How the Health Crisis was solved 80 years ago.

[Sirrus_Asura]

There are already situations right now where the cheapest health insurance you can get through your job from a private insurer requires some of its members to drive 70+ miles to be "in-network."

And people do this to cut $40-50 off of their premiums.

Imagine I live in Florida and Georgia has a state-run public program that is equal to what I pay $800 a month for my family of 4, as well as a $5000 deductible to meet.

Imagine all of these middle class families seeing all they have to do is move one state up. That's devastating. I could name thousands of people that would move in a heartbeat. Especially with no pre-existing conditions clauses or certain procedures being denied.

You're telling me that's not an incentive to move? Saving $16,000 a year? As well as not having to worry about a $5000 deductible to meet?

It would cause an unprecedented mass exodus.

Would this not cause Florida to be competitive as a result and offer a comparable plan? States already advertise "Lower taxes, Gun rights, etc"-"Move to so-and-so".

[Gadritan]

I could name thousands of people that would move in a heartbeat.

Waiting.

[Enkidu]

There are already situations right now where the cheapest health insurance you can get through your job from a private insurer requires some of its members to drive 70+ miles to be "in-network."

And people do this to cut $40-50 off of their premiums.

Imagine I live in Florida and Georgia has a state-run public program that is equal to what I pay $800 a month for my family of 4, as well as a $5000 deductible to meet.

Imagine all of these middle class families seeing all they have to do is move one state up. That's devastating. I could name thousands of people that would move in a heartbeat. Especially with no pre-existing conditions clauses or certain procedures being denied.

You're telling me that's not an incentive to move? Saving $16,000 a year? As well as not having to worry about a $5000 deductible to meet?

It would cause an unprecedented mass exodus.

And you don't think that private insurers would consider this and consider that if there is a "mass exodus" they'll go bankrupt? Healthcare would be completely different.

People in a state without a state-run plan would have lower taxes and private insurers would be competing with not only each other, but every state in America to provide better care for less money.

[Sirrus_Asura]

And you don't think that private insurers would consider this and consider that if there is a "mass exodus" they'll go bankrupt? Healthcare would be completely different.

People in a state without a state-run plan would have lower taxes and private insurers would be competing with not only each other, but every state in America to provide better care for less money.

This was pretty much how I viewed it. Like I said, if States aren't willing to offer a plan at a legit price that works, they're not going to have a population beneath them. Self Regulating in a way.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Would this not cause Florida to be competitive as a result and offer a comparable plan? States already advertise "Lower taxes, Gun rights, etc"-"Move to so-and-so".

In theory it should. Of course I posited a theory as well so we're going into "What if?" territory but gun rights and lower taxes while they can be swaying to fringe groups, healthcare is something everyone feels.

If I had a choice between saving 16k+ and year and having medical peace of mind or lower sales tax, or the right to bear arms- middle America is going to go for healthcare. And there will be states that will be run by politicians that will have some sort of incentive by the private industry to stay the course.

So it's a coin toss if conservatives will stick to their guns and say "Fuck that no public option people can leave if they want." We've seen this stubborn behavior to catastrophic results already.

The competition between states is like competition between McD's and Burger King. In the end it's a burger and fries, but BK has better honey dijon. Free healthcare turns BK into a 5 Star Steakhouse.

And as much as I rail against conservatives I don't want to see them destroy themselves on faulty principle and bringing entire states down with them.

As an aside, don't you think a state run concept which would hypothetically foster competition bring about a faster demise of the in-place private system? If I remember correctly you were defending private health earlier, right?

[tyven]

i know that wasnt meant at me. i definitely support the public option, im just not agreeing with the mass exodus

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

And you don't think that private insurers would consider this and consider that if there is a "mass exodus" they'll go bankrupt? Healthcare would be completely different.

People in a state without a state-run plan would have lower taxes and private insurers would be competing with not only each other, but every state in America to provide better care for less money.

Private insurance is profitable only because they can deny service and not have to pay out for costly procedures. Forget my stance that I think that health insurance for profit is just beyond abhorrent, if private institutions are forced to lower premiums and cover more if not all procedures they fall flat and go bankrupt.

So no, it only fosters competition between public state options, which imo sounds fucking fantastic - but it goes against the grain of the libertarian "free market" concept and becomes "free market socialism," which is pretty fucking badass in my opinion.

[Olo401]

And as much as I rail against conservatives I don't want to see them destroy themselves on faulty principle and bringing entire states down with them.

I don't think it's faulty principles that bring them down at all. It's the fact that they claim to hold certain principles yet don't put them into practice, combined with scare tactics and scorched earth politics - if we didn't think of it or we're not in control of the debate, then all policy is bad.

[Sirrus_Asura]

As an aside, don't you think a state run concept which would hypothetically foster competition bring about a faster demise of the in-place private system? If I remember correctly you were defending private health earlier, right?

Well, its kinda the thing about supply and demand. My view is that there are enough people who don't want a public option in their state that there would be states that private healthcare would still have a place(States that reject their public option).

