GOP Representatives oppose public option because it's "cheaper", "saves money"

[Lief 🗽]

http://minnesotaindependent.com/39874/bachmann-kline-oppose-public-option-because-its-cheaper

Michelle "Crazy Bitch" Bachmann:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

John Kline:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Once again, if you missed it, in crazy Republican world, cheaper services that save money are bad things that must be defeated.

[MaxQue]

Economical Conservatism fail. Here, economical conservatives want to save money and spend less.

[Marokai Backbeat]

We certainly wouldn't want to spend less and help poor people get cheap access to healthcare. What are those crazy liberals thinking?

[Хahar 🤔]

Now Bachmann's not even hiding her R-Insurance designation.

[Padfoot]

This is where the GOP reveals that they care more about the bottom line of big business than they care about the health and wallets of everyday Americans.  The GOP tries to disguise its corporatist bias by labeling itself an anti-tax party and demonizing government regulations as bad for small businesses.  But when they have the power the average American sees little to no tax breaks while the fat cats line their wallets and small businesses don't suddenly flourish when consumer protections are torn down so that big businesses can cut corners and abuse the environment, their workers, and the consumer for a higher profit.

If a person is sick, they deserve the best treatment possible.  Money should not be a factor.  If you believe it should be then you're just as despicable as the people who locked the lower class passengers of the Titanic below deck so the wealthy could board the lifeboats first.

[Marokai Backbeat]

If a person is sick, they deserve the best treatment possible.  Money should not be a factor.  If you believe it should be then you're just as despicable as the people who locked the lower class passengers of the Titanic below deck so the wealthy could board the lifeboats first.

Amen.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Well, the government has the ability to run a much larger deficit than a normal firm, which gives it a huge advantage in these sorts of things. Would the public option be required to at least attempt to break even? If, even under that constraint, it is still significantly cheaper, it is only proper that it should succeed at the expense of private firms. That's it for a free marketer's perspective.

[Lunar]

Well, since it's subsidized by taxing the rich or what have you, wouldn't it be cheaper just because of that?  Or is that just for the start-up costs?

[Associate Justice PiT]

Well, since it's subsidized by taxing the rich or what have you, wouldn't it be cheaper just because of that?  Or is that just for the start-up costs?

     If the claims are correct that the overhead costs would be inherently lower, then there would be no real need to subsidize it. Just surcharge the people who use it in brackets according to income.

[JSojourner]

We certainly wouldn't want to spend less and help poor people get cheap access to healthcare. What are those crazy liberals thinking?

They will find a way to convert their insurance credit into cash and use it to buy cartons of smokes, fast food and Courvoisier.  You know how "those people" are.  God bless Bachman for being a real amurrican.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If the plan costs less because the costs are borne by the taxpayer instead of the insured, its a problem.  If the public plan is subsidized, private plans should benefit from the same or equivalent subsidies unless the objective is for the public plan to be a stealth effort at implementing single payer.

[Person Man]

Um...I am pretty confused. What are we trying to do here? Are we trying to save lives or are we trying to whine about being cut from the corporate entitlement roles? ...because what else do you call it when you are allowed to choose who lives and dies based on how much money you get off of it? ....I guess the entire "right to kill babies" thing isn't just owned by the Democrats.

[Marokai Backbeat]

If the plan costs less because the costs are borne by the taxpayer instead of the insured, its a problem.  If the public plan is subsidized, private plans should benefit from the same or equivalent subsidies unless the objective is for the public plan to be a stealth effort at implementing single payer.

There's a very good reason it costs less, and that's because, among other things, the public plan wouldn't gouge rates or spend a huge portion of the money on administrative costs, designed to push people off the rolls. Also, the government is able to get drugs at a much cheaper price.

Basically, it's cheaper because there's not as much of a profit motive corrupting the business. You're assuming in your statement that the private market is just fine with costs and the government shouldn't go below those costs because it would hurt private businesses. This is lunacy. Not only does it focus on money and not, you know, lives to save, but it shows a rather large disconnect as to why we have the problems we have.

Keep your "indy" cred up though.

[Person Man]

If the plan costs less because the costs are borne by the taxpayer instead of the insured, its a problem.  If the public plan is subsidized, private plans should benefit from the same or equivalent subsidies unless the objective is for the public plan to be a stealth effort at implementing single payer.

There's a very good reason it costs less, and that's because, among other things, the public plan wouldn't gouge rates or spend a huge portion of the money on administrative costs, designed to push people off the rolls. Also, the government is able to get drugs at a much cheaper price.

Basically, it's cheaper because there's not as much of a profit motive corrupting the business. You're assuming in your statement that the private market is just fine with costs and the government shouldn't go below those costs because it would hurt private businesses. This is lunacy. Not only does it focus on money and not, you know, lives to save, but it shows a rather large disconnect as to why we have the problems we have.

