Who would you rather have running your health insurance options?

[Joe Biden 2020]

It looks like those are our only two options.  Personally, I'm not a fan of socialized medicine, but I'd much rather have the government control my health insurance rather than the insurance companies.  The government, as inept as they are, would at least pretend to look out for the consumer whereas the insurance companies make no disguise that they're looking out for their bottom line.  The insurance companies' favorite word is "No".  No to pre-existing conditions.  No to basically anyone except the young and healthy, and when you really need it, they say no.

I'd much rather take the risks that socialized medicine would bring than people dying because they can't afford health insurance.

[Free Palestine]

I wouldn't mind the state managing healthcare, but not the federal government.

[You kip if you want to...]

Government.

[Franzl]

It looks like those are our only two options.  Personally, I'm not a fan of socialized medicine, but I'd much rather have the government control my health insurance rather than the insurance companies. 

Doesn't this statement contradict itself?

(Of course, "socialized medicine" is just a conservative talking point anyway, because at no time was true government run healthcare EVEN DISCUSSED.)


Me personally? I prefer the healthcare market to be primarily private. Certain market reforms are necessary, particularly to stimulate competition, such as buying over state lines and tort reform and what not.

Ultimately however, despite my belief that healthcare should be provided privately as often as possible, the government has a moral responsibility to step in and provide healthcare if a person is unable to acquire insurance otherwise.

I don't really care whether that's through a "public option" or through direct subsidies, but I would argue that the "public option" would create more genuine competition.

[Joe Biden 2020]

Unfortunately, it looks as if Obama will fail in his attempt just like Clinton failed.  The main problem is Obama is inexperienced and not hounding members of Congress like LBJ did.  LBJ didn't just say "Give me a bill to sign, please", he actually hounded every single member of Congress and laid the consequences for an aye vote and a nay vote.

[Vepres]

I'll take insurance companies. Especially when they ban discrimination against those with preexisting conditions and what not (which will happen soon, regardless if anything else passes. Then again, it is congress ).

Unfortunately, it looks as if Obama will fail in his attempt just like Clinton failed.  The main problem is Obama is inexperienced and not hounding members of Congress like LBJ did.  LBJ didn't just say "Give me a bill to sign, please", he actually hounded every single member of Congress and laid the consequences for an aye vote and a nay vote.

That's really not how democracy should work. Do you really want an executive that powerful? I bet you'd cry foul if a Republican President did that.

[Franzl]

Unfortunately, it looks as if Obama will fail in his attempt just like Clinton failed. 

Depends what you mean by fail. It's a lot better than the status quo, what we're probably going to get out of the Senate.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

The Government, of course, but this is really a false dichotomy.

[Joe Biden 2020]

Unfortunately, it looks as if Obama will fail in his attempt just like Clinton failed. 

Depends what you mean by fail. It's a lot better than the status quo, what we're probably going to get out of the Senate.

Which may be nothing.  I'm afraid this bill is going to die and the status quo will remain for the forseeable future.  This is likely our last best chance for a couple generations, probably.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Unfortunately, it looks as if Obama will fail in his attempt just like Clinton failed. 

Depends what you mean by fail. It's a lot better than the status quo, what we're probably going to get out of the Senate.

Which may be nothing.  I'm afraid this bill is going to die and the status quo will remain for the forseeable future.  This is likely our last best chance for a couple generations, probably.

Something will be passed; it may not be much, but it will be better.

[Joe Biden 2020]

Unfortunately, it looks as if Obama will fail in his attempt just like Clinton failed. 

Depends what you mean by fail. It's a lot better than the status quo, what we're probably going to get out of the Senate.

Which may be nothing.  I'm afraid this bill is going to die and the status quo will remain for the forseeable future.  This is likely our last best chance for a couple generations, probably.

Something will be passed; it may not be much, but it will be better.

I sure hope you're right.

[Lief 🗽]

That's really not how democracy should work. Do you really want an executive that powerful? I bet you'd cry foul if a Republican President did that.

The way a democracy should work is that a body should only need 51/100 votes to pass a bill, not 60/100. If that were the case, we'd have a bill signed into law by now.

[Free Palestine]

That's really not how democracy should work. Do you really want an executive that powerful? I bet you'd cry foul if a Republican President did that.

The way a democracy should work is that a body should only need 51/100 votes to pass a bill, not 60/100. If that were the case, we'd have a bill signed into law by now.

Allowing such a bill to be passed with a simple majority isn't a good idea.

[Torie]

For me with respect to  insurance companies. I have no complaints with mine. It is a good company, and its premium rates are fair. This demonization of insurance companies is totally misguided, and they make marginal profits. The suggestion that there is some fat cow there to be slaughtered does not comport with the facts as I understand them. Now I agree that the health care delivery system is dysfunctional, but that is another issue.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

This question sort of posits a false dilemma. Either the government will run the insurance companies, or the insurance companies will run the government. Those are the only choices being offered by the current power elites.

