Why We Need a Public Option

"And disingenuous, if the immigration card is being played just to waylay health reform."

Single-payer health care with government insurance does work in countries with relatively homogeneous populations. However, the ideology of multiculturalism, affirmative action and the widespread violation of immigration laws in the U.S. means that we view ourselves as a collection of competing ethnic/racial and even national interest groups.

As it stands, the possiblity of universal health care is seen as a transfer of wealth from groups identified as "privileged" along both class and racial lines. I think more people (myself included) would favor single-payer health care if immigration laws were rigorously enforced, fewer impoverished, poorly-educated immigrants were admitted, and if the government ended race-based preferences that would extend to a new health-care plan. For example, the unread health bill includes racial preferences in medical school admissions -- such preferences have a long and sordid history and it is sickening that the Democrats seek to revive them.

Simply put, if we returned to an assimilationist model and viewed ourselves as one nation and one people, universal health care would find far greater acceptance.

"Currently, private insurance companies are the sole arbiters of health care delivery, leading to an inherent conflict of interest" is a statement you made in your first paragraphs can you explain what role do Medicare and Medi-Cal play then?

I wouldnt have a problem with health care reform, actually would embrace it if they could hold off and prove they can realize the savings from all the waste and fraud elected officials like Lois have talked about. If they can prove they can save the hundreds of billions they reference then great lets do it. Until they can prove they can realize the savings all their numbers are suspect and we cannot have another Social Security or Medicare shell game which are at this point bankrupt pyramid schemes a few years away from being Bernie Madoff quality investment.

"people will have an option to buy insurance from the government for that private system of medicine"

At whose expense?

"Currently, private insurance companies are the sole arbiters of health care delivery"

Nonsense. Speaking for myself - a person who has high health insurance (with a high deductable). I decide when and where I go to the doctor. I suspect that the same is true for most people.

"A company’s raison d’être is to increase its profit And health care providers profit by padding the bill that someone else pays. Just try to get a one doctor to accept another doctor's lab tests or xray - good luck with that Heck you can't even get a price quote for a physical. I went for an appendix removal. I asked cottage hospital for the bill for a 20 hour stay, It was 9000 dollars. I said - "well I"m going to pay this out of pocket how about giving me a break since you don't have all that insurance paper work. Then the said - "too bad you don't have insurance- it would have been only 6000." After that I felt I had to get the insurance just to have a stronger position regarding the medical establishment"

"The public option would not have the profit incentive. Private insurers typically have a 25 percent profit margin, whereas a government insurer could put that quarter of your health-care dollar directly into health delivery."

LOL - assuming the 25 percent is correct - which I doubt - have you ever seen ANY government program that didn't waste at least half its cost? Wait til all the players - the doctors, labs, drug companies, etc, etc. get their fingers into this pie.

"Nothing wrong with that if you’re selling shoes,"

What about food - isn't that at least as important as healthcare. I mean without food - I won't last a month. How about a Government run Food Bank?

"but health-care insurers profit by denying health care."

Or is it re-imbursement to health care providers who want to pad their bills - Doctor?

"I’m not so naïve as to think any government bureaucracy will get it all right. But a public option will change the playing field so that the patients—the American citizens—get a fair break."

Since when do we get a fair break from another government program? Its maddening to deal with those bureaucracies.

"Personally, I think there are moral and humanitarian reasons for treating anybody who walks into an ER with an urgent problem, but I can understand the resentment about unnecessary use by people who haven’t paid into the system and don’t expect to."

Let's compromise on this. No benefits for non-citizens but they don't have to pay any taxes for this program. That seems fair to me. Oh BTW - how about an option to renounce one's citizenship without having to leave the country so he doesn't have to be forced into this fiasco.

revisionist, you mentioned this in your comment:

- - - "For example, the unread health bill includes racial preferences in medical school admissions -- such preferences have a long and sordid history and it is sickening that the Democrats seek to revive them." - - -

I can't find any reference to that in HR3200. Could you please help me out with a citation?

I did find this, which is an even-handed and smart idea to help underserved sectors of our country, but it's unlike the proposal you suggest is going to students:

::: ‘SEC. 765. ENHANCING THE PUBLIC HEALTH WORKFORCE.
‘(a) Program- The Secretary, acting through the Administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration and in consultation with the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, shall establish a public health workforce training and enhancement program consisting of awarding grants and contracts under subsection (b).

[..snip... of non-race related info -- a, b & c -- and continuing from the same section]

::: ‘(d) Preference- In awarding grants or contracts under this section, the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of the following:

‘(1) Training the greatest percentage, or significantly improving the percentage, of public health professionals who serve in underserved communities.

‘(2) Training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds.

‘(3) Training individuals in public health specialties experiencing a significant shortage of public health professionals (as determined by the Secretary).

