Can't speak for carolinagirl, but for myself: You do recognize your own red herring, right? That your question only makes sense if you're also offering to return to carolinagirl all the taxes (with interest) that she's already had to pay into the system?

No one things that the US Government is perfect. They are likely as corrupt as any CEO. But their incentives are different. A CEO gets rewarded based on profits in the short term. They have no incentive to build a long term plan because they can get millions of dollars in bonuses now and a golden parachute later. The government may be corrupt but they also don't care about profits. So they can run a health plan that makes absolutely no money and not care. A CEO can't – a CEO needs to make profits. And that is why a government can (not neccessarily will) run a better plan.

And if health care isn't a right, then I assume you will not be on Medicare when you reach retirement age?

I hope you'll reconsider.

Dorian

How this tired argument began is beyond me, but I can personally attest that the consulting company I do a lot of work for (and through whom I get my very satisfactory health care coverage) has changed providers three times in the last seven years. It’s a pain in the butt at times, having to fill out new forms, change cards, etc. but they did it to keep getting the best rate possible and provide us with the best rates.

I work for a small company. Many hours are used every year trying to find the “best” deal available in health insurance. Not because they want to. Because they got a bad case of sticker shock when their current insurer told them how much money they wanted next year. What is the result? A year when things stay the same are a major triumph. Most of the time the result is paying more while receiving less. In fact this is the result the overwhelming majority of the time. The business, like many other businesses winds up with money and time that could be used to benefit the business being used instead to find the less crappy alternative. This is what Jazz either does not recognize or considers to be a triumph of the successful system we have.

On the public option, I understand the concept of providing a competitor to try and drive down insurance rates. To be effective and not shut down the insurance industry, the public option will have to be cheap enough to provide competition yet not so cheap that people will be overly driven to the public option. This means the government will have to design the public option “just right” within a pretty narrow window. Since the government hasn't shown much ability in doing things just right and hitting narrow windows, there should be a healthy skepticism in their managing it with the public option.

The public option of course will have advantages public plans do not in not having to keep cash reserves, not having to pay taxes and yes not worrying about profits. This means the public option stands a good chance of overpowering the private plans.

So far the usual response from the left on that possibility seems to be “Good, if they can't compete they deserve to fail!' (ignoring that the reason they failed was that the government loaded the odds against them) or “Good, that means we will then have government-controlled health care!”. The second response of course runs counter to the Obama position that he is not looking for government-controlled health care.

So I really think the left is being a little inconsistent here, maybe even fooling themselves. When they are in favor of an action that may well lead to government-controlled health care, while at the same time saying that isn't their goal, you have to forgive people for being unconvinced. Add to that the widespread view on the left (judging by the people in here anyway) that the government really ought to take over health care anyway, and it's hard to take the public option seriously as anything but a move towards that.

I actually happen to agree with most of your last comment to Jazz about the near monopoly condition in so many of our industries. I just don't believe that throwing up our hands and saying that this means that the industries need to be publicly run is the answer. The monopoly conditions didn't happen in a vaccuum, and in many instances there were points where the govt could have intervened (and should have, IMO) but didn't and many other instances where the govt did intervene in ways that contributed to the dominance of megacorporations, and those policies can and should be reversed.

I'm just so freaking tired of the canard that conservatives are denying reality or that we think there's no problem with our current market functions. How about asking what our opinions really are, rather than assuming we're idiots?

At any rate, you certainly have the right to express yourself any way that you choose, but the reactions you get will vary depending on the choices you make. I actually think that Jazz sometimes similarly uses inflammatory tone to make his point, and people call him on it all the time- but he seems to know that when he writes a certain way, people react, and that's part of the give and take.

Bravo.

As Reagan said, blaming an economic recession on “greed” makes about as much sense as blaming a plane crash on “gravity”.

No our rights are endowed by the Creator and are not subject to the whims of men:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…”
-U.S. Declaration of Independence

Our rights cannot be taken away by the government, because they were not granted by the government. The purpose of the Constitution is to protect citizens from their government.

Health care is not a “right”; it is a service provided by one person to another.

To suggest that health care is a “right” is to suggest that medical providers are slaves.

So if anyone has a different opinion and takes you to task for your points, you take your ball and go home. Ok, fine. I hope you don't quit on your “lawyering” clients as quickly as you quit on a public debate over policy. Best of luck.

The notion that there is no competition among insurers is poppycock. Deciding among competing proposals was always a major concern, everywhere I have worked.

The left has worked itself into a collectivist frenzy, the better to preen themselves on playing Meathead to our Archie Bunkers, and they will simply make up whatever “facts” support their pretensions. Ultimately, it's all about “feelgood.”

The Dems have been whipping up seniors with half truths for decades. Now, with a bill that explicitly calls for Medicare cuts, Grandma is getting worked up and the Dems scream 'foul'? Dude, maybe Grandma is susceptible to 'scaring' because you've been ringing her bell so long with cries of Republicans trying to take away Social Security and Medicare that she now really believes in the boogeyman. Except it's Boogeyman (D), instead of the usual Boogeyman (R).

They don't. This is a lie or proof of ignorance. Those days are past, CG.

Please note that I copy/pasted that last line. I also managed to figure out how to use the copy/paste function on my computer for my quotes from your previous article. Please point out the area where I misquoted you or apologize. One or the other.

