Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
February 23, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.

Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.

What We Do Now

Truthdig Bazaar
Robert Fisk on Algeria

Robert Fisk on Algeria

Robert Fisk

more items

A/V Booth
Email this item Print this item

Obama Dropping the Public Health Option?

Posted on Aug 17, 2009

Reports that President Obama may change his position on his proposal to set up a system of government health care insurance for Americans under 65 caused ripples, mostly on the left, and critics continued to clamor Monday for an alternative to private insurance companies.  —KA

Bloomberg via YouTube:


Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments

By karl incline village, August 19, 2009 at 11:06 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

the moral issue regarding health care reform is important but i also believe the
availability for the u.s. to compete in the “global economy” is also important.
china is implementing a universal health care system as part of their economic
stimulus. ASK yourself if china has unlimited people( resource),infrastructure and
now universal health care. how are we going to slow down “outsourcing” when
china provides a more profitable business environment. please look at this
NYTimes article. most people i speak have no clue about this and how it will
affect this country.

Report this

By KDelphi, August 19, 2009 at 10:43 pm Link to this comment

Hulk—so wouldnt that happen with any co-op? I didnt know that nay of them were still non-profit. Well, there are plenty of so-called “non-profits” that make a tidy profit, though.

If health care is part of the “fre mkt” system , it would be kindve stupid to NOT make a profit. I just dont think that they should. Or , at least, people should be given a chance to not have their life and death decisaions be made on Wall St, by some f*cking broker..

Report this
Hulk2008's avatar

By Hulk2008, August 19, 2009 at 1:17 pm Link to this comment

BCBS used to be a group of state level mutual companies.  The cooperated via a national entity BCA to coordinate benefits and compare costs.  Physicians and hospitals influenced them and helped define the “usual and customary” charges for services rendered.  They tried to be non-profit and, in earlier days, operated on about 4 cents of every premium dollar for their “members” (each policyholder was considered a member - as if each owned a piece of the company .... a vested interest in keeping costs low).  In fact, the policy in those days was “pay and pursue” - i.e. they paid the providers and then, if charges exceeded the usual and customary, pursued the providers to justify differences.  Patients were not hounded into bankruptcy nearly as often. 
  By contrast, most former BCBS insurers have moved to the profits-to-the-max model - with patients being targets rather than providers.  Moreover, some insurers have even been sued by providers (hospitals and physicians) for non-payment and significantly delayed payments. 
  Sure reminds one of the Matt Damon movie “The Rainmaker”.

Report this

By KDelphi, August 19, 2009 at 11:02 am Link to this comment

It doesnt really matter now. The insurance industry won the day Obama was nominated.

We’ve already tried the “co-ops” crap, sheeples! That is what Blue Cross/Blue Shield started out to be!

As long as there is Capitalism in matters of life and death, any co-op will end up being sold to the highest bidder.

People think that they have “choice” now—lol! Who do you think “decided” how long you would stay in the hospital for different procedures or illnesses? Doctors?! This was decided when Generous Motors and BC/BS got together with Union bosses to screw the working class—just enough to frighten them, and, Merkins being cowardly by nature of their faux meritocracy, just swallowed it whole.

They did statistical analyses to figure out what would make them the most profit, whether or not it provided decent health care to anyone—does it take 28 days to become ‘un-addicted” to drugs? Less than 48 hrs to rest after childbirth? (which is best done at home, anyway)Are people re-admitted too often to the hospital?—Yes! Because they were let out too soon in the first place!

People who think that the public plan is “
just too radical” are so far gone that they deserve to not have health care. But they already have irt.

Report this
Right Top, Site wide - Care2
Right 3, Site wide - Exposure Dynamics
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide

Like Truthdig on Facebook