Philosophical Differences Actually Do Exist

Can someone point out that a lot of the problems with health care today are precisely the result of leaving things to the free market?
.
I’m a capitalist, but I actually understand capitalism. Insurance companies’ first priority isn’t providing good coverage to everyone, it’s making a profit, like any other business.
.
Some things shouldn’t be left to the free market. We used to leave firefighting to private companies, too, you know, but it quickly became clear that wasn’t really in the best interests of the public good.

Kate, re: Boustany: step by step – drink!
re: McCain’s “process”, did KT bury her face in her hands in despair ….more process!? ….process again …..noooooooo……

If only there were some way to have it both ways… the federal government could set up a plan based on what it believes should be available to consumers, and the consumers could be free to choose either that plan, or whatever other plan they want. That should be acceptable to both philosophies……….

…right?

Well…..isn’t that what the Public option was? Look at how popular that was.

And Sebilius makes a nice point on this — most states have “monopolies not markets.” Thank you.

ED: “Isn’t that what the Public Option was, only for Insurance Companies?”

Isn’t allowing insurance companies and state regulators decide what is available on the free market what we have now?

Sure, public firehouses are great…. if you want government telling you whether you can and can’t burn your house down!

Consumers know what’s best!!!! FREE MARKET! SMASH!!!!!!!

The Republicans want to keep the market open without this layer of federal regulation. This will not raise costs
Uhh the last couple weeks have been filled with stories of insurers trying to “raise costs” by 40% or more because the current system of regulation, which is the one they want (healthy people go without or with “high deductible” plans, while the people with real health care needs get real insurance plans) is causing a death spiral in our insurance system.
Please don’t lie and say this would not raise costs because there is a ton of evidence that it is raising costs.

When I said “which is the one they want”, I was referring to Republicans.

Man, Eric Cantor comes off like the love child of a used car salesman and a televangelist. I find my hand going to protect my wallet just hearing his voice.

Yes, I was alluding to the public option. Look at how popular that was (except in the Senate).

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B20OL20091203

Republicans are really trying to hit the lie that premiums will just go up willy nilly because of the Democrats plan, instead of the fact that premium prices will drop and any cost increases are due to people trusting their insurance and buying more.
Cantor just hit on it too. But I suppose if people at Time are buying Cantor’s “used car”, I suppose saying the lie over and over again is a good tactic.

Of course, the minimum standards have the exact same purpose and effect as the mandate. If people are free to underinsure themselves, then the healthy will do so and leave the sick overrepresented in the pool for full coverage.

Cantor: “We have a very difficult bridge to gap here.”

Simple misstatement, or Freudian slip?

Cantor is simply discussing the “Tim Pawlenty” health care plan, which is to neglect it like that bridge he ignored in Minnesota until it collapsed.

Shorter: philosophically, Democrats believe in governing, Republicans do not.

Philosophically, about the most intelligent voice I heard from the group came from Louise Slaughter.
This is for the 44000+ who die every year for not having HC.

Maybe those who have the great HC now would feel better if all those with none could just die in the next hour or so, scrape them into the sea (where else, eh?) and be done with it.
Of course, who would do the work for them if this happened?
Not near the produce in the market, not smooth roads to drive their Volvos and Mercedes Benz and Lexuses on.
Less housing and applications.
Less clothing.
Less gasoline.
More cost, though.
It’s gonna be expensive when a gas station has to hire a vice president to ‘man the pumps’ as it were.
Or getting a senior office manager to insulate his own home. Oh wait…WHAT insulation?
I don’t think ANYBODY will be wanting to do THAT job.

Polling and philosophy.
What a country! To heck with the poor. To heck with those workers who can’t keep to budget because of catastrophic ailments. It’s probably their own fault (says Robertson and fan club) …a punishment from god.

just in case…
that last was sarcasm. No sense in going off on me for saying let them die.
Life is too valuable to be bickering fine points over.
(so, why didn’t I say that in the first place?)

From 1992 to 2006 California had a health insurance pool for small business up to 50 employees, 100 at renewal. At its peak it insured 147,000 individuals employed by 9,000 small businesses. Not a lot of enrollees for a state the size of California, but a start. The HIPC plan was a non-profit, voluntary, purchasing pool. The plan was guaranteed issue. No denial for pre-exiting conditions was allowed.
I worked at HIPC from its inception and watched its demise. It is an example of why you can’t do health care reform piecemeal.
The plan eventually had 10 carriers participating (Kaiser, Aetna, Humana, etc) who still offered coverage outside of the pool. What destroyed the plan was “adverse selection”. We had too many sick people enrolled. The rates were kept competitive with the regular insurance market. Since the pool attracted sick people denied coverage outside of the plan, it began to falter. Finally, all but 2 carriers left the pool and it continuance was not tenable.
Unfortunately, many of the participants in the plan were thrown into the regular health insurance market and would not be able to find coverage due to preexiting conditions.
This is why you need a universal plan where everyone has coverage.

He reminds me of Ed Grimley. Sorry Martin Short.

Reason doesn’t work..

“Democrats believe in governing, Republicans do not”.

Democrats believe in dictating, Republicans do not.

There fixed it

“If only there were some way to have it both ways… the federal government could set up a plan based on what it believes should be available to consumers, and the consumers could be free to choose either that plan, or whatever other plan they want. That should be acceptable to both philosophies……….

…right?”

Theoretically yes, but in reality this would be very difficult.
.
As I’ve been saying for weeks now, the country needs to so something to attack the underlying costs of health care; and most of the things that would do that aren’t things that are politically popular (like REAL tort reform, not just caps on damages). However, this would step on the toes of a lot of lawyers who give massive amounts of money to both parties and hence is almost a political impossibility. There are a host of other things I have mentioned but all of them step on some groups toes and generally on the toes of a group with major lobbying power or whom make major contributions to politicians on both sides of the aisle and hence probably will never happen.
.
Without real reform at ground level a public option is meaningless because it will have one of a number of effects; 1) it will run private insurance out of business because it artificially lowers insurance rates with what basically amount to government subsides and hence everyone will end up on the “public option” which will then be the only option and we can’t afford to insure 350 million people that way, we can’t really afford to insure 31 million that way. 2) Run away costs at ground level raise the amount of money needed by both private and the public insurers, eventually bankrupting the public program because it artificially keeps its costs too low and doesn’t adjust them. 3) Due to the poor payment structure of the public option (like Medicare/Medicaid) doctors simply won’t accept it (as more and more don’t accept Medicare/Medicaid). 4) As it (the public option) runs low on money it is forced to ration care to it’s insure-es as are private insurance companies at the same time the net result being rationed care across the board.
.
The simple fact that we’re going to have to accept; is that according to the CBO no matter what happens (nothing, the House bill, or the Senate bill) costs will continue to go up. Neither side truly has a plan to reduce the run-away underlying costs which are the ultimate problem. Both sides want the country to believe that there is a “free lunch”, and we all know the old saying on that right?

Get help dude.
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoid_personality_disorder