Fact: Wrong. Taken from the President's own website:
"The American people are too often offered two extremes - government-run health care with higher taxes or letting the insurance companies operate without rules. Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe both of these extremes are wrong, and that’s why they’ve proposed a plan that strengthens employer coverage, makes insurance companies accountable and ensures patient choice of doctor and care without government interference.
Under the plan, if you like your current health insurance, nothing changes..."
Offering a low cost solution (aka, a "Public Option") for people who do not have insurance does not equal "running" the nations health care, nor does it equal a Socialist attempt to control a sector of the economy.
If you like your insurance coverage, then enjoy it, and quit complaining, because you would get to keep it!
Myth #2: The quality of your current health care will decline because of a Public Option health care plan.
Fact: Again, if you have health insurance through your employer, or a privately purchased plan, enjoy it! You get to keep it! Nobody is going to tell you that you have to give it up! Nobody is telling your super great doctors that they have to stop treating you! Your quality of health care will not decline. If anything, it may get better as insurance companies are forced to adjust their prices in order to keep your service.
Myth #3: This administration wants to decrease competition among insurance companies, and interfere with Capitalism, forcing pharmaceutical companies to stop conducting research, thus leading to all our demise.
Fact: Again, a stated goal straight from the President's own website:
"Reform the insurance market to increase competition by taking on anticompetitive activity that drives up prices without improving quality of care."
I believe that when he says he wants to "increase" competition...that means he is supporting Capitalism. "Increase" is the opposite of "decrease".
One major problem with the insurance industry is that it is already very ANTICOMPETITIVE. One way of changing this is by offering a less expensive alternative that will increase competition within the industry, with the goal of bringing everyone's prices down.
As far as drug companies go, let's not glorify them too much. Yes they do a lot of good research. They also keep costs of their drugs insanely high by stifling competition from foreign companies, and from companies who can make the same drugs for less money (ie, generic drugs).
You may say, "well they developed it, so they should get to charge what they want". Right. But in a free market economy, if I can figure out a way to make your widget as good or better, and sell it for cheaper, then I should be able to sell my widget too, and let the market decide which ones they want to buy. That drives prices down. That's capitalism.
What the drug companies currently do is called monopolizing. Monopolies are characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods. Those who have studied American history know that we generally do not like monopolies...so why do we tolerate it from the drug companies?
And uh...as far as Capitalism producing the best research and breakthroughs in technology...the government funds most of the research that goes on all across the nation.
Myth #4: The quality of a Public Option plan would probably suck!
Opinion: Maybe it will! Who knows. But for someone with no insurance at all, it might not be that bad.
And since the stated goal of the President is to offer a plan based on what's offered to members of Congress, it may not be as bad as you think.
As someone who has benefitted from a government provided health care plan for their entire life, I've got no complaints. Any time I've needed to see a doctor, I've been able to. I was born under a government health care plan. Both my children were born under a government health care plan. My family gets medications in a timely manner from a government health care plan. As a kid I was treated for broken bones, lacerations, infections, and viruses under a government health care plan.
At times I and my family have needed to see specialists...I've never had a problem with this.
The plan covers immunizations (and other "well-child" care), vision, dental, prescriptions, pregnancies, mental health issues, and plenty of other medical services.
It may not be as all inclusive as other plans out there, and yes, there is a certain amount of red tape I have to go to in some cases. But to someone who's got nothing, it's an amazing plan. And again, I've never had any problems.
Myth #5: A government-run insurance program would have an unfair advantage and ultimately drive insurers out of business.
Opinion: Maybe. But government options already exist in multiple sectors of the economy, competing with private industry on a daily basis, and private industry does fine. To name a few:
- Education (public schools vs private/homeschooling)
- Security (police vs private security)
- Shipping (USPS vs UPS/FEDEX, etc...)
- Scientific Research
- Travel (Amtrak, subways vs planes, buses, etc...)
- Recreation (National park service vs Disney, etc...)
- Books (Libraries vs Barnes & Noble, etc...
What other myths are out there? Please, let me bust them for you!
17 comments:
I've lived under two different types of health care systems and the rubbish that is going round about free health care is ridiculous...Frankly free health is a blessing. Straight and simple. In England..you have a lot of choice...private or NHS. It just creates MORE choice not less. Plus we don't have people going bankrupt over their health costs here.
Well, I'm not really for free health care to everyone...I do think the market plays a big role in providing good options for many.
I simply believe that the government offering a plan that uninsured Americans can afford is an excellent way of taking care of our fellow citizens, of providing preventative care (which will ultimately save us all money in the long run) to millions of people, and of helping bring private insurance prices back to reasonable levels.
But I'm trying to figure out if people simply don't understand what is being proposed, or if they are purposely distorting the facts.
Probably some of both.
