H the K wrote:
Lu Powell wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 21:49:49 -0500, jpjccd wrote:


A public option, as it is currently framed in the conversation, will
invariably drive private insurer's out of the market. "Corporate
insurers" currently compete against each other for your business, and
the marketplace is replete with providers that compete with each other.
The contention that a public option will keep providers honest is
itself
a dishonesty. Insurers have to keep premiums as low as possible in the
free market if they are to remain viable. And if providers are
required
to carry all applicants without consideration of medical history, most
providers would not be able to remain viable. Too, there are
organizations that provide various forms of indemnification for the
uninsurable. But, as in all insurances, higher premiums are required.
And all states have policy renewal and cancellation regulations.
Health
insurers are subject to oversight and state regulation. And the states
generally shape their legislation and regulations to conform to the
recommendations of the NAIC. Likewise, the standard for pre-x, or
pre-existing conditions is that any condition that could have been
reasonably diagnosed by a physician 12 months prior to the activation
date of the policy is not covered for 12 months following that date.
Too, most insurers for an array of conditions, will attach riders to
policies that will exclude coverage for those conditions for
approximately 2 years after which those conditions will be covered.

If a public option is approved and installed, necessarily and
ultimately
most citizens will have to subordinate themselves to that option. And
the the insidious, unassailable truth of this is that without the
competition of the free market to keep it streamlined, efficient, and
honest, the public option will inexorably provide mediocre health care,
and that on a good day.

Why is it that so few can think this through?

Quite a few people have thought this through. That's why there is a
need
for a public option. You think that the marketplace is competitive.
The
reality is it's reaching monopoly status.

http://www.marke****ch.com/story/stu...monopoly-fears

http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/...lth-insurance-

oxymoron

Now, what's the party line in light of this from Bloomerg?

Aug. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen
Sebelius said providing citizens with the option of government-run
insurance isn’t essential to the Obama administration’s proposed
overhaul of U.S. health care.

“What’s important is choice and competition,” Sebelius said today on
CNN’s “State of the Union.” The public option itself “is not the
essential element.”

Asked if a cooperative plan is a possible replacement, Sebelius said
she didn’t know what alternatives Congress would settle on among
competing versions of the health legislation now under consideration.
The Senate Finance Committee is discussing cooperatives, or networks
of health-insurance plans owned by their customers, that would get
started with government funds.

Sebelius’ comments suggest that the Obama administration may be
considering backing off its commitment to create a government-run
health insurance system to operate alongside private insurers in order
to get health legislation passed.

“There are not the votes in the Senate for the public option, there
never have been,” North Dakota Senator Kent Conrad, one of the lead
Democratic negotiators on health care in the Finance Committee, said
on “Fox News Sunday.”

“To continue to chase that rabbit, I think, is just a wasted effort,”
he said.

“President Obama and his cabinet have read the tea leaves,” said
Senator Richard Shelby, an Alabama Republican, on the Fox program. The
American people “don’t want a government- run program,” Shelby said.
Shelby also said that the creation of co-ops, while “that would be
government involvement” would be “a step in the right direction.”




The "party line," of course, is that the Republicans want to kill any
possibilities of a "public option," because that's what their owners in
the health insurance industry have told them to do.

It appears that Obamacare is in its death throes. The public option was
the cornerstone of the plan and the basis for the rest of the plan. And,
in light of the CMA's meeting this week where they are discussing the
failures of centralized health care management and the need to move to
patient centered health care.

Easy, Lu-ser. Even for someone as dumb as you are.

BTW, you're not enrolled in a publicly funded health care program, are
you? Just wondering, because most of "conservative" opponents here are.

Everyone aged 65 and over is compelled by the full force of the US
government to "participate" in a government run health care program
whether they choose to participate or not.

Nice try anyway.