# Healthcare For All / Real Solutions



## auditor0007 (Jun 11, 2009)

I find it very ironic that so many people continue to support the failed system of insurance companies when it comes to our healthcare.  A single payer plan, by all means makes the most sense.  The whole point is that the insurance industry is just the middle man making huge profits at the expense of both the consumer and the providers.

However, there is another idea.  We could allow hospitals and doctors to set up their own networks, providing their own plans that would compete with the insurance companies.  Doctors would need to network with certain hospitals, but many already do this.  There are some troubles with such a plan, but nothing that can't be worked out.  For instance, these networks would also have to include drug plans, and they would have to work out a system of payment for out of network treatment in cases where people are traveling or find themselves in an emergency situation outside of the network.

The government could put everyone on a level playing field by ending the discrimination that exists in pricing by removing group discounts and by making it mandatory for everyone to be accepted that wants to purchase a network plan.

The biggest benefit would be that the middle man would be removed, and most of those costs would be removed.  Lastly, there would be some real direct competetion for services, at least in the metropolitan areas.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 11, 2009)

The first step is to eliminate pipe dream language like "health care for all".

The best thing gubmint can do is get the hell out from in between providers and end customers.

The only "level playing field" politicians and bureaucrats ever end up providing is equality in mediocrity.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Jun 11, 2009)

I don't want nor need healthcare insurance. I pay all my medical expenses in cash. So you can take your health insurance and stick it up Obama's ass.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jun 11, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> I don't want nor need healthcare insurance. I pay all my medical expenses in cash. So you can take your health insurance and stick it up Obama's ass.



Good for you.  You are obviously a multi-millionaire then.  Most of us are not.  When you are diagnosed with leukemia and need a stem cell transplant along with all of the other care necessary, then you won't complain about the $1.5 million cost.  

Of course, if you don't have that money up front, they will not treat you.  So if you aren't a multi-millionaire and are not self-insured, then you're just an idiot.  Actually, your an idiot anyway, because being individually self-insured makes no sense at all.  You'd be a moron not to at least carry catastophic insurance with a very high deductible.

So basically, your statement is worthless to the discussion, but thanks for trying.


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY (Jun 11, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> The government could put everyone on a level playing field by ending the discrimination that exists in pricing by removing group discounts and by *making it mandatory for everyone to be accepted that wants to purchase a network plan.*


You mean kinda like how the Federal Government mandated banks make home loans to indviduals that weren't creditworthy? how well did that one work out? 

Where do you think the Federal Government derives any authority to tell privately owned businesses who they must do business with and the terms of the transaction? Would it be ok if the government mandated that you must allow any individual to stay in your home for whatever price they were willing to pay just because the individual wanted to? The constitution does not grant the federal government the authority to out and out steal from private companies no matter how altruistic anybody thinks the objective of the theft may be. 

Healthcare is not a constitutionally protected right, therfor it's a priviledge which one must earn in order to recieve and stealing from your fellow citizens doesn't constitute earning it.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 11, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> Good for you.  You are obviously a multi-millionaire then.  Most of us are not.  When you are diagnosed with leukemia and need a stem cell transplant along with all of the other care necessary, then you won't complain about the $1.5 million cost.
> 
> Of course, if you don't have that money up front, they will not treat you.  So if you aren't a multi-millionaire and are not self-insured, then you're just an idiot.  Actually, your an idiot anyway, because being individually self-insured makes no sense at all.  You'd be a moron not to at least carry catastophic insurance with a very high deductible.
> 
> So basically, your statement is worthless to the discussion, but thanks for trying.


Of course, you conveniently ignore how Medicare/Medicaid, the FDA, and a slew of other gubmint mandates have driven up those costs.

And doing more of what has already failed to contain costs is supposed to contain costs in what way??


----------



## gravity (Jun 11, 2009)

STAND4LIBERTY said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > The government could put everyone on a level playing field by ending the discrimination that exists in pricing by removing group discounts and by *making it mandatory for everyone to be accepted that wants to purchase a network plan.*
> ...



