All throughout the northwest, criminal prosecution is done privately. It's pretty much the same, except less cost to the taxpayer. There's no CEO deciding anything.

i know...i know. i just couldn't resist. :)

Would be an interesting world.

"Sorry ma'am, we discovered that this issue with your violent husband is from a pre-existing conflict and will not cover your safety"

Can you imagine how great it would be to be a violent criminal? Just figure out which households don't have private law enforcement and have a field day.

I'm really hoping you're not serious.

awesome. hopefully i'll catch it later!

But in your example, the guy is able to go immediately under the public option, as soon as he has a cough. That's pretty optimistic.

Private prosecution as an option isn't a bad thing. But who handles the 99% of court cases where someone doesn't want to pony up the cash for private attorneys? It's still necessary to be a public/private hybrid.

Just as personal protection is a public/private hybrid. You have your police force but can pay privately for better protection.

Almost as scary as if the federal government controlled all law enforcement in the U.S.

At least when it's run by state/county, corruption can be localized. Nothing we can do about a bad federal system, whether it be healthcare or law enforcement.

You can vote out the people who are in charge of it. The same as you would do if you don't like the direction of the current military regime (another socialist venture by our government).

I don't think I'd consider the FBI "bad". I think they do a pretty good job.

as an aside, thank god we didnt allow for the privatization of Social Security looking back at the last few years.

I hope that's the way it works out but you're only taking the most optimistic factor of a greater equation.

-Lots of people put things off anyway
-Many other people will overload the public option, costing taxpayers
-The possibility of doctor/clinic shortages for the public option.

Who knows how all of these things will add up? It's easy to take the most optimistic factor, and assume that's how things will work with everyone, just as if it's easy to say that people will flood doctors and overwhelm the system for minor issues.

It all sounds very convincing when you ignore the risks.

That rhetoric is so meaningless, especially at the federal level. People went out and voted for a Democratic majority, but they still need Republicans to agree with them to do anything.

not agree, input. Thats consistent to what I clamored for when the shoe was on the other foot.

Then why are the Dems so scared shitless to do it on their own? Prove us wrong!

I know this is a favored point about other countries, but I don't buy it. This isn't Australia. Nothing you can say will convince me this is Australia.

Why not address the risks? Why is the argument always, "health care is good and people should have it". Everyone agrees with that. Then it's, "other countries can do it", despite the differences that have been pointed out. The risks are never addressed. That's why I feel they're being discounted, or ignored.

Nicole Kidman.

If every other country does this and it should be so easy, why haven't the Dems even pitched a Universal Health Care plan here? That's not what's on the table, I don't think some people realize that. This plan only covers poor people. As I said before, I'd be more in favor of a true single-payer plan (depending on the plan), then a "public option" that most people have to pay for and that risks the entire health infrastructure.

After reading some of the recent quotes coming out of the White House, I'm pretty sure that you will get your request. The Dems and Obama seem to have shifted their talking points away from seeking anything bipartisian (which was, by and large, a charade I suspect) and will likely go it alone when they reconvene.

The logic is that people shoot down the idea of universal health care simply because they consider it "socialist" while ignoring that lots of things are "socialist" in the same way. You may not be that person but there's plenty of that in this debate.

Howard Dean just reiterated this on CNBC as well. The negotiations are now between the Blue Dogs and the liberal Left. once thats done it'll likely go to vote in some form or another and the Grassley quotes will thrown around as the ribbon on the package as to why the GOP was left standing by the side....

which stinks IMO.

Good. He should keep his campaign promises. In the Democrats' time to show us their policies in action. They might not have a better time. What they can come up with should be the best they can do. Anything they "can't" do is their own fault, and shouldn't be a talking point in future elections. I'm so tired of the rhetoric about how much smarter Democrats are, and how they know what's right for the country. Do it! If they don't do it they were full of shit all along. It's so easy to say that stuff when you're out of power. When you're in power, the candyland hypotheticals aren't enough. The campaigns and the elections are over. Stop campaigning and start delivering the country you've promised, the country from your visions.

I they're struggling to get things through with 60 senators and the president, I think it would be a lot tougher with 57-58 senators and the president. Once a bill hits the floor now, republicans are powerless to stop it. All that changes with a 1-2 seat gain.