We accept government ventures into private industry every day, and we know they are not trying to control the market. Why not with health care?
The major problem with a government run health care system is that politics will always be involved and political agendas will always be pushed. I think it is a shame that the wealthiest country in the world cannot provide a minimal level of medical services to it citizens. I think few people would argue that they would like to see quality affordable care offered to every US citizen.
BUT....are you willing to have your hard earned dollars go to things that you are morally opposed to? For instance..
- Abortion.
- Dudes who want to be chicks.
- birth control subscribed to your daughters with out your parental consent or even knowledge of
None of these are stretches and in fact are issues that are pandered to by politicians.
I believe that blog moderators who must first approve commentary are fascist.
Deepfried007...
Current health care offered by the government to military members does not include sex changes, abortions, implants of any kind, etc...
I'm guessing whatever they offered would be similar.
Manuel Noriega,
Understood. The only thing I screen for is hate speech and vulgar personal attacks on other contributors.
Unfortunately in the past we've had lots of people prove they are unable to engage in a good debate with resorting to those kinds of attacks.
Short of those things, I'll post whatever you say...even calling me a fascist.
Also, if you want to join the blog as a contributor, send me an email address and I'll sign you up...you can then post whatever you want without your comments being screened.
Are you guys seriously thinking the government can run anything successfully?
Name something they do well, efficiently and doesn't cost us money.
Open competition across state lines, battle for tort reform and mal-practice issues.
I'm diabetic, I've seen the elderly diabetic on medicare. It stinks, I've talked with them. I watched a lady argue with a pharmacist that she's out of insulin and needs more. Pharmacist said too bad, medicare won't pay for it.
Her only option is to go to the ER and be on an insulin drip until medicare coughs it up.
Well, thank you very much government run health care, I'm paying thousands and thousands of dollars for a $60 vial of insulin.
Saying that the poor do not get healthcare here is wrong. They do, they are not refused.
Losing your house or your vehicles over medical bills is not the worst thing in the world. Start over, but live. We feel so dang entitled to everything.
People file for bankruptcy often, especially now, and somehow, they make it.
Notice all the government run programs you listed are bankrupt and not doing well.
So we cover for all their inefficiencies and failures.
The free market companies are put at a disadvantage because they don't get supplemental tax income.
But why do they still survive? Because government run = lame.
Why do we want more lame programs when we can't afford the ones we already have?
Lucinda
Your comments IMO dont' seem very compassionate to those less fortunate. Would you want someone to tell you if you lost your house and were homeless with kids...Suck it up and get over it? No people aren't entitled to everything but taking care of our most vulnerable in their times of need is a reflection of what type of people we are. 90% of people want to work and don't like handouts. SOme who lost their jobs didn't do anything wrong..lived within their budgets, etc...what about them? All they need is a bit of help to get them going on their feet....sounds pretty Christian to me.
The problem is that the current health system leaves A LOT of people out of 'qualifying' for any sort of coverage.
They need to work on getting costs down for medical care. THe US pays more than any other country in the world but still life expectancy, etc are no better off.
I agree that Government should try to do a better job at what they already have but I believe that's what they are trying to do...build on a system to make it better.
Government is essential, so are taxes. I wish Republicans would understand this. I think the Capitalist view that has gotten out of hand in the country has made the wealth divide so huge that one may start to wonder whether the poor will one day revolt....has happened before.
In regards to the elderly diabetic woman...you're right, she should have just had regular insurance, and that would have solved everything.
Oh, wait...but she's retired so she doesn't have access to an employer offered health care plan, and since she's probably barely getting by on any money, she couldn't afford a private plan.
Dang. I guess the free market (though very good), was not able to come up with a solution for her needs after all.
So yes, it's wrong that she had to go through all that just to get her insulin. And it's really too bad that you as a tax payer were burdened. But at least she got it somehow...and it wasn't from the free market.
I'm not saying government-run anything is perfect.
But you just gave a great example of how the free market is not perfect either.
Lucinda, I agree that many, if not most, government run programs are not run well at all... Many are run very poorly.
But they're kept around because there is enough of a need for those services in our society that are not met, cannot be met, or should not be met by the free market.
Should police protection only be offered to those who have paid for it? Should the fire department only respond to those who have paid?
Maybe you can afford to send your kids to private schools; 90% of the country does not.
Amtrak may be a poor business model, but especially in dense urban areas, mass transit is the only affordable option to most people...taxis and owning cars are insanely expensive.
Do you use the Post Office or public libraries?
I'm not covering for the inefficiencies or failures of government run institutions. Heavens knows I work for one, and often wonder about the things we do.
Should we stand down our military and hire Blackwater?
There are certain services that a free market does not, or cannot provide adequately to benefit everyone in the society.
I personally believe that health care is one of the areas that in our nation, should be a guaranteed right, just like education, but that the free market is unable to provide to everyone.
