dagblog - Comments for "How Important is the Public Option?"

Remember when you worked for

John — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 02:58:50 +0000

In reply to Of course, this depends on

Remember when you worked for a company for 30 years and retired with a pension and health insurance for life? Not any more - not because of big business - but because there is an option available - SS and Medicare. When business had to offer such benefits to attract the best employees, they did. When govt offered to do the same - the large companies are stopping benefits. Cost control is part of it, but if there was no govt option to pension and health ins - to be competitive companies would still offer such plans.

There is a problem with

John — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 02:54:32 +0000

In reply to How Important is the Public Option?

There is a problem with single payer that is missed by this article. Medicare is always overbudget and increasing millions of americans joining is not helping - despite the dozen eggs vs one egg economic theory. Historically thinking, healthcare was a service until Medicare (Govt) became involved. With the rules and regs along came MBAs and Accountants and big business. The Feds took healthcare from local to national and with it costs skyrocketed. Yes, single payer is one solution - but not the best. It will lead to rationing and outcomes will not be as good as they are now.

The Feds do not run any program efficiently and within budget - but at least the post office and defense of the country are constitutional.

Social programs are wonderful theories - no one should suffer without a job, or poor health, etc... but it is just not realistic to think government can fix all these issues. In fact, the thought process that govt, not individuals, can fix this is what leads to socialism. The govt is "us", but we think of it as "them" disolving our responsibility for our own family and neighbors.

The USA was founded on equal opportunity - not guaranteed income in retirement, not guaranteed health care, or a job for all. I am not so naive to think that programs don't evolve - but it is freedom and opportunity that make this country great - not more government.

Of course, this depends on

DF — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 17:01:00 +0000

In reply to I wonder whether more

Of course, this depends on how a public option is actually implemented, but I think you're right to observe that it might be not enough. I have private insurance also, so I'm familiar with the quandary that you describe. It might be the case that getting to where we want to be simply isn't possible without heavily re-writing the rules for the insurance industry. However, with the reluctance to regulate industry in this way that I see in the US, I'm not sure if we'll get this.

OTOH, if the public option is affordable and easy to understand, it may provide sufficient pressure through the market to get the insurance companies where we would like them to be. Considering Medicare, which is generally well-liked by its recipients and not difficult to understand, these goals don't seem quite so outlandish as they might if we were talking about creating such an option out of whole cloth.

I wonder whether more

Michael Wolraich — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 22:11:49 +0000

In reply to How Important is the Public Option?

I wonder whether more competition, even with a public option, is sufficient to improve the system. Price competition is simple enough, but quality competition is very difficult with a product this complex. As a freelancer, I have to choose my own health plan. The options are confusing as it is, but trying to figure out whether a $1000 lower deductible or a 10% higher co-insurance or a $1,000,000 higher lifetime cap is worth the extra $30/mo premium is a total crap shoot. Furthermore, it's hard to envision what my finances would be like if I were to get sick, so it's all very abstract. Then there is the availability of in-plan doctors and the quality of service to consider.

I would like to see regulation that mandates specific benefits for a basic plan or perhaps a variety of plans. Then I could be confident that two insurers offering some government specified plan would guarantee the same benefits, and I could effectively compare price and reputation for service.

Yes (as O said, BillO), and

Nebton — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:08:00 +0000

In reply to This is why I'm a mere

Yes (as O said, BillO), and my head nearly exploded. Sometimes I wonder if these people aren't going for a really long setup on a parody of the Republicans. Maybe they're just really committed to the joke.

That is a delicious bit of

David — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 13:03:52 +0000

In reply to I've heard some people say

That is a delicious bit of satire. Thanks

I think it was BillO

Orlando — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 02:16:07 +0000

In reply to This is why I'm a mere

I think it was BillO

This is why I'm a mere

DF — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 01:54:00 +0000

In reply to I've heard some people say

This is why I'm a mere student of economics and not an economist proper. In all seriousness, didn't someone like Rush Limbaugh say something to this effect recently? Something like some country having fewer deaths per capita because their population is smaller?

I've heard some people say

Nebton — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 01:00:54 +0000

In reply to How Important is the Public Option?

I've heard some people say that they just don't think a single-payer system could work in America. Sure, it works elsewhere, but it wouldn't work here.

I'm so tired of idiots like you who don't understand economies of scale. See, single-payer system works in countries like England because they're smaller, and hence things are cheaper. The reason for this is the same reason you pay more per egg when you're buying a dozen eggs then you do when you're only buying a half-dozen eggs, or how it's cheaper per ounce to buy those tiny little bottles than to buy the big 2- or 3-liter bottles, or how things are always more expensive at CostCo than at boutique specialty stores. It's all about economies of scale.

Now do you get it?