Tweet
Why would it drive private insurance out of business? If private insurers say that the marketplace provides the best quality health care; if they tell us that they’re offering a good deal, then why is it that the government, which they say can’t run anything, suddenly is going to drive them out of business? That’s not logical.
If government insurance is nothing but long lines and bureaucrats standing between people and their doctors, then nobody will use it and private insurance companies have nothing to fear.
Get your story straight, wingnuts.
32 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
They can’t get their story straight — it’s all lies.
As knee-jerk obstructionism willing to sacrifice the health care needs of Americans to political opportunism, I actually think it works pretty well.
Love it.
Of course, the real reason they would be put out of business is that insurance companies would not get to keep the 35% profits from each premium.
Thank you, Mr. President!!!
man, I have to say, it looks like obama is channeling perris, I been saying the exact same thing for the past three weeks
I do must admit, he was tad more eloquent then I had been but I’m sure glad he took my advice
I wonder if he wants to offer me a job, I can use a change I can believe in
Obama didn’t really answer the question today regarding the public option and company health plans. Here is the problem:
1.He says that the private option would let people keep their health plan and doctor.
2. Since most people get their health care through work and it’s up to the employer to pick the plan — what happens if the public health plan is more affordable and the company(s) switch from a private plan to a public one to save money. The employee would have no say and could lose their preferred plan and their doctor.
Yes or no?
from what I’ve been told so far, if the employer opts for the public plan then he pays into a fund, if he supplies his own plan he doesn’t pay into the fund
this to me is an incredible solution, it basically forces private industry to compete or go out of business
believe me, private industry will have no problem competing with the public plan, just as private school costs more then public school, they provide a service some people are more then willing to pay
the same thing is going to be true once the public option is available
That doesn’t answer the question and it suggests another one.
1. If an employee has Blue Cross for ten years, same doctor. Then company he works for drops Blue Cross and chooses the public plan, the employee woud no longer keep the plan he is happy with or his doctor. For instance the switch in plans may very well move him or her from a PPO to an HMO type with pool doctors.
2. How can private companies compete if the public plan does not need to make a profit and has no marketing or sales costs.
These are the questions that Obama and Congress needs to answer. There are hundreds of thousands of private health care related jobs, that is a reality.
as I said, they have no problem competing with public education, they won’t have a problem competing with public health care
“the market” has been claiming they do everything better and more efficiently then government for EVAH, obviously they can’t compete with government but they claim they do in order to get people to vote against themselves and for “the market”
there are public parks there are private clubs, there are public beaches there are cabana clubs, there are schools there are private schools, there is public broadcast there is cable
they have absolutely no problem competing with other government “commons” and they will have absolutely no problem competing with health care
the health of our peoples NEED be a commons
the “hundreds of thousands of health care jobs” will certainly not disapear, those that can’t compete will be far offset by the added economic stimulous provided by that respective health care savings
as far as this;
a person can stay on their plan if they want, this is the very point, if the employer chooses to switch plans to the public option that happens all the time anyway
my employer switches providers every two years or so to keep them competitive and what you think is an issue is none what so ever for my employer, I deal or buy my own health care
You really didn’t answer the question at all except in the most general of terms. I asked specific questions that are the same ones being asked by many Democrats in Congress. That’s why Obama was asked this today and he did not have a good answer.
The comparison to education is ludicrous – only wealthy persons go to private school. Parks and beaches comparison is so inane are you serious? It’s not even worthy of a response.
Maybe someone else can answer the questions – you didn’t.
redfish you’re really being obsurd, there are only general answers because you are asking general questions, you asked no specific question that I didn’t answer just as specifically, in fact you asked general questions and you recieved precise answers for your general questions
the public school analogy is rediculous according to you?
there is no reason people who aren’t wealthy shouldn’t have health care just as there is no reason people who aren’t wealthy should should be able to go to school, if you want something else you pay for it…this is simple
stuff
your denial of the comparison is what’s rediculous, the analogy is precise, as I said
the reason obama didn’t have sndwers you like is because the plan has not been worked out yet thanx to a failure of our politicians since they are taking health care dollars to fight this fight
now be kind to yourself and stop portratying people who don’t buy into your straw argumenst as “rediculous”
I don’t suppose anyone is going to answer anything to your satisfaction since you make believe these precise answers aren’t good enough
but carry on with your insults and see you on the next thread
Ridiculous is an insult? Get a backbone this is serious stuff. What you said is ridiculous.
how dare you bring reason to this debate.
Thanks for teeing up that non-starter.
