# Insurance Companies: Get Sterilized and Then We'll Cover You



## VaYank5150 (Oct 15, 2009)

Insurance Companies: Get Sterilized and Then We'll Cover You - The World Newser



> When Peggy Robertson went shopping for a more affordable health insurance plan for her self-employed husband and two young boys, she ran into an unexpected problem: the birth of her son Luke in 2006 by caesarean section.  The healthy young mother was shocked when the Golden Rule Insurance company denied her coverage due to the C-Section birth of her son.  "I called Golden Rule and they said that if I would get sterilized, they would then be able to offer insurance to me."




Noooooooo, we don't need health insurance reform....


----------



## Elutherian (Oct 15, 2009)

Damn right we need reform! We need to "reform" the Government out of healthcare.


----------



## xotoxi (Oct 15, 2009)

*What???*







*STERILIZED???*


----------



## VaYank5150 (Oct 15, 2009)

Elutherian said:


> Damn right we need reform! We need to "reform" the Government out of healthcare.



Sorry.  You had your chance.  Now please kindly step aside and let progress move us forward.


----------



## Care4all (Oct 15, 2009)

i say we scrap them, and all go on medicare...

all the hundreds of billions spent a year by us and our employers for health insurance costs can go towards paying for it.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 15, 2009)

Care4all said:


> i say we scrap them, and all go on medicare...
> 
> all the hundreds of billions spent a year by us and our employers for health insurance costs can go towards paying for it.



Then we would have Universal Coverage and there would be nothing to stop those SOB's in Washington.  They would literally own us all.  They would tell us when and if we can fart or burp.  When we can take a crap and later when we will die.

No thanks.

Immie


----------



## VaYank5150 (Oct 15, 2009)

Care4all said:


> i say we scrap them, and all go on medicare...
> 
> all the hundreds of billions spent a year by us and our employers for health insurance costs can go towards paying for it.



The well being of our citizens is being sacrificed for the mighty dollar.  Does anyone NOT see the problem of profit margin taking precedence over life and death?


----------



## MajikMyst (Oct 15, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > i say we scrap them, and all go on medicare...
> ...



Are you retarded?? Or do you try really hard to look like an idiot?? 

Health care or not? What is stop them from telling you when to fart? There is nothing wrong with universal health care.. We should have it.. Cuba has better health care than we do!! CUBA! We are almost dead last for industrialized nations on health care.. Other than worring about your excessive farting and belching habits.. What is wrong with Universal health care? 

When you answer that queation do so using verifiable FACTS and not talking points from the insurance companies or from some website funded by the insurance companies..


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 15, 2009)

VaYank5150 said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > i say we scrap them, and all go on medicare...
> ...



VaYank,

I like most of your posting.  Don't always agree with you and this time is one of those times.  

The truth is, I trust the anyone of the CEO's of health insurance companies with my life 1000 times or more than I do every single politician in Washington combined.  At least the CEO's have a reason to keep people alive... it is called profit.  Politicians are better off if we die once we are no longer useful to them.

Politicians are pricks who don't give a shit about anyone of us.  

Hell, Democrats (at least those from Chicago) know that if we die there is a good possibility that they can vote for us for the next 50 years.  

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 15, 2009)

MajikMyst said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



No, I'm not, but it is obvious you are a fucking moron.

You want to let them tell you when to die, be my guest.  I'm not interested in that at all.  

You want them to own your soul, be my guest.  I'm not interested.

You trust those pricks all you want, but I'm not going to trust them for a second.

I'd trust Castro with my life before I would trust anyone of the Republicans in Washington with my life and I won't even get close to trusting the fucking Democrats who would have preferred that we were all aborted rather than born.

Immie


----------



## Political Junky (Oct 15, 2009)

xotoxi said:


> *What???*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, didn't you read the article?


----------



## VaYank5150 (Oct 15, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



We are allowed to disagree and there is nothing wrong with that.  However, if you trust someone to make decisions on YOUR behalf that are going to cut into THEIR profit margins, well, that is your choice.  I'll take my chances with a government option and then watch those greedy CEOs try to actually be competitive and then cheer as their multi-million dollar homes go into foreclosure.


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Oct 15, 2009)

Care4all said:


> i say we scrap them, and all go on medicare...
> 
> all the hundreds of billions spent a year by us and our employers for health insurance costs can go towards paying for it.



