Excellent comeback against those who say the public option would kill insurance companies.

calling a spade a spade. Dems will just let something crazy go, or try to be polite about it, well for the sake of the country that approach has to go. Sometimes you just need to call it what it is and if that seems harsh well often it's justified.

Bring more attention to the misinformed whackos. Go on the attack with information and a level head. Use humor when appropriate. Sounds like a job for Mr. Franken!

from Massachusetts. He just doesn't take any shit and is pretty big in the party.

edited to turn my box into a comic.

is jobs. Lots of people have jobs in those companies and they would have to have some place to go.

I didn't agree with the logic then, and don't now. Do we really value the jobs that scrutinize our insurance claims (looking for ways to deny payment) so much, that we're willing to forego reform to save them?

but your correlation isn't apt. Telemarketing still exists. If the insurance industry doesn't really exist, those jobs have to be replaced somehow. And not just the people who scrutinize insurance claims. Secretaries, janitors, etc etc. It's not the end of the argument by any means, but it's a consideration.

Take Indian policy for example. Many people who study Indian policy have believed that we should just do away with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. That is an idea that I am not totally against myself. Except for one thing. The BIA is the largest employer of Indians in the country, a historical demographic where unemployment is high. Reservations live in a perpetual depression compared to the rest of the country, so eliminated their biggest source of employment is a huge issue. So do you keep the BIA or get rid of it? I had a discussion with an Indian policy expert who said that he has always for abolishing it, but now that many of his relatives and people he knows are employed by the agency and without that, they'd have nothing. So then how do you have reform, when the initial cost of it is so destructive? You don't. Now is it going to be that bad with insurance companies, no, it isn't. But, again, it's something that has to be considered and accounted for.

Either way, I'm not sure we owe these folks a job, just so we can get health care.

And no we wouldn't owe them a job, but we have to take it into consideration and do our best to replace those jobs in some manner. The overall policy is of great benefit, it is important to minimize the negative impact that it would have on the people who would lose jobs or have to be retrained for a new job. In any system change, no matter how good, there is some problem or problems that have to be figured out, this is just another problem that would have to be specifically addressed in some way.

programs for the redundant health-insurance-related jobs.

exactly right.

loggers, fishermen, carriage makers and those employed in many other industries have had to retool their skills and seek employment elsewhere when those industries fell on bad times or became obsolete.
insurance industry workers can do the same.
how many americans have had to adjust to post-bankruptcy lives after catastrophic medical issues and their attendant costs, loss of employment, etc.?
the medical insurance industry is a leech on american families and the american economy. healthy bodies can not afford to carry leeches for very long before their health is negatively affected. unhealthy, weakened bodies, such as america is today, can not ignore the leech on their resources if they hope to recover.

All kinds of people have lost their jobs -- jobs that were really useful. We used to make cars, steel, telephones, beds, textiles all kinds of things, in America. Many of the people who had jobs making those things lost their jobs. I don't remember anyone in the health care insurance companies stepping in and offering to reduce their profits so that a few of those jobs could be saved. They weren't in it with the people losing their jobs. They were in it for themselves.

Now the people who have been working for health care insurance companies dare to ask us to think about the fact maybe a few of them will lose their jobs. Bit late, isn't it?

That's "progress" for you. Kind of cruel when you are the one being progressed out of a job.

is the poor treatment of home health care workers. They do often thankless, hard work keeping people alive and comfortable in their own familiar surroundings and are not paid nor represented well. They certainly don't share in the obscene profits of the industry.

still requires lots of workers. There would definitely be many jobs available.

Though I understand the sentiment I couldn't disagree more. To keep a badly run or unneeded government agency or prop up a non-competitive company, an unnecessary company, or company that is no longer filling the function in society it is supposed to simply because of the jobs involved is not always a good idea. Of course there are other considerations a la the car companies of how going out of business will effect the economy as a whole . The thing is the private insurance companies, even if the public option is instituted, certainly won't go out of business overnight. It will be a gradual process over a number of years, maybe even decades, so those workers effected will have more than enough time to adjust to the changing job scene.

but at least they could get some if we had single payer. I would imagine more jobs would be created in the government to administrate the program. Taking the middle man's profit out of my health care isn't necessarily going to net fewer jobs.

edited because I haven't had enough coffee yet.

it doesn't necessarily mean fewer jobs netted, but those people would have to go somewhere. It has to be considered. I am for single payer and part of it is taking into account the overall changes and shock to the current system. It impacts some people in real ways, so while overall it is good, it doesn't help that person who loses their job right away, from the people administrate the programs to the janitor at the company. It's immoral to dismiss people's lives in that way too.

paying a price somewhere. It's like war in that way, I guess. At least this one would be honest and for a good cause; with everyone ultimately benefitting in the end. I don't think we should make any policy that isn't for the overall good. We have so many that simply prey on the disadvantaged and suck the life out of those trying to get ahead of the game a little bit.

