why would people who don't want the government between them and their dr. choose a public option...?

[dysfunctional press]

the pukes and dinos keep saying how the american people don't want the government between them and their doctor- so single-payer or even a public option is NOT the answer...

and they also say thatthe public option wouldn't be fair to private insurers because it would undercut them...

BUT- WHY would all those people who more than anything don't want the government in their healthcare decisions buy into a public option at ANY price? aren't they willing to pay a higher premium in order to be sure that the government would be in no way involved in their healthcare decisions? and instead, those decisions would be left entirely up to their doctor, with final authority obviously going to their private insurer's criteria.

whereas those of us who don't mind if the government gets in between should be able to CHOOSE that option. i'd definitely be willing to pay a little less, and allow/trust the government to make the decisions based on their own criteria.

why are the republicans afraid of what they say is the best healthcare system in the world, being destroyed if people are given the option to choose what the repugs contend would be an inferior system that nobody wants?

if the private insurance system is of such greater quality- shouldn't those people who want that option be willing/expected to pay a little more for that superior quality?

[Fire1]

1. The way I understand it the government is involved in

single payer as they are the provider. Public option simply means you get to shop for the plan with a private insurer that best fits your needs or stay with the plan provided by your employer.

[dysfunctional press]

3. i understand the terms- that's not really the question.

but you are mistaken as to what the 'public option' is.

basically the 'public option' would be like letting everyone who wanted to to buy into medicare. if people didn't want to do that, they could choose from a selection of private insurers, depending on who operates in their state.

i was trying to point out the lack of any real cohesive logic in the repug argument...as usual.

[Fire1]

7. I don't think buying into a medicare program is included in a

public option. This is the link where I got my info.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/1623934,CST-NWS-sweet16.article

[dysfunctional press]

11. you are totally mistaken about what a public option is...

the 'public option' would be one of the choices in the 'insurance exchange' obama talks about, but it IS a federal program like medicare. i just googled 'what is a public option'(no quote marks) and got this article from the american prospect to help explain it-

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_public_option_and_the_hope_of_health_care_reform

The Public Option and the Hope of Health Care Reform

The inclusion of a much-maligned policy option in Democrats' discussion of health care reform points to just how much the debate over health care reform has moved forward

Since the remarkable results of Nov. 4, there has been much discussion about the new progressive moment in which America finds itself. But it has actually been evident for some time that we're talking about old issues in new ways. Let's take just one -- health care reform-- which could actually happen next year. One thing we know is that there will be a serious, even vicious fight over the issue. What we don't know is whether President-elect Obama will seize the moment, or succumb to the same fear that has stayed Democrats' hands for so long.

In the presidential primaries, all three top Democratic candidates -- Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards -- featured in their health care plans something that would have been unimaginable just a few years ago, a public option.
The public option is a government health insurance program akin to Medicare, which would be open to anyone. Credit should go to Edwards, who not only was the first of the three to propose it, but who said that if so many people chose the public option that over time it evolved into a single-payer system, that would be fine with him. That kind of talk used to come only from candidates with no chance of winning.

Although the public option wasn't the topic of a great deal of discussion during the campaign, for many progressives it amounts to a beautiful jewel hidden amidst a pile of compromise and disappointment. Ask average progressives what they think ought to be done about health care, and many will reply, "Well, a single-payer system would obviously be the best thing. But since that's politically impossible…" At the end of 2008, some things seem a little more possible than they used to.

That isn't to say a public option is just a modified single-payer system. It would be one option among many for individuals and businesses, and would leave the private insurance system in place (you can read more on the benefits of the public option here). But it does crack the door open for expanding the number of Americans who get their health insurance through the government. And this is what terrifies the insurance companies and conservatives. Their fear is that it will actually work. If the program operates well, more and more people will make the rational decision to choose it over private insurance (what we're supposed to do in a market, after all) and the insurance companies will lose customers.

[Fire1]

15. My article does say public option could end up being an

extension of the current government run medicare program but nothing is finalized yet in regards to how any of this will actually work. Your article implies that public option is as good as single payer albeit some modifications. Either way, it'll be interesting to see how it works.

[dysfunctional press]

18. you need to do some more research, because you seem clueless as to what the public option entails.

to put it as simply as possible-

The public option is a government health insurance program akin to Medicare, which would be open to anyone.

educate yourself. seriously.

[Fire1]

19. I'm just restating what's in the most recent articles. These are the

only sources any of us have to go by and this information changes daily. There is nothing definitive about any of this and that's about the only thing we know for sure. I believe I agreed in my prior post that according to the article public option CAN be an extension of medicare, which, indicates to me that it's not a done deal.

[dysfunctional press]

20. they are trying to change the public option to a stste-by-state co-op system...

and "call" it the public option.

but- when OUR side uses the term "public option it refers to what would basically be an extension of medicare that anyone can buy into.

as it is- the public option is a pretty shitty second-cousin to what we really need to have- and that's single payer.

the main point is- DON'T let THEM try to define what a "public option" is, because it already is a definitive term.

[librechik]

2. They are lying to us for their own gain

We must be strong and insist on single payer. Call your congress critters, and during the break, visit their offices. We can't let them shirk on this. It's up to us now.

[dysfunctional press]

4. single payer isn't going to happen- it's a pipe dream...

and even a pitiful 'public option' is looking less and less likely at this point.

[librechik]

8. they are getting to you--don't surrender--scream even louder!

I know how depressing it looks--but you can't just be silent, even if we are going to lose.

[jpak]

5. What a stupid post - that's not how it works - not in Obama's plan, not in Canada

The government will NOT get between you and your doctor.

try again

[dysfunctional press]

6. i didn't say that they would- that's what the repugs are arguing.

i'm trying to use their terminology to point out that their argument doesn't hold water.

:eyes: :eyes:

[jpak]

10. The stupid red herring that the public option is inferior to private insurance is bullshit too

just sayin'

:hi:

[dysfunctional press]

12. i realize that too...

but just allowing them to argue that it is, only undercuts their other argument.

[benddem]

9. we already have

bureaucrats between us and our docs. Every time the Republicans vote on one more restriction on abortion they are putting themselves between women and their physicians. Besides I'd rather have an educated bureaucrat than an insurance employee who gets a bonus for turning people down.

[LaPera]

13. As it is now, it's the insurance companies that "stand between you and your doctor" One must

go through ones insurance company to get ANYTHING OKed for the cost, before any doctor or hospital will preform the necessary procedures.

[dysfunctional press]

14. yep.

and that privilege of having an insurance company employee making the bureaucratic decision, rather than the inept heartless government official should justify the higher cost of their far superior plan...

right...? :shrug:

[GreenTea]

16. Yep!

Good point, it's The insurance companies employees making decisions on what surgeries, medical care, procedure & prescriptions one can talk about getting between you and your doctor...The insurance companies are like the Gestapo.

[LaPera]

17. yep.....