Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm a libertarian, so i guess that would put me under the conservative movement, but just do not label me a republican or moderate democrat lol.
Anyway, I'm finding myself with a similar view on the public option. I view the role of government as continuing to expand and this is just the latest attempt to expand. I would much prefer states have the right to impose health care like my state of MA, but the federal government continues to think it is ok to overstep their boundaries, if the states are not doing their job (as viewed by the Federal Government).
Now, to answer your question. I'm in a category that either way, i'm going to be paying into a system, that I'm not currently benefiting from much. I'm a young, healthy worker, that has yet to actually use the medical services I've paid into on my current company plan.
The public option to me provides individuals with additional options and choice from everything I've been taught is better.
For instance if you have a pre-existing condition, you know have the choice to go to a government plan, if the private insurer does not cover you, it would seem to be a win, win.
I agree with you government has proven unable to effective and efficiently carry out many socialized programs without excessive waste and i do not expect health care to be any different.
This is the main reason i believe private insurance companies will remain around and perhaps continue to gain clients, because for the most part, they will still provide the most effective service, but for those of us, that either cannot afford them, at any particular time in our life, we will now have the option of using the government, until we can go out and afford the superior service offered in the private sector.
If we have service in the private sector and we get cut out, because they will not cover a procedure we now have the option to go to the government provider, so the government may find themselves, not covering as many people under this option as you and I think.
The other debate is the economy of scale, that insurance providers, have to worry about from the entrance of government, which is a real concern, but i think they'll continue to provide superior insurance, to the masses, and government will not, so naturally most people will pay the extra cost to go with a private insurer. If you think government will somehow effectively run this program better than a private insurer and you are willing to switch over for the lower rates go for it, but i think government like most of its programs is doing this as a last resort for those who either
1. Cannot afford Health Coverage - in the private sector
2. Those who get turned away or canceled coverage in the private sector
Personally, i view the service as a medical service of last resort and most of us, that currently enjoy our plans with the private sector will not opt out of the program. Should we ever have to opt out i think most people will switch back and fourth between government and private, based on their needs during their lifetime. I certainly will not opt out my currently plan for the government plan, but if i were to loose my job, i may opt into a public plan, for a short time period, if i did not find a job when cobra coverage ran out, but I'd opt back into a private plan once i found a job, that provided better coverage with a highly profession insurance company.
As for your concern about cost I'm in the same ball park and i think we are already paying the cost via higher medical premiums for coverage etc, so overall if providing a public option helps lower the overall cost for the entire system I'm certainly for it. It eliminates a lot of the excessive risk involved and the excessive cost of people going to emergency rooms for coverage when they do not have insurance etc. Also it provides a larger competitor, and that in of itself usually lowers prices and helps increase services. The private insurance companies will have to be more competitive to keep individuals from choosing a government plan, and i think they are up to the challenge of providing, a better service and retaining clients.
Look even after I pointed out your mistake and tried to play with the numbers your 35 employees are not representative of 300 million Americans.
Well smart one my numbers were very generous because i based them on an average Salary of 60,000 dollars. Now, if i were using a larger corporation don't you think the average salary would fall?? Perhaps to 45,000 as there would be more bottom dwellers than high paid executives??????????????
Let's raise the number to 35,000 (you should have been able to do the basic math on this)
Based off your request i'll pretend i'm a large corporation and I'll change my assumptions
I'm a large corporation with the following
35,000 Employees
Average Salary is 45,000
Cost (35*45,000) = 1,575,000,000 (Operational Cost of Wages in a year, yea that's billions)
I met the first requirement of 400,000 based on average wages
Now, I can get private insurance (hypothetically for 500 for single and 1083 family based on your data)
Only 30% of my employees are married (same percentage as before)
I'll pay 40% of the cost as i did before
I pay 10,420,000 a month or 125,000,000 a year in prems
Gov plan 1,575,000,000*.6 = 126,000,000 (with no plan in place)
Employer 124,000 a year in prems 125,00,000 (with a plan in place)
STILL FREAKING CHEAPER THAN NOT HAVING A PLAN IN PLACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YOU CANNOT ADD OR DO BASIC MATH IF YOU COULD NOT DEDUCE I WOULD RESPOND TO YOUR COMMENT WITH THIS!!
NOW ARGUE THAT AND STOP SPREADING LIES!
STILL SAVE MORE THAN A MILLION BUCKS EACH YEAR KEEPING YOUR OWN PLAN THAN GOING TO THE GOVERNMENT PLAN, SO EXPLAIN WHY A COMPANY WOULD MOVE TO THE GOVERNMENT PLAN AND ABANDON A PRIVATE PLAN?
Well smart one my numbers were very generous because i based them on an average Salary of 60,000 dollars. Now, if i were using a larger corporation don't you think the average salary would fall?? Perhaps to 45,000 as there would be more bottom dwellers than high paid executives??????????????
