No public option, no problem

Healthcare reform is taking a bad turn, causing many to take their eyes off of the ball. US healthcare is the best in the world. Rich people from all over the world come to the US when they need something complex taken care of. People come from around the world come to the US to learn how to be a doctor, too. The quality of our healthcare is leading the way for the world to follow.
The problem is that you have to be rich to get that care. Healthcare costs too much, and many people find it cheaper to get sick, stay sick, and die than to go to the doctor when they need to go, and/or to take their medicines as prescribed. Being insured is a start, but even with crappy insurance, people have to make unhealthy financial decisions. 100% of our population insured will not solve the problem. If we can lower costs, and still get people what they need to be healthy, we will have achieved a very lofty goal.
I only wish I knew how to do it, and I can only hope that someone much smarter and more informed than me is working on it right now.
Putting the Feds in charge of everybody's healthcare is not a good idea. I have seen VA facilities and how the govt. has done there--plus Medicare and its programs are reeking with waste, confusion and corruption. In general, American free market systems work better than Federal systems, as long as someone is watching the crooks in the private sector. A one payor system is the worst of all ideas. Fix Medicare before anything else, then address costs, then fix private insurance.

Dirigo fails because it's a lousy expensive program. A really bad example of a "public option".

Sirmel,

You can't argue for tort reform like Texas which restricts competition and then agrue for competition to cut costs. As we now see Health care reform means many different things to different people and interests. Well so does tort reform. Doctors who perform according to standards should be protected. Facilities that apply management techniques that reduce errors should be protected. But 98,000 people die because of medical errors each year. One control that provides an incentive to reduce that number is lawsuits. In this state we have a peer review board. That's a good step. We need more.
Its not state laws that have eliminated competition. The insurance companies have colluded to cut up the insurance markets into monopolies where they can control prices independent of costs. This year Anthem has increased premiums by 80%, 52%, 42% respectively in three states. In the middle of the Great Recession. Competition can only be restore by a government run program where regulated and regulator have no contact.
Jon Albrecht Dixfield

Sorry...but I just gotta laugh. Proudliberals profile reads:
First Name
Proud
Last Name
Liberal
Profile
Highly educated, smart, and politically saavy

Highly educated, smart and unable to spell savvy! That's a good one!

Universal Coverage is not the sole goal of health care reform. If it were only a single-payer universal health care system supplemented by private insurance would be the answer. The US health care system is rated 37th by the WHO. Others rate it differently but no one rates it better than 15th. Insurance Companies deny care for 20% of treatments order by doctors. That can only worsen care.
If we want to meet all the goals of health care reform then a robust public option that as Rep. Michaud proposes permits negiotiated reimbursements not ones pinned to Medicare is the only means that can work.
Jon Albrecht Dixfield

In essence, the Sun Journal has opted for a 'Public Option' for the Insurance Companies, their shareholders, overpaid management, and "for profit" administration of health care payments.

Way to go, Dingleberry-Heads!!!

------------------------------------------
When I was a young Sailor - I drank like a Sailor, fought like a Sailor, and screwed like a Sailor. Now that I am old and wise - I have a few scars, but many fond memories.

One of the big problems for health care cost is created by state laws. Laws that prohibits competition. Also state laws that will not take on tort reforms. When states take these 2 up and have the laws in placed those states has a savings. You can do your own homework here. Look at Texas and Now Mississippi.

Look at your own state here for the problems, its not the fault of the Feds for these 2 issues but certainly the feds can help if they wanted too.

I find it funny, in a way that our Goverment official think they need to re envent the wheel here on health care. If you take a look at why health care has risen so hi. We fiirst look at insurance and think they are the colprets. If you stop and think about it, no they are not the colprets here. Hospital are. They are the one that charge you hi rates for a list of cost Like x-ray, scan, room, and the list go on and on, So what do Insurance do, they try to, as best as they can have a rational pricing of cost. Yes some of you must think i work for an Insurance or goverment No i do not to both. If you all think for a minute and look at were the cost are.
Insuranse is like a contractor going out to bid for a job and giving a cost est. on work to be preform, Same thing here But to add to the cost Its States that also tell insurance companies on some pre set requirements that need be added to all policies Like in some states, plastic surgery, bo tox, etc. So this is one reason that some pollicies sky rocket do to the cost of thouse proceadures. Aslo with the added States requirement is also a reason policies are not portable from states to state. So if states would elimant the set requirement and regulate the hospital cost. This would also bring down our Insurance cost. And hvae the states reform TOR ( spelling on that one) refom to limit the of how much Dr, can be sued Then that too will also help in the over all cost.
Remember this wheel has beeninvented and been working fine. We do not need Fed gov. punching hole in the wheel. We as Mainers need to reform from with in

The public does not support socialized medicine/federal health insurance the votes to inflict it are not there Washington, two facts few would dispute. Since the people dont want it and Congress is not going to pass it lets stop spending on countless staffers and meetings and all that has gone along eith the gargantion media and public relations circus. The taxpayers are footing the bill but it is not for better health care.

My rate for insurance has increased by 20% AND MY CO-PAY HAS INCREASED BY AS MUCH ALSO BECAUSE OF SCUM SUCKING BALDACCI AND THE MAINE BUMS WHO WANT TO SIT HOME SMOKE AND WATH TV!!!! NOW this RAG thinks it would be a good thing nationaly Man I wish this editor would just grab a rope and tie it to a 747 and just take - off!!!!

Typical Sun Journal analysis of a complex issue. You cannot compare the way a state would try to provide a public option versus the federal government. The scale is so massive on the federal scale that the inefficiencies inherent in states doing it on their own are eliminated. For example both Maine and Masschusetts had to negotiate separately with HMOs to implement their plans and the insurers had plenty of leverage in the negotiations. The federal government would simply say this is what the pay scale is and the insurers would have to deal with it. The public option is not just about breaking the health insurance companies, it is about making sure no one in this supposed greatest country on earth does not lack for health care. As it is now we rank 36th in the world in terms of the health care provided to our citizens.

Here is a an easy to understand solution: use the French model of health care. France for decades has been the the #1 country in terms of caring for it's citizens and you know how they do it? A 7% payroll tax and $120/month - that's what gets your average French person his/her healthcare -- copays, prescriptions, everything. No unexpected bills, no sticker-shock, no wrangling with insurers.

Why we cannot have the same here in the United States, and why the SJ editorial board cannot understand why a public option is so important is deeply troubling.