Public Option Dead?

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
How many people are really “in need”? How many of those “in need” cannot have their needs met by charitable giving? How many of those left over and “forgotten by the system” could just be a tax deduction for health providers to cover out of pocket? (if we didn’t have to pay any taxes these people would have better care than current middle-class people who pay for government mandated HMO care).

I have said it before and I will say it again: The current problem with health care is that the current demand is not being met by the supply and thus it is expansive for those who can “afford” it and nonexistent for those who cannot. The question then is how can we increase the supply of it and deliver it to those people “in need”?

The answer lies in promoting voluntary associations between free people, spontaneously ordered by a free and unfettered market.[/quote]

22

I really don’t give a fuck. If we can insure the 46 million with co-ops I am fine to start from there. That’s big progress in my book.

23

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
How many people are really “in need”? How many of those “in need” cannot have their needs met by charitable giving? How many of those left over and “forgotten by the system” could just be a tax deduction for health providers to cover out of pocket? (if we didn’t have to pay any taxes these people would have better care than current middle-class people who pay for government mandated HMO care).

I have said it before and I will say it again: The current problem with health care is that the current demand is not being met by the supply and thus it is expansive for those who can “afford” it and nonexistent for those who cannot. The question then is how can we increase the supply of it and deliver it to those people “in need”?

The answer lies in promoting voluntary associations between free people, spontaneously ordered by a free and unfettered market.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-health-clinic16-2009aug16,0,3772428.story[/quote]

See? Charity works…so only about a few thousand out of a few million people are in need in the city of LA…?

Well then, it seem to make more sense for the gubbamint to scrap any notion of “Universal Care” and let charity continue to work.

24

[quote]dtheyer wrote:
I really don’t give a fuck. If we can insure the 46 million with co-ops I am fine to start from there. That’s big progress in my book.[/quote]

“We” cannot but you can all you want.

25

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
From a blog I read earlier…

OBAMA = One Big Ass Mistake America[/quote]

WIN!

26

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
How many people are really “in need”? How many of those “in need” cannot have their needs met by charitable giving? How many of those left over and “forgotten by the system” could just be a tax deduction for health providers to cover out of pocket? (if we didn’t have to pay any taxes these people would have better care than current middle-class people who pay for government mandated HMO care).

I have said it before and I will say it again: The current problem with health care is that the current demand is not being met by the supply and thus it is expansive for those who can “afford” it and nonexistent for those who cannot. The question then is how can we increase the supply of it and deliver it to those people “in need”?

The answer lies in promoting voluntary associations between free people, spontaneously ordered by a free and unfettered market.

See? Charity works…so only about a few thousand out of a few million people are in need in the city of LA…?

Well then, it seem to make more sense for the gubbamint to scrap any notion of “Universal Care” and let charity continue to work.[/quote]

It is going to take a pretty big charity , that was just L.A. what about all of the other cities in all the other staes

27

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
How many people are really “in need”? How many of those “in need” cannot have their needs met by charitable giving? How many of those left over and “forgotten by the system” could just be a tax deduction for health providers to cover out of pocket? (if we didn’t have to pay any taxes these people would have better care than current middle-class people who pay for government mandated HMO care).

I have said it before and I will say it again: The current problem with health care is that the current demand is not being met by the supply and thus it is expansive for those who can “afford” it and nonexistent for those who cannot. The question then is how can we increase the supply of it and deliver it to those people “in need”?

The answer lies in promoting voluntary associations between free people, spontaneously ordered by a free and unfettered market.

See? Charity works…so only about a few thousand out of a few million people are in need in the city of LA…?

Well then, it seem to make more sense for the gubbamint to scrap any notion of “Universal Care” and let charity continue to work.

It is going to take a pretty big charity , that was just L.A. what about all of the other cities in all the other staes

[/quote]

Uhhh…can each city not have their own charity? In fact, many churches already do; and there are countless others. I see no problem here. Why does the government have to take over something these organization have been doing for much longer and much more efficiently?

28

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
From all appearances, it is dead - and the Obama administration is now attempting to claim that while it loved the Public Option, it wasn’t in love with the Public Option.

I don’t think anyone is buying it - not more than a month ago, he was stating that any bill he would sign would have to have a public option.

I think the debate will shift to the co-op arguments, as both Baucus and some Republicans are considering it.

