Comments on: Lanny Davis on the “Public Option”

By: cjbjulie

cjbjulie — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 20:28:02 +0000

Lanny Davis is more than obnoxious, he is just a vile partisan. I can’t stand to hear him whining on TV. If he sent you an email that was in poor taste, he should be exposed for who he is. O’Reilly, as well as Lanny Davis seemed to think the American people are not afraid, and I can tell you, we are ABSOLUTELY AFRAID of our new Marxist government!

By: cjbjulie

cjbjulie — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 20:28:01 +0000

By: Menlo

Menlo — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:00:10 +0000

As far as I’m concerned, the individual mandate is just as bad as banning all insurance.

Even without a “public option,” such a requirement is the same thing as full-scale socialized medicine and may even be worse.

What frightens me most is that this requirement is the one thing there is the most agreement in Congress on.

By: Menlo

Menlo — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:00:10 +0000

As far as I’m concerned, the individual mandate is just as bad as banning all insurance.

Even without a “public option,” such a requirement is the same thing as full-scale socialized medicine and may even be worse.

What frightens me most is that this requirement is the one thing there is the most agreement in Congress on.

By: civil_truth

civil_truth — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:29:23 +0000

It’s the insurance companies and HMOs and PPOs, etc. who end up footing the preemptive lab tests bills that physicians order (and thereby drive up their costs of operatioin), which would put them at a disadvantage to public entities who won’t face such pressures – and who in fact will likely enjoy immunity from “failure to promptly diagnose” suits (which are a high percentage of malpractice suits, vs. physician incompetence, I think) so long as they follow the government-mandated diagnostic protocols that will ration diagnostic testing.

Which is actually a second legal disadvantage that private entities will face. But what I was referring to above was lawsuits directly against the insurance entities (and HMOs and PPOs) themselves. I’m not sure of the magnitude, but these suits and the damages from them are another investment risk that public options will not face.

By: asleep06

asleep06 — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:22:59 +0000

Though it will be hard to figure out at exactly what point you should sell and flee the nation as it goes down the toilet.

By: Francis Cianfrocca

Francis Cianfrocca — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:05:43 +0000

Before I say this, let me stress that I’m a CEO, so to me, the plaintiff bar is a large parasite bleeding the economy dry, and I’d like nothing better than for them to all go to some other planet.

But what I often hear is that doctors and hospitals often order more diagnostic procedures than they really need, because of the presumptive need to defend against lawsuits.

But the doctors and hospitals get paid for all those extra MRIs and blood tests on a fee-per-service basis. Even without the pressure from malpractice claims, do you really think they’re going to give up those lush fees?

If you assume that the total earnings of plaintiff lawyers are a net tax on the healthcare system, first let’s get an authoritative estimate of the total size of that tax. (Transparency for trial lawyers? Not while Democrats control Congress.) If it turns out to be some really big number, like hundreds of billions a year, then we’ll have something to discuss.

By: Common_Cents

Common_Cents — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:00:13 +0000

By: civil_truth

civil_truth — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 19:57:04 +0000

Even assuming that the public option entity can be sued, the government will be the deep pockets, so that unlike their private competitiors, there will be no need for public options to divert capital to protect themselves against judgments. And we know how expensive medical judgments can be, not to mention legal expense incurred to defend against the lawsuit.

By: Aaron Gardner

Aaron Gardner — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 19:56:36 +0000

By: Francis Cianfrocca

Francis Cianfrocca — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 19:48:45 +0000

They’ll just benefit from an essentially-zero cost of capital, just like Fannie and Freddie.

It’s a completely insurmountable competitive advantage (Fannie and Freddie have no meaningful competitors). But don’t call it a subsidy.

Until they start losing money, that is. Just as Fannie and Freddie did.

By: illinois

illinois — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 19:47:52 +0000

You start out by saying he’s a “Dem all around good guy” and I always thought so too——until last week or so when he was on O’Reilly—-and they were talking about us regular flyover folks being afraid. Lanny disagreed. So, I sent him an email and told him that many of us flyovers are very afraid since Obummer got in—and with all the radical changes. I was really surprised to get an email from our all around good guy Lanny——-but when I opened it—-I only read the first couple lines. Wow was he nasty. Something about how stupid pathetic & confused people like me are! His email was really aggressive——sort of like the tone of Hillary when she was asked about Bill…….. I should have posted it here so you all could decide yourselves about our buddy and all around good guy Dem Lanny!!

By: illinois

illinois — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 19:47:52 +0000

By: DamnCat

DamnCat — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 19:43:04 +0000

Yesterday at the N.H. dog & pony show Obama said:
================
And I do think that having a public option as part of that would keep the insurance companies honest, because if they’ve got a public plan out there that they’ve got to compete against, as long as it’s not being subsidized by taxpayers, then that will give you some sense of what — sort of a good bargain for what basic health care would be.
================

So either Lanny Davis has no idea what he is talking about or Obama is lying to us. I’m sure everyone will get the answer on the first guess.

By: DamnCat

DamnCat — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 19:43:04 +0000

So either Lanny Davis has no idea what he is talking about or Obama is lying to us. I’m sure everyone will get the answer on the first guess.