Let's examine:

The Federal Government mandating banks make home loans to individuals that aren't creditworthy vs. people continuing to rent / stay in their current homes / live with family or friends.

The Federal Government mandating health care providers provide health care to individuals that aren't healthworthy vs. people continuing to suffer and die.

I see a difference.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 11, 2009)

gravity said:


> Let's examine:
> 
> The Federal Government mandating banks make home loans to individuals that aren't creditworthy vs. people continuing to rent / stay in their current homes / live with family or friends.
> 
> ...


Right...And under the medical fascism model, gubmint bureaucrats will be the ones deciding who is "healthworty" and who isn't.

Hope that makes you feel better.


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY (Jun 11, 2009)

gravity said:


> STAND4LIBERTY said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...



Actually you don't because there isn't one, it's a mirage planted in your mind by government propaganda. Theft by force is still theft by force, doesn't matter what the rational is behind your theft is or who you decide to steal from, it's still theft.


----------



## gravity (Jun 11, 2009)

Dude said:


> gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Let's examine:
> ...



And as we live within a great democratic process in the United States, we choose who governs us.  I do feel much better about that.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Jun 11, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > I don't want nor need healthcare insurance. I pay all my medical expenses in cash. So you can take your health insurance and stick it up Obama's ass.
> ...



If I get any type of cancer, then I'll probably die. But hey, we're not meant to live forever. Health insurance is a scam and you're an idiot for not realizing it. I raised three kids to the age of majority without health insurance, I came from humble beginnings after dropping out of school at 15 and spending almost three years in a Texas state prison, I've done pretty damn well for myself and I don't need you nor the govt. telling me what the fuck I need. And your comment was as worthless as tits on a boar hog, but thanks for playing!


----------



## Oddball (Jun 11, 2009)

gravity said:


> And as we live within a great democratic process in the United States, we choose who governs us.  I do feel much better about that.


That's your problem.

By what authority do you presuppose that what makes you feel good should be forced upon everyone else, at gunpoint if necessary, tovarich??


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY (Jun 11, 2009)

gravity said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > gravity said:
> ...



So your arguement seems to be that it's okay to steal freedom and property from the citizenry as long as the majority agrees with it, is that correct?


----------



## dilloduck (Jun 11, 2009)

gravity said:


> STAND4LIBERTY said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...



People will suffer and die forever--nothing will change that. You may wanna drop that one out of your arsenal.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jun 11, 2009)

STAND4LIBERTY said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > The government could put everyone on a level playing field by ending the discrimination that exists in pricing by removing group discounts and by *making it mandatory for everyone to be accepted that wants to purchase a network plan.*
> ...



The more I see these types of responses, the more I understand how little understanding some of you have of reality.  The idea that government basically has no purpose and should not be involved with private business at all is absurd.  Without government, companies would still force workers to work 80 hours per week with minimal compensation.  Safety standards would be non-existent.  Companies would be dumping toxins anywhere and everywhere they wanted to.

When it comes to healthcare, private insurance companies do anything they can to not cover people who have health issues.  Most people develop health issues through no fault of their own.  In a civilized society, it is societies obligation to make certain those who want access to healthcare will have it at a reasonable price, reasonable being what anyone else would pay.

In our system, if someone is sick, the only way they can get medical treatment is if they can pay four or five times what a healthy person pays.  That is discrimination at it's finest, and so yes, government intervention is necessary.  Hipaa was instituted for this exact reason.  Unfortunately, it didn't go far enough and still leaves many people outside the loop.

You people who constantly argue against any changes or government involvement would be the first to scream bloody murder if you were denied coverage due to circumstances outside of your control.  That is what I find so damn amusing.  Everything changes when you are the one left out in the dark, but so long as the system works for you right now, all is fine.  You completely lack vision of what could also happen to you, or the issues this raises for those already being screwed by this system.

For some of you, you think we should just scrap everything and make everyone pay out of pocket.  That idea is about as stupid as it gets.  Sure costs would drop, but most people would never be able to afford to pay for their healthcare in the event of a catostrophic illness.  

Because of your lack of clear thinking, you will eventually end up with the exact thing you don't want, because as more and more are no longer able to afford their own care, they will look toward government for a solution.  And that time is just about here.  

