I have an idea. Lets subsidize private insurance companies with tax dollars so we save money!

[John Q. Citizen]

Isn't that brilliant? Health care cost keep raising. If we turn over a bunch of treasury money to private suits, how can we lose?

If it works we should subsidize private insurance companies with tax dollars for retirement insurance.

Who's with me?

[cali]

1. whatever. frankly rather than wasting time on snark I'd rather

discuss what a good public option would look like.

[John Q. Citizen]

3. As long as private insurance get's more tax dollars, it will save us a ton of money I'm thinking.

[dionysus]

2. superb.

:eyes:

[John Q. Citizen]

4. I'm on a roll. The more money we send to private insurance companies, the faster they will disappear

Makes sense doesn't it.

[ejpoeta]

9. well, that's how we have benefitted from the bank bailouts.

throw money at them and then let them do whatever they want. how can we lose!

[OHdem10]

5. We were angry because the GOP rewarded the Drug Companies

and Insurance Companies with the Drug Program under GWB.

Our Party under Obama is just expanding the same program.
Reward the Insurance and Drugs Cos. Give the shaft to
the Middle Class.

[John Q. Citizen]

6. Obama hasn't signaled that he's willing to take on anyone who is powerful in any

real capacity, has he?

Ever?

Any one have any examples of Obama taking on entrenched power?

[Orangepeel]

7. some people want a plan just like Congress gets

and that's what that would be.

It wouldn't save any money, but giving everybody the same health care options that federal employees get would be better than a lot of people have now.

That, plus a public plan, might actually be good.

[John Q. Citizen]

8. Since money is no problem, we could triple the coverage for everyone and get our

own private nurses when we get a cold,

We will be living like kings.

And the insurance companies will like it too! Everybody wins!

[ejpoeta]

10. i think a true public plan would be helpful.

if folks had that option, it would force the private insurance to bring their costs down and offer more. as it stands now, we can't get into a public system unless we have no access to insurance through the employer or make less than so much. it's like with the child health plus.... we have access to insurance, but because my husband makes less than a certain amount we were able to sign the kids up. Right now anyone trying for medicaid or family health plus has to be really poor... i like to say one step from living in a cardboard box, basically. even that might not be enough for some. We need everyone to be able to have a public option regardless of their income and for their pay towards it to be income based. we pay $9/mo for each of our girls for child health plus. if we made more money, our cost for it would be more. though, it is run through blue cross blue shield in our area... so i don't know how much the state pays towards that.

[Occam Bandage]

11. It sounds like you're saying that it's ridiculous to

supply organizations with taxpayer money to lower costs for taxpayers. If you honestly believe that, you're in the wrong party. I'm sure that your argument is instead "private companies have no place in health care or retirement," which I don't quite believe either. I can't think of a nation that doesn't have private insurance companies, and I can think of quite a few nations that offer subsidies.

[brentspeak]

12. Which nations which don't have a single-payer system give taxpayer subds to private insurance?

??

??

??

[Occam Bandage]

13. Canada does. So does Australia. Germany does, indirectly. nt

[brentspeak]

14. So now Canada, Australia, and Germany don't have a single-payer health care system?

[Occam Bandage]

16. Germany doesn't. Canada and Australia mostly do, but rely heavily on private insurance as well.

If Obama were to offer an attractive public option, mandate coverage, and subsidize private insurance to lower costs to the consumer, it would put America's health care system somewhere between Canada's and Germany's.

[John Q. Citizen]

15. Please re-read the question. I think you mis-read.

[flpoljunkie]

17. You notice how the R's and the Healthcare lobbyists do not trash Medicare as 'socialist.'

That's because our grandparents like it just fine. They do have supplemental insurance, but pay a hell of a lot less than the rest of us.

Medicare for all. That's what we need to work toward. And, it won't happen without a public component to the health care legislation being considered by Congress.

[John Q. Citizen]

18. I agree. Obama has said repeatedly if starting from scratch he would choose single payer.

So why isn't he doing single payer? It's a political problem, not a problem with single payer.

[Cleita]

19. If the federal government subsidizes health care, maybe

we need to set up our own single payer non-profit health care company and run it like a cooperative. People can buy into according to what they can afford and we can cover the members who are unable to pay with the government subsidies. We would promise to keep administrative costs below 5% but give all members the same quality coverage. We would turn down nobody. For this to work, the government subsidies have to be universal. I think a group of health care professionals who would have the knowledge to make this work could start up the company, like maybe the group of Harvard doctors who started the PNHP. Then we can force the for profit health care industry to compete with our company. I know the devil is in the details, but if our government won't listen to us, then we need to make whatever they are giving to the insurance companies work for us too.