Why do Republicans claim a public option would lead to "rationing" by "bureaucrats"?

[jAZ]

http://www.gop.gov/talking-points/09/05/11/gop-health-care-talking-points


Democrats are pushing for a government takeover of health care that would have devastating consequences for families and small businesses. A government takeover of health care will raise taxes, ration care, and let government bureaucrats make decisions that should be made by families and their doctors.

The Democrats' government-takeover of health care will deny access to medical care and life-saving treatments. More than 100 million Americans would lose their current health care under the Democrats' government-run plan.


As their argument goes, a public healthcare option (what they are calling "gov't takeover") would supposedly lead to rationed care by bureaucrats who would deny coverage for care that would otherwise be made by the patient or doctor.

Well, that's just outright false, isn't it?

Currently the those patients are already being denied care by bureaucrats who's job it is to keep insurance companies profitable by denying and rationing care.

Families would the very same option with a public program that they have now when they are denied care by a insurance co's bureaucrat. Pay for it themselves.

The implication that a new optional gov't healthcare system would a loss of care that otherwise would be provided is a lie.

In fact, 50 million (or whatever number you agree with) who have 100% of their cost of care denied because they have not insurance at all... or are underinsured... will obviously gain the complete opposite of what the GOP claims. They will get care that's currently being denied.

How can anyone defend these claims?

I can see how you might believe that a different system might be better. That's an honest and fair debate to be had. But the one that the GOP is trying to have may be effective, it's based on a lie.

[jAZ]

If you haven't seen this clip, it's interesting. Particularly the audio clip from Nixon discussion why he like Kaiser Permanente's for-profit approach to healthcare.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nDHklw6PV3U&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nDHklw6PV3U&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[mlyonsd]

I can't answer that.

I will say before you talk about universal health care with me you have to agree to the idea that nobody here illegaly will receive a dime.

[donkhater]

You can discredit the Republican party all you wish. I have. They have proven to be hypocritical in their views on small government that they can't be trusted until the current membership is rotated out, IMO.

Be that as it may, their message (regardless of whether or not THEY believe it) of small government is something this country was founded on and should still aspire to.

I'm sure you believe in your heart that health care is a 'right'. It is not. It is a service provided by those trained to provide it. How it is dispensed, what it costs and the decisions being made SHOULD be only between a patient and their doctor. Other taxpayers (i.e. the government) have NO say in the matter.

The only role government should play in the private sector is enforcing contracts and prosecuting cases of fraud. Nothing more.

If an enterprising third party wishes to provide insurance against catastrophic illness, then they set the price on the benefits they dole out. 1300 insurance companies currently compete to do this. The government will not provide competition----none is needed.

Government lowering costs is a myth. You cannot lower costs when you dictate to the market. Price setting is the 'invisible hand' of the marketplace. Consumers set the price, not government. ALWAYS have and ALWAYS will. At least in a successful economy.

Having said all that, if Obama's plan is so revolutionary, why not retool Medicare in that form? He has the perfect canvas on which to explore his ideas to demonstrate their worth instead of adding trillions to the national debt.

[jAZ]

You can discredit the Republican party all you wish. I have. They have proven to be hypocritical in their views on small government that they can't be trusted until the current membership is rotated out, IMO.

Be that as it may, their message (regardless of whether or not THEY believe it) of small government is something this country was founded on and should still aspire to.

I'm sure you believe in your heart that health care is a 'right'. It is not. It is a service provided by those trained to provide it. How it is dispensed, what it costs and the decisions being made SHOULD be only between a patient and their doctor. Other taxpayers (i.e. the government) have NO say in the matter.

The only role government should play in the private sector is enforcing contracts and prosecuting cases of fraud. Nothing more.

If an enterprising third party wishes to provide insurance against catastrophic illness, then they set the price on the benefits they dole out. 1300 insurance companies currently compete to do this. The government will not provide competition----none is needed.

Government lowering costs is a myth. You cannot lower costs when you dictate to the market. Price setting is the 'invisible hand' of the marketplace. Consumers set the price, not government. ALWAYS have and ALWAYS will. At least in a successful economy.