Keep your "indy" cred up though.

...and that's why so-called "Free Market" policies are little more than corporate entitlements. If we did, in fact, had a free market system, many of these insurance companies would not exist.

[Ban my account ffs!]

This is where the GOP reveals that they care more about the bottom line of big business than they care about the health and wallets of everyday Americans.  The GOP tries to disguise its corporatist bias by labeling itself an anti-tax party and demonizing government regulations as bad for small businesses.  But when they have the power the average American sees little to no tax breaks while the fat cats line their wallets and small businesses don't suddenly flourish when consumer protections are torn down so that big businesses can cut corners and abuse the environment, their workers, and the consumer for a higher profit.

If a person is sick, they deserve the best treatment possible.  Money should not be a factor.  If you believe it should be then you're just as despicable as the people who locked the lower class passengers of the Titanic below deck so the wealthy could board the lifeboats first.

Is this really news?

It's funny, because most of the small business owners I know vote DFL because they have a proven track record of helping small businesses while targeting big business.

The Republican party is the party of religious fanatics and corporate welfare around here.  It's no wonder they lose all of the elections.

To be fair, my former GOP state senator and house member were both moderate Republicans that owned small businesses and generally supported small business.  Still, they also supported MinnesotaCare, a subsidized insurance program for the working poor, as well as robust education funding.  They saw the value of a healthy, well educated labor pool... rather than squandering the long term viability of our economy to make a short term profit for big business like the national Republicans.

[Associate Justice PiT]

If the plan costs less because the costs are borne by the taxpayer instead of the insured, its a problem.  If the public plan is subsidized, private plans should benefit from the same or equivalent subsidies unless the objective is for the public plan to be a stealth effort at implementing single payer.

There's a very good reason it costs less, and that's because, among other things, the public plan wouldn't gouge rates or spend a huge portion of the money on administrative costs, designed to push people off the rolls. Also, the government is able to get drugs at a much cheaper price.

Basically, it's cheaper because there's not as much of a profit motive corrupting the business. You're assuming in your statement that the private market is just fine with costs and the government shouldn't go below those costs because it would hurt private businesses. This is lunacy. Not only does it focus on money and not, you know, lives to save, but it shows a rather large disconnect as to why we have the problems we have.

Keep your "indy" cred up though.

     So there's no issue with it being non-subsidized, seeing as how it will succeed on the free market by virtue of being inherently cheaper?

[Marokai Backbeat]

If the plan costs less because the costs are borne by the taxpayer instead of the insured, its a problem.  If the public plan is subsidized, private plans should benefit from the same or equivalent subsidies unless the objective is for the public plan to be a stealth effort at implementing single payer.

There's a very good reason it costs less, and that's because, among other things, the public plan wouldn't gouge rates or spend a huge portion of the money on administrative costs, designed to push people off the rolls. Also, the government is able to get drugs at a much cheaper price.

Basically, it's cheaper because there's not as much of a profit motive corrupting the business. You're assuming in your statement that the private market is just fine with costs and the government shouldn't go below those costs because it would hurt private businesses. This is lunacy. Not only does it focus on money and not, you know, lives to save, but it shows a rather large disconnect as to why we have the problems we have.

Keep your "indy" cred up though.

     So there's no issue with it being non-subsidized, seeing as how it will succeed on the free market by virtue of being inherently cheaper?

Could you explain a bit more, please?

[Person Man]

If the plan costs less because the costs are borne by the taxpayer instead of the insured, its a problem.  If the public plan is subsidized, private plans should benefit from the same or equivalent subsidies unless the objective is for the public plan to be a stealth effort at implementing single payer.

There's a very good reason it costs less, and that's because, among other things, the public plan wouldn't gouge rates or spend a huge portion of the money on administrative costs, designed to push people off the rolls. Also, the government is able to get drugs at a much cheaper price.

Basically, it's cheaper because there's not as much of a profit motive corrupting the business. You're assuming in your statement that the private market is just fine with costs and the government shouldn't go below those costs because it would hurt private businesses. This is lunacy. Not only does it focus on money and not, you know, lives to save, but it shows a rather large disconnect as to why we have the problems we have.

Keep your "indy" cred up though.

     So there's no issue with it being non-subsidized, seeing as how it will succeed on the free market by virtue of being inherently cheaper?

Could you explain a bit more, please?

Well, does it matter if it subsidized or not? The point is that if something can be sustained over time and be cheaper in a situation where the average person truly has the right to choose care for themselves despite their ability to pay.

[Torie]

http://minnesotaindependent.com/39874/bachmann-kline-oppose-public-option-because-its-cheaper

Michelle "Crazy Bitch" Bachmann:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

John Kline:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Once again, if you missed it, in crazy Republican world, cheaper services that save money are bad things that must be defeated.

