Pushing for a Public Plan

[Revmitchell]

Liberal groups have hit TV and radio with ads praising the idea of a public health insurance plan, an option that President Obama and other Democrats support as part of changes to the health care system. But the ads lack context and could well mislead the public:

* A TV ad by Health Care for America Now asks, "What if we stripped away the 13 billion dollar insurance company profits?" Our answer: It wouldn't make much of a difference. The ad fails to mention that the figure represents six-tenths of 1 percent of all health care spending. And profits wouldn't necessarily be eliminated or reduced by the creation of a public insurance option.

* The HCAN ad features a graphic that shows a monthly premium bill rising to more than $600. But that's double the average monthly bill for a family with employer-sponsored coverage.

* The TV spot also claims that health insurance company CEOs received $119 million in "bonuses," which is false. That figure represents total compensation, including salary.

Separately, a radio ad from MoveOn.org Political Action attacks Democratic Sen. Landrieu for opposing a public plan. The radio ad implies that Landrieu is influenced by "$1.6 million in campaign contributions from the health care industry." But that figure is both inflated and misleading. It includes donations from insurance companies that have nothing to do with health care. And it lumps together donations from health care groups and professionals on both sides of the issue.


More Here

 

[LeBuick]

I don't understand the point, I see more commercials against the public plan. I about got one memorized....

You'll have bureaucrats choosing your doctor and care they can give by what they are willing pay for.

Every time I hear that commercial I wonder what is different from now if you insert the word insurer instead of bureaucrats. I have to choose a doctor that takes my plan and he has to choose procedures covered by my insurer. What's going to change?

 

[donnA]

he wants to cut down on prescriptins, tests, procedures, down as in fewer then current. thats a chage. he wants to cut medicare, means seniors are going to suffer for it, some not getting needed medications. but when one does not value huamn life, killing off a few old people means nothing, I mean anyone who thinks killing a baby is ok will kill anyone.

 

[LeBuick]

he wants to cut down on prescriptins, tests, procedures, down as in fewer then current. thats a chage. he wants to cut medicare, means seniors are going to suffer for it, some not getting needed medications. but when one does not value huamn life, killing off a few old people means nothing, I mean anyone who thinks killing a baby is ok will kill anyone.

Most of your post us just from not knowing or from GOP rhetoric which is simply not try.

However, the test procedures comment I would like to correct... It wants to reduce the number of tests to relieve the Dr from liability. Eliminating unnecessary test will be a huge cost savings. Currently, most of the test run are just to cover the doctor against malpractice claims. By reducing that risk will get rid of a lot of testing for the sake of testing.

And don't forget the other part Donna, it is still between you and your doctor how many and which test to run. He is just trying to eliminate the malpractice liability if the service your doctor provided was reasonable according to your symptoms.

 

[just-want-peace]

He is just trying to eliminate the malpractice liability if the service your doctor provided was reasonable according to your symptoms.

LB, I have been misreading you for long time.

I have finally realized that you are simply playing "DEVIL'S ADVOCATE".

You have done a masterful job, I must say!!!!:thumbs:

 

[rbell]

Every time I hear that commercial I wonder what is different from now if you insert the word insurer instead of bureaucrats.

Are some insurance companies contributing to our healthcare problems? You bet.

However, "insurers" does not equal "government bureaucrats:"

• Insurers cannot fine or imprison you for committing heinous crimes, such as not answering invasive Census questions, or not carrying health insurance.
• Insurers don't control other aspects of your life...important aspects, such as how much water your toilet flushes.
• Insurers can't team up with other entities such as the IRS, EPA, and other parts of the alphabet, to make your life miserable.
• When insurers really foul up, you can leave them for another, better insurer. (yes...there are numerous problems here, because truly sick folk can't...and that IS a problem we need to work on). Depending on the legislation...that might not happen with the gubmint.
• When your insurer fouls up...you have a way to complain: If it's a government entity, your recourse you have has a built-in conflict of interest--government overseeing government. Some folks do well...but many do not. Yikes.

Gov't bureaucrats and insurers are not the same.

 

[rbell]

And don't forget the other part Donna, it is still between you and your doctor how many and which test to run. He is just trying to eliminate the malpractice liability if the service your doctor provided was reasonable according to your symptoms.

Your reasoning flaw is apparent: you are assuming that the government's role is static.

Look...especially under Obama...government's role only goes one direction: more invasvie.

Ask the automakers. Ask the people who have read the c(r)ap and trade junk (don't ask the Representatives...they didn't read it. I read much it. Scary and evil.) Ask those who are in the know about this scary piece of legislation.

In general, government...and especially this government...will not sit quietly in the background. Under the guise of "diversity, equality, environmental safety, reproductive guidelines, education," and a host of other buzzwords that cover up goverment invasiveness...your rights will be infringed upon. Not seeing that is not honestly viewing the trends of our government's recent behavior.

