Sebelius: Public Option "Not Essential" In Health Care Reform

[masuki bance]

Run time: 03:12 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71XxVBjhnBE   Posted on YouTube: August 16, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: August 17, 2009 By DU Member: masuki bance Views on DU: 2287

 

[aquart]

1. Well, she's wrong.

[DJ13]

2. Public Option "Not Essential"

But dont you DARE threaten insurance profits!

[fascisthunter]

3. how could someone do this to their own country

it is sick. I am glad I am not like her and those who agree with her philosophy that profit comes before people. That is essentially what pro-corporate folks believe. They believe in a sociopathic philosophy that profit is the only imperative. Musolini would be proud.

[DaLittle Kitty]

7. WHO Appointed This Proud Former State Insurance Commissioner Bitch Anyway?

No Problem I know the answer to my own question... BO!

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mojorabbit]

22. Plenty of innovation all over the world

in medicine. Profit motive doesn't seem to be the overriding factor.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrMickeysMom]

29. Excuse me.... Welcome to DU

Now, after making your little summer vacation trip here, you can dutifully skip all the way home to Drudge. Make some boisterous reports of your poorly delivered drive-by comments, why don't you? Your main message, how health care has the components of every other business model, has no merit. Go make nonsense elsewhere.

You have not a clue as to how R comes about in a health care model and D comes about within the sponsorships of drugs and medical devices. I'll support the researcher who has no profit motive behind all phases of clinical drug trials, thank you very much. Meanwhile, I see more and more under the current model less and less healthy with poorer and poorer access.

Health care delivery in the US ain't working and I'm pretty sure we (who care to analyze it) might know why it's not getting anywhere with via the lobbying efforts from profits and non-profit third party insurers, and the pharmaceutical industry. If they didn't give a shit before, they certainly won't now. That's why we should regulate it as the NON-WIDGET industry it is- health care.

Jeebus, I'm through suffering fools on this subject acting like they know it all, having to "serve it up" to others who know better.

You act like "health care" has a direct consumer of its services. It does not. Those in need are just that- in need. It's not a want situation with asthma, immunologic, blood disorders, and exposure to an unsafe environment. "It" does not hunt around for the best price among all those widgets in advance of, say, getting an ankle or knee sprain.

You bring a tired argument about business and R&D and all things that should allow a profit here under the model of sick care? I beg to differ...

Would you rather be operated on by a surgeon who has a horse in the race, or by one you are keeping from dinner?

That argument, if carried to its logical end, encourages someone with a hammer to start seeing every patient as a nail. That's not even what constitutes a good health care model. How the hell can treatment of health = profitable business model unless everyone is on an even playing field? How the hell can employers employ workers, if over 30% of their costs are tied up in providing a plan to cover (not very well) "health services"?

If you looked at what this nation spends in terms of "health" and compare it to every other industrialized nation, you'd see that the biggest industries make the largest profit in a model that touts "health", but doesn't account for the BEST delivery of preventative, emergent, and intensive care. This is an equation whereby PEOPLE (consumers of health care widgets the business model) are tied to a work environment for primary reasons of being able to provide some health care benefit. When such "deliverables" are provided, the cost comes at great giant sucking sounds of everyone's wallet. This wallet-ectomy has been bankrupting more and more each month for episodes of care. We can't keep providing all the components within health care delivery system without debtors prisons, pal. We now think it's great to treat health care delivery like it's Walmart, Target, Sears and JC Penny?

Please have a nice day elsewhere.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shagsak]

33. Speculative argument, poor analogy

Waiters don't (usually) strive to be waiters. They are either working their way toward something or just trying to make extra cash. Not to knock waiters, but I have never heard of someone say "one day, after I get finished with school, I'm going to be a waiter".

You are speculating that the healthcare market would crumble because of the payment method. You are speculating both that doctors would make substantially less and therefore not work as hard or care about their job as much. Aside from analogies do you have facts to support this claim? Have you any idea what doctors have to go through just to call themselves doctors? The long hours and minimal pay? Do you really think the ONLY reason they put that much energy into becoming doctors is for the paycheck? If so, you are naive and you obviously don't know too many doctors.

Sure profit is important, I don't think anyone is disputing that. But facisthunter is correct and is speaking in terms of morality, someone should not have to die so that someone else can make MORE of a profit. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. If you really believe that profit is more important than people's lives, then maybe you haven't been truly tested. You haven't watched the bills stack up and your family be forced into bankruptcy to pay for life saving surgery that "wasn't covered". I could tell story after story that has personally affected my opinion on this. I PRAY that you never have to go through that.

Here's an analogy you might understand. Fedex and UPS make good profits by supplying a great service at a premium price. The government offers the same service at a reduced rate that virtually anyone can afford. How is it possible that Fedex and UPS remain in business? How are they even motivated to continue to work when they know someone can choose to go to USPS? - It's called capitalism my friend. If you offer a better product, you can charge a higher rate.