That plan sounds good...how are you going to combat 5 trillion dollars in fraud instead of 500 billion?  I'm not going to pay that bill.


----------



## Modbert (Oct 15, 2009)

I believe I saw on the news tonight that in 45 states that a woman can be denied coverage unless she gets Sterilized. Add this to the pregnancy pre-existing condition and being a survivor of Domestic Abuse and women are pretty much fucked.


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Oct 15, 2009)

VaYank5150 said:


> Insurance Companies: Get Sterilized and Then We'll Cover You - The World Newser
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Perhaps Peggy Robertson should employ a new concept...instead of an HMO she should get a fee for service program.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 15, 2009)

One, trusting a person to make decisions for you based on the profit line is not smart.

Two, being able to vote the CEOs (Congress) of the program in and out is smart.

This line I will lift from Glenn Beck -- "The time is now" for health insurance reform.  If the GOP RapeRepublicans will not play, then go for a single-payer option.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 15, 2009)

VaYank5150 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > VaYank5150 said:
> ...



As I said, I will trust Castro with my life before I will trust Obama or McCain or anyone of the politicians that call Washington their second home.

At least as long as there are greedy CEO's out there, I have the ability to change my policy to a different company if the one I am using doesn't satisfy my need.  Putting all my eggs in the only basket out there is a foolish thing to do... very foolish indeed.

And yes, we are allowed to disagree and it is a pleasure to discuss things with some of the sane left wingers.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 15, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> I believe I saw on the news tonight that in 45 states that a woman can be denied coverage unless she gets Sterilized. Add this to the pregnancy pre-existing condition and being a survivor of Domestic Abuse and women are pretty much fucked.



Under the COBRA laws and HIPPA anyone can be denied coverage for any reason at all if they have not had coverage within, I think it is the last 9 months.  However, if coverage existed and there was a qualifying event coverage cannot be denied.

Health care reform is an absolute must, but God help us if we ever give Washington DC full control of our health care system.

It is not Universal Healthcare that has me concerned.  What has me concerned is the thought that those corrupt sons of bitches in Washington will have control of our lives.  I know some people say good things about Canada's System and some of the other nations with socialized healthcare, but truthfully, I don't think most of those nations political leaders are half as corrupt as ours.  National healthcare may work just fine in Canada, but Canadians don't have John McCain, Nancy Pelosi or John Kerry running their country.

Immie


----------



## VaYank5150 (Oct 15, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



SUre you have choices, unless you happen to live in one of those states where ONE insurance company provides 90% of the policies.  Let's see these big insurance companies compete against a public option.  Just imagine how many lower cost choices you would have then!

Oh, and don't you dare attempt to lump me in with left wingers.  If you do, then you haven't read nor heard a single one of my posts.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Oct 15, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> I believe I saw on the news tonight that in 45 states that a woman can be denied coverage unless she gets Sterilized. Add this to the pregnancy pre-existing condition and being a survivor of Domestic Abuse and* women are pretty much fucked*.



That would explain the sterilization and pregnancy pre-exisiting condition clauses.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 15, 2009)

VaYank5150 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > VaYank5150 said:
> ...



Yank, 

Ya lean left and ya know it and there ain't a damned thing wrong with that and I said you were one of the sane ones of which there are many.  However, I meant no slam upon you at all.

The plans congress have been trying to force down our throats will eliminate private insurance.  Any "private" insurance company that survives the first five years, will end up being puppets of the government collecting the scraps that the government drops on the floor.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 15, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> One, trusting a person to make decisions for you based on the profit line is not smart.
> 
> Two, being able to vote the CEOs (Congress) of the program in and out is smart.
> 
> This line I will lift from Glenn Beck -- "The time is now" for health insurance reform.  If the GOP RapeRepublicans will not play, then go for a single-payer option.



How often is one of those congressional "CEO"'s voted out?  

I tell you what, you join me in getting term limits passed and I'll join you in working to get a public option as long as private insurance companies are allowed to offer their own plans and not conform to Congress's whims of forcing them to offer plans at ridiculous premiums while congress charges those same premiums but hikes our taxes to pay for the deficit.  Nor forcing private insurers to cover everything from abortion on unless they so choose.

Immie


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 15, 2009)

Term limits?  You bet!

