• 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!

Yet Another Health Care poll

Would you support a health care bill without a public option?


  • Total voters
    41

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
112,903
Reaction score
60,357
Location
Sarasota Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Simple question: Would you support a health care bill without a public health insurance option?

Poll is up, please read the options and vote for the one you most agree with.

Edit: I was not clear enough, so let me be clear what I was getting at. Is a public option, for or against, a deciding factor in health care reform. In other words, would you support reform without a public option, or would you oppose reform without a public option? This is meant to be a general question, not in specifics of what those reforms would be.
 
Last edited:
Other. Same thing I always say in these polls. It depends. If there is significant reform and regulating in with private insurance, I do not know that a public option is needed. If there is not, then I would support one.
 
Well it would all depend. If we're going some route in which we will be requiring people to get health insurance, there has to be some protection against collusion. Either some form of regulation on the insurance companies to ensure that there is no collusion or some form of public option. The problem with the public option is that it could be used as a method to undercut the insurance companies and drive the private insurers out of business. So either way, things need to be done to prevent perversion of the system against the benefits and necessities of the People.
 
Simple question: Would you support a health care bill without a public health insurance option?

Poll is up, please read the options and vote for the one you most agree with.

Yes. At the present time, the odds are against a public option, but there is no need to give up. A bill with a public option would be best, but if we can't get that then there is no reason to sabotage the whole thing. There are plenty of reforms that almost everyone (except Goobieman ;)) can agree on.

If there aren't enough votes for a public option, hopefully there are enough votes for a robust non-profit co-op plan and a trigger mechanism for a public option.
 
I was not clear enough in my OP, so let me be clear what I was getting at. Is a public option, for or against, a deciding factor in health care reform. In other words, would you support reform without a public option, or would you oppose reform without a public option? This is meant to be a general question, not in specifics of what those reforms would be.
 
Anything less than a public option will be like Bush's Drug bill,
it'll be just a giveaway to the insurance co's.
 
As others have said, it depends entirely on what those reforms are. But yes, I think some reforms are needed.
 
The problem with the public option is that it could be used as a method to undercut the insurance companies and drive the private insurers out of business.

I think that as long as the public option is covering its expenses, it's OK to undercut the private companies. The idea of reform is to help the American people and our economy...not necessarily the insurance companies. It might drive the for-profit companies out of business, but they would be replaced with private non-profit companies if the public option failed in some critical aspect.

Think of it like education. We have both private schools and public schools. Back in the 1800s, public education did indeed drive a lot of for-profit schools out of business. But non-profit private schools quickly sprang up to compete with the government.
 
Last edited:
Anything less than a public option will be like Bush's Drug bill,
it'll be just a giveaway to the insurance co's.

This is why I say "it depends". The regulations and reforms would have to be pretty stringent, but if they were, I could go without the public option. The reforms I would need to see would NOT be a giveaway to the insurance industry. If it were, it wouldn't be enough to convince me.
 
Anything less than a public option will be like Bush's Drug bill,
it'll be just a giveaway to the insurance co's.

I strongly disagree. The main purposes of health care reform, as I see them, are 1) Cost control, 2) Universal coverage, 3) Ending insurance company abuses, 4) Portability.

Goals #2 and #3 (and possibly #4) could be accomplished with or without a public option. Goal #1 probably cannot, but if we can't get it, that's no reason to abandon the other goals.
 
Reform is needed , but the public option we can do without.
I am just waiting for this liberal nightmare to be over in 2010.

The way they are expanding goverment in our lives is quiet scary.
 
This is why I say "it depends". The regulations and reforms would have to be pretty stringent, but if they were, I could go without the public option. The reforms I would need to see would NOT be a giveaway to the insurance industry. If it were, it wouldn't be enough to convince me.

As I intended the poll(but explained poorly), this would be a yes answer.
 
I strongly disagree. The main purposes of health care reform, as I see them, are 1) Cost control, 2) Universal coverage, 3) Ending insurance company abuses, 4) Portability.