The lack of any discussion involving realistic solutions that would work for the vast majority just shows how out of the mainstream you actually are.  So stick to your idea that we need to get rid of government and see what happens.  It's no wonder the Dems are taking control of every aspect of our lives.  People are fed up with the mess we're in, so they'll accept anything as an answer because anything must be better than the BS we've been spoon fed lately.


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY (Jun 11, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> The more I see these types of responses, the more I understand how little understanding some of you have of reality.  *The idea that government basically has no purpose and should not be involved with private business at all* is absurd.  Without government, companies would still force workers to work 80 hours per week with minimal compensation.  Safety standards would be non-existent.  Companies would be dumping toxins anywhere and everywhere they wanted to.



Strawman bullshit, I didn't say anything even approximating that.........


----------



## gravity (Jun 11, 2009)

Dude said:


> gravity said:
> 
> 
> > And as we live within a great democratic process in the United States, we choose who governs us.  I do feel much better about that.
> ...



Two points:

1)  You are talking about 'feeling good' while I am speaking of 'being as healthful as possible'.

2)  By the authority of a government of the people who will decide at some point that AVAILABILITY of health care should be ensured for it's citizens.

I guarantee that if you are bleeding to death on a street corner I won't force you to seek health care but I would absolutely help you get an ambulance if you wanted it.  I would even pick you up, ruining my clothes and pay for our taxi to the hospital if that's what it took.  I wonder if you would do the same for me...  Perhaps that is our debate.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jun 11, 2009)

gravity said:


> STAND4LIBERTY said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...



Unfortunately, ideological thinking, regardless of its mantra, is rarely a great thing when people try to apply it to every single issue.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 11, 2009)

gravity said:


> Two points:
> 
> 1)  You are talking about 'feeling good' while I am speaking of 'being as healthful as possible'.



....At gunpoint, if necessary.



gravity said:


> 2)  By the authority of a government of the people who will decide at some point that AVAILABILITY of health care should be ensured for it's citizens.



Right...If you're a member of the biggest mob, everything is kosher.

Besides that, "availablity" is another one of those bullshit weasel words that translates to "third-party payer".

Face it, you just want everyone else to foot the bill for services rendered to you.



gravity said:


> I guarantee that if you are bleeding to death on a street corner I won't force you to seek health care but I would absolutely help you get an ambulance if you wanted it.  I would even pick you up, ruining my clothes and pay for our taxi to the hospital if that's what it took.  I wonder if you would do the same for me...  Perhaps that is our debate.


Nothing in life is guaranteed, Bubba. And, as I already stated, that "bleeding to death in the street" hyperbole is as intellectually disingenuous as you can get.

Life's tough, shit happens, wear a cup and helmet.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jun 11, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



I guess you're lucky that neither you, your wife, or kids never had to face a life threatening illness.  I have though.  My wife died from leukemia and I have health issues that could shorten my life considerably without the proper care.  But as I said before, until it effects you personally, it's no big deal, because again, you completely lack any vision.

Had one of your kids been diagnosed with leukemia, and you been denied treatment for them, tell me you would have been just fine with them dying.  Your so full of shit it's coming out every orifice of your body.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 11, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> Unfortunately, ideological thinking, regardless of its mantra, is rarely a great thing when people try to apply it to every single issue.


A principled approach is a principled approach.

Any other way would be, by definition, unprincipled.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 11, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> I guess you're lucky that neither you, your wife, or kids never had to face a life threatening illness.  I have though.  My wife died from leukemia and I have health issues that could shorten my life considerably without the proper care.  But as I said before, until it effects you personally, it's no big deal, because again, you completely lack any vision.
> 
> Had one of your kids been diagnosed with leukemia, and you been denied treatment for them, tell me you would have been just fine with them dying.  Your so full of shit it's coming out every orifice of your body.


Soooo....Now the cat's out of the bag!!

There is in fact something in it for you to live at the expense of everyone else.

Ideological indeed.


----------



## dilloduck (Jun 11, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...



What is the appropriate age to die these days ? You know--the one where people don't piss and moan about everthing being so unfair.


