Public Healthcare Option - Compromise Floating Around

[Carmen813]

So apparently there is some talk of including a public option in the health care reform with the following caveat: states would be able to opt out of participating in the program. Basically, voters would be able to vote to have their state opt out of the program.

There is a reason they would vote opt instead of in (people are more likely to opt out of something they don't like than they are to opt in to something they do like).

Any thoughts?

 

[imported_inspire]

Cool. It's about time the folks on both sides starting coming back to center.

 

[heyheybooboo]

I gots no problems with it as long as:

1) The public option is 'reasonably' (i.e. 85%+) self-funded at the national level with serious penalties assessed for companies 'dumping' employees on it; and

2) My state does not 'vote it out', and this entire process is not a Federal mandate 'dump'. Sure, Uncle Sugar in Washington can start with good intentions and subsequently squeeze the life out of the states in 10 years.

'Decentralizing' program administration completely to the state level is not cost effective. The organizational development and administration must be a shared and irrevocable responsibility between the Fed and the states.

There must be common standards of information exchange and each state must play by the same rules (you know what I mean...)

 

[Ausm]

I think a plan like this will have masses of uninsured people moving to blue states.

 

[ElFenix]

link

according to that chart the US .gov already spends more per capita on 'health care' than the Uk .gov and the german .gov.

we're f-ed. we're just totally f-ed.

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
link

according to that chart the US .gov already spends more per capita on 'health care' than the Uk .gov and the german .gov.

we're f-ed. we're just totally f-ed.

We also pay 4 times more for drugs then most other countries too.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Ausm

We also pay 4 times more for drugs then most other countries too.

sometimes i think i'd like to pay that rate just to show the other countries how we're subsidizing their 'health care.'

the average person had 12 prescriptions filled last year.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Carmen813
Any thoughts?

This opt-out include the taxes that pay for other states? How about the insurance companies that it'll hurt, they also cross state lines don't they? Seems to me you can opt-out directly, but the negative and destructive impacts are still unavoidable.

I oppose this concept of a compromise unless you can guarantee isolation from the impacts.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: ElFenix
link

according to that chart the US .gov already spends more per capita on 'health care' than the Uk .gov and the german .gov.

we're f-ed. we're just totally f-ed.

We also pay 4 times more for drugs then most other countries too.

Ausm, you understand why that is, right? You realize that nothing short of complete socialization of the entire healthcare industry in America will do anything to fix that, right? Obama and the Dems may affect some drop in prices, but we'll still be paying a high premium over other countries. The US of A effectively subsidizes worldwide Pharma R&D.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Ausm

We also pay 4 times more for drugs then most other countries too.

sometimes i think i'd like to pay that rate just to show the other countries how we're subsidizing their 'health care.'

the average person had 12 prescriptions filled last year.

we aren't subsidizing their care

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: ElFenix
link

according to that chart the US .gov already spends more per capita on 'health care' than the Uk .gov and the german .gov.

we're f-ed. we're just totally f-ed.

We also pay 4 times more for drugs then most other countries too.

Ausm, you understand why that is, right? You realize that nothing short of complete socialization of the entire healthcare industry in America will do anything to fix that, right? Obama and the Dems may affect some drop in prices, but we'll still be paying a high premium over other countries. The US of A effectively subsidizes worldwide Pharma R&D.

no, we subsidize their economic profits

there was a thread here a while ago, and of the 50 best selling drugs, only a little less than 1/2 were developed in the united states. In reality most governments subsidize research into medicine, or pay for it outright. Pharmas pay some final development costs, as well as fda approval and related costs, and do little direct research on their own. The pharma industry has much larger profits domestically than they spend on research, which conflicts with the idea that we are subsidizing their costs

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: ElFenix
link

according to that chart the US .gov already spends more per capita on 'health care' than the Uk .gov and the german .gov.

we're f-ed. we're just totally f-ed.

We also pay 4 times more for drugs then most other countries too.

Ausm, you understand why that is, right? You realize that nothing short of complete socialization of the entire healthcare industry in America will do anything to fix that, right? Obama and the Dems may affect some drop in prices, but we'll still be paying a high premium over other countries. The US of A effectively subsidizes worldwide Pharma R&D.

That's because we are subject to Corporate communism.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: ElFenix
link

according to that chart the US .gov already spends more per capita on 'health care' than the Uk .gov and the german .gov.

we're f-ed. we're just totally f-ed.

We also pay 4 times more for drugs then most other countries too.

Ausm, you understand why that is, right? You realize that nothing short of complete socialization of the entire healthcare industry in America will do anything to fix that, right? Obama and the Dems may affect some drop in prices, but we'll still be paying a high premium over other countries. The US of A effectively subsidizes worldwide Pharma R&D.

no. The government (or at least medicare and medicaid) is banned from negotiating prices with pharmaceutical companies, making the largest single market of customers a captive market. Break that ban and you will see a decent drop in price.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: ElFenix
link

according to that chart the US .gov already spends more per capita on 'health care' than the Uk .gov and the german .gov.

we're f-ed. we're just totally f-ed.

We also pay 4 times more for drugs then most other countries too.

Ausm, you understand why that is, right? You realize that nothing short of complete socialization of the entire healthcare industry in America will do anything to fix that, right? Obama and the Dems may affect some drop in prices, but we'll still be paying a high premium over other countries. The US of A effectively subsidizes worldwide Pharma R&D.

no, we subsidize their economic profits

there was a thread here a while ago, and of the 50 best selling drugs, only a little less than 1/2 were developed in the united states. In reality most governments subsidize research into medicine, or pay for it outright. Pharmas pay some final development costs, as well as fda approval and related costs, and do little direct research on their own. The pharma industry has much larger profits domestically than they spend on research, which conflicts with the idea that we are subsidizing their costs

... except when you consider the issue on a global scale. Do you understand what it means that almost half the drugs were developed in the US in a global economy? Pharmas pay for a lot more than final development, I assure you.

