"Competitive Public Option without a profit...

[SHRED]

... would be so cheap that Wall Street would lose its healthcare stock investments overnight. 401Ks and retirement funds that are locked up in healthcare stocks would be rendered worthless.

If a true Public Option was to pass, it would send the nation into another Black Friday; it would create a rush on the banks at a time when the FDIC is running in The Red.


No politician wants that on his resume.


Therefore, politicians will put on a performance like they are "fighting" for public option--however, we know it's a scam."

pugstein

I am having a hard time disagreeing with this.
Help me out.



:crazy:

[rockymountaindem]

1. The entire economy is made of health care stocks?

Assuming that such an event would totally destroy health care stocks, which would put a dent in the market for certain, how do we know those investors won't just invest in some other sector? Who says they're just going to put that money in the mattress?

[Egnever]

3. that money will evaporate.

there wouldnt be anything to put anywhere.

[Egnever]

2. Thats exactly right

Although I do think we will get substantial health care reform in the end. It will not be anything close to a single payer.

Health care is something like a 6th of our economy, We would be foolish to eliminate it outright right now IMHO. Millions would be put out of work.

I hate that its true but I agree with much of that position.

[ingac70]

6. Health insurance is 1/6 of the economy?

The health industry as a whole is, but I assure you the insurers are not. They can go on peddling other scams.

[Egnever]

7. Prety close

Which is still a large portion, sure not all of that is insurance Co's but a lot of it is paid by insurance Co's all of the people delivering that payment would lose thier jobs or at least a large portion of them. Its a lot of people no matter what at a time when unemployment is allready realisticaly arround 20%.



http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE51N0W120090224
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Health spending will hit $2.5 trillion this year, devouring 17.6 percent of the economy, as the White House and Congress consider major changes to the healthcare system, U.S. government economists said on Tuesday.

[ingac70]

10. Covering MORE people will not = less jobs....

we aren't talking about single payer here, just public option insurance. Give over on the reich wing jabber. You are assuming that everyone can/will drop their private insurance for a public option, and that simply is not the case.

[Enthusiast]

15. Health care "workers",

"providers" would not be put out of work. Paper shufflers, insurance industry PR and advertising personnel would be hurt. Those put out of work contribute nothing to health care anyway.

[DJ13]

4. That misses the fact a real PO would improve our corporate

competitive position in a world that already has the advantage of universal healthcare everywhere else.

[rucky]

12. in the long term, sure.

But the statement is correct about the short-term, which is all Congress and Wall Street care about - the next election... the next bubble.

[dflprincess]

5. I thought HR676 does have provisions for people who would be put out of work

and this is still no reason to stall on healthcare.

The current system is unsustainable and will eventually collapse on its own as the industry continues to raise prices on its shoddy products until no one can afford them - while it kills other industry in the country. The only way the health insurers can survive is if they get a massive cash infusion - and that's just what Congress is giving them by forcing most of us to continue to buy their crap. But all that will do is delay the inevitable. Rather than pass another corporate welfare act, let the damn industry fail - then they'll have to give us all Medicare.

[dschis]

8. Ok it's 1/6 of the economy

What about the other 5/6? The cost that this paper shuffle is costing us all. The portion of the insurance industry.

How far as has America fallen? We are calling insurance an industry! We don't even make our own vaccines
The 'plastic economy' will be looked on as the good old days. (we don't amke the plastic or paper anymore either)

[dflprincess]

24. When they say it's 1/6 of the economy - is that just health insurance

or does that include actual health care as well - which would still be around with single payer? And, it's doubtful the health insurance industry would go away completely. They could still sell policies to cover things like private hospital rooms and other nice, but not necessary to have items.

[eridani]

20. Doesn't matter. Single payer CREATES 2.6 million jobs to counter

--the 500,000 that would be lost in the insurance industry.

[Warpy]

9. That's certainly why we're not getting single payer

At least when Medicare was enacted, insurance companies were mostly non profit and they were allergic to covering anyone over 60, anyway.

This anemic public option is the foot in the door. Medicare sucked when it was first passed, covered too few seniors.

Just as it was worked on over the years, so will this one be.

After all, the insurance companies don't really want to cover people who are sick or over a certain age, anyway.

They just don't want the public option open to all. They know they've been operating in bad faith for far too long and that most people out there would love nothing better than to kick them to the curb overnight.

And yes, this would create a fiscal disaster.

[sendero]

14. I agree...

.. one of the reasons we are not getting pure single payer is that we really cannot, at the present time especially, afford to sink the health care economy.

Over the long term the system has to be reined in but it must happen in small increments.

That is what we are getting with this reform bill, a small increment, and we'll get more small increments down the road to allow the industry time to adjust to the new reality.

[Enthusiast]

16. Sorry. But pure single payer would

not sink the "health care economy". It would sink the paper shuffling insurance economy. Two different things. The insurance industry contributes NOTHING to health care. Some have a hard time remembering that.

The insurance companies don't even stick a thermometer up your BUTT!

[ipaint]

17. Medicare covered 93% of the over 65 population in the first year. n/t

[Warpy]

21. It didn't cover them well.

It had to be worked on.

[ipaint]

22. It covered all of them. Something the faux public option doesn't even come close to.

The incremental change baloney is a bunch of happy horseshit meant to appease the masses. Same as it was for nafta, the patriot act and deregulation.

Oh and torture policy, rule of law and prosecuting war criminals. That kind of incremental change.

40 years of ten steps right one step left got us here.

[rucky]

11. It's probably true.

But when the well-being of Wall Street is at direct odds with the well-being of the public, what does that say about Wall Street? Why is it that Wall Street wins every time? They got their bailout. They'll be taken care of by the Treasury - you can count on that.

What does this pattern say about our Government - of the _____, by the ____, for the ___? I think your friend nailed it, actually. There's really nothing to counter, other than to raise the question of what's best for the citizens.

[eridani]

13. Ridiculous. Most will not be allowed access to the so called public option

Congress has worked hard to make it as toothless as possible.

[NorthCarolina]

18. It would be "phased-in" leaving ample time to adjust stock portfolios. nt

[ipaint]

23. +1 for the truth. n/t

[KharmaTrain]

19. It's A Possibility...

And in Washington that's good enough to scare the shit out of any congresscritter. The shit sandwich here is that any big hit to a major part of the "too big to fail" crowd will drop the market (one could see it when Reid came out the other day in favor of Public Option) and this could translated into "destroying the economy".

I believe it's more a bluff and scare tactic as if the insurance company stocks tank, the money will go to someone else, but it still will make lots of headlines and spun to make it look like reform is an economic disaster, even if the "pain" is short term to the "investor class".

The game for some here is which is more important...especially in next year's election...keeping the economy from tanking further or fighting for genuine healthcare reform. I think we know the answer to this one.