Goals #2 and #3 (and possibly #4) could be accomplished with or without a public option. Goal #1 probably cannot, but if we can't get it, that's no reason to abandon the other goals.

Thank you, but cost control is critical to any measure.

No plan, public or private, is going to survive without it.

We cannot afford another decade of 20% a year rises in HC costs.
 
Thank you, but cost control is critical to any measure.

No plan, public or private, is going to survive without it.

We cannot afford another decade of 20% a year rises in HC costs.

If the alternative is no reform at all, solving SOME problems is certainly better than solving NONE of them.
 
What makes anyone on this forum think that the FEDS can run anything on a budget.Let them fix the other health systems first,then when they succeed,if they do,maybe we can try a universal health care system.
They couldn't even run a whore house,much less our health care.
 
This is why I say "it depends". The regulations and reforms would have to be pretty stringent, but if they were, I could go without the public option. The reforms I would need to see would NOT be a giveaway to the insurance industry. If it were, it wouldn't be enough to convince me.


That is my answer. I said yes (but reluctantly), but this is really my answer.
 
Anything less than a public option will be like Bush's Drug bill,
it'll be just a giveaway to the insurance co's.


Howard Dean is launching a campaign for passing the bill w/ 51 votes. His organization, Dean For America (I think?) is pushing hard for the public option.

He says we have the votes in the house and the senate for the public option.
 
Howard Dean is launching a campaign for passing the bill w/ 51 votes. His organization, Dean For America (I think?) is pushing hard for the public option.

He says we have the votes in the house and the senate for the public option.

Yes, he is saying only 51 votes are needed in the Senate because it falls under the purview of "budget reconciliation".

I'm saying let it go out normally and if 40 republicans want to take turns filibustering it, so be it.

Let them be seen as the party of no 24/7 on TV, while the dems spend their time visiting people without HC.

We can have 40 million Terri Schiavos.
 
I want the bill to pass .... but, I've heard your argument put forward before.
 
Simple question: Would you support a health care bill without a public health insurance option?

Poll is up, please read the options and vote for the one you most agree with.

Edit: I was not clear enough, so let me be clear what I was getting at. Is a public option, for or against, a deciding factor in health care reform. In other words, would you support reform without a public option, or would you oppose reform without a public option? This is meant to be a general question, not in specifics of what those reforms would be.

None of the current bills being circulated in congress address the problems with health care cost inflation.

So nope, I will not support any of the bills in congress, not even the Republican bill is worth the paper it's printed on.
 
Simple question: Would you support a health care bill without a public health insurance option?
I would support "a" health care bill, but that support is obviously dependant on what, exactly, is in the bill.

Anything that requires people to pay for goods and services they do not receive is out, as is anything that requires people to buy insurance for themseves, with or without some penalty for not doing so.
 
If the public option could help those who can't get private insurance and is only 5% of the total public spending for health care then that's ok with me.

On the other hand, I really don't understand any of this. :3oops:
 
I would support "a" health care bill, but that support is obviously dependant on what, exactly, is in the bill.

Anything that requires people to pay for goods and services they do not receive is out, as is anything that requires people to buy insurance for themseves, with or without some penalty for not doing so.

Can I ask a followup? What would you support in a health care bill? If you could design the bill, what would you put in it?
 
Can I ask a followup? What would you support in a health care bill? If you could design the bill, what would you put in it?
I'd have to think about specifics, but, as my position is that the runaway costs of health care are directly linked to the insulation of the consumer from those costs, I'd create something that reduces this insulation, even going so far as the elimination of the insurance providers in toto.

This will reduce prices and increase quality, through free-market competition.
 
I'd have to think about specifics, but, as my position is that the runaway costs of health care are directly linked to the insulation of the consumer from those costs, I'd create something that reduces this insulation, even going so far as the elimination of the insurance providers in toto.

This will reduce prices and increase quality, through free-market competition.

So outlaw health insurance in essence? Am I following that right?
 
Back
Top Bottom