Is a "Public Option" for health care so bad?

A quote from CNN Money.com about the Obama Health Plan...

First, they will impose rich, standard packages of benefits, with low deductibles, for all Americans. Those policies, typically containing everything from in-vitro fertilization to mental health benefits, are usually far more expensive than anything most people would pay for with their own money.
Second, the plans would impose on a federal level the doctrine of community rating, in which all customers have to be offered the same rates, regardless of their health risks. Community rating forces young people to pay far more than their actual cost, a main reason for today's 46 million uninsured, while it subsidizes older patients.
Third, Obama would ban consumers from buying private insurance across state lines, perpetuating the price differences in today's fragmented market, instead of allowing all Americans to shop anywhere for the best deals.
Fourth, both plans propose what's known as a "public option," or a Medicare-style plan that would compete with the private offerings. The previous three proposals would make the private plans extremely expensive. With the same subsidies, the Medicare-style plan could put them out of business.

Compare that analysis to the analysis from URBAN.org...


OVERALL ASSESSMENT
Our general assessment of the Obama plan is that it would
• greatly increase health insurance coverage but would still leave about 6 percent of the non-elderly
population uninsured, compared to 17 percent today.
• substantially increase access to affordable and adequate coverage for those with the highest health
care needs, including those with chronic illnesses, by spreading health care risk broadly;
• significantly increase the affordability of care for low-income individuals; and
• reduce the growth in health spending through a broad array of strategies.
In short, Obama’s proposal contains the basic components necessary for effectively addressing the most
important shortcomings of the current health care system, that is, limited coverage, inadequate risk pooling,
and high-cost growth.

I have been in contact with many people (in a completely non-scientific method) searching for feedback about their opinions on heathcare in America. Here are some negative responses...

"Don't get sick in America."

"The Government and business don't care about you."

"Why should I have to make a choice between healtcare and food?"

Hmmm...

The Obama administration has tapped into this anger at healthcare costs and has responded with a sweeping proposal to bring healthcare costs down to a more manageable levels.

They first proposed covering 16 million of the estimated 43 million uninsured at a cost of $1 trillion according to the non-partisan CBO.

Senator Kennedy recently released a modification extending coverage to 20 million people and lowering the cost to taxpayers to a more manageable $600 billion.

The plan would require all legal U.S. residents to have health insurance, CBO said. The Internal Revenue Service would impose penalties on those who don’t have health insurance, though individuals with incomes below 150 percent of the federal poverty level would be exempt, the analysis said.

Fees on companies not offering insurance, reducing and eliminating subsidies would cover the plan.

Sounds wonderful right?

Increased coverage and lowered cost? But what is the true cost?

Obama has taken the lowest common denominator..self interest, and turned it into the machine driving American movement to Socialism. Why must the government pay your medical bills? Why must you NOT have to make difficult choices?

America is the land where dreams come true. But dreams must also die. We have a social safety net to handle mediacl emergencies, Medicare and Medicade. Is anyone reading this satisfied with how they are run? Would you rather turn your life over to bureacrats how want to maintain costs so that everyone gets healtcare? Have you heard the "cost/benfits" analysis done by administration researchers saying that "quality of life" choices will need to be made? ( Sorry Dad..no liver transplant for you. The 22 year old junkie needs it.)

The Jamestown Colony tried "shared responsibilty" and nearly starved to death in the process. Are you willing to suffer, let your family suffer for the good of the people who don't want or need insurance?

Fear and Right Wing Extremism

Outside of "The Huffington Post" or the "Daily Kos" I have not heard of a direct accusation that Conservative equals Extremist.

What I have heard is that anyone who disagrees with the current direction of the nation and the policies of the Obama administration must be a right wing extremist.

We have all seen the DHS announcement. "Right wing chatter" about the current economic situation "could" lead to a "surge" of right wing activity that "could" lead to violence. Amazing statements from a governmental organization dedicated to protection. This statement could lead one to believe that people on the right side of politics turn into werewolves when they are struggling finacially. Conservative thinking people would turn to racial hatred, recruiting ex-military as a type of brown-shirt shock troops and the example they give for this thinking?...Timothy McVeigh.

But what of the affect of a poor economy on people on the left? Total and complete silence. Not a mention of the left in this report. One could believe from this that liberals, in times of uncertainty, turn into the modern version of the Underground Railroad: they would gather poor huddled people of color and hide them in the celler for protection from the white hordes. Liberals would pool their resources, feed the hungry and gleefully follow any orders or directions from the Federal government.

OK.

Major changes are coming. One side wants them and the other side does not. The problem is that one side has the power to force the change and is actively trying to silence the dissenting side.

Disenfranchisment was the catch phrase for the 2000 and 2004 election. "Thousands" were disenfranchised and that was the end of the world. We were told if their voices were heard then "everything" would have been different. Al Gore Would have been President and global warming would have stopped. John Kerry would have been President and the Middle East would be a playground for Arabs and Israelis.

It seems that disenfranchisement is the policy for the new administration. Government sponsored shunning by labling dissent as "extremist" is the way to calm the waters.

Remember Missouri saying that a bumper sticker for a third party candidate could make a militia member?

Fear is relative. The left fears not getting their societal wish list through before people wake up to see that the country is being bankrupted. The right fears the loss of their voice, their religions, the schools, their kids future...their country.

Nutjobs know no party. Some idiot is always waiting in the shadows to cause pain becuase he is mad at something. ELF will have no problem blowing up, burning, stealing. Skin Heads will always be angry at skin color.

Everyone else simply wants to not live in fear.