The rest of these despicable organizations want the free flow of cheap labor that is already swarming across our nation, even though we are in a deep recession and millions of US citizens and legal residence are jobless. As I speak 1.5 million new immigrants entered America and that's not counting the illegal aliens who extract from taxpayers everyday. Our politicians can no longer demand of the people, to pay for foreign national health care, when they cannot afford it for their own families? How many more years are the people to be dictated to the power of profiteering insurance companies? How many decades must taxpayers is forced to pay for illegal immigrants and families, who have already broken our laws of sovereignty and expect to be rewarded with another blanket AMNESTY.

How can we assume our legislators to honor the “Rule of Law”, when they have already stone-walled us over the 1986 immigration enforcement law? Millions of loyal Americans who have already commanded E-Verify extraction tool in the workplace (section of the SAVE ACT) 287 G police enforcement, no match letter and the ICE raids of illegal immigrant. But we must maintain the bombardment if you want a health care public option choice? Whether you want to keep on supporting the impoverished, unschooled of foreign nations that skirt our laws? CALL YOUR SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES FOR WHAT YOU WANT AT 202-224-3121? NOT WHAT THE SPECIAL INTEREST LOBBY HAS PAID FOR? Read about the trillions to be spent on giving AMNESTY to illegal immigrants at the Heritage Foundation. GOOGLE more facts on the web, or search for the truth at NUMBERSUSA.

Observe this PETITION to STOP any health care to illegal immigrants at: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/nohealthcarefo…

The rest of these despicable organizations want the free flow of cheap labor that is already swarming across our nation, even though we are in a deep recession and millions of US citizens and legal residence are jobless. As I speak 1.5 million new immigrants entered America and that's not counting the illegal aliens who extract from taxpayers everyday. Our politicians can no longer demand of the people, to pay for foreign national health care, when they cannot afford it for their own families? How many more years are the people to be dictated to the power of profiteering insurance companies? How many decades must taxpayers is forced to pay for illegal immigrants and families, who have already broken our laws of sovereignty and expect to be rewarded with another blanket AMNESTY.

How can we assume our legislators to honor the “Rule of Law”, when they have already stone-walled us over the 1986 immigration enforcement law? Millions of loyal Americans who have already commanded E-Verify extraction tool in the workplace (section of the SAVE ACT) 287 G police enforcement, no match letter and the ICE raids of illegal immigrant. But we must maintain the bombardment if you want a health care public option choice? Whether you want to keep on supporting the impoverished, unschooled of foreign nations that skirt our laws? CALL YOUR SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES FOR WHAT YOU WANT AT 202-224-3121? NOT WHAT THE SPECIAL INTEREST LOBBY HAS PAID FOR? Read about the trillions to be spent on giving AMNESTY to illegal immigrants at the Heritage Foundation. GOOGLE more facts on the web, or search for the truth at NUMBERSUSA.

Observe this PETITION to STOP any health care to illegal immigrants at: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/nohealthcarefo…

I gave up my interest in the public option back in June when I read several articles discussing various foreign healthcare systems in depth. I then researched the Swiss system and wrote a favorable post on 8/11/09, which was largely ignored by the readership. However, I was merely ahead of my time as Paul Krugman has reluctantly endorsed the same system either today or yesterday in the New York Times. Politically the public option isn't going anywhere and the Swiss system is the best compromise.

You misquoted me and twisted my words but I'll let that pass. I'm guilty of that too and we're all human. But at least I avoid silly polls that change each day and can easily be twisted out of context. I'm sorry that I feel that too many Americans are congenitally ignorant, but history and facts prove me correct.

My problem with likely governmental subsidies for those who can't afford private health insurance is that it will merely prop up a woefully inefficient and wasteful private healthcare insurance system. If most private insurers stated that a minimum national healthcare policy for a family of 4 would cost $1,500 a month, most Americans will not be able to afford this figure without some subsidies or tax credits. Of course this figure would contain overhead for marketing, paperwork processing, and executive bonuses and shareholder profits. After a few years, won't the public start wondering why we can't do it for less? We will then go back to the argument I made that some things are so important to people and society that preserving the private sector be damned.

Private insurance companies with all their wealth and influence have been completely unable to curb the growth in Medical costs or impose procedures that would save money. You can see some of the good articles by mikkel from Cleveland, and other non-TMV sources for examples. They can't even agree on one uniform claims form to save money for everyone in the system. That is really pathetic and greatly reduces my trust in this entire industry.

How do you propose we address controlling costs to help both the public (Medicare/Medicaid) and the private sector (everyone else)? Furthermore, how do we cover all the insured (whatever that disputed number turns out to be)?

I do not think the Administration and many Democrats should abandon the public option until they work out another good alternative for universal coverage and cost controlling purposes. One should never negotiate with oneself – that is part of the natural give and take of politics. I further agree that healthcare should be passed by any minimum method (including reconciliation) possible.

Elections have consequences and President Obama and the Democrats won over whatever crap the Republicans presented. They will be judged on what they accomplish, now on how much they compromise to win 1 or 2 opposition votes. Essentially ALL Republican ideas are worthless at this time considering the messes they created in the past. The wing-nuts at the town hall meetings are free to shoot themselves in their feet but they bring NOTHING to an intelligent discourse.

If anyone doesn't like what happens in healthcare and other legislation, then they can go vote for the opposition in 2010. Elections are the only reliable polls that also pass constitutional muster.

Certainly President Bush and the Republicans didn't care less what the opposition said about even more tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, going to war in 2 foreign countries, or passing a Medicare Prescription Drug plan that was a financial giveaway to big pharaceutical companies. All's fair in love and war – and U.S. politics.

Best regards from your fellow blogger in Phoenix – MP