The PUBLIC OPTION is NOT "socialism" - it is HONEST competition for the insurance crooks

[ddeclue]

That. Is. All.

[Juche]

1. Two things wrong with that

1. Socialism is not a bad thing. The libraries, schools, police, roads, fire department, military, pensions and health care for the elderly are all socialized. And generally many of these are among the most liked and respected government interventions. Try eliminating medicare, public libraries and the police and see how people respond.

2. Yeah, it is competition. That is why it was banned.

A public option wouldn't need to make a profit (cutting 2-3% off the cost vs for profit insurance)

Government insurance has lower overhead. Medicare spends about 3%, private insurance spends about 20%

A public option tied to medicare could negotiate for lower prices for procedures. That would bother hospitals and physicians (who'd get paid less than they would under private insurance).


Add it all up and private insurance can't compete (since they have higher overhead and higher reimbursement rates) and hospitals/doctors are upset because they would make lower reimbursements. So it was banned.

[Quantess]

2. Nobody has said socialism is a bad thing, yet, on this thread.

I agree with both of you so far. Socialism is not a bad thing, and the public option is not socialism. Single payer could be considered socialism, but single payer is also the best solution for health care, IMO.

And yes, insurance companies don't like public option and that's why it was banned. Sorry for being boring and agreeing with everyone. :)

[ddeclue]

4. I didn't say socialism would be a bad thing. Just that PO wasn't socialism.

and so what if medicare doesn't have to make a profit. That's the insurance companies problem not mine.

[Quantess]

8. We can pretend that I disagree with you

if it would make for a livelier thread. :D

I wish we could have single payer, and be rid of most health insurance. Of course, health insurance could always find a market, say, for cosmetic surgery or cosmetic dentistry. But, I think the USA would be better off if we had socialized health care for everything deemed medically necessary by the medical profession.

[Oregone]

11. "and the public option is not socialism"

Yes it is.


"Single payer could be considered socialism"

Only if the single-payer institution was owned by the government (which it normally is)


"but single payer is also the best solution for health care"

There is no best solution. There are different right solutions for different countries, at different times. SP would easily work in the states. It still leaves profit in the delivery end though.

[ddeclue]

12. No it's not - you have to pay for the services provided - it isn't just given to you.

[Oregone]

16. When the means of production are owned by the state, its socialism

I currently live in BC. I have to pay for power, ferry services, premiums for my medical, my beer, and my car insurance. Some are for profit, and some are not. Some have monopolies, and some are in mixed markets. But regardless, all these institutions are owned by the government. And when the government owns the means of production for a company/corporation/entity, it is socialism.

In socialism, products aren't given to you. Socialism is not a reference to how products are distributed to a population and profit models, but rather, who owns the means of production.

[FarLeftFist]

18. It's socialistic, but as long as there is a private sector it's not socialism.

[Oregone]

20. In the grand scheme of things, the overall economy would be called mixed-market

But the state run entity would fit the definition of socialism.

[FarLeftFist]

21. We would have a socialistic option among capitalistic options.

Sounds good to me.

[Oregone]

22. Yes, its a sensible approach

UNLESS its hampered by a level playing field clause, to make sure it doesn't compete against private insurers by being too lean (and some version had this idea attached to them).


The only problem is that by allowing it to coexist with unethical, expensive, for-profit multi-tiered institutions, it causes great social injustice to those who don't really have the option to buy insurance on their own. Seriously...there just isn't any place for the middle men in their current, or even future, form in America's health care system. They add bloat and suffering.

[DaveinMD]

3. I like Grayson's bill

better than the Public Option.

[ddeclue]

5. Well actually Grayson's bill is a form of the public option.

it gives you (the public) a gov't run option to buy into medicare.

[DaveinMD]

6. kind of

but different than the public option that was debated for a long time.

[joycean]

7. People who think Public Option is Socialism do not

know the definition of Socialism. Socialism requires that the government control the means of production. Public Option is not the government running hospitals or pharma companies. It is a public alternative to private insurance. The government already does this, and it is constitutionally required: it's called the United States Postal Service. And it hasn't put FedEx or UPS out of business, or prevented them from earning record profits this quarter.

The delivery of the mail was considered in 1789 to be so important, that it could not be left up to private enterprise. The biggest advocate of the Post Office was Ben Franklin, who thought all doctors were quacks. In the 1700's, they were. If they had Cardio-thoracic surgeons in 1789, health care would have been a power of Congress right alongside the Postal Service.

[Oregone]

10. For fuck's sake

"Public Option is not the government running hospitals or pharma companies"

No, its the government running an insurance entity in a mixed market (mixed being capitalistic and socialistic). That would be a socialistic insurance entity by definition.

