Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Washington (State) to Offer First US Public Option

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Washington (State) to Offer First US Public Option

    https://apnews.com/3370e660b151433a95633f21d3f4d85d

    What a joke. This is a half-measure if I've ever seen it.

    The move thrusts Washington into the national debate over the government’s role in health care, with a hybrid model that puts the state to the left of market-only approaches but stops short of a completely public system.

    Instead, the state will dictate the terms of the public option plans but hire private insurance companies to administer them, saving the state from having to create a new bureaucracy — and guaranteeing a role for the insurance industry in managing the new public option.

    Why though? **** the insurance companies. What reason do they have to make sure the public option is successful?

  • #2
    Originally posted by OleNumber7 View Post
    https://apnews.com/3370e660b151433a95633f21d3f4d85d

    What a joke. This is a half-measure if I've ever seen it.

    The move thrusts Washington into the national debate over the government’s role in health care, with a hybrid model that puts the state to the left of market-only approaches but stops short of a completely public system.

    Instead, the state will dictate the terms of the public option plans but hire private insurance companies to administer them, saving the state from having to create a new bureaucracy — and guaranteeing a role for the insurance industry in managing the new public option.

    Why though? **** the insurance companies. What reason do they have to make sure the public option is successful?
    What reason do you think the government does?

    In politics it pays more to campaign on issues than solve them.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post

      What reason do you think the government does?

      In politics it pays more to campaign on issues than solve them.
      To make the populous healthier and happier. To not allow private insurance and hospitals to drive citizens into insurmountable debt over things like childhood cancer, or any other affliction that may befall them.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by OleNumber7 View Post

        To make the populous healthier and happier. To not allow private insurance and hospitals to drive citizens into insurmountable debt over things like childhood cancer, or any other affliction that may befall them.
        Sorry, but "the government" doesn't actually care about that kind of thing any more than your average corporation. The VA wasn't shredding applications because they cared.

        And how does nationalizing just the insurance part make health care affordable? I can assure you, insurance or no, the health care itself is not 'affordable'

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post

          Sorry, but "the government" doesn't actually care about that kind of thing any more than your average corporation. The VA wasn't shredding applications because they cared.

          And how does nationalizing just the insurance part make health care affordable? I can assure you, insurance or no, the health care itself is not 'affordable'
          Seems like other countries manage to do it effectively and have better healthcare than us. Surely, the "Greatest Country in the world" should be able to figure it out, no?

          Comment


          • #6
            As someone that lives in Washington, they do some dumb ass ****. Wonder if this plan will cover the people doped out at the free heroin sites.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by OleNumber7 View Post

              Seems like other countries manage to do it effectively and have better healthcare than us. Surely, the "Greatest Country in the world" should be able to figure it out, no?
              There are as many systems as there are countries. From some we could take some ideas. What to do. As well as what not to.

              Your main hurdle, however will be actually selling what it is you want to do. That's where you guys always lose. Because for the majority of Americans, things aren't nearly as bad-off, health care wise, as you try to represent.

              And so campaigning on taking things away with the promise of bureaucratic rescue always fails.

              Few people have the kind of faith in our bureaucratic government that your subset does.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post

                There are as many systems as there are countries. From some we could take some ideas. What to do. As well as what not to.

                Your main hurdle, however will be actually selling what it is you want to do. That's where you guys always lose. Because for the majority of Americans, things aren't nearly as bad-off, health care wise, as you try to represent.

                And so campaigning on taking things away with the promise of bureaucratic rescue always fails.

                Few people have the kind of faith in our bureaucratic government that your subset does.
                Seems like the number is 60% and growing.

                https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-amer...ll-health-care

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by OleNumber7 View Post

                  Seems like the number is 60% and growing.

                  https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-amer...ll-health-care
                  That only works until the curtain of marketing speak falls and you can no longer hide the details...

                  https://www.apnews.com/4516833e7fb644c9aa8bcc11048b2169

                  Americans like the idea of “Medicare-for-all,” but support flips to disapproval if it would result in higher taxes or longer waits for care.

                  But if they were told that a government-run system could lead to delays in getting care or higher taxes, support plunged to 26 percent and 37 percent, respectively. Support fell to 32 percent if it would threaten the current Medicare program.

                  “The issue that will really be fundamental would be the tax issue,” said Robert Blendon, a professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health who reviewed the poll. He pointed out that state single-payer efforts in Vermont and Colorado failed because of concerns about the tax increases needed to put them in place.

                  ...

                  Mollyann Brodie, director of the Kaiser poll, said the big swings in approval and disapproval show that the debate over “Medicare-for-all” is in its infancy. “You immediately see that opinion is not set in stone on this issue,” she said.

                  Indeed, the poll found that many people are still unaware of some of the basic implications of a national health plan.

                  For example, most working-age people currently covered by an employer (55 percent) said they would be able to keep their current plan under a government-run system, while 37 percent correctly answered that they would not.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I read an interesting article from an insurance CEO on the subject. He brought up the fact that a lot of hospitals need the current reimbursements to survive. They were built on forecasts that are falling under scrutiny now. His impression was some hospitals would have to close if things changed to a single payer system.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by OleNumber7 View Post

                      Seems like other countries manage to do it effectively and have better healthcare than us. Surely, the "Greatest Country in the world" should be able to figure it out, no?
                      Those countries don't get stuck with the R&D like we do.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by OmegaBronco13 View Post
                        I read an interesting article from an insurance CEO on the subject. He brought up the fact that a lot of hospitals need the current reimbursements to survive. They were built on forecasts that are falling under scrutiny now. His impression was some hospitals would have to close if things changed to a single payer system.
                        So close them. Hospitals don't need to be private businesses. Healthcare isn't something to be profited off of. These are peoples lives. The same people who care about abortion, should care about life in general.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by OleNumber7 View Post

                          So close them. Hospitals don't need to be private businesses. Healthcare isn't something to be profited off of. These are peoples lives. The same people who care about abortion, should care about life in general.
                          Meanwhile, no matter how poorly run some are, the only entity most people are convinced would do worse is our government.

                          But back to the state thing. The most Prog states in the nation have looked at this, see the actual price tag at the end of the day, and quickly scurry off.

                          If it's such a grand, slam dunk idea, California should be able to do it. But they won't. There's a lesson there. Your party should take note before trying to win an election on it.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post

                            Meanwhile, no matter how poorly run some are, the only entity most people are convinced would do worse is our government.

                            But back to the state thing. The most Prog states in the nation have looked at this, see the actual price tag at the end of the day, and quickly scurry off.

                            If it's such a grand, slam dunk idea, California should be able to do it. But they won't. There's a lesson there. Your party should take note before trying to win an election on it.
                            ""hOw dO wE pAy 4 iT"

                            by cutting the bloated military budget champ.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by OleNumber7 View Post

                              ""hOw dO wE pAy 4 iT"

                              by cutting the bloated military budget champ.
                              You could disband the military. Still wouldn't come close.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X