, say, then when that program goes insolvent because politicians are not willing to make the tough decisions to raise the tax due to general cost increases because they are fearful of winning reelection?

This is why so many programs run by the government are run so poorly. In order to run so many of these programs taxes need to be raised and yet the polticians don't want to be the people that raised your taxes. So, you get unfunded mandates, trillions more in the hole etc.

If most Americans wanted a public option it would have happened. The Democrats had Congress and the Presidency. This doesn't matter anyways, this is going to the Supreme Court anyways.

And your road example is dumb. I would rather have private roads. I spend about $1,000 a year on gasoline taxes and another $1,200 a year on the fees to register my three cars. These public roads aren't exactly free sir/madam. And when I drive on my toll roads the roads are BEAUTIFULLY maintained. When I drive on my public road out here, I end up bending my convertible's rim, which is $650 because the public roads are so horribly maintained. So then, this brings me back to my point. If the public roads are so horribly maintained, why not raise my taxes to fix them. Oh that is right, they won't because my politician is running for office and won't want to be seen as the guy who raised my taxes.

You think private business wants to screw you. No, they are there to make a profit. The government does not exist to help you either. It exists to perpetuate itself and as a job program for many who couldn't hack it in the private sector. I have worked in both.

 

[Anonymous]

Before you bash every govt. program consider what REPUBLICAN Eisenhauer did. He instituted a gas tax to finance the interstate highway system. Economist say this stimulated the economy. The gas tax has never kept up with inflation, but tolls on private roads always exceed the rate of inflation. If highways were privatized and lined with toll booths the cost of goods shipped across the nation would go up. My point is I would rather pay a tax for a service rather than get fleeced by some corporate profiteer like the HMOs. You may think it is ok for the HMOs to fleece people, but polls showed most Americans wanted a Public Insurance Option. IF YOU THINK THE GOVT. IS INEPT IN EVERYTHING THEN YOU MUST BE SCARED ABOUT THE PROSPECT OF govt. running fire departments or the military.

Why would the cost of goods shipped across America go up? If privatized roads replaced public highways, the gas-tax would no longer be needed to maintain roads. Gas prices would go down as a result. Goods might have a slight increase, but the money you save from the result of no gas-tax would more than off-set any increase. WOW, what a concept... people keeping more of their own money. Hopefully you are starting to realize that government will NEVER be able to spend your money as thoughtfully and effectively as you can.

 

[Anonymous]

Why would the cost of goods shipped across America go up? If privatized roads replaced public highways, the gas-tax would no longer be needed to maintain roads. Gas prices would go down as a result. Goods might have a slight increase, but the money you save from the result of no gas-tax would more than off-set any increase. WOW, what a concept... people keeping more of their own money. Hopefully you are starting to realize that government will NEVER be able to spend your money as thoughtfully and effectively as you can.

I agree with you buddy but these "all government does is care about you" types will ever get it.

Remember Reagan's quote that you you should be fearful of the government "Because we come to help."