What happens if another private plan saves said employer money right now and the company switches plans?
Same thing — the employee could lose their doctor of choice anyway.
Which, because of skyrocketing premiums, is happening frequently today.
redfish,
I am an employer. Two weeks ago I received a notice that the health insurance premiums were going up 34%! My employee’s first worry isn’t about whether they can keep their current doctor, it whether I can afford to keep providing the health insurance benefit.
Cost has to be contained or lots of hard working folks aren’t going to have coverage. That is why we need the public option.
You always talk about the practical and the real world- there it is.
Ooooh… let me, let me!
And this is a bad thing?
Really? Talk about your “reality” to the “hundreds of thousands” of auto workers no longer with jobs or health care.
Unlike them, most of those jobs will simply transfer to the public provider, vs. being lost forever.
Redfish, Dear?
Perris’ answer was, in fact, a direct and specific response to the issues you raised.
Issue #1 – Employee has BC/BS for 10 years. Public option becomes available and employer chooses to switch to that plan. Employee no longer able to use his Doctor due to plan changes.
Answer: This is a risk the employee has already. Employers are not “married” to their insurance companies. Many companies change plans and even insurance companies on an annual basis based on costs. A public option would not make a change in this possiblity. A company that has been married to BC/BS for 10 years is likely a company which has a CEO that prefers that carrier – and will stick with them regardless of alternative options.
Comment: Since this is a risk employees already share – it does not apply to the conversation.
Issue #2 – Companies who DO need to make a profit would have to compete with the public plan which does NOT.
Answer: This is already true in other aspects of life, such as clubs, beaches and schools. The analogy is sound. Yes, only the “wealthy” send their children to private schools. (I don’t agree – I sent mine to parochial school and was only making 20k/yr at the time, but let’s not argue that.) Only the “wealthy” are able to afford the best health insurance. That’s why a LOT of employers have cut back or eliminated health coverage as a benefit.
Comment: If private schools can compete with public schools and not be put out of business – Insurance companies should be fine as well – although it WILL force them to compete fairly, a concept they’re not particularly good at just now. The rich will still be able to pay for their BC/BS – the only difference will be that those who can NOT afford insurance now – will be able to go see a doctor without fear of bankruptcy. Why are you so adamant that poor people not get health care?
Now go collect your check from the RNC for trolling a “lib’rul” blog.
Like anytime a system is changed, there will be a lot of circumstances that don’t fit neatly into the new system. You can build in exceptions and other grandfathered-in provisions for a lot of this stuff. This seems quite do-able in the case you were bringing up, and since there will be a lot of people in that situation, it would seem wise to prepare a work-around for that.
As far as private companies competing…these are the people claiming that their service is so excellent, and most importantly government-provided healthcare so crappy, that they should be able to stay above the rabble just based on their excellent service. And we all know (well, according to them) that “the market” will choose what’s best, so private insurers should be fine, right? The public plan will just be a safety net for low-income earners. Their marketing dollars will be spent competing with other for-profit insurers, so it’s a level playing field.
No doubt there will be a lot of details that’ll be challenging. For me at least, those details aren’t enough to not do this at all as long as the general plan is sound.
Well if the people had EFCA they would have a voice
Now, back to Jane’s post.
I thought that was an excellent response to the question.
Almost jujitsu-like in using the private carriers own words against them.
its because they can’t say what they really mean:
- ideology trumps all: government is bad
- American theocracy: government healthcare means science, not faith, will govern personal healthcare decisions
- corruption: they’re being bribed by insurers
All of the claims made by the Insurance vultures are equally ludicrous.
Putting a government bureacrat between you and your doctor.
Rationing health care
having to wait for care
etc, etc,
It is all BS
Just an observation….I have two plans at work to choose from. My share of the premium decreased on one, didn’t on the other (the one I’d been on). So I switched, after verifying that all of my doctors participated in both plans. I think that is more likely the case. Most of the busy docs accept patients in the major plans.
And if we had single payer, any doc would receive payment from the government plan, so we could go to any doctor we choose. No red tape, just health care when we need it.
What’s not to like?
That’s the whole damn thing in a nutshell.
When you think about it, a public official arguing against a public plan is nonsensical, and should be pointed out as such.
*****We interrupt this post to say that Sanford has been dis invited from speaking at the 2009 Values Voters Summit. As Imus used to say, “You can’t make this stuff up!”*****
Except for when it pays my salary, benefits, health care, and paves the way for a cushy 6 or 7 figure gig once I’m out of office.
Then it’s okay.
