The Journal Times Online - Racine, Wisconsin

by Jonathan Singer, Wed Aug 26, 2009 at 02:49:10 PM EST

A new survey commissioned by the AARP asks respondents to what degree they support or oppose "[s]tarting a new federal health insurance plan that individuals could purchase if they can't afford private plans offered to them" -- a public option, in other words. The results are interesting, though not necessarily surprising to those who have been closely following the debate.

All: 79 percent favor/18 percent oppose
Democrats: 89 percent favor/8 percent oppose
Republicans: 61 percent favor/33 percent oppose
Independents: 80 percent favor/16 percent oppose
Not only does a public option enjoy strong support (AARP finds 37 percent strongly supporting such a choice), it enjoys broad support -- a finding based not only in this new survey but also in SurveyUSA polling released last week. Indeed, a supermajority of even Republicans supports a federal program to provide individuals with a choice for their health insurance coverage, with just a third of the party membership opposing such a plan.

So why, again, are supporters of a public option finding such difficulty in Congress?

MONEY

I like my insurance. Instead of the $96+ going to medicare it goes to my insurance company. I just had surgery where they clean out your leg veins and the insurance paid all of it. My prescriptions are low cost. I don't want a change. BUT if I had no insurance and had a child with a broken leg I would wonder where is all this free for poor care when I need it. Aren't federally funded hospitals supposed to give free care to some unfortunates? If they did that there would be no problem and probably cost a lot less.

In Racine, you have Wheaton-Franciscan Healthcare or Aurora. WFHC is non-profit and will treat anyone who comes in the door, insurance or no. They get some reimbursement from local and fedearl governments, but much of their expenses are passed on to the insured (why do you think a band-aid costs twelve dollars) who are actually a minority of the people who use WFHC. Aurora, on the other hand, is for-profit and patients coming into their emergency room are initially treated then sent to WFHC. They expect a down-payment up front, and they also locate where they are past the bus routes. so very few uninsured people can reach them. This is one of the reasons why reform is necessary.
when you can get everyone insured, you spread the cost out across more people paying.

I did notice on the paper from the insurance company that the hospital charged $21,000 and the ins company paid $11,000 and the bill is considered PAID. There must have been some padding in the hospital bill, huh?