Here's President Obama during yesterday's press conference, talking about the public health insurance option he wants as part of health care reform:
OBAMA: As one of those options, for us to be able to say, here’s a public option that’s not profit-driven, that can keep down administrative costs, and that provides you good, quality care for a reasonable price as one of the options for you to choose, I think that makes sense.
QUESTION: Wouldn’t that drive private insurance out of business?
OBAMA: Why would it drive private insurance out of business? If — if private — if private insurers say that the marketplace provides the best quality health care; if they tell us that they’re offering a good deal, then why is it that the government, which they say can’t run anything, suddenly is going to drive them out of business? That’s not logical.
Now, the — I think that there’s going to be some healthy debates in Congress about the shape that this takes. I think there can be some legitimate concerns on the part of private insurers that if any public plan is simply being subsidized by taxpayers endlessly that over time they can’t compete with the government just printing money, so there are going to be some I think legitimate debates to be had about how this private plan takes shape.
But just conceptually, the notion that all these insurance companies who say they’re giving consumers the best possible deal, if they can’t compete against a public plan as one option, with consumers making the decision what’s the best deal, that defies logic, which is why I think you’ve seen in the polling data overwhelming support for a public plan.
The President is being disingenuous, to say the least. He's a smart guy. He KNOWS there is no way private companies can compete directly with the federal government, on health insurance or anything else. The reasons are obvious, and ironically, the President even named some of those reasons in his press conference. I see Obama engaging in his 'up is down' version of reality again.
First of all, the government has a guaranteed source of income, the taxpayers. The government can just force the taxpayers to pay for anything of the government's choosing. Private industry cannot do that. The private sector depends upon consumer choice. It's voluntary. Advantage – government.
Second, the government doesn't have to turn a profit to survive. Private industry does. The government can run the most inefficient, bloated, and even corrupt program imaginable, and the taxpayers must still subsidize it. On health care, the government can charge, say, $200 per month for public health insurance, and it doesn't matter, because the taxpayers can be forced to subsidize the rest in any variety of ways. Private health insurers can only charge a monthly fee that will allow them to survive. Currently, that amount is around $400 per month. Advantage – government.
Third, the government sets the rules of the game. It can legislate one set of rules for itself, and another set of rules for the private sector. That tilts the playing field so heavily in the government's favor that it's laughable to say any private company could compete with that. If Walmart could set the rules of retailing, how long do you think K-Mart would be able to compete ? Not very long, because Walmart would set all the rules to favor Walmart. Advantage – government.
Fourth, once the government undercuts the private health insurance market, the floodgates will open. Citizens and employers would flock to the public option, not only because it's cheaper, but also because the public is ALREADY PAYING FOR THE PUBLIC OPTION (so it would be illogical not to use it), and because all employers would be REQUIRED to provide health insurance for their employees or be fined. If the public option is cheaper, they will go to the public option. It's obvious. Advantage – government.
The President is using the public option as a Trojan Horse to implement government run health care even as he denies doing it. That's obvious too. I don't mind having the debate between public and private health insurance, because our current health care system is not sustainable over the long term. I'm open to any and all ideas, but I don't care for all the deception. I don't like the President treating the American public like they're a bunch of dummies.
I also don't like the idea of using government force to mandate health care coverage. Obama used to rail against forced insurance too, but that was BEFORE he bacame President. That was back when he was only making those disposable campaign promises that got him elected.
Be sure to stay tuned tonight for Obama's hour long health care infomercial on ABC, where no Republicans will be allowed. I'm sure the prez will appeal for bipartisan support, even as the GOP is barred. Do we still call that CHANGE ?
{ 33 comments… read them below or add one }
I heard part of this on the radio. Obama got angry again under questioning.
He's saying the insurance companies are talking out both sides when he is doing the same–if he believes the government can run healthcare more efficiently he also believes it will put insurance companies out of business.
By way of disclosure: I consider myself politically/socially right of center, though I do not wish to debate that here.
Someone said, 'you must accept the truth, even if it changes your point of view'. Health care is one such issue, I think. Inside 44's advocacy rhetoric are some undeniable truths as well. Namely the sky rocketing price of AMERICAN health care. I noticed that the writer above did not address that aspect (balance?) of the discussion.
