Public option or public humiliation?

Dear Reg,

I wasn't attempting to be dismissive -- just "cheeky."

I give our good host credit for not limiting his complaint to the Republicans, but including the Democrats as well.

I'm not willing to agree or disagree with the public option as a competitor to private insurance until I know at least some of the details. The previous proposals could not really be considered to offer competition, as they seemed to include alot of caveats that made for a playing field far from level. Unless I was misinformed.

If the public option is allowed to set the rules of engagement with it's competitors and allowed to run at whatever loss it runs at, or allowed to function in some other way than private industry is able to function, then it can hardly be considered as something to offer competition in the industry. If it competes on a level playing field and does not diminish the quality of our healthcare, then what's to complain about? I just don't think that this is what we will find in the plan.

Mugsy:  What do you mean by "level playing field?"  Do you think the public option will pay its executives tens of millions of dollars in salary?  Will we see a Public Option Pittsburgh Marathon?  Will we see "Public Option" at the top of office buildings?  Will we see Public Option tv commercials?  What about "Public OPtion,"  the official health care provider of the you name it sports team?  All of these are what our current health insurance companies spend our premium dollars on - do you think that the Public Option provider should be compelled to waste its money on these items as well?   This is how private industry operates.  I don't want a "level playing field," I want a health insurance system that is run for my benefit, not the benefit of the people who operate it.

Reg- typical liberal junk "If the Republicans are going to call even the most mild health-care proposals government-run health care or socialism, the Democrats might as well give them something to really complain about." Not one GOP has said that.  They are for addressing issue.  They have presented ammendments, they have put forth proposals.  How about a little intellectual integraty?  Restating the facts to suit your argument is just dishonest. it is an admission you have no argument.

born2run do you think that eliminating exec salary will "fix" healthcare?  An insurance company will run with the fewest employees they can to contain cost.  If you know anything about the government, pay is based on several things one of the largest affects on compensation is number of people that report to you.  Do you think for one second that eliminating several exec that make many millions a year will cover the expansion of gov employee that will be hired to bolster the pay of thousands of low, mid and high level managers.  I was in the private sector, but saw this for my self.  Look back into your own experiences with gov and number of employees and let me know what you come up with.

What does the government do efficently? What does the government do well?  It is too big to do anything well.  Remember the $600 hammers, toilet seats?

my opinion - How about medicare - it operates at a much lower overhead than the private health insurance industry.  Do you think for one minute that seniors in this country would trade medicare coverage for a system in which they would have to go into the "marketplace' and buy health insurance individually?  The premiums would be astronomical and most seniors would go bankrupt trying to pay them, or paying for health care without insurance.  And no, I don't think that lowering salaries would fix healthcare - the salaries are just a symptom of the health insurance disease.  Check out the countries that have a public insurance system - it works for them, and it would work for us.  What are you afraid of - if the private insurance system is so efficient, it will outperform the public option, and no one will buy it.  It will go away.  If, on the other hand, it is more efficient, the private system will go away.  The market will decide - what do we have to lose?    

my opinion:

Our host wrote:  "If the Republicans are going to call even the most mild health-care proposals government-run health care or socialism . . . .”  You called that statement “typical liberal junk,” inasmuch as, “Not one GOP has said that.”  Then you suggested *he* was being “dishonest” and you called upon him for “a little intellectual integrity.”  (I flipped the order of the last two quotes.)

Just saying.

As to the substance (because I’m told we’re supposed to have conversations here), born2run answered you well, so I only want to speak to your assertion that  “[a]n insurance company will run with the fewest employees they can to contain cost.”  

Yes, and will contain other costs by denying coverage and as many claims as it can, for absurd reasons or none, knowing full well the percentages of people who will be too old or sick (beautiful) to fight for what they've paid for, or will die first.  (I’m referring to those who have insurance in the first place, of course.)

The role of government?  To protect people from that – or, as it is currently before us, to give them an alternative.

mugsy:

You state very reasonably:  “If it . . . does not diminish the quality of our healthcare . . . .”  

I am not here to *knock* the quality of American health care, or doctors, or hospitals.  I do always wonder personally, though, how many of the people parroting that all are the best in the world have ever been treated anywhere else.  Also, while the issues are not simple and quantification is open to challenge, the fact that the World Health Organization ranked us 37th has to give some pause.  

my opinion:

I was scrolling back (after writing the above) and by the merest happenstance noticed you had today added a comment to me under the “Cranberry’s resident crank” post.  If we’re going to fight, I won’t ignore you.  In fact, I asked the same question myself once:  Where to comment when the discussion has moved on?  Your diligence back there is logical, and I speak with no authority here, but I don’t think you should count on too many people finding your comments very long after we’ve been given a new place to play.  Current or the one before seems to be what works.  And don’t worry about Mr. Henry.  As he has recognized, we use his space to talk about whatever we want.  At least I do.  