‘(4) Training the greatest percentage, or significantly improving the percentage, of public health professionals serving in the Federal Government or a State, local, or tribal government. "

It should be noted also these grants go to entities, not individuals.

"It should be noted also these grants go to entities, not individuals"

And thus said entities will feel pressured to grant racial preferences in admissions in order to obtain these grants.

As explained in detail here

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/r...

"The Democrats' health care bill creates a very significant financial incentive for medical schools and other entities to lower admission standards for "individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups" if that is what it takes to have the winning "demonstrated record"."

This example that Dr. Kahn presents is a poor example of why we need universal health care. The woman in the example appears to have been in the course of her employment when she was bitten by the dog. It does NOT matter that she was not on school property when the dog bit her. The determination of whether an injury is industrial is whether it arose out of and occurred within the course of employment. She was walking a child to the parent's car. She was clearly providing a benefit to her employer and she should have filed a work comp claim. All her medical costs would have been covered by her employer.

Is anybody else tired of hearing we need the government to save us from ourselves. First it was oil companies, keeping the man down. Then the auto industry. How dare they ride around on private jets! We can't forget the big pharma corps stealing grandmas money and holding out on the aids drugs. It's funny, you never heard a peep about the insurance companies until Obama pushed healthcare. Now we can no longer live with these evil people who run these producers of death and misery!!! What a joke, just like the state-ran propaganda the newspaper prints!

Totally agree with the points made in this letter. Kudos to Dr. Kahn for telling it like it is!

And its very reassuring to know there are physicians out there who really care for their patients. But they shouldn't have to personally subsidize their patients. As my own doctor says, the current mishmash we call a "health care system" is unsustainable and needs to be changed. Ideologues and Libertarians who cherish an unfettered free profit market for health care are not doing this nation any favors. As Dr. Kahn says, there are inherent conflicts of interest.

'Is anybody else tired of hearing we need the government to save us from ourselves.'
No touristunfriendly, we need them to save us from people like yourself who seem to not care that oil companies reap disgusting profits, sometimes off the backs of our young in the military trying to procure sweet deals in countries for the big and rich corporations. Yes, how dare they (the auto makers now) show up in private jets when asking the government (taxpayers) for a hand out? How would you like it if I rolled up to your house in a ferrari asking for a couple million dollars? Also, we are not affraid of 'big pharma corps stealing grandmas money and holding out on the aids drugs' even though they do that anyways. We are TIRED of paying out the nose for NON-INSURANCE that doesn't cover squat, bankrupts the sick, and denies people the coverage when they get sick because of a term that never existed before insurance company greed, "PRE-EXISTING CONDITION". duh.
your name touristunfriendly says it all, xenophobic, non friendly, unwelcoming.... just calling it for what it is.

Binky, East Beach and Spacey, you've all made your points (apparently ignorance is bliss for some.) For the rest know this: Dr. Kahn was soundly rebutted during said town hall forum by another physician in attendance (which of course the press didn't report -- being the liberal lap dogs they are -- Poodle included.)

Revisionist is right, homogenous European populations are better equipped for national health care. You LIBS who don't want us wasting millions fighting wars; how can you not GET that we will be wasting millions treating Mexico unchecked?? Agree with other posters, PERHAPS national healthcare would be more palatable with strict border enforcement. Until then, nada.

And even then, we'd still have to ask if BIG GUV can't run the post office, social security or Medicare, do you want its hands on your private parts?

binky...there you go again. Your response to revisionist was off target and misleading. So I went back and read through the bill a second time. Now before you all get hot and bothered, please take the following in totality. Intent with HR and Senate bills is ALWAYS the direction they will head. Specificity is never the goal.

You asked for points that relate to preferences. Here goes: Between pgs 877 - 909 of H.R. 3200, the Secretary of Health and Human Services is empowered to grant preference in awarding training grants.

For the specialties of "family medicine, GI medicine, pediatrics, geriatrics and PA" (pages 878-882); "medical residents on community-based settings" (pages 883-886) and "general, pediatric and public health dentists and dental hygienists" (pages 887-891), it is written that "the Secretary shall give preference to... entities (schools) that have a demonstrated record of... training (teaching) individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds."

Further, the bill amends the Public Health Service Act to give preferences in "advanced education nursing grants" to programs that "increase diversity among advanced education nurses" (pages 892-895).

Grants for "enhancing the public health workforce" similarly give preference to "entities (schools) that have a demonstrated record of... training (teaching) individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds" (pages 907-909).

So...by making preferences a shortcut to federal funding, schools will reduce their quest for the quality and turn it into a hunt for the right racial numbers. This will hurt the quality of our nation's health care.

Keep it simple folks...allow true competition across State lines, medical savings accounts, tax deductibility of medical expenses. lawsuit reform along the lines California has enacted. Then we can consider fine tuning it even further. Daniel Petry