So their market will be a lot more limited, yes, but not eliminated. Kinda like how there is a market for snow blowers in Alaska, but not Florida.

[Enkidu]

Private insurance is profitable only because they can deny service and not have to pay out for costly procedures. Forget my stance that I think that health insurance for profit is just beyond abhorrent, if private institutions are forced to lower premiums and cover more if not all procedures they fall flat and go bankrupt.

That's not even true. Private insurance could be profitable while being fair and competitive. It's just EXTREMELY profitable to not be fair and competitive and with a near monopoly they can get away with it. Don't project our current mess on a post-reform type system.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

My view is that there are enough people who don't want a public option in their state that there would be states that private healthcare would still have a place(States that reject their public option).

So their market will be a lot more limited, yes, but not eliminated. Kinda like how there is a market for snow blowers in Alaska, but not Florida.

This is going to sound condescending ( big surprise coming form me I know ) but let's take the mentally retarded for example, or the extremely elderly. They have a hard time taking care of themselves, so we provide systems in which we can help them help themselves. Or just to plain help them.

Now, in a state like, oh Alabama - you have people destitute, living in a trailer, sick kids poor health, welfare - the works. These people are adamantly voting against their best interests and only on their religious views.

These people are retarded and cannot care for themselves. They are mentally unstable and we need to help them. A public option does this but they do not realize it. Like when you tell a child not to steal and reprimand them - they don't know why you did it but you're helping protect their future.

There are middle class people like this as well. They vote against their best interests and we need to push this through to help them.

Now I am sure there are people who do not need a public option, but just because you don't want it does not mean you don't need it. If I refused life saving medicine for swine flu because I thought the flying spaghetti monster would turn my soul into maggots and became hysterical and waved an AK-47 around what would you think of me?

I'm sorry man but in the end there are many people in this country that are incapable of making the best decisions for themselves, and they are trying to influence legislation that would help others that are willing to help themselves among others.

This is why I support a federally mandated solution versus a state mandated solution.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

That's not even true. Private insurance could be profitable while being fair and competitive. It's just EXTREMELY profitable to not be fair and competitive and with a near monopoly they can get away with it. Don't project our current mess on a post-reform type system.

I admire your optimism but the only positive thing they could do not to hemorrhage money is to drastically pressure the peripheral industries to reduce prices, invest heavily in preventative medicine and health counseling.

Considering the incentive / effort ratio I'd say shutting the doors down would be the most profitable decision.

[Dimmauk]

Hey remember this?

Senate Republicans Block Medicare Drug Price Negotiating Bill

WASHINGTON — The Senate blocked legislation on Wednesday that would let the government negotiate Medicaredrug prices. Democrats couldn't muster the 60 votes needed to bring the bill up for a vote.

Under the Medicare drug benefit, private insurance plans negotiate with drug makers over the price of medicine for their customers. About 22 million seniors and the disabled are enrolled in such plans. Some lawmakers, mostly Democrats, contend the government could use its leverage to drive a better bargain than individual insurers, which would lower the cost of the program for taxpayers and seniors.

But Republicans countered Wednesday that the program is costing much less than expected precisely because it's the private sector, not the secretary of Health and Human Services, conducting the negotiations. They successfully blocked a motion to proceed to the bill. The tally was 55-42, five short of the votes needed to move ahead.

Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said the program will cost about $265 billion less than anticipated over the coming decade.

"I doubt a single government program in modern history, let alone one this big and this important has ever, ever come in under budget," McConnell said. "So it's a mystery why our Democratic friends would want to tamper with this Medicare drug benefit. If it isn't broke, why fix it?"

Democratic lawmakers countered that they weren't aiming for a government takeover of the drug benefit, only to let the secretary of Health and Human Servicesintervene for particular kinds of expensive drugs that have no substitute, such as some of the drugs taken by cancer patients.

"This bill does not take over the role of the private plans," said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore. "The question is, should we make it possible for the secretary of Health and Human Services to complement the role, to go beyond it and say that there are some circumstances where we should negotiate?"

The House of Representatives passed a more ambitious bill earlier in the year that requires the secretary of HHS to negotiate drug prices, but Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., noted that the measure would not get the votes needed to overcome a filibuster in the Senate. Instead, he called for just lifting the restriction that bars government negotiations under Medicare. Even that alternative fell short Wednesday.

Democrats called the ban on government negotiations a favor to special interests groups.

"Time and again, the interests of the drug industry are put ahead of the interests of the elderly," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass.

But Republicans said the drug benefit, also called Medicare Part D, is a testament to the idea that the private market works and that "government-run health care is not the answer."

"Why do supporters of this legislation hate the Medicare drug benefit so much? They hate it because nothing could be more damaging to the idea of government run health care than Part D," said Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa.

The AARPsaid it would continue to push for allowing government negotiations, despite slim prospects for passage in the Senate.

"Senators should know this issue is not going away," the advocacy group said. "No amount of campaign money can trump the will of 90 percent of Americans."

