Left-Wing Media Biased

[thegreekdog]

Spurgistan, you sometimes actually answer my questions. Therefore, I have one for you.

Explain to me how the public option will compete fairly with private options when the "company" running the public option is taking money away from the companies running the private option in the form of taxes. Also, explain to me how the public option will compete fairly with private options when the "company" running the public option can run with a deficit without negative consequence.

Thanks.

[spurgistan]

Spurgistan, you sometimes actually answer my questions. Therefore, I have one for you.

Explain to me how the public option will compete fairly with private options when the "company" running the public option is taking money away from the companies running the private option in the form of taxes. Also, explain to me how the public option will compete fairly with private options when the "company" running the public option can run with a deficit without negative consequence.

Thanks.

Thanks for the quasi-compliment

Among other things, the public option in both house's bills is a weak public option. It basically will cover people that insurance companies don't really want to cover (and are always thinking up ways to deny coverage to) Seeing as it has to cover the pariahs of the insurance world, it will probably be more expensive than private insurance (unless they suck. Isn't getting rid of sucky companies taking 30% of their money as overhead a good thing?)
I'm not sure what your point about the gov's ability to tax private insurers means. Unless your distrust of the government is that deep where you believe tax policy would be designed to destroy private tax plans.
Basically, my read on the public option (besides being a small part of the plan. I'm pretty sure most of my liberal friends are so vehemantly for it mostly because they're tired of caving to Republicans on literally everything) is that the public plan is designed to be a sort of cost-control, while ensuring that everybody has an option for insurance. It's really the most free-market sort of regulation I could think of, paradoxically.
The real big part of this bill is subsidizing employer-based insurance, which is guaranteed to be the basis of the American health insurance industry for a loong time. Trust me, single-payer will not happen during my (possibly rather short) lifetime, unless the public option turns into an unmitigated (deficit-reducing) success. In which case, your problem is....

[thegreekdog]

Interesting on the public option. I've been calling for a public plan that covers people that can't afford private health insurance (and only that). I was unaware that the current bill's public option was just that. It makes me a little happier.

I'm not saying that the government would tax the private insurers out of business (although I suppose they could). Instead, I'm questioning the fair competition of having one health insurance provider taking money from another health insurance provider. In other words, on the private health insurer's income statement, there is an expense deduction for federal income tax (and state income tax). On the public health insurer's income statement, there is no such expense deduction. Further, the private insurer will pass the income tax (indirectly) to consumers of private health insurance. Because the public health insurer has no such expense, it does not have to pass cost to the consumers.

[spurgistan]

Maybe I should clarify. In my understanding (I do follow this stuff, although, I do have a rooting interest, so I may see what I want to) the weak public option will essentially operate as an adjunct to the for-profit insurance industry. It will have no ability to negotiate with pharma for lower prices, will probably end up being opt-out (more reasons to live in Mississippi! Along with, well...) and will basically operate as a basic insurance company with one caveat - it can't turn people down. Therefore, it would be more expensive than the private plan who has the ability to discriminate against the elderly, sick, etc. In this case, it makes sense for me to buy the private plan, right? While I can buy the public option (well, actually, I think there are qualifications that would probably disqualify me. Did I mention weak public option?) unless the private insurance is hideously bloated and inefficient, it makes sense to stay private. I do hope somebody responds to the fact that the really important part of this bill is the level of subsidies for private health care. That will be the main part of this bill that affects all of us. For good.

Thanks for clarifying the tax question. I can't answer that, though.

[thegreekdog]

Maybe I should clarify. In my understanding (I do follow this stuff, although, I do have a rooting interest, so I may see what I want to) the weak public option will essentially operate as an adjunct to the for-profit insurance industry. It will have no ability to negotiate with pharma for lower prices, will probably end up being opt-out (more reasons to live in Mississippi! Along with, well...) and will basically operate as a basic insurance company with one caveat - it can't turn people down. Therefore, it would be more expensive than the private plan who has the ability to discriminate against the elderly, sick, etc. In this case, it makes sense for me to buy the private plan, right? While I can buy the public option (well, actually, I think there are qualifications that would probably disqualify me. Did I mention weak public option?) unless the private insurance is hideously bloated and inefficient, it makes sense to stay private. I do hope somebody responds to the fact that the really important part of this bill is the level of subsidies for private health care. That will be the main part of this bill that affects all of us. For good.

Thanks for clarifying the tax question. I can't answer that, though.

Weirdly enough, I do not support subsidies for private health insurance (I know, a person against universal healthcare is not a pawn of the insurance companies... shocker!). I think the government should insure those who cannot afford it (to reduce costs for the rest of us), but I think there needs to be some clearer guidelines (so we don't have another ridiculous Medicare/Medicaid situation on our hands and we can get these people better preventative care). On the private insurance side, I think we need to have some deregulation on competition across state lines and I think we need to determine whether regulation will help drive costs down (and then implement such regulations).

[Nobunaga]

... And more references to "teabaggers" from CNN.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-ba ... -label-cnn

...

... And here's CNN again just making up numbers. 56% support the public option? No, 56% are against it... just a slip of the tongue? (never retracted or corrected)

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mike-bates ... lic-option

... What passes for news in this country amazes me.

...