At this point, my head is spinning from all the "plans". Here's what I want to know:

1. How much is it going to cost now?
2. How much will it save 5-10 years down the road?
3. How much will it increase coverage/coverage options?
4. If there is increased coverage, what are the steps to improve our infrastructure (to limit the chance of wait times)?
5. Is there any kind of rationing in the plan? (not necessarily a deal killer, but I'd like to know if it's there)

Until I can get somewhat straight answers on these 5 items, it seems pointless to debate. 1 and 2 are the most important as if we're loading up the deficit and not saving any costs long term, I don't think adding 15-20 million people to the health care rolls is worth it. If, however, we can find a cost effective way to increase coverage and setup some long term cost savings, I'm open to a debate on the specifics.

re: #5 - you do realize there's "rationing" today by the insurance companies right? they sit there and decide what policies to cover for who. and sure you're free to pay out-of-pocket for them, but under the new bill (assuming public option) you'd be free to keep your existing coverage and nothing would change for you, and if we assume single-payer i'd presume there'd still be the option to pay "out of pocket" for non-covered things (i can't imagine given the level of affluance in this country that the rich would let that option be removed from the table, especially given that many of our senators would probably elect to use it).

Why? Most of the people that would have been privatized were 20-30 years old. So, now they are 25-32. My 401K has been a roller coaster the past 3 years but I'm not worried for when I turn 55. And, I guarantee in the next 15-20 years it will gain a lot more than the treasury and I will be smart enough to move it to fixed accounts well before I retire (as would the private option discussed a few years back).

That's a huge assumption

What I really want to know is;

-How providing unlimited free care to millions of poor people not stretch our healthcare infrastucture? How would we deal with doctor/clinic shortages? What is the plan of the shortages are more severe than expected? (the federal government isn't very good at predicting the future)
-How much will the "public option" cost for someone in the middle class? If they employers don't drop coverage, why would they opt for the public option? What if nobody wants to pay for the public option?
-How will the "public option" effect private insurance companies? (since Obama's plan only covers poor people, this is critical).
-Can future middle class tax increases be completely ruled out?
-What happens if, as in MA, expenses turn to be several times more than expected?
-What happens if the "public option" loses money? I mean, is it part of the bill that it HAS to be self-sufficient, or is that just a prediction? It's easy to forsee a spiral where there's a lot of demand, premiums on the paying middle class have to go up, their employers drop health care, and they can't afford the spiraling premiums to subsidize the poor.

it's not an assumption....it's what has been said. you're making the assumption that you wont be able to.

There are a number of restrictions for who is eligible for the public option(too many IMO). There's no point in having a discussion if you believe the language of the House bill is a lie.

Of course there's rationing now. But I want to know the extent it will change/increase in the proposed plans. If we're going to increase the number of people covered and decrease the cost, the options are reducing the price and reducing the coverage. I don't think the latter will be enough to pay for it.

I also don't buy the "free to keep your current plan" garbage. If we're going to use the "other countries do it" mantra, this is what will happen (as this is what has happened there):

1. Employer provided health care will erode away after a public plan is instituted (it just makes good business sense)
2. We'll all be stuck with a public plan we pay our taxes for plus ponying up even more per month for a private supplemental plan (what many do in Canada/UK).
3. We'll see higher waits for surgeries/appointments and most won't see any improvement in the quality/availability of care.

That's the UK/Canada model and that's not counting the fact that we have 1000% more people than Canada.

Agreed. If anything, this fall would have allowed me to invest at a very low price and the existing stock would recover long before I retired. This was a huge opportunity missed for younger people, where were the only ones involved with the plan. I'm still making a ton investing on my own during the downturn, but it would have been nice to use my SS money as well.

I mean that there's nothing to stop employers from dropping coverage. There's nothing in the bill to protect the middle class when that happens.

Obama loves to say, "if you like your plan, you can keep it", which is kind of a lie, because most people can't control whether their employers keep their plan or not.

Obama said it, but it's a lie. There's nothing in the bill that prevents employers from dropping coverage. (though he later admitted that employers might do this, so it's not really a lie, only a misleading soundbite).