Let's raise the number to 35,000 (you should have been able to do the basic math on this)
Based off your request i'll pretend i'm a large corporation and I'll change my assumptions
I'm a large corporation with the following
35,000 Employees
Average Salary is 45,000
Cost (35*45,000) = 1,575,000,000 (Operational Cost of Wages in a year, yea that's billions)
I met the first requirement of 400,000 based on average wages
Now, I can get private insurance (hypothetically for 500 for single and 1083 family based on your data)
Only 30% of my employees are married (same percentage as before)
I'll pay 40% of the cost as i did before
I pay 10,420,000 a month or 125,000,000 a year in prems
Gov plan 1,575,000,000*.6 = 126,000,000 (with no plan in place)
Employer 124,000 a year in prems 125,00,000 (with a plan in place)
STILL FREAKING CHEAPER THAN NOT HAVING A PLAN IN PLACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YOU CANNOT ADD OR DO BASIC MATH IF YOU COULD NOT DEDUCE I WOULD RESPOND TO YOUR COMMENT WITH THIS!!
NOW ARGUE THAT AND STOP SPREADING LIES!
STILL SAVE MORE THAN A MILLION BUCKS EACH YEAR KEEPING YOUR OWN PLAN THAN GOING TO THE GOVERNMENT PLAN, SO EXPLAIN WHY A COMPANY WOULD MOVE TO THE GOVERNMENT PLAN AND ABANDON A PRIVATE PLAN?
Are you done or should I wait a half hour?
Go tell the CBO they are liars. Yes I am sure your back of the envelope math is more accurate than theirs.
By the way the larger the company the higher the average salary not lower. Plus the larger the benefits package. If you are such a large company you have a few equally large competitors who are competing for the top talent. Look at Wall Street pretty large and pretty high average salary. True there are the Wal Marts of the world but they are the exception not the rule.
A public option simply means there will eventually be no other options because the health industry will not be able to compete with those who regulate the industry and the ones who print the money. These are simple facts.
And when I am forced into the government plan, I do not relish the thought of having to fight the ACLU in my last few days of life over having the Bible sitting on my hospital night stand.
I'm a disabled Veteran I have Single Payer and it's fine
Don't worry, when Dick Armey and Steve Forbes win in court Social Security and Medicare will cease to exist and you won't have to worry about Socialism
I'm a disabled Veteran I have Single Payer and it's fine
Don't worry, when Dick Armey and Steve Forbes win in court Social Security and Medicare will cease to exist and you won't have to worry about Socialism
Oh not that old saw again. I would be very happy to have SS go away. I think I could do better than 2% return a year, I could pass it on to my heirs, and I don't have to worry about the fund going belly up.
I also think Medicare should be optional. What is with the left they want choice in universal healthcare but none for the elderly. Why is that?
A public option simply means there will eventually be no other options because the health industry will not be able to compete with those who regulate the industry and the ones who print the money. These are simple facts.
And when I am forced into the government plan, I do not relish the thought of having to fight the ACLU in my last few days of life over having the Bible sitting on my hospital night stand.
High Plains, i don't think your concerns are unfounded and basically i have the same general concerns, but the irony with what you're saying is this
On one hand for government to move to a single payer system, they have to provide a better service than the private sector. For me to give up my private health insurance the government needs to be cheaper and more efficient at providing me insurance, than my current health provider.
Now, i've said before the only reason, I'd ever take the public option is if my insurance company did not cover a certain procedure i needed or i went through a significant period of joblessness, that ended after my cobra coverage ran out (which i believe if you're layed off cobra last for 18 months). However, i think even under those circumstance, i would not stay on the public option, just because it is the cheapest, especially if the service is inferior in comparison to private insurance.
I tend to believe most people who like the health insurance they have will keep it and not accept inferior service just because it is cheaper.
Now, if you believe, that our private insurance companies are not innovative enough or offer a better product than our government, then you're basically supporting the idea government can do a better job. If you think people will move to the government health-care, that is really what you're saying. I doubt private industry is able to compete and most people will realize government is going to do a better job lol.
Now, i think your last few concerns are very legitimate in terms of the insruance industry. We cannot have that sort of conflict, but if this health options happens, the government needs to have strict guidelines to follow, so they are not spending so much money in the system, it causes a "crowding out" effect on the industry. I think if American insurance companies were truly worried, they could not innovate and be more efficiently run than a government option, they would be making a lot more noise via commercial and it would show in their advertising spending.
I personally think they're up to the challenge of meeting the American health demand amidst competition from the government. If they are unable to meet those demands head on, then yes, we'll all end up in a single payer system, so do you think American private insurance companies are not able to stand a little more competition???
Clearly the post office doesn't function as well as either UPS or Fed Ex
The government has such a wide range presence in so many things it is scary, but overall, they're big and need to be reduced, but we have not seen a huge crowding out affect in a lot of the areas, they are significantly entrenched in, such a postal services.
Personally, i think there is going to be a lot of room for private third party insurance companies willing to do all the paper-work and leg work for the government plan. Otherwise, i highly doubt government will be able to effectively compete with private companies in offering medical care. Prices maybe lower, but if the services is inferior to major providers, they will be viewed as a medical insurer of last resort.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