I think it will take a while to make it all work. People are VERY impatient though.

In this thread posted several good links on job conversion programs etc. It can be done, of course, it's just something that lawmakers have to be cognizant about when changing the system like this. There are plenty of people who have the expertise to move right over and work for the govt in the field with minimal retraining, that's a plus.

folk as consultants! I'm serious!

It doesn't mean fewer jobs net. Oh, yes, all of it means fewer jobs.

Loss of jobs didn't stop outsourcing. Why should it stop the public option or single payer?

Those jobs will inevitably be lost. Because if we don't bring down the cost of health insurance, people will stop buying it. They will negotiate directly with their doctors and hospitals. That's what they did before we had non-profit insurance companies. Doctors and hospitals and the quality of our health care will suffer the consequences, but then we can't give up our "liberty."

The slogan "Give me liberty or give me death" takes on a new meaning when you apply to the struggle over health care insurance.

We will have the "liberty" of choosing our private health care insurance company, but we won't have the money to pay for it so, if we get cancer or diabetes or some other serious disease -- we will get the death -- but we will die in "liberty" from government healthcare. Great choice these idiots are advocating.

here on DU. It's already been factored in by various organizations and John Conyer's office, who are working on this, that the big job losses would be to the industry executives. Boo hoo. I'm sure they will be crying all the way to the bank with the zillions they made before that. The majority of workers who will lose jobs in the insurance industry would be absorbed into new jobs that a greater demand in health care would bring with everyone being covered.

It's just reality to think of that, obviously John Conyers did too. You don't agree that it would be a difficult change if somebody lost their job and had to find another one? That's just stupid.

They put it best: www.pnhp.org



I guess you think Harvard doctors are all stupid too.

That their jobs will have to be replaced. I said that the worst part is the loss of jobs and they had to be replaced, how is that not true? It's just a fact, something will have to be done about jobs. They even say here that many people will have to be retrained. So are they spouting insurance company talking points too? So no, they are not stupid, they are saying what I said.

some people can keep their old ones. Did I get that right? Read this: http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2009/01/expanding_medic.html

I never said I was against single payer, I am for it. I just said that if insurance companies go under, we have to replace jobs for those workers. How is that wrong? It's pretty obvious.

it's linked to a study, so it's not something I or the nurses made up.

I am not even sure what you're arguing with me about, you're sending me info basically saying that you agree with me. I know it can be done, I just said it was a concern that had to be addressed. Of course those jobs have to be replaced, and of course there are ways to do it, the point is that in the case of a major conversion like single-payer would be, that would have to bew dealt with. That's the worst part of it, the rest is nothing but an enormous benefit to the country.

Wetzelbill, who do you think is going to be hired to administer the public plan? Nobody?

we're talking about what a changeover from our system now to single-payer and how to go about replacing those jobs. Of course, people who once worked in the insurance industry could be hired by the govt. Duh, everybody knows that. All I said earlier is we'd have to specifically work to make sure people who lost jobs would have jobs as best as we could. That's blindingly obvious. I never said anything about being against single-payer or a public plan at all. I just stated the obvious and everybody keeps responding to me. Read everything that I posted and you'll see that I already answered the question you asked several times over.

would cause companies to start hiring again, as well as increase wages again, causing people to start buying again... snowball effect.
They'd find jobs. Maybe government jobs, seeing as their expertise is in administering health insurance, and the government plan would need more resources.

Only good could come of this.

of course, but yes, what you say is true. I was just stating the obvious that people would still have to have jobs when it was over and done with.

adopting the automobile.

those jobs either.

They'd need training in not being a------ but it could work.

ETA: Actually, did we do anything to try and replace those jobs? My first inclination is "probably not".

There are actually some good ideas for retraining people to go into govt jobs and helping to run the system etc.

Well it the case of the carriages and the automobiles, in creating a whole new industry buggy makers could just move into that industry in some way, so those jobs were replaced.

But, as shitty as it is, those jobs just might be lost (in actuality, it's not shitty...automation produces more jobs and better pay).