Well, you just totally misrepresented the Newsbusters article you linked to. Congratulations.
Also, the public option is totally meant to compete with private plans! The question is not dishonest at all; critic's opinions are not ironclad fact.

... Translation: "I have no argument here, the media's portrayal of these citizens is grotesquely misaligned, so I'll throw a snide jab at Nobunaga and go for the classic lefty moove, and.... DODGE!"

... Brilliant.

...

[spurgistan]

... And more references to "teabaggers" from CNN.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-ba ... -label-cnn

...

... And here's CNN again just making up numbers. 56% support the public option? No, 56% are against it... just a slip of the tongue? (never retracted or corrected)

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mike-bates ... lic-option

... What passes for news in this country amazes me.

...

Well, you just totally misrepresented the Newsbusters article you linked to. Congratulations.
Also, the public option is totally meant to compete with private plans! The question is not dishonest at all; critic's opinions are not ironclad fact.

... Translation: "I have no argument here, the media's portrayal of these citizens is grotesquely misaligned, so I'll throw a snide jab at Nobunaga and go for the classic lefty moove, and.... DODGE!"

... Brilliant.

...

I actually had a freaking argument. The article acted as if government forcing out private insurers is some sort of incontrovertible fact. It's a freaking opinion, and one that is unlikely to happen unless the public option turns out to be an unforseen success.

[Phatscotty]

Spurgistan, you sometimes actually answer my questions. Therefore, I have one for you.

Explain to me how the public option will compete fairly with private options when the "company" running the public option is taking money away from the companies running the private option in the form of taxes. Also, explain to me how the public option will compete fairly with private options when the "company" running the public option can run with a deficit without negative consequence.

Thanks.

Thanks for the quasi-compliment

Among other things, the public option in both house's bills is a weak public option. It basically will cover people that insurance companies don't really want to cover (and are always thinking up ways to deny coverage to) Seeing as it has to cover the pariahs of the insurance world, it will probably be more expensive than private insurance (unless they suck. Isn't getting rid of sucky companies taking 30% of their money as overhead a good thing?)
I'm not sure what your point about the gov's ability to tax private insurers means. Unless your distrust of the government is that deep where you believe tax policy would be designed to destroy private tax plans.
Basically, my read on the public option (besides being a small part of the plan. I'm pretty sure most of my liberal friends are so vehemantly for it mostly because they're tired of caving to Republicans on literally everything) is that the public plan is designed to be a sort of cost-control, while ensuring that everybody has an option for insurance. It's really the most free-market sort of regulation I could think of, paradoxically.
The real big part of this bill is subsidizing employer-based insurance, which is guaranteed to be the basis of the American health insurance industry for a loong time. Trust me, single-payer will not happen during my (possibly rather short) lifetime, unless the public option turns into an unmitigated (deficit-reducing) success. In which case, your problem is....

Isn't getting rid of sucky companies taking 30% of their money as overhead a good thing?)

That's Hella Reverse Job- Growth....therefore hella lost tax revenue.....not looking good from there......

also, if i may add a question Spurg. Didn't the gov't try the same thing in 1998 to Keep College tuition "affordable"?

thanks

[got tonkaed]

Writing a Book is the first thing you do if you're gonna run for president. It's perfectly normal, I do enjoy seeing you shaking in your boots like a little girle mahn

you are not a very good poster. I probably post something of higher intellectual value than your garbage when i roll out of bed drunk. Stop being useless and post something of value once, see what happens.

hmm, audacity of hope back up my statement. why do you have to be the one to introduce garbage, literally? as far as im concerned, between me n you its about 8-0, you should be negative points, but even though you use the "garbage" argument every single time, the judges won;t dock you points becuase at least you came up with something

until you actually post 8 different arguments you cant really claim to be 8 and 0. I am not even sure you have 8 differnet topics to really talk about. We get it, you dont like the current administration, yet you dont actually have anything of interest to add despite your efforts to post as many threads about the same topic (restated) as possible. As long as we are predicting things that can never happen, as you dont actually have 8 different topics you can talk about I am going to say from here on out I have defeated you in all arguments because not actually making an argument has disqualified you from every single you post you have made prior to now and all subsequent posts in the future.

To sum up, suck less.

well, this thread is about the Media and examples of it.....but please, continue about the administration....
I happen to think this administration is doing a few things much better than previous.....but whatever......la la land right?
the logic and comprehension barrier/PC bubble continues to dominate your soul

if you post about something between two people which has to span over more than one topic (ie your 8-0 mark) you therefore cede the right to make any inane posts about the topic that you make the comment in. I bring up the administration as the essential centerpiece to many of general rantings and ravings that are more or less of no value, and you find a way to miss the meaning and narrowly tie it back to something that wasnt even the main thrust of the post.

well done missing on all counts, its good to see being outside the logic and comprehension barrier is so effective for you. To keep things on topic, so that you dont make another nonrelevant post about me posting off topic, yeah the examples you posted in the thread show some pretty silly stories at best. Granted nonabunaga does it a little more frequently and with a little more force, but good effort on branching out.

*I havent followed much of your other recent threads, if they have somehow moved up from useless tripe to simply tripe, please accept my apology and add on whatever personal congradulations you need to keep up the good work.