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY (Jun 11, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> I guess you're lucky that neither you, your wife, or kids never had to face a life threatening illness.  I have though.  My wife died from leukemia and I have health issues that could shorten my life considerably without the proper care.  *But as I said before, until it effects you personally,* it's no big deal, because again, you completely lack any vision.


What you are proposing DOES affect other people personally, since what you are proposing is to take their property by force (stealing) to alleviate your suffering. It's the same rational that the Bush Administration used to justify the murder of innocent Iraqi civilians... to whit "It's 'collateral damage' and serves the 'greater good'. 

There is absolutely no altruism in attempting to justify theft just as there is no altruism in attempting to justify murder, doesn't matter whether a majority voted for the idiots that are proposing to do it or not.


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY (Jun 11, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> What is the appropriate age to die these days ? You know--the one where people don't piss and moan about everthing being so unfair.



If the current climate of propaganda is to be believed it would be sometime before the sperm hits the egg...


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Jun 11, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...



My wife died giving birth to my third child. 

Health insurance does not guarantee a long life. If one of my children had come down with a life threatening illness then I would seek medical attention and I would pay my bill in full with cash or utilizing a payment plan. One thing you fail to realize is that in a life threatening situation you will not be turned away from any emergency room in these United States regardless of insurance. It's against the law!! I should know better than to present you with facts. I know how facts confuse people of your ilk.


----------



## gravity (Jun 11, 2009)

My fourth and final post on this website and I feel already that I must move on.  Not because I am anything that your forthcoming responses may describe me to be, but because I have quickly come to the conclusion that you are for the most part a group of dismissive, closed minded individuals.  I am assuming that those posting in this thread are a fair sampling of the people on this site and that is probably a simplification, but it is my decision to make.  Continue your game without me as my time can most certainly be better spent elsewhere.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 11, 2009)

Yeah..."open minded" as in going along with you.

Don't let the door hit you, cryass.


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY (Jun 11, 2009)

Dude said:


> Yeah..."open minded" as in going along with you.
> 
> Don't let the door hit you, cryass.



ROFLMAO! 

There's he goes again, our resident bleeding heart liberal showing his sensitive side again.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 11, 2009)

I think that you standard issue conservatives wold complain about how shiny free gold is.  Crying about socialism and canadian health care doesn't invalidate the FACT that our medical system is failing the population of the US.  And, if the US is a nation of laws and policies then you silly little bastards are going to have to deal with the product of elections.  better luck next time.



That said, I think a better starting point to the idea of Universal Health care would have been to offer vouchers for specific screenings instead of giving these conservative bastards another reason to segment who does and who doesn't get access to health care.  I'd LOVE to see any of you silly little fucks argue against federal vouchers for universal breast cancer exams.  Especially when, clearly, you seem to need rectal exams, yourselves, to find out how rusty is that pipe that is stuck up your collective asses.

Starting with basic services and then adding to that list would provide an acclimation period impervious to the bitching of these "im wealthy enough to pay for health coverage" bastards.  Hell, if NOTHING else, these services could be provided by doctors who have enjoyed the tit of American Tax Payers, themselves, via financial aid support.  


Clearly, blocks of half dead paupers is the better way to go in order to keep these fucks from feeling that they have anything in common with po folk.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Jun 11, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> I find it very ironic that so many people continue to support the failed system of insurance companies when it comes to our healthcare.  A single payer plan, by all means makes the most sense.  The whole point is that the insurance industry is just the middle man making huge profits at the expense of both the consumer and the providers.
> 
> However, there is another idea.  We could allow hospitals and doctors to set up their own networks, providing their own plans that would compete with the insurance companies.  Doctors would need to network with certain hospitals, but many already do this.  There are some troubles with such a plan, but nothing that can't be worked out.  For instance, these networks would also have to include drug plans, and they would have to work out a system of payment for out of network treatment in cases where people are traveling or find themselves in an emergency situation outside of the network.
> 
> ...