In fact, the "self-sufficiency" goal of the public option requires someone to pay premiums for it, which kind of requires the middle class to lose their employer benefits at some point.

The nightmare scenerio is the middle clas having to pay out of pocket for the public option, and still be subject to wait times.

FWIW

The anti reform gang is tripping all over themselves on the network no one is watching, CNBC. 12:30 the opponent to reform got tripped up after making his talking point by the tough question, "How is it rationing?" Not a grand day for the anti-reformers...at least on CNBC which doesnt mean much.

Molson, and MBBF, if you dont believe what's being said or proposed than what is the point of the debate. If you think theyre lying than you can argue that the sky is orange.

That's a good label, "anti-reform". There's not really many of those, though. That'd be a tricky way to label opposition to this particular plan though.

I work a lot with hiring and benefits for current employees. If there's a way we can drop coverage and give everyone a 5% raise, we would jump at it. We'd still net out around $10+K (after fines) for the average employee we did that to.

Do people really think that employers will not drop coverage once the "public option cover" is there? If you have 1000+ employees, you're talking about saving $10-20 million. In this economy, that's a gold mine.

I'm sure the eight people watching are enjoying it as much as you are :funkychickendance:

as far as SS privatization, with the amount of people claiming their SS benefits over the next few years we have sapped so much out of it that we've screwed those that already put in. With the impending insolvency we wouldve tightened from the bottom while getting tightened from the top. Thank god we didnt put the squeeze on by privatizing. I guess if I always looked at things through the me, me, me purview I might agree with you all. anyways, for another thread...didnt intend to hijack this one.

agreed, me and 7 others :banghead:

So, what you're basically saying is we shouldn't have spent a little more upfront to make a system solvent for the next 20-30 years.

If that's your stance on social security, how can you be for the current changes to health care? That's going to cost a lot more up front and there's nowhere near the solvency in the system 10-20 years down the road.

I dont understand your statement (too many variables and not even bills to debate) nevertheless I didnt want to hijack this thread so perhaps we can chat over beers.

For twenty bijillionith time, SS can be fixed with a pretty modest set of means testing and tax increases. Medicare, however, is unfixable without major changes in healthcare.

Hell, you can fix SS with raising the payout age and no tax increases.

SI

My point of view is that I think we need health care reform. We need mandatory insurance (like auto insurance) and lots of regulations against insurance companies, such as ending pre-existing condition exclusions, extreme premium variances, etc. However, I am very opposed to the government being a market participant (ie, the public option). I'd rather see the government be an insurance broker - represent the poor, unemployed, and uninsured and have insurance companies compete and offer plans, which the government would help the poor to afford.

I strongly think we need to control health care costs as well, but I think expanding coverage is a good first step.

I wonder what the polling would be like if you surveyed those under 40 and asked them about raising the retirement age to 70 (as opposed to asking older folks). Personally, I'd be all for it.

Sometimes I think so much could be done if we, like Australia, mandated voting. If the under 40 crowd voted as much as the over 60 crowd, a much better society would develop, I think.

I'd sign on in a heartbeat. What I'd lose by bumping back SS a few years would more than be made up for when they didn't tax the hell out of me to keep it at the current age.

This would almost certainly result in a Democratic stranglehold unless the GOP shifted leftwards quite a bit.

Woot, an opening for Libertarian Republicans! ;)

love this idea!

Without a public option I'm skeptical of a mandate. A mandate without enough regulation on insurance companies seems to be a recipe for disaster. Sure the insurance companies are for that idea, it's a free 50 million new customers.

One of the benefits of offering health insurance over a higher salary is the lower turnover rate for a business. When your employee and their family are tied into your health insurance plan, they are less likely to leave (especially considering most jobs require 3-6 months before they will cover you).

Also, the fine is 8% of wages from what I'm reading. If you give them a raise of 5% and then they tax you 8% on the new wages, I don't see where you are getting the massive savings from. Unless your employees are making very little, the cost benefits would not be worth it, especially when you factor in the higher turnover rate and lower quality employer pool you'd be working with by not offering health insurance.

Plus, if they drop coverage and only increase wages by 5% somebody at the top is pocketing a whole lot of money.