Health Care: Public Option Is A Must

I just want to go on the record here that any health care reform must include a "public option." This is an option for insurance that comes from the government, not from for-profit companies. Without it there really is no "reform."

This is a deal-breaker: no public option, then no anything, and we keep trying to get health care that works for the public instead of just taking our money to benefit a few.

Conservatives like to say that government is inefficient, incompetent, cumbersome, wasteful and can't compete with "the private sector." But NOW they're suddenly all worried that private businesses can't compete with government. The ONLY reason there is consideration of continuing the failed, greedy, destructive corporate insurance system is because the few who get rich off of it are paying off politicians to keep things they way they are.

This is about providing what is best for the people, not about watching out for corporate interests and the profits that get funneled up to a few people at the top. If business can serve the people better than the people (government) can, let them prove it by including a public insurance option in the health care reform.

Comments

[NeilDeal]

The private insurance providers had their chance to provide us with good, fare coverage. Over the years, the quality of my coverage has declined, and the premiums have risen. No more deductibles, no more preferred provider networks, no more "pre-existing conditions."

I do not think for-profit health insurance provider will ever be the answer. I do not want someone worrying about their profit margin when my health is on the line.

[SpiralUp]

sorry to post this on so many threads, but it boggles my mind:

I just heard Sen. Grassley on MSNBC talking about why he won't support a public option.

He said that studies show that 117 million people would leave their private insurance company for the public option, leaving only 50 million in private insurance, and that would increase the premiums on those left in the private sector so much as to essentially 'take away the healthcare they are happy with".

He then said that 80% of Americans are happy with their private health insurance.

If that were true, why would they leave for a public option?

[Billl]

Dispensing health care efficiently, and collecting the money to pay for it cheaply, that's the purpose of the exercise, no one can compete with the government at these two tasks, no insurance company, HMO, or hospital; nobody.

America’s Veteran Administration is the largest, lowest cost; best outcome producing at any cost, health care delivery system in the US, it uses the world’s best medical software, and it has been controlling the problems with access, cost, quality, and malpractice successfully for years.

(The Best Care Anywhere by Phillip Longman)

A national sales tax could pay for the public portion of a dual choice, public or private system.

Every American choosing public care would receive all prescribed care and medications free, no insurance, no co pays, no precondition exceptions, free period.

Businesses selecting public care for their employees would not have to pay for or be involved in health care in any way.

Individuals happy with their private systems could continue paying for, either by self pay, company pay, or private insurance etc, and using the systems that they like.

This will cost less to operate, than the $2 trillion dollars inefficiently spent last year.

[DamaskinosLives]

Good explanation.

Thank you.
.