 

[ElFenix]

where they are developed doesn't matter, it's whether the costs can be recouped. and the costs are recouped here and only here. how many drugs are developed that will no way be approved for here?

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: ElFenix
link

according to that chart the US .gov already spends more per capita on 'health care' than the Uk .gov and the german .gov.

we're f-ed. we're just totally f-ed.

We also pay 4 times more for drugs then most other countries too.

Ausm, you understand why that is, right? You realize that nothing short of complete socialization of the entire healthcare industry in America will do anything to fix that, right? Obama and the Dems may affect some drop in prices, but we'll still be paying a high premium over other countries. The US of A effectively subsidizes worldwide Pharma R&D.

no. The government (or at least medicare and medicaid) is banned from negotiating prices with pharmaceutical companies, making the largest single market of customers a captive market. Break that ban and you will see a decent drop in price.

mike - explain to how allowing the government to 'negotiate' the price of drugs is not complete socialization of the Pharma market? The feds tell them 'play by our rules or leave' in these 'negotiations'.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: ElFenix
link

according to that chart the US .gov already spends more per capita on 'health care' than the Uk .gov and the german .gov.

we're f-ed. we're just totally f-ed.

We also pay 4 times more for drugs then most other countries too.

Ausm, you understand why that is, right? You realize that nothing short of complete socialization of the entire healthcare industry in America will do anything to fix that, right? Obama and the Dems may affect some drop in prices, but we'll still be paying a high premium over other countries. The US of A effectively subsidizes worldwide Pharma R&D.

no. The government (or at least medicare and medicaid) is banned from negotiating prices with pharmaceutical companies, making the largest single market of customers a captive market. Break that ban and you will see a decent drop in price.

mike - explain to how allowing the government to 'negotiate' the price of drugs is not complete socialization of the Pharma market? The feds tell them 'play by our rules or leave' in these 'negotiations'.

Is this a bad joke?

The VA negotiates bulk drug prices that in many cases are 50% less than those of Medicare/Medicaid.

What part of 'prevented by law' from negotiating do you not understand?

Far from being 'socialist' as you claim ---- the Part D Big Pharma Give-A-Way was a looting of the taxpayer, a restraint of rights AND a violation of free market principles.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

no. The government (or at least medicare and medicaid) is banned from negotiating prices with pharmaceutical companies, making the largest single market of customers a captive market. Break that ban and you will see a decent drop in price.

mike - explain to how allowing the government to 'negotiate' the price of drugs is not complete socialization of the Pharma market? The feds tell them 'play by our rules or leave' in these 'negotiations'.

Wait a second.

A ban on price negotiation is less socialist than allowing buyer and seller to decide on a price?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So everyone knows the Dems have no more intention of setting pharma prices than the reps do, right? Good, that's out of the way.

I expect the government would offer this option and punish those who opt out.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: AusmI think a plan like this will have masses of uninsured people moving to blue states.

It would be interesting to see how it would work. The nation's poor and lower classes would relocate to the socialist states. Some of the middle class and most of the upper class would end up relocating to the free market states.

The free market states would probably fare better overall since they would have the people who could afford to pay taxes to support the state in the first place, pay for their own health care or receive it as benefits, and also wouldn't be burdened by having to provide welfare and health care for the poor (which raises premiums for actual purchasers). However, they would have a shortage of fast food cashiers, Walmart employees, landscape workers, and people who work other lowly jobs or they would have to pay more money and benefits in order to have them.

The socialist states would languish and be unable to provide decent health care since businesses and anyone with money would be fleeting the state while poor and needy people would be flooding in.

Overall, the compromise is a red herring that really wouldn't accomplish anything other than to prove that a significant percentage of the population is poor and needy and cannot survive without leaching off of the work of the upper classes. We would be left with the question of, "Do we want to help the poor or do we want them to die?" "What kind of a society do we want to live in?"

 

[StageLeft]

I just don't care anymore. All I want is for whatever plan the insurance industry's pig-fvcking lobbyists say is best for everyone.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: AusmI think a plan like this will have masses of uninsured people moving to blue states.

It would be interesting to see how it would work. The nation's poor and lower classes would relocate to the socialist states. Some of the middle class and most of the upper class would end up relocating to the free market states.

Somehow, I don't see Upper East Side socialites and Wall Street traders making a mad dash for Alabama...

Don't ever forget: http://www.taxfoundation.org/r..._taxesbystate-20071009

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: AusmI think a plan like this will have masses of uninsured people moving to blue states.

It would be interesting to see how it would work. The nation's poor and lower classes would relocate to the socialist states. Some of the middle class and most of the upper class would end up relocating to the free market states.

Somehow, I don't see Upper East Side socialites and Wall Street traders making a mad dash for Alabama...

Or Oklahoma

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: b0mbrmanSomehow, I don't see Upper East Side socialites and Wall Street traders making a mad dash for Alabama...

If, as a result of adverse selection and people seeking health care migrating to New York, their taxes increase dramatically, they could start moving. Perhaps they'd choose Texas over Alabama.

 

[sciwizam]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
So everyone knows the Dems have no more intention of setting pharma prices than the reps do, right? Good, that's out of the way.

I expect the government would offer this option and punish those who opt out.

Yeah, it certainly didn't help when Obama traded that for $80 billion is "savings" over 10 years from the pharmas.