A.M.A opposes Obama public insurance plan.

[UtahDan]

“The A.M.A. does not believe that creating a public health insurance option for non-disabled individuals under age 65 is the best way to expand health insurance coverage and lower costs. The introduction of a new public plan threatens to restrict patient choice by driving out private insurers, which currently provide coverage for nearly 70 percent of Americans.”

If private insurers are pushed out of the market, the group said, “the corresponding surge in public plan participation would likely lead to an explosion of costs that would need to be absorbed by taxpayers.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/us.../11health.html

[RobinFinderson]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/us.../11health.html

Fear tactics. Obviously people will use the government's health insurance if it is a superior product at a fair price, and that will result in the growth of the program (an 'explosion of costs' that would need to be picked up by taxpayers.) All the AMA has stated is the obvious, in fear mongering terms -- public services cost money for the tax payers. Bigger programs cost more than smaller ones.

It would be more appropriate to compare what percentage of health care dollars going through the two systems would actually get applied to health care, vs. profit and bureaucratic costs. Individuals ultimately pay for their own health care, no matter the system, so a measure of efficiency is what should interest us.

[byu71]

Fear tactics. Obviously people will use the government's health insurance if it is a superior product at a fair price, and that will result in the growth of the program (an 'explosion of costs' that would need to be picked up by taxpayers.) All the AMA has stated is the obvious, in fear mongering terms -- public services cost money for the tax payers. Bigger programs cost more than smaller ones.

It would be more appropriate to compare what percentage of health care dollars going through the two systems would actually get applied to health care, vs. profit and bureaucratic costs. Individuals ultimately pay for their own health care, no matter the system, so a measure of efficiency is what should interest us.

I hear this term "fear tactics" thrown out by the Obama administration against almost anything he proposes that the opposition disagrees with. I hear the mainstream media also harping on this theme.

However, I am sure we can all think of things that Obama and his minions throw out that could be labeled also as fear tactics. The repubs. do it too.

I come more and more to the conclusion that politicians and the media are not providing the public with information so they can make informed decisions, but it is all about manipulation and spin. Those in power, including the media, truly do have disdain for the public and regard us all as dumbass's.

[ERCougar]

I actually don't have a problem with a public plan, as long as it's completely self-funded (which I believe Obama is currently promising), meaning the premiums that people pay to be in it completely fund the benefits promised.

[RobinFinderson]

I hear this term "fear tactics" thrown out by the Obama administration against almost anything he proposes that the opposition disagrees with. I hear the mainstream media also harping on this theme.

However, I am sure we can all think of things that Obama and his minions throw out that could be labeled also as fear tactics. The repubs. do it too.

I come more and more to the conclusion that politicians and the media are not providing the public with information so they can make informed decisions, but it is all about manipulation and spin. Those in power, including the media, truly do have disdain for the public and regard us all as dumbass's.

Using terms like 'an explosion of costs that will be passed on to taxpayers' to describe the natural escalation of cost for any successful and growing public service is fear mongering. Yes, taxes might go up, but will individual savings also increase, as a result of efficiencies in the system? When any group uses inflammatory language to frighten people away from a substantive conversation about what matters (in this case efficiency of health care dollars spent) then we are witnessing fear mongering.

[RobinFinderson]

I actually don't have a problem with a public plan, as long as it's completely self-funded (which I believe Obama is currently promising), meaning the premiums that people pay to be in it completely fund the benefits promised.

How do you work government funded medical research into the equation?

[ERCougar]

How do you work government funded medical research into the equation?

Separate program, just as it's currently being conducted.

[byu71]

I actually don't have a problem with a public plan, as long as it's completely self-funded (which I believe Obama is currently promising), meaning the premiums that people pay to be in it completely fund the benefits promised.

You have a lot more faith in politicians delivering on what they promise. Over time the market place punishes undelivered promises. When it comes to government programs, I don't see where the punishment comes. Politicians if the issue is big enough can get voted out of office, but we never seem to vote a messed up program out of office. They seem to grow and grow. I will admit I am looking at it narrowly to things I am presently thinking of. Perhaps someone can point out some big gov't program that hasn't delivered and we stopped it.

[byu71]

Using terms like 'an explosion of costs that will be passed on to taxpayers' to describe the natural escalation of cost for any successful and growing public service is fear mongering. Yes, taxes might go up, but will individual savings also increase, as a result of efficiencies in the system? When any group uses inflammatory language to frighten people away from a substantive conversation about what matters (in this case efficiency of health care dollars spent) then we are witnessing fear mongering.

Fine, so when I hear that if we don't do this the health care system will collapse and their are 47 million people without insurance and children are suffering because of it, would you agree that is also fear mongering.

[ERCougar]

You have a lot more faith in politicians delivering on what they promise. Over time the market place punishes undelivered promises. When it comes to government programs, I don't see where the punishment comes. Politicians if the issue is big enough can get voted out of office, but we never seem to vote a messed up program out of office. They seem to grow and grow. I will admit I am looking at it narrowly to things I am presently thinking of. Perhaps someone can point out some big gov't program that hasn't delivered and we stopped it.

Don't get me wrong...I'm suspicious.

[RobinFinderson]

Separate program, just as it's currently being conducted.

Right, but it is a separate program that produces breakthroughs in health care. The idea that tax payers would fund medical medical research and then not receive the benefits of that research at a reduced price (i.e. possibly not completely 'self funded') seems unfair to the taxpayers.

[ERCougar]

Right, but it is a separate program that produces breakthroughs in health care. The idea that tax payers would fund medical medical research and then not receive the benefits of that research at a reduced price (i.e. possibly not completely 'self funded') seems unfair to the taxpayers.

Why is it OK to spend money on research now then?

The benefits of research bleed through the entire medical system, private and public.

What I think your comment really belies is your awareness that our healthcare costs are not solely due to profit grabbing by private insurance corporations. The magical efficiency savings you're pointing to just aren't there.