Two-tier option, with the private companies left alone to manage business best they can?  You bet. 

The competition of government option will force the private companies to truly compete and truly offer a competitive package, the very last thing they want to do.  And the crazy thing is that those companies will make a healthy profit anyway.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 15, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Term limits?  You bet!
> 
> Two-tier option, with the private companies left alone to manage business best they can?  You bet.
> 
> The competition of government option will force the private companies to truly compete and truly offer a competitive package, the very last thing they want to do.  And the crazy thing is that those companies will make a healthy profit anyway.



The problem with the public option (and it is the big problem that I see with it) is that the government is telling the insurance companies that they have to offer the same coverage as the public option at the same price; however, the government will be offering their policies at extremely discounted rates and then taxing us to cover the difference.  In a few years, they will have driven all the private insurance companies out of business and we will have only one option... the public option.  They don't really even have to tell the private insurers what price they can charge.  They simply have to offer policies at rock bottom prices and increase our taxes to cover the difference and/or borrow the difference from our great grandchildren.  This will eventually drive private insurance out of business.  

If they do this many individuals will go to the public option as will employers who are forced to cut expenses and forced into the public option.  Many will say that will simply force private insurance to drop their premiums in order to compete, but there is a limit as to how far those private insurers can drop their premiums and survive, while the public option could offer coverage at well below reasonable rates because they have the almighty tax dollar to fall back on.

Immie


----------



## Elutherian (Oct 15, 2009)

VaYank5150 said:


> Elutherian said:
> 
> 
> > Damn right we need reform! We need to "reform" the Government out of healthcare.
> ...



When the hell did we have our chance? I must have missed when we had an actual free market in health care.

We've had 95% Government control of health-care for the past several decades... so you want to increase it by 5% to total control. Oh yeah, that real hardcore change right there.


----------



## auditor0007 (Oct 16, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > i say we scrap them, and all go on medicare...
> ...



I'm not so certain that having the government as the sole outlet for our healthcare would be such a great thing.  However, the arguments against it are, to say the least, paranoid.  Well, the arguments aren't paranoid, but those making the arguments against it most certainly are.  They would literally own us all?  Who is that?  Isn't it us, the voters who have the final say in what we want our goverenment to do and how we want it to be done?

Private health insurers are not interested in providing great healthcare for everyone, only those who really don't need it.  Their main concern is making a profit, not seeing to the good health of their policy holders.  Yet we constantly here how the government, the boogeyman, is going to control what healthcare we get and whether we live or die.

But wait a second; we already have most of our seniors on Medicare.  And when we retire, we're going to be on Medicare.  So far, I haven't heard many stories of Medicare killing off the old sick people, and btw, the vast majority of our sick people are older and on Medicare.

If government ran healthcare, we would have the final say as to what is and is not acceptable in our own treatment.  And for those so damn paranoid that the boogeyman of government might have too much control, buy a private policy.  Now if you want to argue that goverenment control will only lead to even higher costs, you have a good argument.  You may be wrong, but I can certainly see the concern.  But trying to scare everyone into believing that the we don't want the boogeyman running healthcare because the boogeyman will kill us all in the end is a joke.  When comparing it to that alternative of private insurance, which many can't even get, you have to be kidding.  You really expect me to buy into this BS when the insurance companies made it impossible for me to afford insurance, even though I paid for health insurance for my entire life.  As soon as I got sick and moved to another state, I was denied.  Go to the high risk pool is my option where the cost is more than triple what I was paying in the past.

Yes, the private insurance companies are everyones friend, if you are healthy.  But get sick, and you become an obstacle to their making money.  You become a number that needs to be removed from the system.  There are many reasonable arguments why we may not want government run healthcare, but please stop trying to scare everyone because you are a paranoid schizophrenic, because we're not buying into it anymore.


----------



## Care4all (Oct 16, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> > I believe I saw on the news tonight that in 45 states that a woman can be denied coverage unless she gets Sterilized. Add this to the pregnancy pre-existing condition and being a survivor of Domestic Abuse and women are pretty much fucked.
> ...



sheesh....

Tell me, what have our elected officials done to screw the health of our seniors on Medicare...?

What advantage would there be for Congress to SCREW US the people who vote for them and who would they be screwing us for immie???  Would they be in the pockets of some group that wants us all dead or something????

care


----------



## Care4all (Oct 16, 2009)

Women pay 48% more for their health insurance policies then men...is that right?

