Number of people under 65 who would use the public option is....

[Brandon Rhea]

After all the noise over Democrats' push for a government insurance plan to compete with private carriers, coverage numbers are finally in: Two percent.

That's the estimated share of Americans younger than 65 who'd sign up for the public option plan under the health care bill that Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is steering toward House approval.

The underwhelming statistic is raising questions about whether the government plan will be the iron-fisted competitor that private insurers warn will shut them down or a niche operator that becomes a haven for patients with health insurance horror stories.

Source - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091101/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_public_plan

Very interesting.

 

[Trakon]

I laugh at the fools who think they can force us to submit to the iron will.

 

[Sovereign]

Where the hell is that statistic from?

The article is horribly biased btw.

 

[Jaqen H'ghar]

Where the hell is that statistic from?

The article is horribly biased btw.

^

It'd be like me talking about how obama is screwing us over and posting a link to What'sisface over at fox news. The guy always shouting about RINO's...

 

[Sovereign]

Funny.

The same writer who wrote that article also says that the plan would fund abortions, which is completely false.

"Health care legislation before Congress would allow a new government-sponsored insurance plan to cover abortions, a decision that would affect millions of women and recast federal policy on the divisive issue."

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-gr...r-honors-obama-fact-checker-chief-health-care

 

[Brandon Rhea]

Where the hell is that statistic from?

V

The latest look at the public option comes from the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan economic analysts for lawmakers.

 

[Neutrino]

But now the article has lost credibility...

 

[Brandon Rhea]

It's not about the article. I don't understand why some of you are focusing on that. The article is just posted to give a source for where I found the statistic. If you don't like the article then that's all well and dandy, but just because he injects his own opinion into it doesn't mean that the stats from the CBO are suddenly lies and slander.

 

[Sovereign]

V

That's not where the poll comes from.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

That's not where the poll comes from.

Oh really?

The latest look at the public option comes from the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan economic analysts for lawmakers.

It found that the scaled back government plan in the House bill wouldn't overtake private health insurance. To the contrary, it might help the insurers a little.

The budget office estimated that about 6 million people would sign up for the public option in 2019, when the House bill is fully phased in. That represents about 2 percent of a total of 282 million Americans under age 65. (Older people are covered through Medicare.)

The following paragraphs also acknowledge the CBO.

 

[Sovereign]

Oh really?



The following paragraphs also acknowledge the CBO.

Well, that's ****ing retarded then.

Because the public option is for those who are uninsured, it isn't meant for every American.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

Well, that's ****ing retarded then.

Because the public option is for those who are uninsured, it isn't meant for every American.

That's not the point it's trying to make. The whole reason that Congress and Obama is saying that they want a public option, outside of insuring everyone, is so it can legitimately compete with insurance companies and force them to lower the cost of insurance in order to stay in business. If only 2% of people sign up with the public option, it doesn't affect the insurance companies at all. They won't have to lower their prices and they could just keep doing what they're doing now, because they'd have no legitimate competition from the public option.

 

[Sovereign]

That's not the point it's trying to make. The whole reason that Congress and Obama is saying that they want a public option, outside of insuring everyone, is so it can legitimately compete with insurance companies and force them to lower the cost of insurance in order to stay in business. If only 2% of people sign up with the public option, it doesn't affect the insurance companies at all. They won't have to lower their prices and they could just keep doing what they're doing now, because they'd have no legitimate competition from the public option.

People don't even know enough about the public option yet. The poll is just completely inappropriate. When its implemented and when people realize that it might be a cheaper option, it will be more popular.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

People don't even know enough about the public option yet. The poll is just completely inappropriate. When its implemented and when people realize that it might be a cheaper option, it will be more popular.

If people don't know enough yet, then that's still a failure on the part of the government. We've been going through this circle jerk for like six months now, and the government hasn't been able to get its head out of its ass long enough to adequately explain WTF they're actually trying to do. The fact that there are like 42 different versions of health care reform in the Democratic Party alone doesn't help either. Fancy speeches with calls to action aren't going to do crap. Someone needs to actually explain this stuff or else people will continue to not know anything about it.

And no, getting this information is not completely inappropriate. The CBO is responsible for getting the members of Congress every single last bit of information they need in order to make an informed decision or to continue working on the plan (instead of forcing it through the House) so it gets the job done. This is part of that, and it's important to have some sort of indicator like this in order to know whether or not the public option is actually going to do the job. They can't just hope that it'll do the job. They need to have numbers and analysis.

 

[Sovereign]

If people don't know enough yet, then that's still a failure on the part of the government. We've been going through this circle jerk for like six months now, and the government hasn't been able to get its head out of its ass long enough to adequately explain WTF they're actually trying to do. The fact that there are like 42 different versions of health care reform in the Democratic Party alone doesn't help either. Fancy speeches with calls to action aren't going to do crap. Someone needs to actually explain this stuff or else people will continue to not know anything about it.

And no, getting this information is not completely inappropriate. The CBO is responsible for getting the members of Congress every single last bit of information they need in order to make an informed decision or to continue working on the plan (instead of forcing it through the House) so it gets the job done. This is part of that, and it's important to have some sort of indicator like this in order to know whether or not the public option is actually going to do the job. They can't just hope that it'll do the job. They need to have numbers and analysis.

Yes, they need to talk more about the public option, but dismissing the entire thing because of this poll is ridiculous.

Also, most americans DO support a public option;

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/19/AR2009101902451.html

 

[Neutrino]

I don't care about the bias. Anyone who has taken a course dealing with critical reading can look past it. But SIN pointed out a false statement by the author. It was blatant. Who knows what else he is making up... Therefore I said that this article has lost credibility. *shrug

 

[Ru the Boatswain]

Two pecent is still a huge number of people. The public option is doing it's good.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

Yes, they need to talk more about the public option, but dismissing the entire thing because of this poll is ridiculous.

Also, most americans DO support a public option;

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/19/AR2009101902451.html

Show me where I dismissed the entire thing.

If you're talking about the author, then (and this is also in response to Sakae) who gives a crap? The entire article doesn't lose credibility just because of one thing the author said, because it cites the Congressional Budget Office in the relevant parts of the article. If you're that concerned that the entire article is suddenly lacking in credibility and you want to see beyond a reasonable doubt that the CBO actually said that, then let me direct you to one of the greatest inventions known to man:

http://www.google.com

Two pecent is still a huge number of people. The public option is doing it's good.

Yes, 6 million is a large number, but that's only 1/5 of the people who are currently uninsured (not including illegal immigrants, which would make it 45 million people). If that's all Pelosi's plan is going to cover, then clearly Pelosi's plan is not up to snuff and they need to go with a revised version or a completely different version.

 

[Ru the Boatswain]

Well, I agree with yout here. Is this a bill thats paving the way for something more gradual and efficient? Can we expect more bills in the future to expand this?

 

[Neutrino]

If you're talking about the author, then (and this is also in response to Sakae) who gives a crap? The entire article doesn't lose credibility just because of one thing the author said, because it cites the Congressional Budget Office in the relevant parts of the article. If you're that concerned that the entire article is suddenly lacking in credibility and you want to see beyond a reasonable doubt that the CBO actually said that, then let me direct you to one of the greatest inventions known to man:

http://www.google.com

lol wow thanks I would have never thought of that!