What would be the advantage to a state to opt out of the public option in health care?
Monday, November 16th, 2009 at
4:00 am
Both the Democratic and Republican candidates for governor of Virginia say they would opt that state out buy prescription drugs online without prescription of the public option in health care. Why? Is there some advantage in doing so? If so, what? To me it seems like NOT having people show up for primary medical care at emergency rooms would save everybody a lot of money. This is an honest question, I want an honest answer, please no political rhetoric.
The governors would get more campaign contributions from big insurance if they opt out. It would be good for the politician and the insurance company, but bad for competition and the consumers. I think the public option is necessary. Some states have only 1 or 2 insurance company authorized to operate in the state – that is not competition. I think Virginia has 7 to pick from.
Opting out would save the State and taxpayer money as the State will be required to fund the infrastructure (staffing etc) for a public option office. PS – this cost is not included in cost projections as it is a state cost and not federal.
The Congressional Budget Office says that the plans being pushed through in congress would increase the cost of health care in the US "significantly."
This is going to result in crippling taxes on all Americans, and our economy just can’t handle that.
The public option, is only about your paying for the risky life styles of others, note the price of health care since Aids came about
Insurance companies and pharmaceuticals contribute heavily to political campaigns, mostly to the pro-big-business/deregulating Republican party, but also to Democrats like Max Baucus et al. (see website opensecrets.org). Fear-mongering propaganda abounds against the word "public" that equates this option with "government takeover" (not true) or "socialism" (as though our VA hospitals, post offices, police, public schools, firefighters, public libraries, Social Security system, Medicare and Medicaid, etc.,—socialist systems all—are somehow not in the public’s best interest…lol.
Politicians tend to hedge their bets and/or "ride the fence" when any controversy exists until they actually get elected and sometimes even thereafter. A few do speak openly and plainly about their preferences, explaining to voters why they believe as they do (such as Barney Frank, Ron Paul, etc.), and these politicians tend to be re-elected (you’d think the hedge-sitters would learn from this). Why would states choose to "opt out" you ask: Money is probably a big part of the reason. According to Rossi (2005), just the pharmceutical industry alone has 4.5 lobbyists in Washington for every 1 elected representative, so imagine how many innundate candidates in every state and in Washington DC trying to push their greed-driven billionaire bosses’ agendas at the expense of the American working class and low-income families. This is where the "we the people" portion of government becomes highly relevant and powerful, especially in an election year. We need to make our preferences known, and then hold our politicians’ feet to the fire in getting what we want and need. If we, the people, stay united, involved and active, lobbying for the public option and insurance reforms loud and long and maybe even organize a nation-wide boycott of companies attempting to block these needed reforms just for the sake of personal gain, we have a chance of infusing our Democrats and maybe a few of the non-cult-evangelical Republicans with some backbone so they can stand up to the bullying of the billionaires who want to block any improvements or consumer protections.
Here’s the tricky part of the "opt out" provision: The Democrats have set a timebomb of sorts that would backfire on any Republican governor who dares to deny what at least 68% of the people have indicated they WANT, a public option. If someone like TX Governor Rick Perry, who claimed he would rather have TX "secede" than take stimulus dollars (wierdo blowhard that he is), but then took the stimulus dollars and spent up to $20 million refurbishing the Governor’s Mansion, were to deny the people of his state access to affordable health care coverage and needed insurance reforms that protect the consumer, would he run the risk of alienating voters and then losing the governorship? Former-Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson is running against him and she could easily use this against him, as could the Democratic candidate. So this "opt out" strategy on the part of Senate Democrats might be a political strategy that could be similar to an exploding cigar for those Republican governors who do decide to "opt out" on health care.
i agree with armchair goddess quote:
"Insurance companies and pharmaceuticals contribute heavily to political campaigns, mostly to the pro-big-business/deregulating Republican party, but also to Democrats like Max Baucus et al. (see website opensecrets.org). Fear-mongering propaganda abounds against the word "public" that equates this option with "government takeover" (not true) or "socialism" (as though our VA hospitals, post offices, police, public schools, firefighters, public libraries, Social Security system, Medicare and Medicaid, etc.,—socialist systems all—are somehow not in the public’s best interest…lol.
Politicians tend to hedge their bets and/or "ride the fence" when any controversy exists until they actually get elected and sometimes even thereafter. A few do speak openly and plainly about their preferences, explaining to voters why they believe as they do (such as Barney Frank, Ron Paul, etc.), and these politicians tend to be re-elected (you’d think the hedge-sitters would learn from this). Why would states choose to "opt out" you ask: Money is probably a big part of the reason. According to Rossi (2005), just the pharmceutical industry alone has 4.5 lobbyists in Washington for every 1 elected representative, so imagine how many innundate candidates in every state and in Washington DC trying to push their greed-driven billionaire bosses’ agendas at the expense of the American working class and low-income families. This is where the "we the people" portion of government becomes highly relevant and powerful, especially in an election year. We need to make our preferences known, and then hold our politicians’ feet to the fire in getting what we want and need. If we, the people, stay united, involved and active, lobbying for the public option and insurance reforms loud and long and maybe even organize a nation-wide boycott of companies attempting to block these needed reforms just for the sake of personal gain, we have a chance of infusing our Democrats and maybe a few of the non-cult-evangelical Republicans with some backbone so they can stand up to the bullying of the billionaires who want to block any improvements or consumer protections.
Here’s the tricky part of the "opt out" provision: The Democrats have set a timebomb of sorts that would backfire on any Republican governor who dares to deny what at least 68% of the people have indicated they WANT, a public option. If someone like TX Governor Rick Perry, who claimed he would rather have TX "secede" than take stimulus dollars (wierdo blowhard that he is), but then took the stimulus dollars and spent up to $20 million refurbishing the Governor’s Mansion, were to deny the people of his state access to affordable health care coverage and needed insurance reforms that protect the consumer, would he run the risk of alienating voters and then losing the governorship? Former-Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson is running against him and she could easily use this against him, as could the Democratic candidate. So this "opt out" strategy on the part of Senate Democrats might be a political strategy that could be similar to an exploding cigar for those Republican governors who do decide to "opt out" on health care."
To the people of the state, there is none. Without the public option to force down their premiums or co-pays, state residents would pay much more for their health care. The more they spend on health care, the less they have to spend on consumer goods and services, which drive the economy (70% of the economy is driven by consumer spending). As consumer spending rises, so do jobs and sales taxes.
The health-insurance companies profit, of course, when they do not have to compete with lower prices. As has been said, any politician siding with these companies can also profit. But the state loses.
A State is closer to their own people. They know what the people need more than a giant bureaucracy. The feds are notorious for spending money and some of our States do not have it to spend! But if they can say no to more spending, their people will have more in their own pocket and it will stay where it is needed. their State. We see the Feds giving our taxes back for our schools does not work! If you happen to be Liberal.. look at Michigan! We have the Federal fundings /we have lotto / we have casinos.. we have poor school funding with medium to high land tax! Earl