Women are asked to be sterilized if they want insurance coverage, is that right?

These are things that we have had to cope with when the insurance companies run the show....HOW COULD IT BE ANY WORSE than it is right now folks?


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 16, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



No, it is not us who have the final, or any say, in what we want our government to do.  We have no control over our government any longer.  We wouldn't even be able to vote a convicted child molester out of congress these days.



> Private health insurers are not interested in providing great healthcare for everyone, only those who really don't need it.  Their main concern is making a profit, not seeing to the good health of their policy holders.  Yet we constantly here how the government, the boogeyman, is going to control what healthcare we get and whether we live or die.



If this so-called healthcare reform passes there will only be one insurance provided (and maybe its puppets) in five years.  I do not like the thought of the government owning a monopoly on health insurance, because of what that will do to the cost of health insurance.




> But wait a second; we already have most of our seniors on Medicare.  And when we retire, we're going to be on Medicare.  So far, I haven't heard many stories of Medicare killing off the old sick people, and btw, the vast majority of our sick people are older and on Medicare.
> 
> If government ran healthcare, we would have the final say as to what is and is not acceptable in our own treatment.  And for those so damn paranoid that the boogeyman of government might have too much control, buy a private policy. Now if you want to argue that goverenment control will only lead to even higher costs, you have a good argument.  You may be wrong, but I can certainly see the concern.



I repeat, there will not be a private policy available in five years.  The government will force the private insurers to charge the prices that the public option offers.  If I am not mistaken, the bill stated that private insurers could not charge rates different than the public option.  The government's intention is to offer low cost insurance and taxpayers will make up the difference.  This low cost insurance will be offered below market rates and will force private insurers out of the market leaving only the public option for everyone.  Thus you have a monopoly.



> But trying to scare everyone into believing that the we don't want the boogeyman running healthcare because the boogeyman will kill us all in the end is a joke.



I never said they will kill us all nor do I care about scaring anyone.  I am giving my opinion as to what this bullshit will do.  Nothing, I say here is going to change a damned thing.  This plan is a bad idea.  It will lead to higher costs of health insurance, higher taxes and no choice.  That is a bad idea.



> When comparing it to that alternative of private insurance, which many can't even get, you have to be kidding.  You really expect me to buy into this BS when the insurance companies made it impossible for me to afford insurance, even though I paid for health insurance for my entire life.  As soon as I got sick and moved to another state, I was denied.  Go to the high risk pool is my option where the cost is more than triple what I was paying in the past.



Really?  You were denied coverage after having been insured before?  Seems to me like according to the laws of this nation that is illegal.  If you have been covered up until the time of a qualifying event and then seek coverage elsewhere the insurance companies have to offer you coverage.  They cannot deny coverage, so, maybe you need to clarify what you mean.  Maybe you could not afford what they wanted to charge you?  edit: or maybe you don't understand why insurance companies give discounted rates to employers who bring in large numbers of customers which is why your policy as a single unit costs three times as much as it would if you went through your employer.




> Yes, the private insurance companies are everyones friend, if you are healthy.  But get sick, and you become an obstacle to their making money.  You become a number that needs to be removed from the system.  There are many reasonable arguments why we may not want government run healthcare, but please stop trying to scare everyone because you are a paranoid schizophrenic, because we're not buying into it anymore.



No one said they were our friends, however, when there are thirty of them out there and I can shop around to find the "cheapest" most cost efficient one out there, I win.  Cutting it from thirty to one does not benefit me in any stretch of the imagination.

edot: Health Reform is most definitely needed but in my opinion not at the cost of competition.  The elimination of competition is the last thing that we need for America's health.  Laws can be written to prevent companies from denying coverage as you stated above.  Laws can be written that will lower the cost of malpractice insurance.  Laws can be written that will correct the problems and not eliminate competition.  We need not give complete control to Congress.  Social Security is an example of what happens when we do.  Social Security was needed and the idea is good, but the system has decayed (thanks to today's politicians) and the system can be reformed to improve it, yet, the two political parties have no intention of fixing the problem.  This Healthcare reform will be no different.