I doubt it will hurt jobs at all, probably will help them and that is a pretty modest proposal. Now single-payer we would be replacing a whole industry and jobs would have to be accounted for and replaced in a specific manner as best as possible.

So, hire them at the public plan.

read what we're talking about.

The lack of affordable health care is a moral issue, like slavery was 150 years ago.

Perhaps the 'jobs' that you are so concerned about should NOT have a place in our society, just like the slave-masters and kidnappers should NOT have had a place in American society 150 years ago.

Is this hyperbole? Perhaps, but you cannot deny that the insurance executives have profited via the misery of others, just as the slave-masters once did.

Plus it's stupid to say that we shouldn't be concerned about jobs that we would have to replace if we get rid of an entire industry, every single-payer proposal accounts for that and has ideas for replacing them. I don't know any single-payer advocate who would say otherwise. Do you just think we shouldn't include retraining or anything else like that in a proposal? Because I am for the legislation and for retraining.

if there was Single Payer.


The study is here: Single Payer/Medicare for All

I am talking about specific proposals to replace those jobs in the industry. You can't just get rid of the whole industry and then kick people out the door, you have to work with them to replace those jobs. Whether they can move on and work in the govt system or not it still takes some work to do that. I don't get why the hell so many people replied to what I said, it's obvious and just a fact, when you change the whole system you have to account for the negative aspects of that shock, even if the overall idea is overwhelmingly positive. There isn't any single-payer advocate who would say anything different than what I just did.

When you consider how many people insurance companies have killed or nearly killed

:thumbsup:

They will undoubtedly answer that the insurance corporations wouldnt be able to compete. Isn't that the essence of their view of capitalism. Shouldnt only the best competitor survive?

the house. They are squealing like greedy pigs at the prospect of having to compete with a system that actually delivers health care not profits.

Doesn't bother me in the least.

That's my response.

:thumbsup:

the 20-30% they skim off the top is wasted and could go to curing more illness/lowering cost/improving care. Hundreds of billions every year that could go to saving lives is wasted instead on a parasitical middleman.

If the public option one day did in fact kill off the insurance companies it would be a great day for all Americans. "V-I" day we should call it.

For the morons shouting about "government takeover of health care" it needs to be explained that the public option would be just that, optional. Democrats give the voting public much too much credit for basic knowledge.

The voters shrieking about "govt takeover" and "socialism" need to have these terms explained, ie roads, schools, medicare, veterans health care, police services, social security etc.

Democratic congress persons seem unable to comprehend that anyone (their constituents and would-be constituents) need this sort of basic education. The republicans understand the art of talking to the stupid in soundbites, but the dems assume the voters to be far smarter and better educated than they are. Dems need to think 10 year old mentality. Then perhaps they will be able to communicate.

Nobody is guaranteed that the industry they work in will always be relevant. Those of us in IT know that quite keenly; people in manufacturing do even more.

Obama's retort was good too.

BTW: Where can I find a public golf course?

their HMO, or PPO.

the last election.

Seventy? Eighty? Would we THEN get what we what?

seen as saving them from themselves.

The way public drinking fountains have eliminated bottled water?

They would condemn you to death over dollars, just the same as an armed murderous thug robbing you in an alley. Kill them.

:grr: And I don't particularly like them bribing my Congressmen either. 50 million uninsured will take some administering too, so not so many jobs lost, not like outsourcing would or so called free trade which sure hurts a lot of people too.

"SO?"

Health insurers can go afaic.

...but if the insurance cos should happen to go the way of the Dodo, ... well, I guess we'll just have to grin and bear it :woohoo:

I think the insurance companies add nothing to healthcare and have been leeches upon the system for long enough. I'm not here to be their profit margin. I want single payer and I want insurance companies to have to scramble for the scraps.

scrap them and their profits and spend the "excess" on services/care.

Nice one.

and it's awesome, needless to say.
However, I still have private insurance to cover supplemental costs, like prescriptions. I'll never have to pay a dime if I get sick.

There is definitely room for insurance companies under a public health care system, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
They might not be able to enjoy the same system of piracy they currently operate stateside, but I'm sure we'll all weep for them.

Keep fighting! It's worth it!

K&R!

"You say that like it's a bad thing." Health insurance companies are nothing but parasites. They are in business to make money, not to cover medical expenses for their policyholders. They rake in the premiums and deny care. That's it. they serve no useful function.

Thanks for posting.