I keep hearing about these huge profits health insurance companies are making but from looking at annual reports from a few large health insurance companies I found that profits were less than 3% of total revenues, premiums plus return on investments, in 2007 and most lost money in 2008 because of the falling stock market.  This raises the question: if the insurance companies are only keeping 3% of revenues, why would anyone think a government run insurance company would be able to deliver much more bang for the buck?  Would a 3% reduction in your premium really make that much difference in your life?  

I'd be interested in seeing any other statistics regarding profits as a percentage of revenues anyone else has.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 11, 2009)

Shogun said:


> Clearly, blocks of half dead paupers is the better way to go in order to keep these fucks from feeling that they have anything in common with po folk.


Look....Up in the sky....

It's a bird....It's a plane....No, it's....


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 11, 2009)

auditor I'd like to address you if  I could without reposting what I have elsewhere.  Of course Govt. has a purpose and it's well defined in the consitution what that purpose is.  When one starts with the supposition that all health insurance companies must be bad and that the entire system is broken and needs to be fixed  without  taking into consideration that there are millions of Americans who are happy with the system as it is, as well as even some who don't care to have insurance and still even some who abuse the system and  just simply don't care is rather short sighted.  The fact is, that everyone of those people and you too are exercising something called a freedom to choose.  In fact,  you choose where you work, in doing so you choose your healthcare, if you cannot afford it then that is choosing as well.  No one at least from my reading is denying that the healthcare industry does not need to reign in its costs in order make insurance affordable for those who what it.  I for one think thats a must as well.  I personally don't think though that mandating converage to ALL is a step in the right direction.  By doing so you fix the symptom and not the problem. In fact you create much bigger problems.  I also submit that if the goal is to actually  cover everyone uniformaly then do so within the framework of our form of Govt. and do not mandate that Insurance companies  accept everyone at a low cost and do not enter into direct competetion with them. While I think the goal is the same to make healthcare more affordable for everyone I think the difference giving up an essential freedom. I personally would not want to give up a Freedom at any cost especially when this problem is so easily solved with a little hard work on the part of both parties in power.  I suggested earlier a big step in bringing  down costs is to provide incentives to businesses willing to offer health insurancew/o pre-existing conditions and at low costs to people  in the form of tax breaks and  Govt. grants etc etc.  This will promote competetion and will keep it a private enterprise without  the Govt. involved in peoples healthcare decisions.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 11, 2009)

Dude said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > Clearly, blocks of half dead paupers is the better way to go in order to keep these fucks from feeling that they have anything in common with po folk.
> ...



EXCELLENT retort. Clearly, I intimidate you.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 11, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> auditor I'd like to address you if  I could without reposting what I have elsewhere.  Of course Govt. has a purpose and it's well defined in the consitution what that purpose is......


Prepare yourself for the greatly misused, abused, and taken out of context "general welfare" clause, Navy.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 11, 2009)

Shogun said:


> EXCELLENT retort. Clearly, I intimidate you.


You don't intimidate jack shit, Buckwheat.

You an booboo are about neck-and-neck in over the top hysterics...Which I find more amusing than anything else.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 11, 2009)

Dude said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > EXCELLENT retort. Clearly, I intimidate you.
> ...



which is why you respond to numeric facts (in economic threads) and UHC concepts in THIS thread with profound images from the interwebz, eh?



You should probably go hide under the wing of one of your like minded conservatives, dude..  you'll probably need their comfort and support for the next three years.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 11, 2009)

The first clause of Article I, Section 8, reads, "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and *general Welfare of the United States."* This clause, called the General Welfare Clause or the Spending Power Clause, *does not grant Congress the power to legislate for the general welfare of the country; *that is a power reserved to the states through the Tenth Amendment. Rather, it merely allows Congress to spend federal money for the general welfare. The principle underlying this distinction&#8212;the limitation of federal power&#8212;eventually inspired the only important disagreement over the meaning of the clause.

In United States v. Butler, 56 S. Ct. 312, 297 U.S. 1, 80 L. Ed. 477 (1936), the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a federal agricultural spending program because a specific congressional power over agricultural production appeared nowhere in the Constitution
General Welfare legal definition of General Welfare. General Welfare synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

You mean that one Dude? I've seen it used quite a bit, there is actually a SCOTUS decision though on healthcare "rights" granted to prisoners though. 