Immie


----------



## auditor0007 (Oct 16, 2009)

> Really? You were denied coverage after having been insured before? Seems to me like according to the laws of this nation that is illegal. If you have been covered up until the time of a qualifying event and then seek coverage elsewhere the insurance companies have to offer you coverage. They cannot deny coverage, so, maybe you need to clarify what you mean. Maybe you could not afford what they wanted to charge you? edit: or maybe you don't understand why insurance companies give discounted rates to employers who bring in large numbers of customers which is why your policy as a single unit costs three times as much as it would if you went through your employer.



Here is your clarification; Hippa rules do not apply to individual policies, so if you are self-employed, don't move.  And in reality, individual policies are usually cheaper than those in group plans, but then again, those are the plans that they exclude you for if you have a chipped finger nail as chipped finger nails become a pre-existing condition.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 16, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> > Really? You were denied coverage after having been insured before? Seems to me like according to the laws of this nation that is illegal. If you have been covered up until the time of a qualifying event and then seek coverage elsewhere the insurance companies have to offer you coverage. They cannot deny coverage, so, maybe you need to clarify what you mean. Maybe you could not afford what they wanted to charge you? edit: or maybe you don't understand why insurance companies give discounted rates to employers who bring in large numbers of customers which is why your policy as a single unit costs three times as much as it would if you went through your employer.
> 
> 
> 
> Here is your clarification; Hippa rules do not apply to individual policies, so if you are self-employed, don't move.  And in reality, individual policies are usually cheaper than those in group plans, but then again, those are the plans that they exclude you for if you have a chipped finger nail as chipped finger nails become a pre-existing condition.



The laws need to be changed, no one that I know of says otherwise.  

Problems need to be fixed, Universal Healthcare is not necessarily the only answer.  I'm concerned about the corruption in Washington.  I don't like the idea of allowing Washington politicians to dictate our healthcare.

I don't have another idea.  I'm not sure there is a solution or one better than Universal Healthcare.  

I do know that I don't trust any politicians and that concerns me.

Immie


----------



## auditor0007 (Oct 16, 2009)

> Health Reform is most definitely needed but in my opinion not at the cost of competition. The elimination of competition is the last thing that we need for America's health. Laws can be written to prevent companies from denying coverage as you stated above. Laws can be written that will lower the cost of malpractice insurance. Laws can be written that will correct the problems and not eliminate competition. We need not give complete control to Congress. Social Security is an example of what happens when we do. Social Security was needed and the idea is good, but the system has decayed (thanks to today's politicians) and the system can be reformed to improve it, yet, the two political parties have no intention of fixing the problem. This Healthcare reform will be no different.



There will never be any significant competition with health insurance as so much of the money is wasted in administrative costs.  Those administrative costs actually are there due to the cost of competition.  It is one of the actual cases where competition increases costs rather than reducing costs.  If we want to cut costs in healthcare, it must be done at the point of delivery.


----------



## jeffrockit (Oct 17, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Term limits?  You bet!
> ...



Great points! Another thing that most don't realize is that insurance premiums are high because of the government mandates. One being that most have to carry comprehensive policies such as maternity even if you are past child bearing age. Two would be the inability to purchase insurance across state lines which, if changed, would increase competition.
In typical govt fashion, they apply mandates (adding more and more) to the insurance companies and then complain about the increase in premiums. Govt demonizes the ins. companies while having a big hand in creating what they are pointing out as problems with the industry. Typical govt circular logic.


----------



## Care4all (Oct 17, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> The problem with the public option (and it is the big problem that I see with it) is that the government is telling the insurance companies that they have to offer the same coverage as the public option at the same price; however, the government will be offering their policies at extremely discounted rates and then taxing us to cover the difference.  In a few years, they will have driven all the private insurance companies out of business and we will have only one option... the public option.  They don't really even have to tell the private insurers what price they can charge.  They simply have to offer policies at rock bottom prices and increase our taxes to cover the difference and/or borrow the difference from our great grandchildren.  This will eventually drive private insurance out of business.
> 
> If they do this many individuals will go to the public option as will employers who are forced to cut expenses and forced into the public option.  Many will say that will simply force private insurance to drop their premiums in order to compete, but there is a limit as to how far those private insurers can drop their premiums and survive, while the public option could offer coverage at well below reasonable rates because they have the almighty tax dollar to fall back on.
> 
> Immie


FYI Immie
You are mistaken on those assumptions Immie...a little research on your OWN would have shown you this and then maybe you wouldn't be writing something that is simply NOT TRUE, and you would not have taken the position to be against it, based on this lie that the conservatives are telling you.