[Enkidu]

I admire your optimism but the only positive thing they could do not to hemorrhage money is to drastically pressure the peripheral industries to reduce prices, invest heavily in preventative medicine and health counseling.

Considering the incentive / effort ratio I'd say shutting the doors down would be the most profitable decision.

In which case what's the big deal? Many people disagree with you and (some) have good reasons.

For example if your projections proved to be accurate, insurance companies would gradually fold and states would be encouraged (by the voters!!!) to move to a more cost effective plan. States would not want people to move out enmasse and the people currently bitching about how bad universal healthcare would be would change their tunes completely. It's win-win, honestly.

Now if the private insurers found ways to survive and could offer comparatively better packages then a "public option" or "single payer" and the voters of that state wish to keep only private options, I don't see how this necessarily hurts the country at all. Like it was said this system would be self-correcting by voters in that specific state whereas a public option can only be forcefully implemented.

[Gadritan]

After sifting through a few pages of this, I believe this is one of those times where I need to just remind myself that half of the population is below average intelligence by default.

[Dimmauk]

After sifting through a few pages of this, I believe this is one of those times where I need to just remind myself that half of the population is below average intelligence by default.

Yup, the half that voted for Palin.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

In which case what's the big deal? Many people disagree with you and (some) have good reasons.

For example if your projections proved to be accurate, insurance companies would gradually fold and states would be encouraged (by the voters!!!) to move to a more cost effective plan. States would not want people to move out enmasse and the people currently bitching about how bad universal healthcare would be would change their tunes completely. It's win-win, honestly.

Now if the private insurers found ways to survive and could offer comparatively better packages then a "public option" or "single payer" and the voters of that state wish to keep only private options, I don't see how this necessarily hurts the country at all. Like it was said this system would be self-correcting by voters in that specific state whereas a public option can only be forcefully implemented.

I concede that point to you but it just seems like taking the unnecessarily scenic route just to be proven right. Why not just take care of it in one shot with a federal plan?

We both I agree, I think, that's it's basically two sides of the same coin it just comes down to the philosophy of big or limited government in favor of more or less state power. Which funny enough was the arguments our forefathers had time and again.

We got to be a superpower militarily and economically by staying the course of a big federal government, why change now regarding healthcare?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Why not just take care of it in one shot with a federal plan?

I missed a bunch of discussion that would have been fun, but the answer to that question is because then people can't vote with their feet.

And is Massachusett's health insurance plan much different than Obama's?

[Sirrus_Asura]

This is going to sound condescending ( big surprise coming form me I know ) but let's take the mentally retarded for example, or the extremely elderly. They have a hard time taking care of themselves, so we provide systems in which we can help them help themselves. Or just to plain help them.

Now, in a state like, oh Alabama - you have people destitute, living in a trailer, sick kids poor health, welfare - the works. These people are adamantly voting against their best interests and only on their religious views.

These people are retarded and cannot care for themselves. They are mentally unstable and we need to help them. A public option does this but they do not realize it. Like when you tell a child not to steal and reprimand them - they don't know why you did it but you're helping protect their future.

There are middle class people like this as well. They vote against their best interests and we need to push this through to help them.

Now I am sure there are people who do not need a public option, but just because you don't want it does not mean you don't need it. If I refused life saving medicine for swine flu because I thought the flying spaghetti monster would turn my soul into maggots and became hysterical and waved an AK-47 around what would you think of me?

I'm sorry man but in the end there are many people in this country that are incapable of making the best decisions for themselves, and they are trying to influence legislation that would help others that are willing to help themselves among others.

This is why I support a federally mandated solution versus a state mandated solution.

I'd feel pretty fucking bad, I'd do my best to inform and persuade but at the end of the day, your decision is your decision. In this particular case, your actions hurt you and you alone and with that in mind, I have no right force a vaccine / cure upon your John Doe.

I can't help you if you wont let me(etc), kind of thing.

Though I wonder, even if there is a public option for them, it seems as if they're still probably not going to take advantage of it if they're that strong felt about their beliefs. (Looking just at your examples of course). Dosn't really acomplish anything in this case aside from taxing them.

Even then, these people are kicking and screaming socialism, and frankly I feel that my approach allows them to have their cake for a bit longer and hopefully allow them to make a better decision based on other states results. (Hopefully through example of it working / not working in other states).

There will still be people content with their private provider and not wanting to paying into the health care system they themselfs don't benefit from and their people (In that state) don't benefit from. There is a state for them out there somewhere hopefully.

Your example does open up another can of soup entirely and the real issue at hand (It seems) is the lack of education.



All things aside, I ask, where do you draw the line of deciding whats best for everyone? This is where things get a bit scary In my eyes.
If it were to stop at health care then I'd probably be fine (Though it does leave a sour taste in my mouth at the moment, Ill have to think it over).

Great points though.

[Rhinox]

Now I'm Curious. I wonder if these same people who scream Socialism would be willing to sign a letter forgoing any Social security benefits and Medicare. Me thinks they take a big game but at the end the day they will be waiting for that check at the end of the month.