Having said all that, if Obama's plan is so revolutionary, why not retool Medicare in that form? He has the perfect canvas on which to explore his ideas to demonstrate their worth instead of adding trillions to the national debt.

That's a fair recitation of your views, but I don't see how it addresses the questions I am very directly raising.

I didn't intend this to be a general discussion on the value of healthcare reform of any particular stripe. It's about the claims that are the center of the GOP's political response to Obama's planned reform.

[donkhater]

That's a fair recitation of your views, but I don't see how it addresses the questions I am very directly raising.

I didn't intend this to be a general discussion on the value of healthcare reform of any particular stripe. It's about the claims that are the center of the GOP's political response to Obama's planned reform.

There you have it. When you can't grasp the principles of the markets, you can't see why there is really no way for the government to be able to control anything.

How do YOU think bureaucrats are going to keep costs down? By using pixie dust? Obama has provided no details on this. They are going to set prices. Some providers won't be able to afford to give out these services at the new prices and will quit offering them. It's really not that difficult for the logical to understand.

[jAZ]

There you have it. When you can't grasp the principles of the markets, you can't see why there is really no way for the government to be able to control anything.

How do YOU think bureaucrats are going to keep costs down? By using pixie dust? Obama has provided no details on this. They are going to set prices. Some providers won't be able to afford to give out these services at the new prices and will quit offering them. It's really not that difficult for the logical to understand.

You are trying to answer a question I'm not asking. I'm not criticizing your statements, I'm not objecting to their merits. None of that.

I'm talking about their specific claims that I think we can all agree are false.

You are focusing on advocating your views, regardless of the question you are responding to.

I ask again...

Why do Republicans claim a public option would lead to "rationing" by "bureaucrats" when the current system requires that those patients are already being denied care by bureaucrats who's job it is to keep insurance companies profitable by denying and rationing care?

How can anyone defend these claims?

I can see how you might believe that a different system might be better. That's an honest and fair debate to be had. But the one that the GOP is trying to have may be effective, it's based on a lie.

[donkhater]

Why do Republicans claim a public option would lead to "rationing" by "bureaucrats" when the current system requires that those patients are already being denied care by bureaucrats who's job it is to keep insurance companies profitable by denying and rationing care?

How can anyone defend these claims?

I can see how you might believe that a different system might be better. That's an honest and fair debate to be had. But the one that the GOP is trying to have may be effective, it's based on a lie.

I agree they are being a little hypocritical (surprise), but at least the current system allows for the purchaser to choose their own coverage, however expensive it may be. If they don't like their experience with their insurance provider they can dump them.

Side: I realize that if you get your insurance through your employer this would be difficult to do. Yet another brilliant move by our legislators. But I digress...

A public option undercuts all the competition in price because it has taxpayer backing, or at least the illusion of it. Despite Obama's insistance, it will draw many more people to it than he says by that fact alone. The costs will not be sustainable. Medicare and Medicaid have shown this time and again.

Private insurers ration care to survive. Rather than offer a public plan, maybe the feds should help inforce insurance contracts. That would be a better use of taxpayer money.

The government will also need to ration care to maintain costs, but it won't go out of business, because of the sheer numbers of people that will be on it. Ultimately this will DOOM our budget. That is the difference.

[BucEyedPea]

Why? Because that's what's happened wherever govt provides, runs or insures healthcare or provides anything else.
Basic law of supply and demand applies. Something is made to appear cheap more use of it occurs without any monitoring of such use by the market....hence rationing to deal with lines. ( aka waiting lists)
That's why the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe had lines for goods...and that's why Eurosocialist healthcare has waiting lists. That is rationing.

It has nothing to do with Republicans, some Rs want a public model even if few. Libertarians hate the idea as well. Unless they are left libertarians which are really commies.

[SBK]

Why do R's think it would lead to rationing? Because it has everywhere they've enacted it.

[jAZ]

Why do R's think it would lead to rationing? Because it has everywhere they've enacted it.
That's not the question. Read it one more time.