There is nothing wrong with this one bit, but be aware, it would be socialistic.

[ddeclue]

14. no it would not be socialism - insurance is not a "means of production"

the only thing it would provide would be honest competition to the insurance crooks.

[Oregone]

17. Yes it is. Insurance companies produce a product/service.

They have desks, offices, etc. It is a center of production, although an often abnormal one.

Those owned by private shareholders are capitalistic. Those owned by a state are socialistic.

[joycean]

23. Your definition of product is wrong

Insurance companies offer a service, the PRODUCT is medical care.

If you can find me ONE person who buys insurance and wants NOTHING in return EXCEPT the insurance ITSELF, will agree with you and call it socialism.

[Oregone]

25. Ok then...my favorite for-profit retail store to buy beer from is BC Liquor

I could go anywhere, but they have a nice store with a decent selection.

They have a well paid CEO, and they net millions in profits. They don't actually make a product too.

But they are considered a "crown corporation". Its like a normal corporation, but the shareholder is the provincial government, which is the recipient of the profits (and those profits pad the provincial government's coffers, which also pays for my socialistic health insurance).

But...you are telling me that since they don't produce a "product", its not a socialistic entity?

:)

Thats absurd. And this absurd logic also dictates that a government owned single-payer entity wouldn't be socialistic.

Socialism refers to the ownership of the entity (and not about method of production, operation or even profitability). And when the government is the owner, it is solely responsible for paying for the product or service, or profiting from the service.

Period.

[joycean]

31. So, by your reasoning Police and Fire Dep. are Socialist

And so is anything else the government pays for, like the United States Marine Corps.

[Oregone]

32. Yes, yes and yes

But no... its not "anything else the government pays for"

Its what they own.

Socialism is not bad. It is not foreign. It is ingrained within America already, and has been for a long time now. Government owned enterprises and services are socialistic, whereas those with private shareholders are capitalistic (even if the government is paying for them with a contract or subsidy).

[Oregone]

26. dupe

[tavalon]

29. I wish for socialism

Hell, I go to bed at night praying to my socialist God that socialism would take over this sorry excuse for a country.

[Oregone]

30. If it just started in some common sense areas, people would be better off

I like co-op workplace model the most, mixed in with socialism. If the only private enterprise in the US was worker owned businesses (who earn shares proportional to their wages, and profits proportional to their shares), then people would be much better off.

Capitalism is a sourge to the working class.

[tavalon]

33. To the working class and also to the middle class

One day, it will even eat the ruling class. I wish I could be around for that one but I will already be dust under the grindstone.

[laughingliberal]

24. How strange is our country that delivery of the mail was considered too important to

entrust to private enterprise but our health was not.

[Oregone]

9. If its owned by the government, its socialism by definition

Your OP almost implies socialism is a bad thing, by your exasperation and plea to convince people what is and isn't socialism.

There is nothing wrong with government owned enterprise (profit or non-profit). It is what is needed to address many shortcomings of the private industry.

The real problem with this reform is the lack of courage to turn to socialistic solutions. Your plea just reinforces that it is something that is bad.

[ddeclue]

13. Nope the hospitals are NOT owned by the gov't - it is NOT socialism.

and NO I do NOT have any problem with ACTUAL socialism..aka National Health.. I would prefer it to public option actually.

[Oregone]

19. Facepalm

Is this conversation really happening?

Single payer is socialistic. Who would debate that? In single-payer systems, health providers are mostly private.

I think you are really confused. We are talking about the middle-man here

[joycean]

27. You contradicted yourself

If health providers are mostly private, how is the Socialism? (Privatization and Socialism NOT being the same thing?!)

Government-funded does not mean socialism, UNLESS the government controls the means of production. In this case it would mean that the government ran all the hospitals, paid all the doctors, etc. Insurance (as I have said elsewhere in this thread) is not a product. If you can find one person who buys insurance and THAT is all they want (no health care coverage, just the insurance), then I will concede.

[Oregone]

28. "If health providers are mostly private, how is the Socialism?"

ITS NOT (socialstic *care* that is)!

For example, Canada doesn't have socialistic health care (they have mixed market care, with mostly privatized providers).

What they have is socialistic health INSURANCE, that pays for care both private or public.



"Insurance (as I have said elsewhere in this thread) is not a product."

It is as much of a producer of a product as what a retail store produces (nothing). Both types of businesses, owned by private people, are capitalistic (and socialistic if owned by the government)

Providing a services is considered a product, and the operational center used to do so is considered the means of production.

[JVS]

15. Private insurance can't handle competition. They can't even handle consumers being free to say no.

[Enthusiast]

34. But what can we

do when both our party and the media will not admit that the public option is popular with the American people and would actually save more money than the current bill as structured?

What can we do?