The point is the concern that the public option will be subsidized (as it surely will be, if not right now, in due course), and obviously non-subsidized alternatives have an anchor holding them down, and are sailing into a stiff wind head on. The concern is that this is a Trojan Horse, leading to solely over time for most folks with just a government provider.  I see no reason why we just can't have means tested premium subsidies, with some rules about minimum coverages. I don't see the need for a public option, and the push for it, suggests to me well the ulterior motives outlined above.

[Badger]

http://minnesotaindependent.com/39874/bachmann-kline-oppose-public-option-because-its-cheaper

Michelle "Crazy Bitch" Bachmann:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

John Kline:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Once again, if you missed it, in crazy Republican world, cheaper services that save money are bad things that must be defeated.

The point is the concern that the public option will be subsidized (as it surely will be, if not right now, in due course), and obviously non-subsidized alternatives have an anchor holding them down, and are sailing into a stiff wind head on. The concern is that this is a Trojan Horse, leading to solely over time for most folks with just a government provider.  I see no reason why we just can't have means tested premium subsidies, with some rules about minimum coverages. I don't see the need for a public option, and the push for it, suggests to me well the ulterior motives outlined above.

But that's the point, Torie. Even the conservatives complaining about this concede a public option health care plan will provide cheaper health insurance more efficiently without subsidies. The major reasons are simple economies of scale and there is no massive chunk of premiums going to pay off shareholders demanding their lucrative returns or sky high executive compensation packages that utterly and shamelessly dwarf what even upper level talented civil service workers make. It's just plain bad in their eyes because this cheaper more efficient service is provided by the government, which is always in allways (nonmilitary) bad and an inefficient clusterfric--er, except here of course.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If the plan costs less because the costs are borne by the taxpayer instead of the insured, its a problem.  If the public plan is subsidized, private plans should benefit from the same or equivalent subsidies unless the objective is for the public plan to be a stealth effort at implementing single payer.

There's a very good reason it costs less, and that's because, among other things, the public plan wouldn't gouge rates or spend a huge portion of the money on administrative costs, designed to push people off the rolls. Also, the government is able to get drugs at a much cheaper price.

If the government is going to dictate drug prices for its public plan, why not simply impose price controls on all drugs?  That way the savings would be available no matter who is paying for it, whether it be a public plan, a private plan, or the uninsured.

Basically, it's cheaper because there's not as much of a profit motive corrupting the business.

So the profit motive is the problem?  So then why aren't the existing not-for-profit organizations that offer health insurance able to outcompete the for-profit companies that offer health insurance by offering more affordable insurance?

You're assuming in your statement that the private market is just fine with costs and the government shouldn't go below those costs because it would hurt private businesses. This is lunacy. Not only does it focus on money and not, you know, lives to save, but it shows a rather large disconnect as to why we have the problems we have.

Ignoring money may be fine in fantasy land, but in the real world someone must pay or the service won't be provided. If you favor single-payer as the way to do it, that certainly is one way to do it, but trying to sneak it in is certain to provoke a political backlash.

Keep your "indy" cred up though.

I certainly do try, but I worry more about my "realism" cred, something Democrats and Republicans both ignore all too often.

Understating the costs of health care reform will end up biting Obama in the ass politically, just as understating the costs of the War in Iraq bit Bush's hiney.  It will be more difficult for the Democrats to get what they want passed if they don't resort to accounting gimmicks, like those Bush used to pass his tax cuts, but it means that the programs are far likelier to continue once he's out of office as well.

As I've said before, I feel the best solution to the health care crisis is a double mandate with people required to have health insurance, and health insurers required to accept everyone with no price discrimination based on pre-existing conditions.  Ideally, subsidies in such a scheme would be handed out to the insurees, not the insurers, be they public or private.

[Torie]

Badger, competition in theory forces cost control, or you go out of business. We need more competition, and more transparency to facilitate it. I don't see why there are economies of scale when it comes to insurance plans so massive that it requires 200 million participants to reach max efficiency. And why does anyone think what the government runs would be efficient anyway, particularly given the political pressures, not to mention well, public employee unions?  No, what this is about is muscling out over time private alternatives, and squeezing vendors with monopsony buying power, so it will not be profitable for anymore hospitals to be built absent government subsidies, or private company drug research, as the existing capital base of those entities is cannibalized. And then 20 years from now, folks scream, hey the market does not work because no hospitals are being built, we cannot attract new doctors to the profession, and no drug research is being done anymore, and thus the government needs to run all that too, all of course with public funds.