All of these guys running around touting democracy all over the world. Hey people, three quarters of the people want a public option – how do you define democracy?
They even took his picture down from their website
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/…..c-website/
Jane has Senator Grassley upstairs!
White House to Grassley: Get Stuffed
I’ve got to share a couple of beauts from the comments in the link you provided:
and
Hilarious!
Even with a public plan, they will most likely do as they have done with Medicare. They contract with private companies to process and service the claims. I used to work for Blue Shield California in 1972 in the Medicare Beneficiary Section. They will not go out of business as long as there are claims to be processed and paid.
THANK YOU! I have long thought this — about other topics, too. The wingnuts’ lines make no sense, yet the GOP keeps using them. Do Americans keep falling for them?
If you are satisfied, not happy but satisfied, and apparently some 70% of Americans are, please be aware the cuts to benefits that keep you and your family healthy today will be many times more than the increase in benefits to those that remain in need. As a result you and your family should be prepared to suffer longer and die sooner to provide this benefit to others. Yes this is a very harsh line and unlikely to be repeated by politicians who know it to be true because often their pledge to represent is clouded by the desire to be re-elected. You are more likely to hear “If you are satisfied today you will be unhappy with proposed government plans”(as close as I can remember how Senator John Cornyn – R. TX said it on a radio show last week).
Healthcare is a complicated issue. The secret everyone in Washington knows is that in order to expand provide equal access to all healthcare you must actually limit access to the majority. Even John McCain in his campaign said he was in favor of a results based payer system. This seems attractive to a lot of industrious hard working Americans. However this is in place today by most insurance companies and they deny care on most unproven or procedures with very low probability of a satisfactory outcome. The way you pay for everyone is to simply raise the threshold. A $40,000 procedure with an 80% success rate may be allowed by an insurance company today but denied by a system that needs 85% at $40,000 to be deemed cost effective. In the words of a hospital system executive I spoke with years ago, “We all know what it will take to provide the same care for everyone; more people have to die.”
When people raise the concern that their availability of healthcare will be decided by the government our President responds “Private insurers deny services now”. Yes, insurance companies do at times deny treatment but they do so at the risk of multi-million dollar judgments when the story is laid out to a jury. It is the risk/reward system all businesses operate within. Our government healthcare knows no such penalty for the denial of treatment. The President has yet to say they will not limit care.
The idea that if you are happy with your plan you can keep it is a myth. You more than likely did not choose your coverage now. Your employer selected the company and plan. In an effort to be competitive in their industry they were forced to pick a plan as good or better than other entities where you might choose to work. However if a business will be forced to compete with others that choose to pay a tax and put their employees on a public health plan they soon will be forced to do the same. Our President kind of smiles and says “If private insurers say that the marketplace provides the best quality health care; if they tell us that they’re offering a good deal, then why is it that the government, which they say can’t run anything, suddenly is going to drive them out of business? That’s not logical.” It is logical that private business requiring a profit to survive would not be able to compete against our government running healthcare in a money losing manner for decades. Private business can’t raise taxes or continue to rely on the Chinese loaning them money to run in the red. Our government does this every day.
The 1990’s Hillary healthcare plan was defeated by millions of advertising dollars spent by the insurance companies. Today it has taken them less than four months of our governments treatment of business to decide they are better off betting they can benefit from the change than risk fighting it. As much as our president during his campaign decried the use of executive power by G.W. Bush as it related to terrorism and the Iraq war he has embraced it domestically as a way to pursue his agenda. The insurance companies watched the banks and auto industry have their business terms directed from the executive branch of our government without intrusion by the legislature or the courts. They have also taken notice of the huge benefits awaiting companies like GE through standardized electronic medical records and cap and trade legislation. You have seen the new green GE commercials, yes? You see risk/reward in play again but now it’s not profit/courts it’s profit/government with no checks and balance.
The following link compares U.S. healthcare to the healthcare available in countries that have already travelled the path we are about to go down.
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/BA649
It is somewhat curious to me that those who fought so hard for stem cell research for the advancement of treatments would support legislation that is sure to stifle that research and development to a point the original ban could have never touched.
I do believe we need to help those people truly in need. There are ways to take steps toward helping those in need be in a position to help themselves. Medical savings accounts, allowing the purchase of health insurance across state lines, or putting every individual in a position to choose their plan and company rather than being lumped as a group are all good steps. Our county suffers from becoming a consuming, service economy but the biggest hurdle to starting any business is healthcare for the entrepreneur or a small staff. Want to jump start the economy? Remove the hurdle of having to be part of a large group to get insurance and watch small business thrive.