[jAZ]

Private insurers ration care to survive.
Correction and clarification.

Private insurers as they are today, are typically for-profit, typically publicaly traded, massively profitable financial institutions. As such, they aren't rationing to survive. And they aren't even rationing to ensure profits either.

Nor are they rationing to ensure growth of profits.

They are rationing to ensure rapid growth of profits.

Now a non-profit or public option would operate without the burdeon of rapid growth in profits that are demanded by investors of publicly traded financial institutions.

They in fact would be rationing merely to survive.

A federal government program would fit your description, private programs don't generally fit it, though.

Which brings me back to my point.

Right now, our incredibly wasteful and expensive healthcare system is rationing care, not based on the Dr. or patients needs. But based on bureaucrats who are driven to ration care in order to obtain raises, bonus, increased profits and shareholder value.

Republican talking points are lies when they talk about how a new Gov't program would inject a bureaucrat between you and your Dr. It's already happening.

[prhom]

I can't say for sure why they feel it will lead to rationing, but my guess is that by instantly giving whatever number (which one you choose to believe) of currently uninsured people access to healthcare will cause a surge in the amount of people needing care. We aren't going to be able to instantly add a proportional number of healthcare workers to the system. The only way to work through this is through rationing, IF there becomes a logjam of people needing care.

As for people losing healthcare, I think they are referring to an option supported by McCain, that is now back on the table. In this scenario, you would be taxed on the dollar value of whatever healthcare plan in which you are enrolled. The theory is that this will effectively lower your salary, directly through taxes paid by you, or indirectly through your employer paying the taxes for you but paying you a lower salary. If a public option existed, employers could opt to not offer health care as a benefit and pay a higher salary to attract workers. This would give the non-health care benefit employers a salary advantage over companies that were providing health care benefits privately. The health care benefit can be a draw to people now as a good health care plan is like untaxed income. If it becomes taxed you are better off with the public option therefore the Reps figure companies will no longer have an incentive to offer it as a benefit.

That is my understanding of why they would make those statements. Hope it helps.

[SBK]

Correction and clarification.

Private insurers as they are today, are typically for-profit, typically publicaly traded, massively profitable financial institutions. As such, they aren't rationing to survive. And they aren't even rationing to ensure profits either.

Nor are they rationing to ensure growth of profits.

They are rationing to ensure rapid growth of profits.

Now a non-profit or public option would operate without the burdeon of rapid growth in profits that are demanded by investors of publicly traded financial institutions.

They in fact would be rationing merely to survive.

A federal government program would fit your description, private programs don't generally fit it, though.

Which brings me back to my point.

Right now, our incredibly wasteful and expensive healthcare system is rationing care, not based on the Dr. or patients needs. But based on bureaucrats who are driven to ration care in order to obtain raises, bonus, increased profits and shareholder value.

Republican talking points are lies when they talk about how a new Gov't program would inject a bureaucrat between you and your Dr. It's already happening.

They ration because the government does. People on medicaid/care have things happen, gov't doesn't pay or tells doctors what they can't do, insurance companies see that doctors comply, so they do the same thing.

[sportsshrink]

Why? Because that's what's happened wherever govt provides, runs or insures healthcare or provides anything else.
Basic law of supply and demand applies. Something is made to appear cheap more use of it occurs without any monitoring of such use by the market....hence rationing to deal with lines. ( aka waiting lists)
That's why the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe had lines for goods...and that's why Eurosocialist healthcare has waiting lists. That is rationing.

It has nothing to do with Republicans, some Rs want a public model even if few. Libertarians hate the idea as well. Unless they are left libertarians which are really commies.

THIS!! And I would add that the gov't "knows" it can't pay for everything the way the private sector does now nor does it ever intend to pay for every aspect of treatment thus you have the rationing. Also in due time those who will get the treatment will be those who in the State's eye and mind are "considered productive" to the State(ala govt).

