would you vote for a health care bill without a "public option" ?
- Thread starter drychlick
- Start date
Re: would you vote for a health care bill without a "public option
Er, well, the private ones are hideously expensive, our costs are massively inflated compared with other countries that have public heath care, and as profit-driven entities, private heath insurance companies deny 22% of claims. The "American way" is shit in this instance.
Er, well, the private ones are hideously expensive, our costs are massively inflated compared with other countries that have public heath care, and as profit-driven entities, private heath insurance companies deny 22% of claims. The "American way" is shit in this instance.
Re: would you vote for a health care bill without a "public option
What do you mean more government run insurance? We don't have much now.
What do you mean more government run insurance? We don't have much now.
Re: would you vote for a health care bill without a "public option
No vote for any universal health care program.
No vote for any universal health care program.
Re: would you vote for a health care bill without a "public option
No, I would not. And I'd speculate that neither would the majority of Americans, as polls continue to show that most are in favor of a public option -- as are the majority of doctors. drychlick, do you have specific reasons as to why you are opposed to a public option?
I believe a public option would be good for this country. Firstly, our health care system is unforgivably inadequate, especially given the country's wealth and development overall. As it stands, the World Health Organization rates America's health care system at 37 of 191 -- we come in after Costa Rica. Countries with universal health care rank way higher up on the list than do we.
Secondly, the private insurance system does not work from either a financial or medical standpoint. The practices of insurance companies are unethical to the point that they verge on criminality. 1 in 6 Americans are uninsured and thousands more are losing their insurance each week. Of those who do have insurance, about 22% of their claims could be denied. They are at risk of losing their insurance if they lose their jobs, or if they become ill -- yes, insurance companies have dumped clients when they became ill, even though said clients had been paying their premiums. Insurance premiums are rising fast. Even those who are insured often struggle to pay high co-pays. The number one cause of personal bankruptcy is medical debt.
I support a public option primarily because it is the moral, ethical, and socially responsible thing to do. I also have many strictly logical reasons for doing so. For example, a public option would promote competition among insurance companies, and competition is good for consumers. Also, a public option would help to check the immoral practices of insurance companies, like denying coverage to women who have been victims of domestic violence or who are pregnant because those are considered to be pre-existing conditions.
So far the arguments against a public option total up to scary catch phrases and foolish ideas about "death panels" and rationing that have been proved blatantly false and have served well to inspire fear and anger but not so well in encouraging intelligent debate. The reason is that there simply aren't very many good arguments against a public option (the cost is the only reasonable objection).
On top of this is the constant hypocrisy that crops up during the debate. For example, the GOP is in favor of a public insurance option -- when it comes to property, but not people. While such hypocrisy in itself does not an argument for a public health care option make, it does cause one pause, however; as Americans we are supposed to have the right to life -- not the right to life, if you can afford it.
No, I would not. And I'd speculate that neither would the majority of Americans, as polls continue to show that most are in favor of a public option -- as are the majority of doctors. drychlick, do you have specific reasons as to why you are opposed to a public option?
I believe a public option would be good for this country. Firstly, our health care system is unforgivably inadequate, especially given the country's wealth and development overall. As it stands, the World Health Organization rates America's health care system at 37 of 191 -- we come in after Costa Rica. Countries with universal health care rank way higher up on the list than do we.
Secondly, the private insurance system does not work from either a financial or medical standpoint. The practices of insurance companies are unethical to the point that they verge on criminality. 1 in 6 Americans are uninsured and thousands more are losing their insurance each week. Of those who do have insurance, about 22% of their claims could be denied. They are at risk of losing their insurance if they lose their jobs, or if they become ill -- yes, insurance companies have dumped clients when they became ill, even though said clients had been paying their premiums. Insurance premiums are rising fast. Even those who are insured often struggle to pay high co-pays. The number one cause of personal bankruptcy is medical debt.
I support a public option primarily because it is the moral, ethical, and socially responsible thing to do. I also have many strictly logical reasons for doing so. For example, a public option would promote competition among insurance companies, and competition is good for consumers. Also, a public option would help to check the immoral practices of insurance companies, like denying coverage to women who have been victims of domestic violence or who are pregnant because those are considered to be pre-existing conditions.
So far the arguments against a public option total up to scary catch phrases and foolish ideas about "death panels" and rationing that have been proved blatantly false and have served well to inspire fear and anger but not so well in encouraging intelligent debate. The reason is that there simply aren't very many good arguments against a public option (the cost is the only reasonable objection).
On top of this is the constant hypocrisy that crops up during the debate. For example, the GOP is in favor of a public insurance option -- when it comes to property, but not people. While such hypocrisy in itself does not an argument for a public health care option make, it does cause one pause, however; as Americans we are supposed to have the right to life -- not the right to life, if you can afford it.