What shall we do? Leave our health care primarily in the hands of the for profit industrialists who got us here? Let "the market" contuinue to do what it does inside this area of public trust?
A large part of this debate is classic, "I got mine". Americans with "full" health insurance largely do not want anything that alters the status quo. On on level it's hard to blame them. On two others, it's short sited and selfish.
Short sited because there is no mathematical doubt that we are on an unsustainable national medical flight path – NONE!
Selfish because this issue does finally come down to some americans having to trade their Cadillac (largely), company paid policy in so we can ALL have Ford or Chevy coverage.
The profiteers involved here have done VERY NICELY, "managing" our care…they will stop a nothing, financially, to maintain their stake in OUR health care.
from the story……"If the public option is cheaper, they will go to the public option."
kinda like a back door tax cut…….who could be against that?
By way of disclosure, I consider myself a Liberal Progressive and I think things are great the way they are–I got mine and if folks have made bad decisions in life and can't hold down a decent job that includes an insurance plan maybe they'll do better next time around (by way of disclosure, I'm also Hindu).
Why should those who have theirs have to pay higher taxes so those who don't can have theirs? I just can't get far enough left to understand that. I have tried and tried but just can't make it.
Maybe one of you lefties could explain that to an old man who is about to lose his Medicare so those who would rather drive a fancy car than pay for insurance can have some of that free insurance. Please.
After watching the President on ABC last night, I don't see a whole lot of the status quo changing unless his not-so-secret plan is to force us all into government run health care. Mainly what I see is the government forcing people to buy health care insurance (breaking Obama's own campaign promise), combined with some marginal cost-saving devices (preventive care, computerized medical records), combined with huge tax increases.
I agree with J.J. that the end result will be – more people with health insurance receiving a lower quality of health care. I would also add – at a higher cost to taxpayers.
and with the for profit insurence companies running it it will be oooohhh so much better?
I believe that…….not. Both you anf JL have conceded that the present course is un-sustainable. Continuing on an un-sustainable course……foolish.
King sez……"On health care, the government can charge, say, $200 per month for public health insurance, and it doesn't matter, because the taxpayers can be forced to subsidize the rest in any variety of ways. Private health insurers can only charge a monthly fee that will allow them to survive. Currently, that amount is around $400 per month."
wouldn't that be like a backdoor tax cut?
employers will pay less for coverage for their employees….backdoor tax cut
"Currently, that amount is around $400 per month." a more accurate statement………According to private health insurance CEOs, that amount is $400.
and of course they wouldn't lie……..
hey larry d. pretty good mockery..:-) But you partially made my point while doing so. This is – in the end – a question of the good of the many vs. the good of the "not so many".
Your/our job related health insurance is literally an accident of history. The wage and price freezes (very collective), during WWII (very collective), caused some employers to compete for talent with non-cash compensation…ergo: EMPLOYMENT BASED HEALTH INSURANCE.
Job related health insurance is no more a birth right than cheap gas…Neither is in the nation's long term best interest…Our politicians are squarely afraid of BOTH issues because of folks like you Larry D. and all the resources those moneyed interests can bring to bare – for or against you.
And I recommend Buddhism – maybe you'll stop being so selfish.
Is anybody noticing – those for and those of against major health care reform actually make some of the others side's arguments while making their's?
I think it comes down to ideology and/or pragmatism vs. ideology.
You guys that (think you) believe in the mythical american rugged individualist think that you shouldn't have to share or ration so others can just "have". BUT BUT BUT…you think it's okay for your company to PAY FOR YOURS!?!?! WOW…that's real rugged and individualistic.
I say cover everybody with the same basic plan (no matter who adminstrates it)…OR COVER NO ONE!
Further, what's the difference between some faceless govt. bureaucrat deciding what treatment you can get vs. some faceless PEON in the bowels of a corporation? For one, IT'S ALL ABOUT MONEY – for the other, it's not ALL ABOUT MONEY.
Health Care (at a basic access level) should not be run by FOLKS WHO BENEFIT BY GIVING PATIENTS LESS.
It's an accident of history that I speak English and prefer hot food for dinner, too, JLP. So what?
Government-sponsored health insurance is also no more a birth right than government-provided television sets. Again, so what?