It’s doing fine for many of us…but it’s leaving millions out, at no fault of their own...like your elderly diabetic lady.
Oops, sorry, I made a mistake on that comment. Now on to the real points...
In the state of Washington, there are 2 bridges. The first is paid for only by the people that use that bridge; by tolls. You must pay $4 dollars every time you cross that bridge. The second bridge is paid for by all the people in the whole state of Washington. Even though many of these people will never drive over that bridge, or benefit from that bridge, or ever even see that bridge, still every time they get gas, they pay for that second bridge. Which means the people paying for the first bridge are forced to pay for both: their own bridge and the other, as well. Seem fair? Not at all! Let’s say you live in Arizona and I tell you (and all those living in Arizona) that the people of California can’t afford to pay for their own road repairs, so I’ve decided that since you don’t seem to be having a problem paying for your roads, I am going to make you pay for the California road repairs, as well. If you want, you can keep living in Arizona, paying for both your roads and the California roads, OR you can move to California.
I give these situations, one real and the other rhetorical, as a microcosm of the, er, load about, “in Obama-care, you can keep your own insurance.” How many employers/individuals do you know that will be able to pay for, not only their own private insurance, but also afford to pay for insurance for others, as well. Nothing is “free.” Someone is going to have to cover this bill. The real choice is whether you, or your employer, will want to pay an additional fee to keep your own insurance; because you can be sure you’re going to be paying for the government’s healthcare.
Perhaps, it’s not truly “universal health care.” However, it’s a very slippery slope and I believe that once this move is made, there will be no turning back. I’m not ready for the government to decide whether my life (or my children’s lives, or my parent’s lives) is (are) worth paying for, in a worst case scenario.
You have said your experience with government-run healthcare hasn’t been bad—it hasn’t been excellent either. Additionally, the government health care you experienced was with a limited slice of the population. Try fitting everyone in the entire country into that health care and things will get slightly overcrowded, or perhaps they will even run out of resources.
When it comes to the Pharmaceutical Companies being able to sell the drugs, which they researched and developed, consider the copyrights of music makers. After all, I can’t make up a “new” song entitled “Strawberry Fields Forever,” with the same lyrics and music as the Beatles’, and then sell it and make money off it. I would get my pants sued off! Why should Michael Jackson’s estate have the rights to the Beatles’ music anyways—that’s the real crime. However, generic drugs are exact replicas of a copyrighted compound. Just as the music creators/owners expect to profit from their music, drug companies need the same motivation to produce novel products.
I agree that the current system needs some help but I do not agree with the Obama plan AT ALL. It’s not like we have to pick one or the other.
On the flip side, if this does go through, at least we won’t have to worry about all those stinkin’ Canadians crossing the border for health care anymore. ;)
WashingtonMama,
According to the President's plan, neither you nor your employer will pay for anyone's insurance, to include his proposed "public option".
Loosely quoting the President:
"I've insisted that, like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums its collects. [Taxpayers would not be subsidizing this public insurance option.]
But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits and excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers and would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities."
"In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5 percent of Americans would sign up."
The other option being proposed is that of an insurance "exchange"..."a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices.
Insurance companies will have an incentive to participate in this exchange because it lets them compete for millions of new customers. As one big group, these customers will have greater leverage to bargain with the insurance companies for better prices and quality coverage. This is how large companies and government employees get affordable insurance. It's how everyone in this Congress gets affordable insurance."
On the music...good point. I understand what you're saying; they've got a patent on those drugs and have the right to set prices until that patent expires.
Unfortunately, many implement "evergreen" tactics against generic companies, attempting to delay the production of generic drugs.
To be fair; Michael Jackson bought the rights to the Beatles catalog fair and square.
I love the Beatles, but they hesitated when they had the opportunity to buy back the rights to their music in the 80's. Michael Jackson did not.
I think he sold most of the rights to Sony a few years ago, didn't he?
SterFry-- I would like to believe what you are saying, however I believe you are misinformed. I quote from CNN-- http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/11/news/economy/obama_health_plan_no_bargain.fortune/index.htm
"...it's important to note that Obama's health-care plan is not included in his 2010 budget. The administration pledges that his health-care plan won't expand the deficit because it will be entirely paid for by tax increases. But even if the deficit stays the same, spending and taxes will be far from the same. By most estimates, Obama's plan will cost more than $200 billion a year by 2019. All told, government outlays as a share of GDP are projected to reach 26% by that point, up five percentage points from when Obama took office."
I would be more than happy to pay for bridges in any of the 50 states even if I never used a single one. I think its about working to create something better even if it doesn't directly benefit you. I think this is the real meaning of service/compassion. Maybe we wouldn't be in a financial crisis if people had taken this philosophy to heart?
Post a Comment