• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2012 |OT3| If it's not a legitimate OT the mods have ways to shut it down

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jadedx

Banned
Instead of making a government run healthcare plan to run against private insurance companies which my or may not lower prices why not just go universal and let the government take over healthcare all together? If you're gonna go, go all the way.
 
T

TacticalFox88

Banned
Jadedx said:
Instead of making a government run healthcare plan to run against private insurance companies which my or may not lower prices why not just go single payer and let the government take over healthcare all together? If you're gonna go, go all the way.
Click to expand...

Because that isn't feasible politically at the moment?
 
T

The Librarian

Banned
Jadedx said:
I still think the public option is a stupid idea.
Click to expand...

Y
Why?
لماذا؟
为什么呢?
Защо?
Waarom?
Proč?
Miks?
Warum?
Γιατί;
क्यों?
なぜですか？
Perché?
Cén fáth?
Varför?
Tại sao?
Почему?
Hvorfor?
Miksi?
이유는 무엇입니까?
Neden?
Чому?
 
C

Clevinger

Member
TacticalFox88 said:
Because that isn't feasible politically at the moment?
Click to expand...

Well, neither is a public option. I somewhat agree with him. If you have the votes for a public option (basically, a supermajority of democrats, or if the filibuster is reformed) then you probably could get votes for single payer.
 
C

Chichikov

Member
Jadedx said:
Instead of making a government run healthcare plan to run against private insurance companies which my or may not lower prices why not just go single payer and let the government take over healthcare all together? If you're gonna go, go all the way.
Click to expand...
Oh, I (and I'm sure the 4 people who will reply with a very similar post in the next 30 seconds) wholeheartedly agree that a single payer solution is superior.
But it's much easier politically to get a public option at this point.
Or at least that's the common wisdom, I'm not sure I agree, I think "Medicare for all" is an extremely easy idea to sell to the American people (and I'm honestly not sure how you campaign against it).
 
H

harmonize

Member
Jadedx said:
I still think the public option is a stupid idea.
Click to expand...
Kornheiser_Why.JPG
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Jadedx said:
Instead of making a government run healthcare plan to run against private insurance companies which my or may not lower prices why not just go universal and let the government take over healthcare all together? If you're gonna go, go all the way.
Click to expand...

That's probably the preferred option, but there is no way in hell that's going to be possible for a long time. Look at what happened when we were trying to do the ACA.
 
C

Clevinger

Member
By the way, Mitt should really get to scrubbing his website after his Obamacare flip flop.

MITT'S PLAN
On his first day in office, Mitt Romney will issue an executive order that paves the way for the federal government to issue Obamacare waivers to all fifty states. He will then work with Congress to repeal the full legislation as quickly as possible.
Click to expand...
 
P

Particle Physicist

between a quark and a baryon
Dax01 said:
Y
Why?
لماذا؟
为什么呢?
Защо?
Waarom?
Proč?
Miks?
Warum?
Γιατί;
क्यों?
なぜですか？
Perché?
Cén fáth?
Varför?
Tại sao?
Почему?
Hvorfor?
Miksi?
이유는 무엇입니까?
Neden?
Чому?
Click to expand...

Where is the Hebrew? Why u hate Israel?!?!?!?
 
P

Plumbob

Member
Devil's Advocate: You could promise to keep parts of healthcare reform while promising to repeal all of Obama's legislation. You would just have to pass a law with similar but not identical mechanisms for each provision you want to keep. Then you can say you did a better job than Obama's bureaucrats and take credit for the policies.
 
J

Jadedx

Banned
Can someone explain to me why the public option would be better than the mandate? From what I've read public option would cost the government money where as the mandate pays for the ACA.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Jadedx said:
Can someone explain to me why the public option would be better than the mandate? From what I've read public option would cost the government money where as the mandate pays for the ACA.
Click to expand...

Why?



No, wait, I fucked it up.

The public option will cost the government money, but it'll also eliminate the premiums everybody's paying to the insurance companies in favor of health taxes -- so it's not really that different from the mandate. (And remember that the government is already handing out enormous subsidies to people so that they can afford the insurance they're mandated to buy.) Theoretically, if insurance companies can get better health care deals because they can negotiate as a group (and the same is true of Medicare/Medicaid), putting everybody in one big group, including Medicare and Medicaid patients, that's represented by the government (which, in addition to negotiating, can just pass laws compelling behavior) will result in even more savings. Of course, in the long term, compressing health care costs will require supporting the other end -- doctors and such -- but there's a lot of air in the system right now (about $750 billion, according to the Institute of Medicine) that could be squeezed out with appropriate evidence-based reforms. Cost pressure combined with legislative action will heavily motivate health care provides to pursue and implement these reforms. At least, that's the theory.