As for pragmatism, it seems to me that everytime a government decides to ration something, an elite ruling class gets more and everyone else gets less. Capitalism has always provided the most for the most in my lifetime.
Mr. Paine,
Good posts. The "I have mine" crowd fails to see that they would also benefit from a viable public payer alternative. Their premiums are artificially high from a lack of competition within the industry. They pay more because the cost of the uninsured is borne by the industry through indirect charges by providers. The uninsured receive treatment that is the most expensive and the least able to prevent future costs.
Those complacent should also take comfort that if private insurance is to compete with a public alternative, they won't have to again witness the spectacle of an insurance CEO drawing a $1 billion salary.
Perhaps they should also try to estimate the effect on the economy if employers were to lose the burden of providing health insurance. Every where that I have worked over the last 25 years has worked under staffed, preferring overtime expenses to additional employee benefits. Those are jobs and incomes lost.
larry d.,
Check out Wendell Potter at counterpunch.com
Maybe you can provide the effect on the economy or other numbers for us, frank. Or are you going with what just sounds good again?
Aw shucks, larry. Didn't mean to offend. I thought what I pointed out was more in the "water runs downhill" category, where you don't need to know how fast it runs downhill to confirm that it does indeed run downhill. But it's obvious that you have more time than me, if you want numbers. I'm curious as to what you mean by "going with what just sounds good", if you can give me a ferinstance, I'd appreciate it. Perhaps it sounds good because it makes sense.
Paine,
Because employer paid health insurance is part of a worker's compensation for performing his job (as a responsible individual), then, yes, it IS an example of rugged individualism.
You say "Health Care (at a basic access level) should not be run by FOLKS WHO BENEFIT BY GIVING PATIENTS LESS."
I agree with you, but it doesn't matter if it's the government or private industry in that respect, because BOTH will benefit by giving people less. Obama is proposing Medicare cuts as part of his health care proposal. That gives people less. Government would have the same impetus to give patients less as insurance companies do – it controls costs. That's why nationalized health care plans (England, Canada, etc) ALL ration care. It's the only way to control costs. In England, they actually assign an amount to each patient, and they don't like to cover anything over that amount. That denies care to patients who need it the most.
We need health care reform, but I am not too impressed by what the President and Congress have proposed so far. They wouldn't even meet the goal of insuring everyone.
Well, for instance frank, last time you claimed that the overhead costs would be much cheaper under Obama's plan and threw out some numbers but when I pointed out those numbers don't include all the cost factors you said you don't know and it doesn't matter anyway.
But "water runs downhill" is pretty much synonymous with "it just sounds good," so you've answered my question.
By the by, if you want to know how a government run healthcare system will operate a former HMO executive like Potter is a good example. He can blame "the system" or capitalism all he wants but it's all pure bureaucracy.
Guys,
All you nay sayers – what are you FOR?
On health care (for everybody), we all pay – one way or another for most of the folks who don't have it.
Anybody ever fly Southwest (experience the cattle call to the plane)? Everybody is going to get on…but the lack of ORDER was uncivilized and BROUGHT OUT THE WORST in many people.
Not a perfect analogy but I think it's helpful here.
Health care needs order…and yes..proper order means SOME will get less, some will get more – but all will GET!
We've all read here and elsewhere about the unisured in the emergency rooms with all the comensurate costs. PAYDAY SOME DAY!
Hey Larry: your snarkiness is amusing & you're good at that. It has no correlation to a reasoned perspective, however. But I do appreciate what you contribute. You make me LMAO.
King: You leave out the other side of saving money equation…the govt./bureaucrat DOES NOT STAND TO PROFIT…Huge difference…HUGE!
King: Eventually…some day – with out some type of control (CAPS) on technology (rationing by popular political terms), insured health care will become LESS available to the general public…employed or not.
Lets do like the Germans; let rich folks option UP to a premium supplemental policy…WITHOUT opting out of the general pool.
There is an undiscussed (PINK ELEPHANT) in this discussion. (And the national discussion too). End of life care…somebody help – but do we spend something like 30% in the last 2 years of life?
Again…I ask for ORDER. (I know this is political suicide and it will never get solved until we simply bankrupt ourselves with this idiosy).