Under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, it has been determined
that prisoners (or inmates) have a constitutional right to adequate health care.1 Texas has
codified society&#8217;s requirement to give care to its incarcerated persons, and requires state prisons
to provide health care.2 Under the final HIPAA Privacy rule, identifiable health information
pertaining to &#8220;inmates&#8221; has been deemed &#8220;protected health information,&#8221; called &#8220;PHI.&#8221; Although
excepted in the preliminary rule, the final Privacy Rule protects inmates&#8217; PHI.3 This protection is
further broadened by the loose definition afforded to &#8220;inmates.&#8221;
http://www.law.uh.edu/healthlaw/perspectives/Privacy/030128HIPAAs.pdf


----------



## Oddball (Jun 11, 2009)

Shogun said:


> which is why you respond to numeric facts (in economic threads) and UHC concepts in THIS thread with profound images from the interwebz, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> You should probably go hide under the wing of one of your like minded conservatives, dude..  you'll probably need their comfort and support for the next three years.



Yeah, deliberately biased and fudged numbers, and concepts that take passages from the Bible and other sources completely out of context to suit your collectivist authoritarian do-gooder politics.

Not like you're the first hysterical fool I've encountered on the interwebs.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 11, 2009)

Dude said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > which is why you respond to numeric facts (in economic threads) and UHC concepts in THIS thread with profound images from the interwebz, eh?
> ...



oh yea!  deficit amounts STRAIT FROM THE FED sure are fudged!  It's a big alien liberal CONSPIRACY!




After all.. the words of jesus SURE IS 'fuck the poor.  they can't afford heaven"








seriously, dude.  I attract a lot of people who react to my posts around here but you, sir, have GOT to be one of the dumbest to come along in a long, long while.  I look forward to any and all scripture you care to post that even remotely suggests that Jesus wouldn't have been a socialist.  Just so you know, the next versus I bitchslap you with will the when he broke some bread and fishes in order to feed the masses without charging a markup or demanding an interest rate.  You see, I am so confident that you are an ignorant fuck that I'm literally TELLING you my rebuttal before you even have to ask for one.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 11, 2009)

Did I mention that you're also nearly as boring as booboo??


----------



## Shogun (Jun 11, 2009)

Dude said:


> Did I mention that you're also nearly as boring as booboo??



EXCELLENT RETORT, BIBLE SCHOLAR!





yea, I kinda figured you'd puss out like that.


----------



## Maple (Jun 11, 2009)

I think that you would need to be a multi-billionare, because if you have anything that is catastrophic it will bankrupt you. 

I do not want a single payer system and I most certainly do not want a government run system. Rush is going over this plan as we speak on the radio and he makes sense. The problem with our healthcare now is medicaid and medicare, Americans don't have to price shop for services to keep procedures competitive because the government is involved and pays for everything anyway, so essentially there is no competition to keep costs down.  Americans who either choose not to get health insurance or can't afford it simply go to the emergency rooms for treatment and they get the bill paid by the rest of us in increased insurance premiums, that includes paying for illegals.

This problem can be fixed but everyone and I mean everyone is going to have to pay for health insurance, this will not be a free ride for anyone. That way there will be competition for both medical procedures and health insurance.  There must be a small business plan that all small business'e can join, over 80% of Americans are employed by small business yet there is no plan that they can join. That's ridiculous.

The government can not run it's own stuff, just look at Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security- they will screw this up royally. Just talk to anyone that comes from a nationalized health insurance country. 
3 year waiting list for catarack removal.
5 years for hip or knee replacement. 
Breast cancer in the Uk- they can't afford to pay for the meds. If fact, if you have cancer you might as well go home and die. Hopefully, you will be wealthy enough, like the previous poster thinks he is, that you can afford to come to the U.S for the treatment, otherwise you are toast.

This can be fixed other ways, it does not require those idiots in Washington to do this. Can you imagine a Nancy Pelosi telling you when it's okay for you to do a life saving treatment???? If this passes that's exactly what's going to happen and we will all pay and pay dearly with increases in taxes and a much, much lower standard of care. Write or call your congressmen and senators and tell them an emphatic NO WAY.