There is no free lunch, and the notion that the government can effect massive cost savings to deliver health care is ludicrous, just ludicrous. Having said that, the health care system is in general hideously inefficient, in part due to government regulation and lack of transparency. Heck, next to nothing when it comes to medical records is computerized, leading to mistakes and ignorance. That is why I have all my medical records in hand, all of them, so I can tell medical providers basically what is wrong with me, and what I expect, and what my delta function has been. If I did not do that, my care would be less efficacious then it is.

Anyway, government has a cost of capital too, and what profits are about, is compensating capital. And that cost includes risk, which is hidden from government, because that risk is absorbed when things go wrong, with well higher costs and taxes and deficits, and inflation, and you name it. It is far higher than the interest rate on T bills and bonds.

[Torie]

If the plan costs less because the costs are borne by the taxpayer instead of the insured, its a problem.  If the public plan is subsidized, private plans should benefit from the same or equivalent subsidies unless the objective is for the public plan to be a stealth effort at implementing single payer.

There's a very good reason it costs less, and that's because, among other things, the public plan wouldn't gouge rates or spend a huge portion of the money on administrative costs, designed to push people off the rolls. Also, the government is able to get drugs at a much cheaper price.

If the government is going to dictate drug prices for its public plan, why not simply impose price controls on all drugs?  That way the savings would be available no matter who is paying for it, whether it be a public plan, a private plan, or the uninsured.

Basically, it's cheaper because there's not as much of a profit motive corrupting the business.

So the profit motive is the problem?  So then why aren't the existing not-for-profit organizations that offer health insurance able to outcompete the for-profit companies that offer health insurance by offering more affordable insurance?

You're assuming in your statement that the private market is just fine with costs and the government shouldn't go below those costs because it would hurt private businesses. This is lunacy. Not only does it focus on money and not, you know, lives to save, but it shows a rather large disconnect as to why we have the problems we have.

Ignoring money may be fine in fantasy land, but in the real world someone must pay or the service won't be provided. If you favor single-payer as the way to do it, that certainly is one way to do it, but trying to sneak it in is certain to provoke a political backlash.

Keep your "indy" cred up though.

I certainly do try, but I worry more about my "realism" cred, something Democrats and Republicans both ignore all too often.

Understating the costs of health care reform will end up biting Obama in the ass politically, just as understating the costs of the War in Iraq bit Bush's hiney.  It will be more difficult for the Democrats to get what they want passed if they don't resort to accounting gimmicks, like those Bush used to pass his tax cuts, but it means that the programs are far likelier to continue once he's out of office as well.

As I've said before, I feel the best solution to the health care crisis is a double mandate with people required to have health insurance, and health insurers required to accept everyone with no price discrimination based on pre-existing conditions.  Ideally, subsidies in such a scheme would be handed out to the insurees, not the insurers, be they public or private.

I agree except those with pre-existing conditions should pay more in premiums, if dumb enough not to have insurance, or poor enough, with the higher premiums also subsidized on a means tested basis. Do you really want the taxpayers subsidizing my premiums because I have rather expensive pre-existing conditions? I think not.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm not quite in the mood to have a health care debate in two or three threads at the same time, so if you want my more lengthy rantings on this issue, check out the Atlasia Government board, my point is simply that I favor a public health care program because It's cheaper than private care, cuts costs, and can (and has in other countries) provided low-cost, quality health care for all the citizens who are in need of it.

If you want to have a debate over all of the above obvious statements, and not over irrelevant statements and how to get private care just for the sake of it, we can, but I've been repeating myself in Atlasia lately, and I'm not in the mood to do it elsewhere as well.

[Associate Justice PiT]

If the plan costs less because the costs are borne by the taxpayer instead of the insured, its a problem.  If the public plan is subsidized, private plans should benefit from the same or equivalent subsidies unless the objective is for the public plan to be a stealth effort at implementing single payer.

There's a very good reason it costs less, and that's because, among other things, the public plan wouldn't gouge rates or spend a huge portion of the money on administrative costs, designed to push people off the rolls. Also, the government is able to get drugs at a much cheaper price.

Basically, it's cheaper because there's not as much of a profit motive corrupting the business. You're assuming in your statement that the private market is just fine with costs and the government shouldn't go below those costs because it would hurt private businesses. This is lunacy. Not only does it focus on money and not, you know, lives to save, but it shows a rather large disconnect as to why we have the problems we have.

Keep your "indy" cred up though.

     So there's no issue with it being non-subsidized, seeing as how it will succeed on the free market by virtue of being inherently cheaper?

Could you explain a bit more, please?

     My point is that if the overhead costs are substantially lower, it (generally) breaks even, & it is funded by only the premiums of those that use it, while the corporatist may whine about the downfall of his/her treasured companies, a free marketer would recognize its success as legitimate (unless there is some other detail that I have not noticed about it that would give it an unfair leg up).