 

[RAdam]

I've never understood why the insurance companies are always viewed as the bad guys. Sure, they are some scumbags way up the ladder there, but that is the case in every industry in America, and is more rampant in government than probably anywhere else. Does having a few greedy scumbags make all of the private insurance industry evil and bad? That's a ridiculous position, particularly when the alternative suggestion is for government to take over. I'm thankful for my insurance, it has saved me a ton of money, and I get great healthcare. Also, this idea that you are restricted in who you see is just nonsense. I have just about a free range of doctors I can see on my insurance.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Liberal groups have hit TV and radio with ads praising the idea of a public health insurance plan, an option that President Obama and other Democrats support as part of changes to the health care system. But the ads lack context and could well mislead the public:

Of course, political ads run by the right are 100% honest and NEVER mislead the public.

Mitch, I thought you were a free speech proponent. Guess I was wrong.

 

[windcatcher]

Of course, political ads run by the right are 100% honest and NEVER mislead the public.

Mitch, I thought you were a free speech proponent. Guess I was wrong.

Isn't free speech supposed to balance the unfairness of misleading or deliberating weighting information to favor only one side?

 

[Revmitchell]

he wants to cut down on prescriptins, tests, procedures, down as in fewer then current. thats a chage. he wants to cut medicare, means seniors are going to suffer for it, some not getting needed medications. but when one does not value huamn life, killing off a few old people means nothing, I mean anyone who thinks killing a baby is ok will kill anyone.

That is about it.

 

[LeBuick]

Are some insurance companies contributing to our healthcare problems? You bet.

However, "insurers" does not equal "government bureaucrats:"

• Insurers cannot fine or imprison you for committing heinous crimes, such as not answering invasive Census questions, or not carrying health insurance.
• Insurers don't control other aspects of your life...important aspects, such as how much water your toilet flushes.
• Insurers can't team up with other entities such as the IRS, EPA, and other parts of the alphabet, to make your life miserable.
• When insurers really foul up, you can leave them for another, better insurer. (yes...there are numerous problems here, because truly sick folk can't...and that IS a problem we need to work on). Depending on the legislation...that might not happen with the gubmint.
• When your insurer fouls up...you have a way to complain: If it's a government entity, your recourse you have has a built-in conflict of interest--government overseeing government. Some folks do well...but many do not. Yikes.

Gov't bureaucrats and insurers are not the same.

If I get the gist of your post your just against MORE government intervention.

This could be a valid point but to use the argument of tests or procedures isn't. I can agree to some degree that we don't need more government intervention but I really don't see any alternative to controlling cost.

I am not saying government involvement is sure to control cost just that without government involvement will have business as usual and no hope of cost being controlled.

 

[LeBuick]

Your reasoning flaw is apparent: you are assuming that the government's role is static.

Look...especially under Obama...government's role only goes one direction: more invasvie..

Obama isn't writing the legislation, congress is. This is why we as a nation need the GOP to be giving valid input toward a good compromising solution instead of just standing in the way, being negative and saying no. Why don't they propose valid alternatives that won't amount to business as usual?

 

[LeBuick]

I've never understood why the insurance companies are always viewed as the bad guys. Sure, they are some scumbags way up the ladder there, but that is the case in every industry in America, and is more rampant in government than probably anywhere else. Does having a few greedy scumbags make all of the private insurance industry evil and bad? That's a ridiculous position, particularly when the alternative suggestion is for government to take over. I'm thankful for my insurance, it has saved me a ton of money, and I get great healthcare. Also, this idea that you are restricted in who you see is just nonsense. I have just about a free range of doctors I can see on my insurance.

I think you have a good point. However, the problem seems to be self perpetuating with no end in site. From the $20 aspirin to the modern techniques some insurance won't cover.

I am glad you have such great health care and can say our is so, so. If all you need is preventive care then United Healthcare is great. But we got a different view when my daughter had surgery on her back and when my wife had a tubal pregnancy.

 

[LeBuick]

Liberal groups have hit TV and radio with ads praising the idea of a public health insurance plan, an option that President Obama and other Democrats support as part of changes to the health care system. But the ads lack context and could well mislead the public:

I agree but the conservative ads do the exact same misleading. The liberal ads paint a rosy picture of their plans while the right are using scare tactics.

We discussed this before and everyone disagreed with me, this is why I advocate ads must contain truth. Not facts using numbers you know are distorted or opinions you feel MIGHT happen in a worse case scenario, lie Joe Friday would say, just the facts...

 

[LeBuick]

Isn't free speech supposed to balance the unfairness of misleading or deliberating weighting information to favor only one side?

I don't believe lying in an ad falls under free speech. It is the same as a company advertising their product can do something it truly can't do. False advertising...