The main house bill and the main senate bill on healthcare both have it specified that the Public Option is formed within each state, they are NOT a national plan, the public option MUST MEET all standards required for the Insurance Exchange in that State that the Private Insurers are required to meet, and the Public Option MUST BE FULLY FUNDED BY THE POLICY HOLDERS....and the premium price to the policy holders can be slightly higher than their estimated costs of the plan including the administration costs of the plan, so to have a buffer in a kitty, in case their estimates were wrong.

So EVERYTHING you said about the Public option is NOT TRUE, are you NOW for it?

NO TAXES will ever go towards it.

No special rules for the public option insurers, they have to meet ALL the requirements of the Private insurers...

There is NONE of what you said that is even possible, with the Public Option in the various bills.

Care


----------



## Ravi (Oct 17, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


This kind of hysterical thinking annoys me.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 17, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > The problem with the public option (and it is the big problem that I see with it) is that the government is telling the insurance companies that they have to offer the same coverage as the public option at the same price; however, the government will be offering their policies at extremely discounted rates and then taxing us to cover the difference.  In a few years, they will have driven all the private insurance companies out of business and we will have only one option... the public option.  They don't really even have to tell the private insurers what price they can charge.  They simply have to offer policies at rock bottom prices and increase our taxes to cover the difference and/or borrow the difference from our great grandchildren.  This will eventually drive private insurance out of business.
> ...



You do realize that simply because their are fifty different "Public Option" plans they will all be essentially the same and insurance companies are mandated to offer only plans that are similar to the public option at similar prices, right?  Also, that even if the plans were not mandated to offer plans at similar prices the market conditions provided by the artificially low-balled government plans would force private insurers out of business because they would be forced to offer plans at below their costs.

Politicians have stated that their goal is ultimately a single payer plan.  Do you really believe that this plan is not a step in that direction?  The one thing you can believe that comes out of their lips is when they tell you that their ultimate goal is a single payer plan and control of our health.  I think you know that and you think it is a good thing.  You and I differ in that.

Do you understand that today they say it must be fully funded by policy holders but then tomorrow that can change.  Take Social Security, for instance,  it was originally set up that the reserves were kept separately (by requirement I believe) from the general fund.  Look where it is today... oh wait, it isn't there, is it?  They decided that they needed those reserves so they took them.  And you say, "No taxes will ever go to it".  We you born last night?  

Do you understand that this plan is only the first step towards bringing about a single payer plan?  Today, they won't add a payroll tax for your health insurance, because that comes in step 2 and they know step one would be DOA if they asked for it.

President Obama said this was a 15 to 20 year goal.  They know they cannot accomplish this over night, but they have every intention of having it done and soon.



> and the premium price to the policy holders can be slightly higher than their estimated costs of the plan including the administration costs of the plan, so to have a buffer in a kitty, in case their estimates were wrong.



Let me see if I can interpret what you have written here:

1) the premium price... speaking of the price to consumers for the public option correct?  meaning that if say the cost of health coverage for the government for the average individual was say, $10,000 per year, the government can set the cost of the average policy at say a modest 3% above that amount or $10,300.  That gives them that cushion you speak of right?  That sounds fair right?

2) Regarding administrative costs, the government's administrative costs are kept artificially low because of their unique position of power to control office space and other amenities not to mention that health insurance providers also have to cover one thing that Uncle Sam will never have to worry about... um, a little thing called TAXES!  This means that the government can offer policies at below the break even point for even the most efficiently run private insurance providers.

3) You make the statement that no taxes will be allowed to go to the payment of premiums.  By the way, that is today, tomorrow may very well be a different story.  Well, it is unique of the federal government, but they have this strange ability to run everything at a deficit.  They can run the public option at a loss for ever and nothing will change, but private insurers still have to make a profit in order to survive.

Basically, this whole thing is designed to break the private insurers and bring about nationalized health care.

I will admit there only seem to be two options on the table at the moment; a) socialized medicine or b) leaving things as they are.

Option b is unacceptable.

But, I don't have to like option a.

