Who are you going to threaten when the feds take over the system?
That's what I want to know.
When your claim is mired in red tape the likes of which you've never seen, are you going to threaten the completely ambivalent civil service worker who goes home at 5 pm whether the sky falls or not?
There will be no personal liablilty, therefore there will be no threat that will mean anything.
I'm glad you're proud of what you've been able to accomplish, but I don't think you're going to have the same luck the government run health care fails you.
I'm not giving nightmare scenarios.
Tell me why you think the government will do this efficiently, effectively, and to your satisfaction when private industry has not.
Well threaten is such a harsh word with negative connotations. I prefer to call it
persuasion.
I'll admit it is a daunting task at first, but I've had lots of practice so now it's just second nature. It usually begins and ends with the physician in charge. Occasionally it involves an insurance claims manager or lawyer.
Some have been gov't and some private, but the results have been the same.
Let me say that I don't automatically think the gov't can or will do a better job. I'm not oblivious to the fact they usually don't. But as you say, and many agree, private insurance hasn't been so swell either.
So, would it be wrong to at least give it a try?
Worst case scenario is it gets all screwed up and fails. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
That's why I oppose making it mandatory, but as a public option to see if it works better, I just don't see why it's a problem.
The grand plan they started with seems to be fading fast, so as long as we keep a close eye on what is being passed, I don't think it's time to dive into the bomb shelters just yet.
If all that is changed is allowing pre-existing conditions, eliminate fraudulent rescissions, and try some things to bring down the premiums, it might have been worth it.
The simple fact that it (a public option) is being opposed so strongly by so many deep pockets leads me to believe that the proponents may just have struck a nerve.
If nothing else, a nat'l discussion is going to have to take place on subjects most of us avoid. End of life care, terminal patients, assisted living, hospice, DNR's, handicap care, etc.
With something this big and expensive that touches all of us, I just think everything should be open for discussion.