Jadedx said:
Instead of making a government run healthcare plan to run against private insurance companies which my or may not lower prices why not just go universal and let the government take over healthcare all together? If you're gonna go, go all the way.
Click to expand...

In the long term, if traditional cost pressures hold true, the public option will squeeze out most insurance companies and basically result in being a government-run single payer system in any case.
 
C

Chichikov

Member
Jadedx said:
Can someone explain to me why the public option would be better than the mandate? From what I've read public option would cost the government money where as the mandate pays for the ACA.
Click to expand...
The public option will be funded by people buying insurance from it, like a private insurance company.
It should be revenue neutral.
 
S

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
Jadedx said:
Can someone explain to me why the public option would be better than the mandate? From what I've read public option would cost the government money where as the mandate pays for the ACA.
Click to expand...
They wouldn't necesarily be replacements for one another. Paired with a mandate a public option gives people a viable non-private low cost plan to enroll in.

Part of the furor over thd mandate was that people were being "forced to buy a product from private entities" which a public option addresses.
 
J

jamesinclair

Banned
Puddles said:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/06/california-prisons-colleges_n_1863101.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

California spends more on prisons than it does on its higher education system.

Sometimes I hate this country so fucking much. I'd vote for any politician who ran on a platform of releasing all prisoners who were incarcerated for drug possession. Fuck downgrading them from prison to county jail; I'm talking straight-up release. I'd also add a "foul-tip rule" to the 3 strikes law: only a violent felony can count as a third strike.

Our priorities are so goddamn ass-backwards. We have the world's strongest and most expensive military, and the world's largest prison population, but fuck decent healthcare for anyone without a white-collar job, and btw, all university students will graduate with a small mortgage to pay off.
Click to expand...

Thats on the november ballot this year
 
P

-PXG-

Member
pigeon said:
Why?



No, wait, I fucked it up.

The public option will cost the government money, but it'll also eliminate the premiums everybody's paying to the insurance companies in favor of health taxes -- so it's not really that different from the mandate. (And remember that the government is already handing out enormous subsidies to people so that they can afford the insurance they're mandated to buy.) Theoretically, if insurance companies can get better health care deals because they can negotiate as a group (and the same is true of Medicare/Medicaid), putting everybody in one big group, including Medicare and Medicaid patients, that's represented by the government (which, in addition to negotiating, can just pass laws compelling behavior) will result in even more savings. Of course, in the long term, compressing health care costs will require supporting the other end -- doctors and such -- but there's a lot of air in the system right now (about $750 billion, according to the Institute of Medicine) that could be squeezed out with appropriate evidence-based reforms. Cost pressure combined with legislative action will heavily motivate health care provides to pursue and implement these reforms. At least, that's the theory.



In the long term, if traditional cost pressures hold true, the public option will squeeze out most insurance companies and basically result in being a government-run single payer system in any case.
Click to expand...

Well, it would essentially force them to bring costs down to the "public standard" and make them more competitive.
 
S

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
Biden pic is amazing. Dude's leather vest has the name "TROLL" stitched on it and "ordained minister" and there is a disembodied hand to the right of Biden's shoulder.

All it needs is "My Boyfriends Back" playing in the background.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
-PXG- said:
Well, it would essentially force them to bring costs down to the "public standard" and make them more competitive.
Click to expand...

In reality, I don't think this would happen -- the government has a lot of advantages in terms of negotiating health care costs compared to a private agency, that's a big part of why we have single-payer so many places in the first place. I think it'd be more likely that private insurance companies would become luxury high-service providers, much as they tend to be in socialized countries now. Of course, there's a slight problem in that Obamacare actually makes it quite difficult to become such a company -- if we did get a public option, it's quite possible we'd want to amend some of the insurance regulations in the PPACA to be less restrictive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Eurogamer: Assassin's Creed boss discusses "devastating" impact of Shadows' diversity and inclusivity backlash
Drama 3 4 5 6 7
316
24K
EN250 replied
"We observed Nvidia and decided to wait" (Chief Architect of Gaming at AMD)
2
64
5K
Kataploom replied
[GI.biz] The future of storytelling with Ken Levine
32
1K
Mister Wolf replied
[GI.biz] Cheap money and bad bets: How the games industry turned pandemic success into disaster
2
75
5K
sharp weiner replied
  • Poll
Palworld has, once again, highlighted the on going deficiencies in PC Game Pass and the Xbox app on Windows 11 (Windows Central)
Hardware Platform 2 3
111
15K
Unknown Soldier replied
Top Bottom