• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would you utilize the public option?

Will you utilize the public healthcare option?

  • Yes

    Votes: 12 26.7%
  • No

    Votes: 19 42.2%
  • Maybe

    Votes: 14 31.1%

  • Total voters
    45

MikeVFF

Active member
Joined
Sep 1, 2009
Messages
276
Reaction score
64
Location
VT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Due to the assumed intellectual characteristics of the users on this forum due to your pursuit of "intellectual" debate, most of you probably have jobs and already have healthcare, I was interested in real numbers on the consumer base of the public option. Please vote truthfully.
 
4 people, really?

Of the 3 polls I made, i cared most about this one, and get the least amount of votes... disappointing...
 
I'm basically on it...
 
Never. As long as I have a say in the matter, the government will most certainly NOT be involved in my healthcare and neither will I willingly give them a vested interest in my health. No way in hell would I ever give the government that much control in my life. I enjoy my freedom too much for that kind of stupidity.
 
It really depends on how competitive it is. I wouldn't treat it very different from any another health plan. If it was cheaper or had better features than my current plan I would take it, otherwise no.
 
Depends. I would have to look at the benefits, features, cost, and rules before deciding.
 
If I was American, possibly, yes. It'd depend on the charges and what the plan covered. Lord knows if they'll actually be able to establish a public option that isn't stripped down to appease those who love their socilaised roads, schools, libraries and fire departments but are somehow convinced that socialised medicine will be a horrendous beauracratic montrosity.
 
Never. As long as I have a say in the matter, the government will most certainly NOT be involved in my healthcare and neither will I willingly give them a vested interest in my health. No way in hell would I ever give the government that much control in my life. I enjoy my freedom too much for that kind of stupidity.

You're going to opt out of Medicare??!?!!

It sound like you trust insurance companies more than the you trust government employees.

Myself, I not sure I want some profit motivated insurance company employee looking at my health care cost as item that may reduce his bonus.

Wait a moment, I spend a micro-second thinking about this and I know I DON'T want some insurance company clown to make that decision.

But you can make your own choices.

Good luck finding an insurance policy that has no government subsidy when you're over 65. If you really beat the bushes you might find one $15k to $20K/month.

Stick to your principles.
 
Any answer other than "depends" is pointless.
 
You're going to opt out of Medicare??!?!!

It sound like you trust insurance companies more than the you trust government employees.

Myself, I not sure I want some profit motivated insurance company employee looking at my health care cost as item that may reduce his bonus.

Wait a moment, I spend a micro-second thinking about this and I know I DON'T want some insurance company clown to make that decision.
why? government employees are worse. At least with a profit-oreinted insurance company, you can protest from your wallet without fear of some "government-agents" busting down your door for "not following the law".
 
You're going to opt out of Medicare??!?!!

Medicare has a necessary purpose, giving seniors help with their medical costs. I find medicare more important than a non-restricted government-run healthcare because seniors are obviously elderly, often retired, and have less opportunity and ability to earn wages required for private health insurance. Too bad poor spending and this new healthcare plan will probably bankrupt a WORKING government healthcare program...

It sound like you trust insurance companies more than the you trust government employees.

I would. Insurance companies are a business, and if they do not offer quality health insurance, you can always choose a different health insurance company.

Myself, I not sure I want some profit motivated insurance company employee looking at my health care cost as item that may reduce his bonus.

Wait a moment, I spend a micro-second thinking about this and I know I DON'T want some insurance company clown to make that decision.

:doh What decision are you referring to? If your talking about health care costs consider this: If a heath insurance company "decides" to"raise your cost", why would you stick with that insurer? You have the freedom to pick a new one, instead of having a real clown in our government making decisions that they have no real qualifications to make. And people wonder why the government spends so inefficiently...

But you can make your own choices.

Good luck finding an insurance policy that has no government subsidy when you're over 65. If you really beat the bushes you might find one $15k to $20K/month.

AHAHAHA, at this rate the "capitalist pigs" will be subsidizing the government by the time we're 65... Social Security and Medicare are going to be things of the past quite soon. This is what happens when we allow our government to spend our money on rashly created and implemented plans, when they really have none of their own...

Stick to your principles.

They have served me and my country very well so far, it's your supported administration that wants to change them.
 
I work with insurance companies daily. Sad to say I would trust the government before I would trust an insurance company.
 
And to whom would one appeal a breached contract ?
 
And to whom would one appeal a breached contract ?

When one appeals a denial of benefits with the insurance company, one would appeal to the insurance company. When one would appeal a denial of benefits with a public option, one would appeal to the agency in charge of the public option...similar to appealing to Medicare, now.
 
why? government employees are worse. At least with a profit-oreinted insurance company, you can protest from your wallet without fear of some "government-agents" busting down your door for "not following the law".

Just as a point of reference, how many times have "government-agents" come knocking down your door this week? Or ever? Never? Not once? Oh alright then.
 
Just as a point of reference, how many times have "government-agents" come knocking down your door this week? Or ever? Never? Not once? Oh alright then.

I know. I love this argument. :roll:
 
When one appeals a denial of benefits with the insurance company

Maybe if one was gullible or naive and wanted the company to sing them a song.

Myself, I sue a company in court if they breach their contract with me.
 
Maybe if one was gullible or naive and wanted the company to sing them a song.

Myself, I sue a company in court if they breach their contract with me.

Obviously you are unaware of procedure. Try it on your first appeal. You'll get laughed at.
 
If they were in breach, I would file suit without talking to them again.

They can try laughing at the judge.
 
If they were in breach, I would file suit without talking to them again.

They can try laughing at the judge.

And you would be told to follow procedure. If you have benefits denied, there is a process, one that is outlined when the benefit gets denied. Typically, there is a 3 appeal process...after which, as far as our laws state now, you are out of luck. You cannot sue an insurance company for refusing to allow you to use your benefits if they state that the treatment is not necessary. This is one of the things that needs to change...but of course the insurance lobby fights against it.

But you try to sue. You will have no luck.
 
And you would be told to follow procedure. If you have benefits denied

I said breach of contract.

Are you trying to substitute "benefits denied" on purpose, or by accident ?

Either way, try again.
 
I said breach of contract.

Are you trying to substitute "benefits denied" on purpose, or by accident ?

Either way, try again.

You have an insurance plan. You have specific benefits that you are allowed. Your doctor deems a procedure medically necessary. It is in your benefit package. Your insurance company states that, in their opinion, the procedure is not medically necessary. They refuse to honor the benefits in your plan. What does this sound like to you?
 
It sounds like you trying to talk your way around "breach of contract".
 
It sounds like you trying to talk your way around "breach of contract".

Are you going to answer my question? That is what I am referring to. Do you consider that breach of contract? If not, give an example of what you would consider as such.
 
Back
Top Bottom