Proof that health care reform will pass

**Epaphras** · 08-20-2009, 09:37 AM

Gates Foundation Sells Off Most Health-Care, Pharmaceutical Holdings - WSJ.com

The Gates folks understand the implications of a public option in the health care market, and are abandoning ship as they observe the iceberg approaching. A public ensurer will crowd out the private insurers, and we'll end up with a single-payer system anyway.

This is the final proof I need that this legislation is going to be rammed through no matter how much resistance it faces from the voting public. There is a power structure at work here that is not accountable to the people. The Washington elites truly believe they know what is best for us. They'll be surprised in 2010.

**slap_j** · 08-20-2009, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epaphras

There is a power structure at work here that is not accountable to the people.

Since, like, forever.

**Epaphras** · 08-20-2009, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slap_j

Since, like, forever.

I think people are waking up to this for the first time though. You had a little bit of it during the Bush war years, when no matter how much protest there was, the gears of the military-industrial complex seemed to keep spinning independently of public opinion. Today, a majority of people are opposed to or skeptical of the proposed health legislation. Yet the votes and opinions of our elected officials does not reflect the will of the people. The elitism at these town halls ("I know better than you what's best for you") is evidence of this, and people are finally starting to put two and two together.

Bryan · 08-20-2009, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epaphras

Gates Foundation Sells Off Most Health-Care, Pharmaceutical Holdings - WSJ.com

The Gates folks understand the implications of a public option in the health care market, and are abandoning ship as they observe the iceberg approaching. A public ensurer will crowd out the private insurers, and we'll end up with a single-payer system anyway.

This is the final proof I need that this legislation is going to be rammed through no matter how much resistance it faces from the voting public. There is a power structure at work here that is not accountable to the people. The Washington elites truly believe they know what is best for us. They'll be surprised in 2010.

A public option will not crowd out private insurers.

**Epaphras** · 08-20-2009, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryan

A public option will not crowd out private insurers.

How could it not? It plays by a different set of rules (i.e. every has to pay premiums), AND it has the entire Treasury bankrolling it. No private insurer can compete with that.

Bryan · 08-20-2009, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epaphras

How could it not? It plays by a different set of rules (i.e. every has to pay premiums), AND it has the entire Treasury bankrolling it. No private insurer can compete with that.

what is this different set of rules? perhaps you misunderstand how it works. The public option will have a premium associated with it just like the private options. People who participate will have to pay the premium just like everybody else. For those who have a low enough income, they will receive subsidies to help cover the cost of the premiums. So unless the government lowballs the price that the normal person pays in premiums and the rate is comparable to the rest of the market, then it won't cause a problem.

**Epaphras** · 08-20-2009, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryan

what is this different set of rules? perhaps you misunderstand how it works. The public option will have a premium associated with it just like the private options. People who participate will have to pay the premium just like everybody else. For those who have a low enough income, they will receive subsidies to help cover the cost of the premiums. So unless the government lowballs the price that the normal person pays in premiums and the rate is comparable to the rest of the market, then it won't cause a problem.

It is my belief that because a public option would have the Treasury behind it, the government will lowball premiums initially, and aslo offer other legislative incentives to get employers off private plans and on to the public "option"; then when the private insurers are out of business, the public plan will raise rates to their hearts' content because it is not longer subject to market forces as a monopoly.

It's the same thing Wal Mart does when it goes into a community of mom-and-pop retailers (or any other "big box" retailer). Come in, low-ball, drive out the competition (or buy them up), then raise prices and corner the market.

If a single, government-run healthcare plan is more efficient, more equitable, more universal, and more technologically innovative, then great! My problem is that the government has never been known to be any of these things in their public/private ventures in the past (Amtrack, PBS, USPS, Fannie/Freddie, etc.). Why should we expect government-run health care to be better than private-run?

scarlet.starlet · 08-20-2009, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epaphras

I think people are waking up to this for the first time though. You had a little bit of it during the Bush war years, when no matter how much protest there was, the gears of the military-industrial complex seemed to keep spinning independently of public opinion. Today, a majority of people are opposed to or skeptical of the proposed health legislation. Yet the votes and opinions of our elected officials does not reflect the will of the people. The elitism at these town halls ("I know better than you what's best for you") is evidence of this, and people are finally starting to put two and two together.

I don't really see it as being the same situation. When Bush was in power, it was "I don't care what you guys say; I'm going to spend your money to kill children on the other side of the world, and in the process, kill your children as well." Now, it's Obama saying "I don't care what you guys say; I'm going to spend your money to give all of you health care."

All these town-hall protestors are throwing a fit over something that is meant to benefit them as well as everyone else. If they have a problem with the logistics of it, that is a reasonable criticism, but this senseless yelling about not wanting health care is madness. I wonder where those people were when their taxes were being used to bomb Iraqi citizens? Were they protesting about the subversion of their will then?