Anyway, the dispute you have with me back there is pretty much what exists here – unless you disagree – so I think this should do for now.

Welcome!  

"I am not here to *knock* the quality of American health care, or doctors, or hospitals.  I do always wonder personally, though, how many of the people parroting that all are the best in the world have ever been treated anywhere else.  Also, while the issues are not simple and quantification is open to challenge, the fact that the World Health Organization ranked us 37th has to give some pause.  "

Hi Callsigntourist,

If you look at your own argument, it may lead you to mine. How many here have been treated elsewhere? Very few. How many elsewhere have sought treatment here? Very many. The 37 ranking is interesting, but  the results are more a reflection of the process than of a qualitative measurement of the system. In responsiveness to patients needs, the US ranked first but that was just a small portion of the equation.

The top five in the WHO rankings were France, Italy, San Marino, Andora and Malta. Would we prefer to seek treatment in these places rather than the US? I think not, and I think that those who live in other nations and vote with their cash, vote to seek treatment here.

I had a revealing experience in Italy 9 years ago.  While there on a family vacation, my father experienced some discomfort and ended up in a local hospital for some tests.  He spent 3 days in the hospital, getting a series of tests, which didn't turn up any problems.   When the doctor discharged him, we asked where to go to pay, and he told us "just go, there is no charge."  So to the question, would I rather seek treatment in Italy than here, the answer is definitely yes.  Payment was not an issue - no need to determine which plan the patient had and what was covered.  I quess that wouldn't be good enough for us in the US.

Hi, mugsy!

When the report came out, I saw “patients’ needs,” didn’t know what it meant, and didn’t pursue it.  I just did, quickly, and found this from the Citizens’ Council on Health Care (I don’t know what that is, either, but it is holding a “Freedom Celebration Dinner” on November 9 to mark the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Wall, and has a senior citizen holding a “Government Run Health Care No No No” sign at a tea party on its main page, so it does not look too lefty):

“Interestingly, the WHO completely failed to broadcast that America's health system ranked first in responsiveness to patients' needs for choice of provider, dignity, autonomy, timely care, and confidentiality. In other words, where it matters most to patients, the U.S. system excels.”

www.cchconline.org/.../whoart.php3

That seems to explain “patients’ needs” as choice, dignity, etc.  If correct, it does not seem to be a measure of making people well.

As for people going to the U.S. for treatment, my own observation/guess is that it is very often for transplants.  We’re number one!   Other reasons, other cases, too, sure.  You will, though, also be aware of the growth in what’s called “medical tourism” by, for example, Americans going to India.  

Mugsy, I agree with you.  Again, I am not knocking the medical part of American health care.  As born2run just illustrated, it simply is not magically special in some unique American way.

The quality of our health care is excellent; we get very low marks for accessibility. If you are very wealthy the US is the best place to be sick-kind of makes sense given our profit driven system.

mugsy:

A while back, I said in a comment, “I think it was mugsy who,” attributing and then directing something to you.  It was not you.  I apologize.

Mr. Henry, sir, of power and position at the P-G:

When we click on a commenter’s name right here, we are transported to that person’s bio page.  At the top left is the number of posts the person has made.  Clicking the number activates a search.   Sometimes this reveals some posts (usually only a few where there should obviously be many more); in most cases the result is “no results.”

If I understand the intention correctly, it would be a useful feature.  Is there anything anyone can do?  Thank you.

Callsigntourist- Your were right, I was lost. I just joined both the PG and the BVT blogs a week or so ago and they have their differences. I will try to "fight" you on the correct blog, but if you think about it, if you don't know I said something bad about you, you can't respond.

To all:  we just cherry pick the stats that support our point of view.  I have to believe that noone here thinks healthcare is second to any country. Yes there are some doctors that are not very good as mentioned above, overall our healthcare is tops.  To me the real issues are access by those without insurance and costs.  Now does anyone believe that the healthcare providers/hospitals etc are not raising their prices to the insurance companies.  When I read these blogs I get the sense that most feel that cost is just an insurance thing.  Has anyone looked at a detailed bill from a hospital stay?  The costs on there are not an insurance thing until it is sent to insurance for payment.  That bill was generated from interaction between the patient and the doctor. How does the "Public Option Plan, POP" plan to control the provider costs?  Insurance profits pale compared to those costs.

Not here to defend the insurance co, but how will costs be contained under the POP?  Are doctor, nurses, hospital employee etc going to take a cut in pay?  Will equipment co reduce cost of MRI machines? Will utilities reduce cost of electric, gas, water etc?  All efforts have been diverted to the evil insurance co by those that don't want to address these questions.  This is where the heavy lifting is. Someone please explain how cost control is going to happen and I will be a big supporter.