[Torie]

That's really not how democracy should work. Do you really want an executive that powerful? I bet you'd cry foul if a Republican President did that.

The way a democracy should work is that a body should only need 51/100 votes to pass a bill, not 60/100. If that were the case, we'd have a bill signed into law by now.

Lief, have you always opposed the 60 vote requirement, even when the GOP controlled everything?  Did you oppose it, when the issue came up with respect to the Dems stalling Bush judicial nominees, and the GOP was chatting about the nuclear option?  Perhaps you did. I would hope so.

[Lief 🗽]

That's really not how democracy should work. Do you really want an executive that powerful? I bet you'd cry foul if a Republican President did that.

The way a democracy should work is that a body should only need 51/100 votes to pass a bill, not 60/100. If that were the case, we'd have a bill signed into law by now.

Lief, have you always opposed the 60 vote requirement, even when the GOP controlled everything?  Did you oppose it, when the issue came up with respect to the Dems stalling Bush judicial nominees, and the GOP was chatting about the nuclear option?  Perhaps you did. I would hope so.

Well, I was 15 at the time, so I didn't really follow or care about that controversy.

But I support eliminating the filibuster, regardless of the party. Do I support the Democrats using the filibuster once they're back in the minority? Yes, because it's stupid to tie your hand behind your back and blindfold yourself when your opponent isn't going to do the same. But I think this country would be much better off if the filibuster were gone. And if the GOP passes something ridiculous and awful, then, if it's really ridiculous and awful, the people will vote them out and the Democrats can repeal it. And vice versa.

[Torie]

That's really not how democracy should work. Do you really want an executive that powerful? I bet you'd cry foul if a Republican President did that.

The way a democracy should work is that a body should only need 51/100 votes to pass a bill, not 60/100. If that were the case, we'd have a bill signed into law by now.

Lief, have you always opposed the 60 vote requirement, even when the GOP controlled everything?  Did you oppose it, when the issue came up with respect to the Dems stalling Bush judicial nominees, and the GOP was chatting about the nuclear option?  Perhaps you did. I would hope so.

Well, I was 15 at the time, so I didn't really follow or care about that controversy.

But I support eliminating the filibuster, regardless of the party. Do I support the Democrats using the filibuster once they're back in the minority? Yes, because it's stupid to tie your hand behind your back and blindfold yourself when your opponent isn't going to do the same. But I think this country would be much better off if the filibuster were gone. And if the GOP passes something ridiculous and awful, then, if it's really ridiculous and awful, the people will vote them out and the Democrats can repeal it. And vice versa.

Then we are in total agreement. The cloture concept should die a permanent death. Cheers.

[useful idiot]

The government. The current plan will not be a net postive; it's a hand-out to the insurance companies, forcing people to buy insurance or pay a tax without creating a public option to spur competition and bring prices down. The problem is that insurance companies will never let a mixed system work, as they don't want prices going down, they want to squeeze everyone for every penny they have. The only way we're going to get a fair and workable system is to take the insurance companies out of the equation...

[JSojourner]

Government. It's not easy to vote the bastards out.  But it's easier to vote them out than the insurance companies.  And for once, I have to completely disagree with my friend, Torie.  Insurance companies are not as high on my sh**t-list as companies like Monsanto, but close.

[Хahar 🤔]

The Government, of course, but this is really a false dichotomy.

Correct.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If government run health insurance is good enough for the United States Senate, it's good enough for the rest of us. If it's not good enough, then the United States Senate should vote to eliminate their health insurance.

[Mechaman]

I'm more a fan of economic federalism (leaving most economic decisions up to the states individually), but with that said I'm kind of weary of giving either the government or private insurers full reign. Now at the price of being crucified by fellow libertarians, I'm divided over the whole public option thing mostly due to my friends from Brazil who say that since Brazil adopted a public option it has in fact made the healthcare industry as a whole more competitive and less costly as the poor get their "free" healthcare and the middle and upperclasses get privatized healthcare. I don't know for certain if something that works in Brazil would work in America, thus the reason why I'm 50/50 on the public option issue at the moment.

[Franzl]

I'm more a fan of economic federalism (leaving most economic decisions up to the states individually), but with that said I'm kind of weary of giving either the government or private insurers full reign. Now at the price of being crucified by fellow libertarians, I'm divided over the whole public option thing mostly due to my friends from Brazil who say that since Brazil adopted a public option it has in fact made the healthcare industry as a whole more competitive and less costly as the poor get their "free" healthcare and the middle and upperclasses get privatized healthcare. I don't know for certain if something that works in Brazil would work in America, thus the reason why I'm 50/50 on the public option issue at the moment.

It's not just Brazil.

It works everywhere in the 1st world (with one exception).