Robert Reich Explains The Public Option

Via jacobkornbluthdotcom

Robert Reich speaks directly on what the 'public option' is and why it is so important to health care reform.

17 comments:

GottaLaff said... / Sep 8, 2009, 7:28:00 PM  

I'm posting this too, Codester. Thanks. It needs to get around.

<3

J said... / Sep 8, 2009, 7:36:00 PM  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ-6ebku3_E

Codester said... / Sep 9, 2009, 6:22:00 AM  

Perfect, J.

No 1) I'm all for it. The insurance industry brings nothing to the health care equation. It only takes.

No 2) Since that's not what happened in Canada and private insurance companies still thrive and rake in their enormous profits... I find it unlikely they'll be biting the dust here either.

J said... / Sep 9, 2009, 11:44:00 AM  

All I wish is that the president would be honest in his intentions and say what he's for. All this crap about "choice and competition" is a farce and most honest progressives want single payer and could care less if insurance companies go out of business.

Codester said... / Sep 9, 2009, 8:10:00 PM  

most honest progressives want single payer and could care less if insurance companies go out of business.

What does the insurance industry bring to the health care equation?? What do they offer? Why are they necessary?

J said... / Sep 10, 2009, 2:29:00 AM  

In short, they pay for expensive procedures that people need so they don't go bankrupt. So are you an honest progressive and will you admit to me that this "choice and competition" stuff is poppycock? You want single payer, you want the profit motive removed from healthcare because you think that is immoral, right? It's a respectable position, just one I don't agree with.

Codester said... / Sep 10, 2009, 2:45:00 PM  

The insurance companies pay?

They didn't bring that money with them... that's not "their" money they're "paying" with.

Who's money is it, J?

Let me ask one more time... what does the insurance companies offer in the equation of "patient, health provider, insurance" ménage à trois?

J said... / Sep 10, 2009, 5:16:00 PM  

Yes, insurance companies pay.

"that's not "their" money they're "paying" with."

If I give you a dollar, that becomes your dollar..right? Insurance companies charge you whether or not you need service in order to pay for people when they actually need medical assistance.

"Who's money is it, J?"

That would be "Whose".


"Let me ask one more time... what does the insurance companies offer in the equation of "patient, health provider, insurance" ménage à trois?"

Stop getting all sexual with me. I've explained, insurance protects your savings and protects you from bankruptcy for expensive services.

Codester said... / Sep 11, 2009, 1:18:00 AM  

So, I need an organization to hand my dollar to the health provider for me? And I pay them an HUGE "administrative fee" to do that for me? And they give me NOTHING else?

LOL Nice try.

They bring no service to the table. All there needs to be is the patient and the health provider. The insurance carrier is useless.

http://is.gd/38wCN

J said... / Sep 11, 2009, 2:31:00 PM  

"So, I need an organization to hand my dollar to the health provider for me? And I pay them an HUGE "administrative fee" to do that for me? And they give me NOTHING else?"

They pay for your expensive healthcare, this isn't that hard to understand young lady. I don't know how you extrapolate that they give you NOTHING else when they foot the bill when you get sick.


"They bring no service to the table. All there needs to be is the patient and the health provider. The insurance carrier is useless."

I actually agree with you, which is why I don't want the 53 new government agencies and a health board in between me and my health provider. You guys want to substitute one poison for an even worse poison. Medicare is going bankrupt, social security is going bankrupt, there's billions of dollars worth of fraud and abuse in military and other affairs, and somehow single payer is supposed to be the miracle magic bullet that won't go bankrupt or waste money!

The ONLY way for you to keep the relationship between you and a health provider as 1 on 1 as possible is for you to pay your health provider directly. In order to make that possible, we need market forces to bring prices down as has happened in vet care and plastic surgery.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/Story?id=8026098&page=1

If you're mad about insurance company "obscene" profits, then support policies that drive the cost of healthcare down.

Codester said... / Sep 11, 2009, 2:52:00 PM  

"If you're mad about insurance company "obscene" profits, then support policies that drive the cost of healthcare down."

Imagine what our "greatest health care system in the world" would be... if there was no insurance companies and we simply paid all our premiums straight to the health provider. The only thing insurance companies make possible, is that everyone shares the burden of cost evenly... for those who end up needing the care. What's left over for them? Enormous profits. Image the medical research that could be accomplished if that "excess" money was in the hands of the health care industry.

The ONLY way for you to keep the relationship between you and a health provider as 1 on 1 as possible is for you to pay your health provider directly.

Thanks. I couldn't agree more.

J said... / Sep 11, 2009, 4:03:00 PM  

"Thanks. I couldn't agree more."

Not sure if you do if you are a single payer supporter.

I'm a fan of letting insurance companies compete across state lines to drive prices down, a tax credit for me so I don't have to go through my employer to buy healthcare, and Health Savings Accounts. That's all designed so that I pay my healthcare more directly, rather than my employer deciding what kind of health policy I get. My employer doesn't choose my auto insurance, they shouldn't be in the business of choosing my health insurance either.

Codester said... / Sep 11, 2009, 4:48:00 PM  

LOL "...more directly..."

You're a gas.

Codester said... / Sep 11, 2009, 5:15:00 PM  

Admin costs:

Social Security- 0.9%
Medicare- 3%

Insurance Companies? 29%

http://is.gd/3a1xT

J said... / Sep 11, 2009, 6:39:00 PM  

"Admin costs:

Social Security- 0.9%
Medicare- 3%

Insurance Companies? 29%"

What's your point?


To put it another way, the total unfunded indebtedness of Social Security and Medicare comes to $106.4 trillion. That is how much larger the nation's capital stock would have to be today, all of it owned by the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, to generate enough income to pay all the benefits that have been promised over and above future payroll taxes. But the nation's total private net worth is only $51.5 trillion, according to the Federal Reserve. In effect, we have promised the elderly benefits equal to more than twice the nation's total wealth on top of the payroll tax.

Codester said... / Sep 12, 2009, 12:46:00 AM  

Good thing we don't have those "wonderful" insurance company's admin costs as well then... huh?

Ya know... the insurance companies that pay for everything... out of the goodness of their hearts... with their own money and everything.

J said... / Sep 12, 2009, 4:35:00 PM  

Point is, SS and Medicare are entities that we've set up, promised everybody the sun moon and stars...and can't pay for unless everybody is willing to take a drastic cut to their standard of living. Any "public option" or single payer will make the same promises and end up in the same situation as other government entitlements we already have. Most countries with single payer are waking up to the reality that they've promised their citizens too much and are in the process of privatizing a lot of their healthcare needs. Sweden is center-right now, so is Canada.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdx_2cuPgQQ

Post a Comment