Public Option Rejected by Senate Finance Committee

[Sbane]

God damn it

You want a public option?

[Sbane]

I knew I supported Hillary Clinton for a good reason.

Yeah she would probably have the balls to get this through congress.

[Sbane]

Perhaps he does exist!

What would you rather have? Hopefully you understand the current system is not working and it actually makes American businesses uncompetitive.

Of course we already do have universal healthcare. Just go down to the local ER to see what I'm talking about.

[Sbane]

Maybe this will get them to realize that a public option and employer mandates (this in particular) are unsustainable, both politically and economically. I agree we need reform, but the constant political maneuvering won't help anybody.

If anything, we need to move away from employer based insurance, prevent insurance companies from dropping people's coverage or denying customers for medical conditions, and so on. Let's face it, at this point most Democrats are fighting for the public option as a matter of political pride, not political pragmatism or "to help the American people". Hopefully a partisan deadlock is created, thus forcing them to compromise. So yeah, I'm happy for now.

I agree that we need to get away from employer based healthcare and the democrats don't seem to be changing that. But I do support a non subsidized, not for profit public option that competes fairly with private health insurance companies and negotiates fairly with hospitals and doctors. Those who can't afford healthcare should get subsidies and they should be able to choose the public option or private health care depending on who can provide the lowest price.

[Sbane]

Maybe this will get them to realize that a public option and employer mandates (this in particular) are unsustainable, both politically and economically. I agree we need reform, but the constant political maneuvering won't help anybody.

If anything, we need to move away from employer based insurance, prevent insurance companies from dropping people's coverage or denying customers for medical conditions, and so on. Let's face it, at this point most Democrats are fighting for the public option as a matter of political pride, not political pragmatism or "to help the American people". Hopefully a partisan deadlock is created, thus forcing them to compromise. So yeah, I'm happy for now.

I agree that we need to get away from employer based healthcare and the democrats don't seem to be changing that. But I do support a non subsidized, not for profit public option that competes fairly with private health insurance companies and negotiates fairly with hospitals and doctors. Those who can't afford healthcare should get subsidies and they should be able to choose the public option or private health care depending on who can provide the lowest price.

"I agree that we need to get away from employer based healthcare and the democrats don't seem to be changing that. But I do support a non subsidized, not for profit public option that competes fairly with private health insurance companies and negotiates fairly with hospitals and doctors. Those who can't afford healthcare should get subsidies and they should be able to choose the public option or private health care depending on who can provide the lowest price."

And there is the rub, sbane. The bold assumes away what is in play.

How exactly is that? And I admit I don't know the ins and outs of the plan. To me it's more important that hospitals, doctors and even pharmaceuticals get paid fairly (after negotiations of course). As for Health insurance companies...meh. I certainly would not support a plan where the public option was being subsidized. That to me strikes as unfair. But if it's able to provide the same service at a lower cost without additional help from the government, I don't see what's so wrong with that.

[Sbane]

Not to mention, a Emergency Room can't deny care anyway, so America already has a "de facto" Universal Health System.

ER treatment is extremely expensive. It's much more cost effective to treat people for "sniffles" and test them regularly and give them generic pills to prevent diseases, heart attacks and so forth. And if you think you aren't paying for their care you must be dreaming. In the end all of us are paying for their care through increased hospital costs, ambulance costs etc.

[Sbane]

Finance committee isn't important, it was never going to pass there, because the Finance committee is incredibly conservative. What's important is the budget committee, where the HELP and Finance bills are combined. We absolutely need a public option to come out of there, or bad things are going to happen.

I think the whole problem with the debate is not about "public options" but the legislation that is included with the public option item.  The public option already exists, as people who are on welfare or unemployment have access to medical care through their state plans, and no one really objects to that.

Do all states offer medical care for those on welfare or unemployement (and of course this does nothing for those who can't afford insurance)? Or are some states put at an disadvantage just for doing the right thing? I would much rather have a federal health plan for the disadvantaged and absolutely get rid of things like Medical so we can better compete for businesses and jobs with third world countries like Texas.

Also I think we need to get away from employer based healthcare since it puts our companies at a disadvantage compared to those overseas. Healthcare is the reason why American car companies are more willing to set up shop in Canada rather than expand or even save jobs here (they are cutting everywhere of course but the latest investments have been going to Canada and Japanese companies enjoy these same advantages).