We can't have a public option because too many people would use it

[eridani]

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/060509.html


As the health insurance industry and its defenders in Congress lay out their case against permitting a public option in a reform bill, perhaps their most curious argument is that some 119 million Americans are ready to dump their private plans and jump to something more like Medicare – and that’s why the choice can’t be permitted.

In other words, the industry and its backers are acknowledging that more than one-third of the American people are so dissatisfied with their private health insurance that they trust the U.S. government to give them a fairer shake on health care. The industry says its allies in Congress must prevent that.

The peculiar argument that 119 million Americans must be denied the public option that they prefer has been made most notably by Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, which is one of two panels that has jurisdiction over the health insurance bill.

“As many as 119 million Americans would shift from private coverage to the government plan,” Grassley wrote in a column for Politico.com. That migration, Grassley said, would “put America on the path toward a completely government-run health care system. … Eventually, the government plan would overtake the entire market.”

Grassley’s logic is that so many Americans would prefer a government-run plan that the private health insurance industry would collapse or become a shadow of its current self. That, in turn, would lead even more Americans entering the government plan, making private insurance even less viable.

[tabbycat31]

1. that's what they want

they don't like the private insurance as it is today.

[tabatha]

2. trying to ignore "we the peope" but not "we the corporations"

[babylonsister]

3. Yep...

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

The Health Care Debate Made Very, Very Simple
Ezra Klein


Matt Yglesias's post on the Blue Dogs' public plan principles is an interesting example of one of the central ironies of the health-care debate. In most cases, individuals arguing that health reform is too expensive are dead-set against policies that would make it cheaper. It's a neat trick: Their opposition to real cost controls makes health-care reform pricey, and then they attack it on grounds of cost. Conversely, the folks willing to accept a pretty costly version of health reform would also be happy to embrace cost control policies like a public plan able to set Medicare rates.

Or look over here: Virginia Postrel is upset that Barack Obama isn't basing his cost control strategy around Medicare reforms. She doesn't appear to have bothered to learn that Barack Obama is basing his cost control strategy around Medicare reforms. Weird!

What you're seeing here are people who fundamentally don't want a universal health care system, and are willing to be flexible in how they argue and advocate for that goal, fighting with people who fundamentally do want a universal health care system, and are willing to be flexible in how they argue and advocate for that goal. A lot of these relatively esoteric policy disputes are simply manifestations of those two underlying impulses.

[drm604]

4. For years they've been arguing that a public health plan would be a bad thing.

They've argued that it wouldn't be able to provide the same level of care as private plans. If they truly believe that, then why are they afraid to compete with it?

It's becoming difficult for them to sustain their lies.

[MrMickeysMom]

5. Good points

In fact, Medicare is the biggest 3rd party reimbursement and private insurance companies have based their level of coverage based on "Medicare Allowables".

So, if we had Medicare for all, the type of services reimbursed would be less acute over all because people wouldn't hesitate to nip episodes of care in the bud instead of waiting for it to become an ER visit.

More diagnostic services and wellness programs, no employer based insurance, thus solvency of running business sectors, more education for the public... UH oh!

[imdjh]

8. I don't care if it doesn't.

I have had the best, which in my book is United Healthcare PPO, aka pretty much go anywhere you want, see anyone you want to see, pay a co-pay, pay up $2500 out of pocket (which isn't a lot for major surgery, especially if it saved your life). Right now I have an HMO, because I can't pay the $2500 anymore if I had to. I can live with that.

I can live with every threat that has been made for the security of single payer. I can book my primary appointments months in advance- I already do. I can pay a co-pay for emergency- it will suck, but I have to pay it as it is. I can wait in line, or not get that MRI on ten minutes notice for something that isn't critical. I can do that. Hell, men my age are notorious for putting off badly needed medical stuff (like tests and painful procedures), why would anyone think we're going to race over to the clinic now? Because it's "free"? Bullshit. Most of the men over 65 already get some kind of "free" healthcare, and you don't see them running to the doctor for a hangnail.

[Garbo 2004]

6. Grassley is against consumers having a choice. Private health insurance cos afraid of competition.

What happened to their devotion to a truly open market where consumers have a choice? Private companies would have to be more efficient and competitive with a public alternative in the mix, rather than rigging the market.

[imdjh]

7. I'll bet that they are still calling it "free health care" and then pointing out that it isn't free.

It seems to be the popular pseudo-gotcha of the conservatives and their corporate hypnotists. "Free healthcare isn't free!" No shit. And we don't expect "someone else (aka blue collar white males or the noble rich) to pay for it" either. What we want, is to take the money we are currently spending, the premiums we pay, the premiums our employers pay, medicare and supplement premiums, the money we spend on the indigent, the money we spend on military health care (domestic, retired, and disabled) and any other money we are sending off to various plans and corporations and paying into Medicare. Seems simply enough.

The corporations are supposed to demonize this. I can't blame them- they stand to lose a lot of business. But our elected officials are supposed to do the right thing, the most economical and value for expenditure thing. Our representatives aren't supposed to give a shit if United, BCBS, or Humana loses the business. These companies had their chance to come up with a plan that the American people would find acceptable, and all they came up with were more lies and fear. So fuck them. And fuck any elected official- Democrat or Republican, who doesn't take up our banner for national single payer.

[eridani]

9. Your free fire department isn't free either

Last time I checked, nobody I know got charged for having a fire. It's free at the point of service. You pay your property tax, and if your place catches fire they send a truck out. Why should a heart attack be treated any differently?