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.
That's what I said you would say. You want the public option -- which clearly requires taxpayer funding -- and then you would magnanimously allow the people who fund the public option to go get their own private insurance, meaning they get to pay twice. Is that supposed to be clever so I don't notice what you want?
No - you have it all wrong. First, the public option could have been structured to be self-sustaining and not depend on tax subsidies. Second, one of the reasons the public option died was because of its possible impact on private insurers.
Because of the projected size and negotiating power of the public option, it could have been difficult for private insurers to compete and sustain a profit. The bargaining power of the public option would have brought down pricing for all sorts of health care.
In other words, you want the government to continue to protect the private insurance plan (and its profits) that benefit you at the expense of other tax payers who have the pleasure of paying higher medical prices than they would otherwise. It may not be a direct tax but here it is YOU who take money from the pockets of others.
Kid yourself not.
Last edited by EveryLady; 12-19-2016 at 08:13 PM..
I haven't the faintest idea how many people could do that long term. Is that supposed to be important? I already told you, if your cost is that high, it's because you're using high amounts of healthcare resources. You're probably one of the group of people who is known as a "super user" of healthcare, meaning you're someone who costs far in excess of what they pay in insurance that the rest of us balance out.
For the time being, we are using just about the same amount as we're putting in, but for twenty years prior we were just like you and needed very little in the way of health care, paying our premiums on time and in good faith.
Last edited by randomparent; 12-19-2016 at 08:11 PM..
Thanks, Kat. Everybody was okay, thank goodness, and the damage can be fixed. It was just incredibly frustrating in the midst of all the other stress visited upon our family this fall. On the bright side, the young man who hit my car did follow through on contacting his insurance provider and took responsibility for the accident. My insurance company just called, and I have an appointment with the collision center day after tomorrow to have the damage assessed. This will be the second time in a little over a year that my car has been hit.
In the end those taking the option would have had to pay into it. Those who chose a private option, wouldn't.
That all being said, the public option kicker would be deficit spending. And that might not be available to the private side. Might not, except future bails might require just that.
That's false. You're claiming that people who can't afford insurance somehow will magically team up and be able to afford it. That's clearly impossible, so you'd need funding from "the government," which is really "everyone else," which you claim you're not requesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EveryLady
Because of the projected size and negotiating power of the public option, it could have been difficult for private insurers to compete and sustain a profit. The bargaining power of the public option would have brought down pricing for all sorts of health care.
This is an example of a liberal throwing around market terms that they don't actually understand. As I said to Hoonose, here's what you want us to believe: a large group of people who can't afford a product team up and suddenly have "bargaining power." That's a clear lack of understanding of the market. Many people who have no purchasing power put together only equals a large group with no purchasing power. The only reason it works with, say, Medicare is because the government is the actual purchaser and they just tell people what they'll pay them and you have no choice but to accept it. It's not because old people who aren't paying have "bargaining power."
That's false. You're claiming that people who can't afford insurance somehow will magically team up and be able to afford it. That's clearly impossible, so you'd need funding from "the government," which is really "everyone else," which you claim you're not requesting.
This is an example of a liberal throwing around market terms that they don't actually understand. As I said to Hoonose, here's what you want us to believe: a large group of people who can't afford a product team up and suddenly have "bargaining power." That's a clear lack of understanding of the market. Many people who have no purchasing power put together only equals a large group with no purchasing power. The only reason it works with, say, Medicare is because the government is the actual purchaser and they just tell people what they'll pay them and you have no choice but to accept it. It's not because old people who aren't paying have "bargaining power."
On your first comment - We still might have Medicaid. Or central supports for the poor to engage the public option. Or deficit spending for the program as I said.
On the second, large companies, pharmacies and other drug sales companies, as well as HC insurance carriers get volume discounts, as do the Medicaids. If Medicare were allowed to bargain for drug prices for their enrollees you can bet that many of us would be saving more.
On your first comment - We still might have Medicaid. Or central supports for the poor to engage the public option. Or deficit spending for the program as I said.
Right, so in other words, you'd have taxpayers subsidize it. Which is what I said you said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose
On the second, large companies, pharmacies and other drug sales companies, as well as HC insurance carriers get volume discounts, as do the Medicaids. If Medicare were allowed to bargain for drug prices for their enrollees you can bet that many of us would be saving more.
That's right. If you PAY, you get discounts for volume. If you DON'T PAY, it doesn't matter how many of you aren't paying, you get NO discounts for volume.
If Medicaid were not combined in, you would not directly subsidize the public option if you went the private route.
Removing Medicaid from it actually doesn't change what I said. A large group of people who can't afford a product doesn't make them all able to afford it. Also, a large chunk of people on Medicaid don't belong on it. Also, there's a reason Obama made Obamacare into Medicaid.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,615,202 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by waltergulick
I'm all for what ever system doesn't "subsidize" the previously un-insurable by making the middle class part of the lower class.
That would be two choices then... either nationalized health care, or social darwinism determined by the size of your wallet
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.