Remember, the majority of most people's healthcare tx that is very expensive are the last few yrs of life. Thus more often than not the senior citizens will be denied care "because" they are no longer a "productive unit" to the State. In their eyes(State's) that would be a huge waste of $$ to spend on a no longer productive unit to the State. THIS is what they(Progressive Liberals) call "savings and cost cutting" in Obama's plan and are not being honest about "HOW" this healthcare plan really works.

Be careful for what you support jAz because you may be the elderly person in retirement that needs that particular life saving operation only to be told by the State,"keep your fishing pole in your hand and keep fishing because you will not be getting tx" because you are now seen as a non-productive unit to the State.

[sportsshrink]

Controlling your life is the most essential part of this "healthcare plan". If the Progressive Liberals can seize control of 1/5 of the economy through healthcare they will pretty much be able to dictate any aspect of your life and determine how you should live it.

[jAZ]

They ration because the government does. People on medicaid/care have things happen, gov't doesn't pay or tells doctors what they can't do, insurance companies see that doctors comply, so they do the same thing.
We aren't even talking about Medicare/caid.

[jAZ]

Be careful for what you support jAz because you may be the elderly person in retirement that needs that particular life saving operation only to be told by the State,"keep your fishing pole in your hand and keep fishing because you will not be getting tx" because you are now seen as a non-productive unit to the State.

That's exactly the point. The private health insurers are currently telling retired people exactly that.

[jAZ]

Controlling your life is the most essential part of this "healthcare plan". If the Progressive Liberals can seize control of 1/5 of the economy through healthcare they will pretty much be able to dictate any aspect of your life and determine how you should live it.

Right now that dictate comes from massively profitable insurance companies.

[sportsshrink]

That's exactly the point. The private health insurers are currently telling retired people exactly that.

I don't doubt that some not all are doing that to some degree but it is Medicare (govt)that is drastically cutting back on services and also what they will pay doctors for the elderly. But bottom line you think it is soooooooooo horrible now with private insurers just wait til "Uncle O" gets a hold of it 'thoroughly'. You ain't seen nothing yet!!:shake:

[sportsshrink]

Right now that dictate comes from massively profitable insurance companies.

But the difference being that the 'quality of care' does not diminish. You still get the same high quality of care. Look at how the "Safeway" healthcare plan works for their employees. They basically have modeled it after how 'auto-insurance' works. They have not had a premium increase in 4yrs.:clap:

[JohnnyV13]

jAZ,

The republican claims are based on certain presumptions about the proposed health care reform. Not surprisingly, many of those presumptions are quite negative with respect to the democratic plan.

1) Claim that 100 million will lose their current coverage:

This claim is based on the idea that many employers will drop all private coverage options in favor of funding the government plan. Presumably, the government plan will be cheaper, which will attract many employers who have seen how benefit packages have crushed GM, Chrysler and Ford. Since the government plan will be backed by legislative and regulatory power, the government might well make it difficult for physicians and HMO's to refuse government insured patients, despite poor payment schedules (sort of like what government does with Medicaid patients).

2) Claim that government plan will "ration" care.

This claim is based on comparisons to Canadian and European socialized health care systems. (Which may not necessarily apply to Obama's proposed plan. Yet, commom sense suggests Obama's plan will share similar features since Obama has mentioned the "last six months of life" problem).

Certainly, private insurance companies "ration" care, but the republicans are assuming that competitive market pressure at least somewhat curbs their rationing behavior. The government will soley occupy the "cheap" care niche in the market due to unique legislative and regulatory power to force administrative costs on providers (among other powers). The government plan also seems to use a different business model. Because the government does not have "stockholders" who demand a profit, it's essentially a big health care co-op. The republicans are assuming that elective pressure to provide quality care will be less than the competitive pressures on private insurers. This conclusion also leads directly to another debate: does our private insurance actually provide better quality than the socialized systems of France ect.).

3) Claim that government will make decisions that should soley be between doctors and patients.

This claim, of course, presumes that health care decisions SHOULD be only between doctors and patients (that society, or health care pooled groups, have no rightful say in these decisions). While this presumption certainly sounds right, there is room for some debate on this point. If you are part of "group" coverage, certainly services demanded by one party raises costs for all. Whether the group should have any "say" in how many services are rendered, of course, depends on what the group agreed to when they obtained coverage. To put it in simpliest terms, if the group agreed to "McDonald's" coverage before they were sick and then an individual demands "five star" care, perhaps the group should have some say in the issue.