From a political theater point of view, it will be interesting to see how this impacts the Left’s support for Obama. There is already some gnashing of the teeth that a “progressive” president with both Houses of Congress in his pocket and very high approval ratings/political capital couldn’t get get a Public Option enacted.

Obama has lost independents and moderates over the issue, and now the left-wing of his party is very disappointed and, in some cases, possibly quite mad at him. A terrible political footing to be on this early in his administration.[/quote]

He’s done, bet he tries to blow up some bad guy now.

29

[quote]koffea wrote:
the most interesting thing is why does obama feel like he needs broad republican support when pelosi has already stated that she has the votes in both the house and senate? Whats the matter, obama, dont want to be left holding the bag?[/quote]

Here’s the problem, many what i call good democrats are conservative socially such as pro second amendment and look out for worker’s rights, which I don’t think is needed as much now as say 50-60 years ago. Look 55 years ago. See any gun control gay marriage, hate crime this or other heavy left social issues.

No, you had an argument business vs labor. Certain democrats are pro proletariat , which is way different than loving the American worked. they love amnesty for illegals, since we all live on this planet. So you have some guys with heavy worker union support saying I like my health plan, I want jobs for citizens etc.

Think a Texas or Tennessee democrat, or an Arkansas democrat vs NY, Ca. Ma. Big difference.

Another thing is this guy basically lied to the voters and now wonders why things aren’t working out for him. Reagan said exactly what he wanted to do and did some of it. This guy sort of said maybe kind of I think you’re exaggerating and wonders why no one wants his nonsense.

30

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
How many people are really “in need”? How many of those “in need” cannot have their needs met by charitable giving? How many of those left over and “forgotten by the system” could just be a tax deduction for health providers to cover out of pocket? (if we didn’t have to pay any taxes these people would have better care than current middle-class people who pay for government mandated HMO care).

I have said it before and I will say it again: The current problem with health care is that the current demand is not being met by the supply and thus it is expansive for those who can “afford” it and nonexistent for those who cannot. The question then is how can we increase the supply of it and deliver it to those people “in need”?

The answer lies in promoting voluntary associations between free people, spontaneously ordered by a free and unfettered market.

See? Charity works…so only about a few thousand out of a few million people are in need in the city of LA…?

Well then, it seem to make more sense for the gubbamint to scrap any notion of “Universal Care” and let charity continue to work.

It is going to take a pretty big charity , that was just L.A. what about all of the other cities in all the other staes

[/quote]

This is where I see the glass half-empty.

Charity is helpful. But note, these folks got routine, scheduled predictable care. One can foresee the needs for eyeglasses, dental care and mammography. This is the purview of health maintenance.

I do not need to evoke the question of “moral hazard,” whereby people will give up their insurance in order to depend on the kindness of others.

But imagine the following: of the 256 women who received mammograms, there is a high chance that 3 or 4 will develop breast cancer in the next 5 years. Now what? If the same charity were to provide medical care, those 4 women would exhaust the funds available for others’ eyeglasses, dentistry and surveillance. Charity is not a bottomless fund, and in hard times, it dries up, too.

As it turns out, in California, there is a special fund for the uninsured who develop breast or cervical cancer (the BCPT, or something). It will pay for the ancillary tests, surgery, chemotherapy and radiation necessary for cure. Oh, and it is not a private charity. It is a government agency, funded by taxes. There is no charity which does this, to my direct knowledge; and since there is no “market competition” for the proceeds of charity, no one can argue that “government quashed the market in kindness.”

My points: charity helps, but even charities cannot fund the unpredictable on a predictable basis, without losses elsewhere. That is what insurance is for, and sometimes, the agencies of welfare.

31

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
The public option was a large part of his campaign when he was running in '08. I kinda feel like he lost some cred with this move.

Among the many principles abandoned was Obama’s expressed preference (from 2003 onward) for a single-payer model. Forgotten now, I suppose. How many more such stands will be abandoned? As this happens, his Congressional support (those that have outstretched necks) will be left out hanging to twist slowly in the wind.[/quote]

The economic crisis delayed his pushing this and that ‘told the tale’. He had only so much political capital and it is draining away, like water in a bathtub. If this was March (and no crisis), this would have sailed through and be law by now.