It is a shame that our social programs, Social Security, Welfare, Affirmative Action, Medicaid/Medicare etc are in such sad shape.  We as the richest nation in the world should be able to do better for our citizens, but we can't or won't and I believe that one reason we can't is because of the corruption in Washington.  

Americans used to be the most caring and giving people in the world.  We should not even be discussing this issue.  Everyone of us should be standing up and demanding that those who must go without health insurance are helped to get health insurance at whatever cost. I know that is what you think and that is how I feel, but where you and I differ is in our belief in the goodness of Uncle Sam.  

You believe Uncle Sam wants to help the poor.  

I believe Uncle Sam wants to control the poor.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 17, 2009)

Ravi said:


> This kind of hysterical thinking annoys me.



Good, it is my job and my stated purpose to annoy you!  

Immie


----------



## veritas (Oct 17, 2009)

What's wrong with controlling the poor? We're already doing it. We have to have some sort of system in place in order to provide for them. This is a specious argument with no downside.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 17, 2009)

veritas said:


> What's wrong with controlling the poor? We're already doing it. We have to have some sort of system in place in order to provide for them. This is a specious argument with no downside.



Do you want to be manipulated?

See that is where I differ so much with people on the left.  I think that the poor should be helped but allowed to lead their own lives whereas, it seems (if you weren't being sarcastic that is) that you want to control them and run their lives for them... make them vote for the people that YOU want to control them.

It is clear that this is the type of control that our political leaders (both Republican and Democrat) want over us.

Immie


----------



## veritas (Oct 17, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> veritas said:
> 
> 
> > What's wrong with controlling the poor? We're already doing it. We have to have some sort of system in place in order to provide for them. This is a specious argument with no downside.
> ...



I don't agree and had no idea that you actually meant control their lives. I was speaking more of having them in the system. Nobody makes anybody vote for anybody, that's crazy talk.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 17, 2009)

veritas said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > veritas said:
> ...



You think so?

You don't think that both parties don't try to "control" their bases and steal as many voters from the other side's bases?  You don't think that the rhetoric of the Democratic Party is not geared towards convincing the poor that only they will help take from the evil rich people and give the deserving poor everything they need? edit: and that if the poor don't vote for Democrats then the poor will spend the next four years at least hungry and ignored?

You don't believe that the Republicans don't attempt to convince religious people that only the Republicans will fight against abortion and the ever dreaded Gay Marriage? edit: and that if church members don't vote for Republicans, there will be abortion on demand, forced abortions, gay marriages will outnumber straight marriages and Universal Healthcare is just around the corner?

Don't you realize that this whole debate about healthcare is about control?

It may sound crazy to you, but politicians are out to control us.


Politics is all about control.

Immie


----------



## American Horse (Oct 17, 2009)

Care4all said:


> i say we scrap them, and all go on medicare...
> 
> all the hundreds of billions spent a year by us and our employers for health insurance costs can go towards paying for it.


Medicare aint free.  A 65 year old woman going on Medicare will pay $250-275 just for starters for full coverage at the present moment.  Insurance companies earn a profit of about 3-4% per annum.  do you believe that the government can operate more efficiently and with less fraud than the insurance comanies?  Who is more desirous or controlling fraud - insurance companies or a nannie state government? 

Private insurers will be driven from the field into a more predictable and lucrative insurance profit base, like life insurance as people will become more cognizant of their own mortality because their lives will have become more tenuous. There are plenty other types of insurance - auto, fire/hazard, flood, liability, worker's comp etc. which lend themselves to statistical risk more amenable to profit than medical insurance for the insurance companies. 

Medical Care Insurance was set up to take the catastrophic cost risks out of medical care for folks, not pay for every office visit.  As long as the insurance companies could predict costs like those listed above, that type insurance was a viable for them and for the purchaser of the insurance.  The more the government has interfered in the market the more competition in the field has been reduced.

In the past the only way Medicare has reduced costs has been  to lower reimbursements to doctors and "providers".  A universal Medicare system will in the end become a single payor system, and reduce the incentives for talented people to go into the practice of medicine.  

We will end up with fewer and less talented doctors, rationing of service, and longer lines as people wait to find someone who will give humane attention to their medical needs.  If people compain about the time their doctor gives them now, just wait until we get what we'll end up with after universal Medicare and then a single payor medical care system becomes law.


----------