This issue, however, is somewhat more complex than that simple analogy, because it presumes that joining the group is strictly voluntary. What happens if most employers refuse to fund nothing else but government care (as assumed by republicans in claim 1)? In this case, most people would be left with the unpleasant options of government bare bones care (presuming the government won't offer different "levels" of insurance for increased cost), and pursuing an individual policy (generally expensive because you have to pay with after tax dollars and lack of bargaining power).

If most people are compelled to accept government care, then they would indeed be in the position of government making health care decisions. This political formulation also ignores the reality that private insurers end up dictating these decisions to their customers.

jAZ, these republican claims certainly make many self-serving presumptions, but really aren't out of line with most political rhetoric. Certainly, they are no less "honest" than Obama's claims that he "would not raise taxes on anyone making less than 250k" or his assertion that his stimulus package was passed "without pork".

[HonestChieffan]

Why do the supporters of nationalized health care continue to use statements like "denied health care" and use the 46 million uninsured number? Both are lies and they know it.

[BucEyedPea]

Private health insurance is a voluntarily chosen purchase. There is no force used to get people to use them. No, not even because you need it. If that market is kept free there should be competition. There should also be competition from alternative therapies too.

When it's the govt doing it, you are using force. It's no longer a voluntary act. That's when you start to move into fascism and socialism. I'd rather call it the combination we have even now—facialism.

So the argument by those who are pro-govt healthcare/insurance that private insurers do it is a red-herring. It's not applicable to a govt. Govt is a different animal. And govt can and will deny healthcare too. It will also do it broadly when there is less tech development or improvement in it which advances our health. Because the incentives will be destroyed.

[RaiderH8r]

Before pushing government health care the gov. should do this: Revoke every driver's license in America at once. Send all drivers to the DMV to get a new license. Then subject every American to an IRS audit. All of this within a 6 month deadline. Then go ask the VA what government health care is like. Then examine how nice it is go deal with Medicaid/Medicare claims. Then come simpering back to the good old days because that's all you get with government run health care. The efficiency of the DMV with the compassion of the IRS and on time scales that do not meet the needs of the patients it will be required to care for.

[Baby Lee]

Only jAZ could hope to elide a point by suggesting 'public option' and 'government takeover' are synonomous terms.

The point about rationing is the bigger picture push to eventual single payer, where paying for your own medical services is illegal.

[jAZ]

Only jAZ could hope to elide a point by suggesting 'public option' and 'government takeover' are synonomous terms.

ROFL

That's exactly what the GOP is doing by responding to Obama's propsal for a public option with false claims that it's a 'government takeover'. Thanks for pointing out another bogus accusation by the GOP.

The point about rationing is the bigger picture push to eventual single payer, where paying for your own medical services is illegal.
And it's a truely special touch for you to engage in the same false conflation in your very same post.

Outstanding work of disembling. Truely.

[Baby Lee]

ROFL

That's exactly what the GOP is doing by responding to Obama's propsal for a public option with false claims that it's a 'government takeover'. Thanks for pointing out another bogus accusation by the GOP.


And it's a truely special touch for you to engage in the same false conflation in your very same post.

Outstanding work of disembling. Truely.

Much as you would love to convince people that the Dems just wanna run a little cottage non-profit insurer that people could choose like choosing between 'Starbucks' and 'Gov't Cuppa Joe!!' it's well established that this is the 'just the tip, just for a minute' prelude to full on ass fucking.

I dissembled nothing. I straight out stated my view that 'public option' is nothing but a 'bigger picture' step to an 'eventual' aim of single payer.

[jAZ]

I dissembled nothing. I straight out stated my view that 'public option' is nothing but a 'bigger picture' step to an 'eventual' aim of single payer.

... ultimately making them "synonomous terms" then. All while objecting to my recognition of that effective assumption by the GOP and now you.