[burning rain]

4. Abandoning public option would be folly for Democrats.

Both politically and in terms of policy. Without public option, hcr becomes a bonanza for the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, as Bush's Medicare Part D was for the latter. Thus would Democrats discredit themselves as defenders of citizens' interests rather than corporations'. Without public option, hcr becomes essentially a corporatist Republican bill, and almost all Republicans could vote for it, except the purist free-marketeer fringe. They could easily back hcr and credibly claim that they'd made it into a Republican bill by stripping public option and end-of-life counselling.

[ihavenobias]

5. I think the worst case scenario is even more grim

Even if a half-assed, pro-corporate "reform" is passed we'd still have the right wing media cry Socialism and try to paint it as ObamaCare, etc. Then when it inevitably failed the right and the MSM would chalk it up to Dems over-reaching and looking to Big Government.

If that happened it would kill real reform for decades. Trying to introduce Single Payer after that would be impossible.

[burning rain]

9. The GOP could do that, if they go with their teabagging base.

Hcr without public option will lead to higher premiums across the board due to new mandates for higher quality and better service, but the GOP could blame increased costs on Democrats, which would be cynical (because Republicans had opposed any reasonable competition for private insurance) but probably effective as Democrats own it since they have whopping majorities and the presidency. Voting for hcr wouldn't cost the GOP with their insurance company paymasters: they wouldn't see their profits compromised, but increased, so it would be a "win" for them. And if Republicans supported the bill, they could paint Democrats as snivelling wimps for accepting a GOP healthcare plan despite having big majorities, which would neutralize Democratic enthusiasm over a legislative success ahead of the 2009 and 2010 elections. But still, support of any bill might alienate their readicalized base. We'll see.

[Cha]

6. Whatever..

ProSense (1000+ posts) Sun Aug-16-09 06:02 PM
Original message

"Obama Demands: The Bill I Sign Must Include Public Option (July 17)"

(A)ny plan I sign must include an insurance exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans - including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest - and choose what's best for your family.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/obama-demands-the-bill-i-sign-must-include-public-option.php

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8591389

And, from today..

"President still favors Public Option as Means of Creating Competion

and Choice."

Cross posted from LBN..

cravermi (19 posts) Sun Aug-16-09 02:21 PM
Original message

"President Still Favors Public Option as a Means of Creating Competition and Choice, says Gibbs"
Source: CBS News/Face the Nation

(CBS)White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said on Face the Nation Sunday that President Obama is still in favor a government-sponsored health insurance plan -- but does not intend to replicate the beleaguered U.S. Postal Service.

The federal government would be able to successfully administer a health insurance option, Gibbs told CBS Anchor Harry Smith, even though the government-run Postal Service is facing serious financial problems.

"I don't think he was saying that what we were going to do is create the postal service for healthcare," Gibbs said. "The president believes this option of a government plan is the best way to provide choice and competition."

Read more.. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/16/ftn/main52452...


Kathleen Sebelius is saying one thing about the public option. However, Robert Gibbs is saying another.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Cross posted from GDPHopeOverFear (1000+ posts) Sun Aug-16-09 07:43 PM
Original message

"Crooks & Liars: White House reiterates its support of the Public Option"

Oh, the Republicans have been having a field day with this mantra - that employers would shunt their employees into the public plan. But they're really upset for the same reason Sebelius mentioned as a positive: Job lock. Above all else, the Republican party stands for cheap, disposable labor with no rights or protections. God forbid you should have a public option - you could up and leave your job anytime you wanted!

In the meantime, the White House released this statement late this afternoon:


"Nothing has changed. POTUS has always said that what is essential is that health insurance reform must lower costs, ensure that there are affordable options for all Americans and increase choice and competition. He believes the public option is the best way to achieve those goals."


Everybody....... caaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalm dooooooooooooown.

Take deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep breeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaths.

Please."

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/say-what-sebeliu...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[Cha]

8. Sebilius MISSPOKE. Cross post from GD

andym (1000+ posts) Sun Aug-16-09 10:36 PM
Original message
Administration Official: "Sebelius Misspoke."
http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/08/administration_...

An administration official said tonight that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius "misspoke" when she told CNN this morning that a government run health insurance option "is not an essential part" of reform. This official asked not to be identified in exchange for providing clarity about the intentions of the President. The official said that the White House did not intend to change its messaging and that Sebelius simply meant to echo the president, who has acknowledged that the public option is a tough sell in the Senate and is, at the same time, a must-pass for House Democrats, and is not, in the president's view, the most important element of the reform package.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6323530

[masuki bance]

11. A third White House official, via e-mail, said that Sebelius didn't misspeak.

A third White House official, via e-mail, said that Sebelius didn't misspeak. "The media misplayed it," the third official said.