The other side of that debate is AMERICAN's tremendous fear of death. Very illogical for a country which, according to polls, 70% – 80% believe in heaven!?!?
I call them CHICKEN DO-DO CHRISTIANS! If the shoe fits…
J.L. it seems to me that your experience with government financed health care is very minimal. Now I have been on Medicare for 11 years because he law was written so that I could be removed from my wife's work provided medical program.
Now, sir or madam, I can promise that I have had quite a bit of experience with bureaucratic run health care. The state Medicare boards decide what they will pay for and how much they think should be paid. One of Obama's preventive medicine bits would be my annual endoscopy to keep check on the advancement of what will someday become esophageal cancer. Well now those bureaucrats have decided that the physician who does the procedure should get $457 for his service although he asks for $725, Also, the hospital asks for about the same amount for the test which takes a private room for 1/2 a day and the room in which the procedure takes place. Well now, with Medicare involved i the procedure they get nearly $1000. The other day I talked with a woman who has no insurance and uses the same physician and hospital. Guess what she got to pay the a month at a time. By golly she had to pay exactly what they asked for from Medicare. I haven't talked to any insured people who got the same procedure for less that $1800. Is there any way a private insurance company can compete with the government on this kind of thing? I sure don't see it.
Obama is getting ready to slip it to us and all I can say is BOHICA. We are soon to be on socialized medicine and i won't have to worry about the annual endoscopy since saving an old bastard like me won't be allowed. Get a grip on things because one day you will also probably get old and not like what is left for you.
From your fidelity to "order" to your thoughts on end of life care, you sound like a real Nazi, JLP. I suppose you could call that a reasoned perspective but it doesn't make it any less creepy.
larry d.,
If you would just tell me what about my post that you dispute, I would answer. Do you not think that the present system burdens the private insurance companies with extra costs? Do you not think that a system which saddles US companies with significant costs not incurred by their rivals is bad for the economy?
As to the dispute about overhead costs. I didn't endorse Obama's plan. I am not even sure I knew what it was. What I suggested was an expanded version of Medicare without the limitations of coverage which vex roysoldboy, and with open enrollment. I pointed out that Medicare's overhead was agbout 4% while private insurance's was 20-30%. When you asked about the methodology under which the data was derived, I told you I did not know. You therefore rejected my assertion without seeking any proof.
From the frequency of your posts, I have to conclude that you have more time than I to participate. Once again, if you would be a bit more specific about your objections and maybe even citing your own sources of information, I'll try to respond.
The overhead comparison is bogus for reasons I outlined earlier, frank. One is that Medicare patients have more and more expensive tests and procedures than the millions of healthy youngsters who are covered by private insurance. You say you don't know and don't care, which I find befuddling yet very commonplace among the chicken littles.
I don't know how much time we have to participate in comparison, frank. What are your surfing habits?
Come on you guys! There's no way that the private sector can compete with a government -run system, since the government doesn't have to show a profit……if they run out of money, they can just print some more.
Or raise taxes.
Paine,
You aren't going to have much luck convincing old people that they should die in order avoid health care costs. If that's the primary concern, we shouldn't bother with health care at all. Let's just let sick people die, and, voila – health care problem solved.
I think we should take a different tack. One that is respectful of human life. I don't want to go down the road where the government tells me when I should check out, based upon some financial calculation. My mother died last year, after being sick for three years, and I was pretty grateful to have those last few years with her. If the government had refused her treatment to save a few bucks, that might have turned me into an even more radical anti-government type than I already am. A lot more.
But you've given me an idea to write a post about what kind of health care reform I think we should make, not that my suggestions are worth anything. I don't get to decide. It would start with all but poor people paying for most of their own health care, like they pay for most of their own everything else. I'd reserve health insurance for only disastrous occasions (surgery, hospital stays), just as all other types of insurance are used. I mean, you don't make an auto insurance claim when you get your oil changed. You don't make a homeowner's insurance claim when you paint your house. Neither should you make a health insurance claim for a routine doctor's visit or a non-serious illness that only requires routine treatment. You should pay for it yourself. That simple act would eliminate much of the unnecessary tests and bureaucracy that dominate health care now. That would go for Medicare patients too, which would decrease the Medicare entitlement costs.
larry doesn't care that he has private health insurance paid for by a government subsidized tax-avoidance scam. He's proud of being subsidized with federal tax dollars. He just doesn't want anyone else to get in on the action.