You assume public option is code for government takeover. The GOP claims directly that the Obama plan is in fact the same government take over. But it's objectionable for me to respond to those assumptions.

What a joke.

[Baby Lee]

... ultimately making them "synonomous terms" then. All while objecting to my recognition of that effective assumption by the GOP and now you.

You assume public option is code for government takeover. The GOP claims directly that the Obama plan is in fact the same government take over. But it's objectionable for me to respond to those assumptions.

What a joke.

'C'mon honey, just because I take my pants off, and you take your pants off, doesn't mean we HAVE to go ass fucking.

Let's just try for a while and see how we like the pantless look.

Don't overthink this, sweetie.'

It's not 'code' for a takeover, it's an prelude. First to get us more accustomed to gov't healthcare, then to expand to taking 'just a few $$' from the 'richest of the rich' to bolster benefits, then growing a subsidized unfair competitor hoping people will flock to this great gift from the rich, then the drumbeat on 'economies of scale' and on and on.

You're not this dense, though I get that you need to pretend to be to try to salvage this script.

[jAZ]

'C'mon honey, just because I take my pants off, and you take your pants off, doesn't mean we HAVE to go ass ****ing.

Let's just try for a while and see how we like the pantless look.

Don't overthink this, sweetie.'

It's not 'code' for a takeover, it's an prelude. First to get us more accustomed to gov't healthcare, then to expand to taking 'just a few $$' from the 'richest of the rich' to bolster benefits, then growing a subsidized unfair competitor hoping people will flock to this great gift from the rich, then the drumbeat on 'economies of scale' and on and on.

You're not this dense, though I get that you need to pretend to be to try to salvage this script.

I love how you've diverted from your false assertion that I'm "suggesting 'public option' and 'government takeover' are synonomous terms" when I'm simply responding to the GOP efforts to attempt to make them synonomous... and you are diverting by positing your opinion that a "public option" is the Dems trojan horse to an inevitable "government takeover".

What a twisted world you live in.

[Baby Lee]

I love how you've diverted from your false assertion that I'm "suggesting 'public option' and 'government takeover' are synonomous terms" when I'm simply responding to the GOP efforts to attempt to make them synonomous... and you are diverting by positing your opinion that a "public option" is the Dems trojan horse to an inevitable "government takeover".

What a twisted world you live in.

You indeed suggest that they are synonomous by posing the question in the topic header.

Why do Republicans claim a public option would lead to "rationing"

When they clearly are talking about the big picture of pushing us to single payer.

You want to wish away their clearly delineated plans to phase all of this in, and create a false impression that this is some one-off non-profit competitor they want to create and just stop 'innovating' healthcare.

I'm answering your question as directly and succintly as I can.

Why do they claim this?

Because they know that 'public option' is a planned prelude to single payer.
Because a prelude leads to a goal and the goal is single payer and single payer has and will continue to give rise to rationing.

[mlyonsd]

Because a prelude leads to a goal and the goal is single payer and single payer has and will continue to give rise to rationing.

Like when you're hooked on government health care and they deem you're overweight so they cut your benefits.....for the good of the rest of us.

[wild1]

Like when you're hooked on government health care and they deem you're overweight so they cut your benefits.....for the good of the rest of us.

You're "covered", but only for the treatments the government prescribes and only up to a certain dollar amount. Which is rationing.

[JohnnyV13]

Private health insurance is a voluntarily chosen purchase. There is no force used to get people to use them. No, not even because you need it. If that market is kept free there should be competition. There should also be competition from alternative therapies too.

When it's the govt doing it, you are using force. It's no longer a voluntary act. That's when you start to move into fascism and socialism. I'd rather call it the combination we have even now—facialism.

So the argument by those who are pro-govt healthcare/insurance that private insurers do it is a red-herring. It's not applicable to a govt. Govt is a different animal. And govt can and will deny healthcare too. It will also do it broadly when there is less tech development or improvement in it which advances our health. Because the incentives will be destroyed.

Buck, you're getting caught up in ideaology. Again, health care insurance is an odd product that does not respond well to market forces.