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/08/administration_official_sebelius_misspoke.php

[Cha]

12. Whatever ..it's Wrong.

So this is an opportunity for the Prez when he gets back from his much needed Relaxation with his fam in the National Parks to get on tv and clear up the "media" or anyone who's misspeaking.

[jefferson_dem]

15. The OP doesn't care about right or wrong...

only that the shit pot is stirred a bit more.

[avaistheone1]

34. This is not the first time Sebelius misspoke on health care reform.

Seems to be a habit of hers.

:think:

[IsItJustMe]

10. Sad to say, but at this point, no bill at all would be better than this watered down POS they are

now trying to pass. Pathetic.

[Kokonoe]

13. Oh, well, I guess we could have a consumer-owned nonprofit cooperative.

From the huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/16/sebelius-public-health-ca_n_260511.html

Under a proposal by Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., consumer-owned nonprofit cooperatives would sell insurance in competition with private industry, not unlike the way electric and agriculture co-ops operate, especially in rural states such as his own.

[mr_liberal]

14. Good news.

Obama is moving back to the center. Now maybe he'll get re-elected.

[MessiahRp]

24. When was he not in the center?

He's never been on the left of any issue and if you think the public option was the left option I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Rp

[defendandprotect]

16. The fact that Dems are not calling protesters out is a strong sign . . .

they don't want it --

Where are the labor unions calling out workers and Democrats?

Where are the women's groups . . . this is important for women and families ????

Where is Obama -- the Democratic Party -- if they wanted this they'd be arranging rallies!

GOP has called their thugs out, that's for sure!

[Ohio Democrat]

17. no!

we do need it!

[mzmolly]

19. Can someone direct me to the portion of the video where she says it's not essential?

:shrug: She said, after much explanation that it's not "THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENT."

[masuki bance]

20. "not the essential element"

Public insurance plan not essential: Sebelius
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE57D23Q20090816

Sebelius: Public insurance option not essential
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090816/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_sebelius_health_care

Sebelius: Public option not 'essential'
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/sebelius-public-option-not-essential

Sebelius Says Government Insurance Plan Not Essential (Update2)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aRqy6w7DFAB0

My Way News - Sebelius: Public insurance option not essential
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090816/D9A40N900.html


http://www.google.com/search?q=sebelius+not+essential&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

[mzmolly]

32. Which is different than what was posted initially. Why the need to

conceal context and portions of the conversation?

[MessiahRp]

25. Sounds like you're parsing hoping to cover her ass on this...

The Essential Element line is pretty much the same thing.

Grassley's been saying for weeks that behind closed doors Obama told them that the public option is not a sticking point for them. This just confirms that. We have all been duped. The Democrats won't fight for us either. It's all one big corporate hurrah over there in Washington...

Rp

[mzmolly]

31. Sorry, I'm not the one parsing. And, I don't desire to cover anyones ass.

I support a public option. And as such I don't appreciate being told people are saying shit that they're not.

[masuki bance]

36. Well then tell the WH that she didn't mispeak. nt

[mzmolly]

37. Had I been an advisor I would have.

;)

[GivePeaceAchance]

26. I think it's more diplomatic negotiations than abandon all hope all ye who enter....

It over till it's over and we have the truth and we should have most of industry on our side as they can'g afford for health care to get out of reach and have less healthy workers.

[Hubert Flottz]

27. "Heckuva Job!"

[swilton]

28. The Watered Down Version

Is consistent with what the Bill Moyers' panel predicted would happen in Obama's program. This is the result of letting health insurance and pharmaceutical companies participate (in reality dictate) the program. Essentially such a program is worse than what we now have in that it pours good money after bad - giving more money to the pharmaceutical and health insurance companies.

There is no reform w/o a public option.

If the DP can't manage this with a 60 member senate, what can it manage? The failure of true reform will greatly discredit the DP and contribute to the already growing cynicism in the country. :shrug:

[dgibby]

30. I know I'm going out on a limb here, but here's my take on this mess.

I believe we'll get the following:

No pre-existing conditions.

Maybe a program that prevents the insurance companies from dropping you when you get sick.

Some type of co-op.

Maybe some savings on meds.

The trade off for the above will be:

Mandated health insurance.

Taxed insurance that is provided by businesses.

No public option.

I could be wrong, but it's looking more and more like we're going to get thrown under the bus by the Blue Dogs, Repukes, and the Health Insurance Industry.

Nothing like bi-partisianship as long as your not a progressive Dem.

[Apollo11]

35. They don't have to call it public. But there should be a not-for-profit option.

Medicare and Medicaid are public healthcare.

Folks who are younger than 65 and can afford to pay something towards their medical costs should have a choice between for-profit health insurance or a not-for-profit plan.

Obama already said that the public option would have to pay for itself and not be funded by the taxpayer. Otherwise the insurance companies could complain about unfair competition.

So if it is not funded from the Federal budget - why call it a public option?

This is my guess on what the thinking is inside the Whitehouse.

Resistance to change is high. A single payer system is not politically possible.