Employers (and employees) pay no payroll taxes on health benefits, even though according to King, employees "earn" their health care. And so anyone who has employer paid health coverage is participating in a socialistic scam.
Some who are participating, like larry, have no problem with tax dollars being used to subsize him….he just doesn't want anyone else in on the scam.
And I always find the "for-profitting off the backs of the ill and suffering" lobby……I don't know…..endearing.
You're assuming all the money in the country belongs to the government again, Reverend. When something's not taxed, it's not a 'giveaway,' it's the absence of a 'takeaway.'
Rev,
How in the world is an employee getting paid for doing his job (in either cash or health care benefits) a "socialist scam" ??? It's precisely the opposite. It's an individual contract, entered into voluntarily.
And if you don't want anyone profiting off of sick people, that should include the government, so you should be applauding the fact that those health care benefits are not taxed (even though they WILL be if ObamaCare goes into effect).
larry,
I think that's the whole idea behind the Big Brother mindset. The money all belongs to the government, and the government gets to decide how much of their money each of us stupid peons is allowed to keep. They don't want to give us TOO much, because, you know, we're all irresponsible little children, and we'd probably blow the mortgage payment buying candy and ice cream. The elites know we can't be trusted. They can run our lives so much better than we can.
Actually I think this administration believes we'd all blow the candy and ice cream money by paying the mortgage, King.
King – you're welcome, glad I could contribute.
Sorry about your mom…The elders in my family are all but gone & leaving fast, some/many of them suffered and clung and clung way past any chance of regaining any symbalance(sp) of independence or quality of life. My point: This is not an abstraction to me, I am upclose to this issue right now.
You talk about being more respectful to human life…I think maybe you should define RESPECT and LIFE. Do you call what we (typically) do with the chronically/terminally ill – respect? Life = can you fog a mirror?
Oft times laying up be-tubed, mostly unconcious and restrained until who knows when? That's respecting life?
You guys seem to think (as much of the nation), that because we CAN do something (medical technology), we should. That premise is flawed in too many ways to discuss here.
And how about this guys: accept the fact that you are going to die. The question is how. Me…I'm going out WIPING MY OWN BUTT if I have anything to do with it. YOU RUGGED INDIVIDUALS.
The irony here (and in this nation) is nothing short of poetic: You guys aren't brave or rugged…You are selfish and you are afraid.
Larry – Idunno, I throw 7 or 8 (I'm not counting), thoughts out and you light on one? And I'm a nazi creep…LMAO…keep up the good work.
King – One more question: Had your Mother's private insurance company denied treatment would you be ANTI private insurance??
I certainly understand the emotion behind your statement…It doesn't make it correct, proper, or reasonable.
Paine asks, "Had your Mother's private insurance company denied treatment would you be ANTI private insurance??"
Yes, as I'd be against any health care construct that denied care to those who need it most. I want to improve health care as much as everyone else does. I don't have any fealty to insurance companies. I just think if we turn health care over to the government, the evidence says the waiting lines for treatment will get a lot longer, as they have everywhere else that government health care has been implemented. That isn't an improvement.
King said: Yes, as I'd be against any health care construct that denied care to those who need it most.
Again King, who needs it most? How do you decide that? By what methodology?
King says: I just think if we turn health care over to the government, the evidence says the waiting lines for treatment will get a lot longer, as they have everywhere else that government health care has been implemented. That isn't an improvement.
Yes…for SOME treatments – lines will form…How do you control costs without controlling the use of technology?
The creation of lines for SOME treatments does NOT mean the overall health system not improved…Those other places you speak of have by most measures BETTER HEALTH OUTCOMES FOR LESS MONEY THAN US.
Two final points:
1. Can there be a meaningful debate/solution that leaves 30% of the pie undiscussed and off the table? (End of life care).
2. I think – BASIC health care should NOT be commoditized…it should be as universal as public school. (and don't take off on public ed…it's a whole other set of variables).
If we are going to pass health care reform that greatly dimishes health care for the sick, then there isn't much point to it at all.