The feature that makes action of private insurers pretty much the same animal as government rationing is the inability of insurers to get different coverage when they discover their product is crap.

Basically, with health insurance, you pay for the product long before you receive most of the services. When you get to that day, many years down the road, when most of the services are needed and discover your provider sucks, you are now sick and basically uninsurable. Even well informed consumers can get caught in this trap, BECAUSE THE INSURANCE COMPANY CAN SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE THE NATURE OF HTE PRODUCT BETWEEN THE TIME IT IS PURcHASED AND THE TIME SERVICES ARE DELIVERED.

Insurance companies enact these changes by adding 'exclusions" to the policy.

Once a consumer reaches a certain age, or has piled up "pre-existing" conditions that must be treated, the consumer is just as "forced" by private insurance as they are by government.

[Calcountry]

You are trying to answer a question I'm not asking. I'm not criticizing your statements, I'm not objecting to their merits. None of that.

I'm talking about their specific claims that I think we can all agree are false.

You are focusing on advocating your views, regardless of the question you are responding to.

I ask again...

Why do Republicans claim a public option would lead to "rationing" by "bureaucrats" when the current system requires that those patients are already being denied care by bureaucrats who's job it is to keep insurance companies profitable by denying and rationing care?

How can anyone defend these claims?

I can see how you might believe that a different system might be better. That's an honest and fair debate to be had. But the one that the GOP is trying to have may be effective, it's based on a lie.Supply and demand much?

[Iowanian]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/czOrnjmi4kY&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/czOrnjmi4kY&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[BucEyedPea]

Buck, you're getting caught up in ideaology.
Of course...and that ideology is we are supposed to be a free people. Sorry you disagree.... but our country was founded on an ideology....one of liberty achievable only through less govt force.
There is also NO Constitutional authority for the govt to provide such a service. It violates our Constitutional mandate.


Again, health care insurance is an odd product that does not respond well to market forces.
That is just your opinion. It also not factually true. The market will always have the last say no matter what you do. That last say is lines and rationing in the case of govt. You can't get around the reality. See, right here you're engaging in ideology (or sympathy) solely because the outcome of the market is not what you like. Like everybody covered for anything all the time. Hence, the claim it does not respond well to market forces. It never even existed at one time....it was the market that brought us health insurance. You could buy it if you wanted to. It was to prevent catastrophic loss. Anyhow, you want govt to adjust for your preferred utopian outcome. It never works. It just creates new distortions and different groups get denied coverage based on political reasons while making the nation poorer overall.

The feature that makes action of private insurers pretty much the same animal as government rationing is the inability of insurers to get different coverage when they discover their product is crap.
Insurers or insurees?
And is not the same when you consider that the more you have govt involved in such things the more you lose your freedom, the more you pay in taxes, and it will undeniably be even less efficient with the quality downgraded. So it DOES NOT work better. You're being the utopian here.

Basically, with health insurance, you pay for the product long before you receive most of the services. When you get to that day, many years down the road, when most of the services are needed and discover your provider sucks, you are now sick and basically uninsurable. Even well informed consumers can get caught in this trap, BECAUSE THE INSURANCE COMPANY CAN SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE THE NATURE OF HTE PRODUCT BETWEEN THE TIME IT IS PURcHASED AND THE TIME SERVICES ARE DELIVERED.
I've never had that happen to me. Sounds like there are some lousy shoppers out there. And guess who causes those services to change? The govt.

Insurance companies enact these changes by adding 'exclusions" to the policy.

Once a consumer reaches a certain age, or has piled up "pre-existing" conditions that must be treated, the consumer is just as "forced" by private insurance as they are by government.[/QUOTE]

[BucEyedPea]

Because they know that 'public option' is a planned prelude to single payer.
Because a prelude leads to a goal and the goal is single payer and single payer has and will continue to give rise to rationing.

Didn't one of Obama's suppporters here claim that Obama wanted to move to a single-payer system but felt we weren't ready for it yet? I think so. It may have been Dirk. Maybe he'll let us know.