Comments on: A Public Option in the Democratic Platform?

By: MarkH

MarkH — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 05:05:43 +0000

shrub stayed true to his sales pitch. He may not have kept all of his promises, but he sure delivered for his base.

Earlier this evening I was reading a news article about a new book coming out about the economic meltdown starting last year about this time. In the article it mentions that in one day, in 5 minutes, $1 Trillion was lost in the stock market when the House Republicans refused to help pass the TARP bill. In 5 freakin’ minutes $1 trillion dollars…poof, gone.

It’s a good thing they didn’t get Social Security put into the markets. I’m guessing it was Bush’s friends who got that Trillion. Yes, he delivered to his base, but is it really worth it when the entire economy of the world goes into recession and nobody makes that trillion up over the next year or two or three?

I think all-in-all Shrub was the biggest disaster America has seen short of major disastrous wars like Vietnam, the Civil war and perhaps WW I. If the historians don’t get this right they should be horse-whipped (yes, whipped with a big ‘ol horse).

By: MarkH

MarkH — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 04:58:44 +0000

Work on costs and the problem becomes manageable!

That’s precisely what the current reform legislation does.

What is cost to consumer related to? Cost of production (plant, salaries, supplies, etc.) plus profits. What restrains the profits? Fear of losing customers? Competition is key.

I should also add, there is another way of looking at the economics.

We hope to cover more people. We’re utilizing many of the current expenditures in different ways to achieve that. More product (health care) to more people without increasing money flowing through that industry in a commensurate amount means lowering cost per person.

If we increase the value (product per dollar ratio) then, as you said, it will be manageable. Even if we spend as many or more dollars than now (17% of GDP) it will be money well spent. If we can find ways to increase competition to lower the overall consumer’s costs while serving more customers with better care, then it’s a huge win.

More care (for nearly everyone).
Better quality care.
Hopefully lower, but certainly stable, costs we can afford.

Those are the president’s goals and I believe they’re just what we need. The debate about reform shows most people agree.

By: MarkH

MarkH — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 04:45:57 +0000

You’re wrong.

By: MarkH

MarkH — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 04:30:43 +0000

Couple of years ago. Maybe you weren’t paying attention at just that moment. But, you might be right that it’s a rarity and that this moment may never come again.

By: MarkH

MarkH — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 04:27:52 +0000

I disagree. Dems are NOT acting just like Repubs. The Republicans wouldn’t have even pretended to do health care reform. The Dems have gone a long way down the road and we just need to see this through.

By: MarkH

MarkH — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 04:24:28 +0000

Without doing the right things in office all the campaigning, debating, fund raising, advertising and all the rest is a waste of time. I can’t imagine why anybody in the states with Dem senators who won’t follow through would ever spend a day (or a nickel) working to get them re-elected.

Promises are just that. Action (the follow-through) is what we’re in it for.

By: MarkH

MarkH — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 04:14:31 +0000

You say they “can” control costs. But, in Texas they did tort reform (and God knows if there was ever a state where they would do tort reform hardly, it’s Texas) and they still have the most expensive city in the country for health care. Their tort reform didn’t do much of anything.

Why do people charge so much? Because they can.
Why do people lower their prices? Because they might lose the customer.
What if the customer has nowhere else to go? The provider has a monopoly.
What if the customer has another choice? The provider has competition.
Competition for the customer’s business is key and the public option is that.

If we had national competition things might be a bit better, but as things stand in most states there are only a couple of insurers and little fear of losing customers.

By: billjanes

billjanes — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 23:21:53 +0000

Whether in the platform or not, the citizen’s desires will be disregarded by inept leadership, half-hearted ‘negotiations’ and decisions to put the financial sector above people, the state of the economy above welfare of workers and political machinations above solutions to real-world problems. Look for further than the Obama ‘health care reform’ debacle.
Single Payer: Achieves all stated goals: Cuts costs, increases coverage, focuses most health care dollars on providing health care. Status: Eliminated from consideration before ‘negotiations’ began.
Real Public Option: Achieves some stated goals. Status: ‘Compromised Away’
Psuedo-Public Option: Achieves nothing. A ‘political option’, but does not achieve cost reduction; instead increases enrollment to the existing system, thereby, increasing the % of GNP devoted to health insurers and big pharma profits and continuing to reduce the number of health care dollars actually spent on providing health care. Status: Under active consideration.
Coops: Achieves nothing. A ‘political option’, that does not achieve cost reduction, increased coverage or efficiencies in the existing system; but will increase the % of GNP funneled to profits for health insurers and big pharma. Status: Under active consideration.
Trigger: Allow a prolonged period for the Republican noise machine to manufacture lies and prey on people’s fears. Status: Under active consideration.
Now that all options which would result in cost cutting, increased access and improved efficiencies are no longer under consideration, which option will the great negotiator choose as his ‘health care reform’? Whether this was in the platform or not, without leadership, it would be meaningless - observe.

By: PaulaT

PaulaT — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 23:03:09 +0000

If there were any chance to fix a bill, it would have to be a bill that doesn’t strengthen the insurance and pharma lobbies and their financial wherewithal or the opposition. The way this is heading, the lobbyists will end up with more money and power to fight and the opposition will be emboldened to just get crazier and do whatever it takes to defeat Obama. If you have to do next to nothing in these circumstances, those will make nothing look like a good alternative to the pressure to undo any good that was done.

By: nick1936

nick1936 — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 21:26:50 +0000

Waiting for CHANGE that we can believe in . If obama caves on the Public Op[tion then God help us if a forgin Power attacks us he may just fold on that also.