Bryan · 08-20-2009, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epaphras

It is my belief that because a public option would have the Treasury behind it, the government will lowball premiums initially, and aslo offer other legislative incentives to get employers off private plans and on to the public "option"; then when the private insurers are out of business, the public plan will raise rates to their hearts' content because it is not longer subject to market forces as a monopoly.

but this has never even been proposed. You are arguing against something that doesn't exist. Engage what does and make sure we do it right and we'll be far better off. It would be far more productive if Republicans would compromise on the public option but stand firm on it not becoming a single payer system. It would be a much more bi-partisan effort and Republicans would have a lot more credibility with the Democrats (who have a majority) if they would learn to work together and make compromises for the greater good.

That is what politics is all about, compromising. Nobody will get everything they want. If there was a Republican legislator who would take charge for the GOP and layout the things they want done with health care, then the GOP leadership and the Democrat Leadership could meet at the same table and hash out the details.

Instead, the GOP does nothing but grand stand about the government taking over health care. Which is not being proposed. They grand stand about death panels and rationing of care, which is not being proposed. They twist the issue because they care more about defeating Obama than doing what is best for the country.

tlj009 · 08-20-2009, 12:38 PM

Quote:

I don't really see it as being the same situation. When Bush was in power, it was "I don't care what you guys say; I'm going to spend your money to kill children on the other side of the world, and in the process, kill your children as well." Now, it's Obama saying "I don't care what you guys say; I'm going to spend your money to give all of you health care."

Those are very skewed statements. If you want them on the same ground you can rephrase like this "I don't care what you guys say, I'm going to spend your money to fight in another country so that we don't have to fight on American soil" and "I don't care what you guys say; I'm going to spend your money to give you all health care."

Or you could rephrase like this "I don't care what you guys say; I'm going to spend your money to kill children on the other side of the world, and in the process, kill your children as well." and "I don't care what you guys say; I'm going to spend your money to give all of you health care whether it regulates care to the point of preventing life saving treatments for unproductive groups or not."

See, you can twist things however you want to, but in all fairness Bush thought he was doing the right thing the same way that I am sure Obama thinks he is doing the right thing.

**Epaphras** · 08-20-2009, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryan

but this has never even been proposed. You are arguing against something that doesn't exist.

Of course it's not formally proposed, but anyone with a basic education in economics can foresee it happening. It is a reasonable, foreseeable consequence I think.

My point with the OP is that, even though it's not formally proposed, those "with eyes to see" (investors in the industries that would be affected) are jumping ship, because they don't see a future profit in private insurance.

**DaGeek** · 08-20-2009, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scarlet.starlet

I don't really see it as being the same situation. When Bush was in power, it was "I don't care what you guys say; I'm going to spend your money to kill children on the other side of the world, and in the process, kill your children as well."

Wow. Just... Wow.

Yeah. Not even gonna start on that one.

Honestly, I hope this health care junk that Mr. Obama is proposing doesn't pass, but the pessimist (and sometimes the realist) in me keeps squishing any hope that pops up that says it won't pass. Meh. Maybe some reform is needed (I honestly don't know a ton about the subject), but I really dislike what's being proposed from what I've read, both from Democrat and Republican sources.

**bravesfan007** · 08-20-2009, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaGeek

Honestly, I hope this health care junk that Mr. Obama is proposing doesn't pass, but the pessimist (and sometimes the realist) in me keeps squishing any hope that pops up that says it won't pass. Meh. Maybe some reform is needed (I honestly don't know a ton about the subject), but I really dislike what's being proposed from what I've read, both from Democrat and Republican sources.

I think that's the main issue right now. The majority of folks are saying that reform is needed, just not to the extent of Obama's plan. I am 100% against the majority of all of the different bills' wordings, but I still believe that reform is necessary. I'm not sure exactly what form it should come in, but probably not something that should be prepared over the course of a month, rushed through Congress overnight, and have years worth of impact caused from it. If only Congress could be responsible and take their time to get something right for once.

scarlet.starlet · 08-20-2009, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tlj009

Those are very skewed statements. If you want them on the same ground you can rephrase like this "I don't care what you guys say, I'm going to spend your money to fight in another country so that we don't have to fight on American soil" and "I don't care what you guys say; I'm going to spend your money to give you all health care."

Or you could rephrase like this "I don't care what you guys say; I'm going to spend your money to kill children on the other side of the world, and in the process, kill your children as well." and "I don't care what you guys say; I'm going to spend your money to give all of you health care whether it regulates care to the point of preventing life saving treatments for unproductive groups or not."

See, you can twist things however you want to, but in all fairness Bush thought he was doing the right thing the same way that I am sure Obama thinks he is doing the right thing.

How would we have had to fight the Iraqi war on American soil? As if the Iraqi army could possibly muster the resources to come over here and attack the most powerful military on earth?

**DaGeek** · 08-20-2009, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scarlet.starlet

How would we have had to fight the Iraqi war on American soil? As if the Iraqi army could possibly muster the resources to come over here and attack the most powerful military on earth?

Last time I checked (very recently, actually), the enemy wasn't the Iraqi Army, nor has it been for many years. Please, educate yourself on the conflict and talk to real soldiers who have been there who actually know what's going on before you make statements like your previous statement and this one. It will only help you, not hinder you. If you disagree with the conflict, that's your own business; however, please get the facts straight before doing so.