----------



## Nik (Jun 11, 2009)

Maple said:


> I think that you would need to be a multi-billionare, because if you have anything that is catastrophic it will bankrupt you.
> 
> I do not want a single payer system and I most certainly do not want a government run system. Rush is going over this plan as we speak on the radio and he makes sense. The problem with our healthcare now is medicaid and medicare, Americans don't have to price shop for services to keep procedures competitive because the government is involved and pays for everything anyway, so essentially there is no competition to keep costs down.  Americans who either choose not to get health insurance or can't afford it simply go to the emergency rooms for treatment and they get the bill paid by the rest of us in increased insurance premiums, that includes paying for illegals.
> 
> ...



Except that most people aren't eligible for medicare or medicaid.  Whoops, there goes that theory.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 11, 2009)

Nik said:


> Except that most people aren't eligible for medicare or medicaid.  Whoops, there goes that theory.


Irrelevant to the fact that they're grossly inefficient, corrupt, and cost more than threefold what they were projected to.

Whoops, there goes that lefty wingnut talking point.


----------



## Nik (Jun 11, 2009)

Dude said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Except that most people aren't eligible for medicare or medicaid.  Whoops, there goes that theory.
> ...



Grossly inefficient?  Really?  Then why do they have such lower costs than private insurance?


----------



## Oddball (Jun 11, 2009)

They have lower _*administrative costs.*_. However administration is not the only item of outlay on a balance sheet. Nonwithstanding those administrative costs, Medicare/Medicaid are still exorbitantly over their projected costs, by no less than a factor of three, and likely more.

Also, outside of administration, Medicare/Medicaid are rife with fraud, duplication of services, and abuse from stem to stern.


----------



## Contessa_Sharra (Jun 11, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> I don't want nor need healthcare insurance. I pay all my medical expenses in cash. So you can take your health insurance and stick it up Obama's ass.


 

Then your bill for health care is four, five, six times what it should be because you get to make up the difference for what Medicare/Medicaid does not pay. (They pay at from a low of 10 cents to up to about 30 cents on the billed dollar.) 

Well care for all eliminates much need for emergency care when those with no regular access have become catastrophes... 

Incidentally, a really piss-poor excuse for a hospital I know of is currently in a scandal for paying its "on-call" Drs $250.00 an hour just to sit "on call" whether called or not.

A much better deal is where they are paid salary, period. Then, training more Drs, and killing the malpractice cash cow would also help.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jun 11, 2009)

Dude said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > I guess you're lucky that neither you, your wife, or kids never had to face a life threatening illness.  I have though.  My wife died from leukemia and I have health issues that could shorten my life considerably without the proper care.  But as I said before, until it effects you personally, it's no big deal, because again, you completely lack any vision.
> ...



You're damn right the cat is out of the bag.  I don't believe people should be discriminated against receiving medical care at the same price as anyone else due to their medical history.  People with bad driving records pay higher rates for auto insurance, but that is due to their own actions.  People who live in flood plains pay higher rates for home owners insurance because of where they choose to live.  Paying more for medical care is not the same because most people don't become sick due to their own actions.  So the difference cannot and should not be compared, nor should those who have medical conditions be discriminated against.

Basically, the way you see it, anyone who has any type of illness should not be able to get insurance at all because it affects the rates you will have to pay.   Or they should have to pay out of pocket for the complete costs and if they can't, then fuck them.  You are an ass of the highest order, when you can't see how wrong this is.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jun 11, 2009)

HORSE SHIT

You can go on the all butter diet, smoke 6 packs a day, live in a filthy house with mold and insects everywhere... your health has a LOT with the choices you make and the actions you take

But nice try


----------



## auditor0007 (Jun 11, 2009)

STAND4LIBERTY said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > I guess you're lucky that neither you, your wife, or kids never had to face a life threatening illness.  I have though.  My wife died from leukemia and I have health issues that could shorten my life considerably without the proper care.  *But as I said before, until it effects you personally,* it's no big deal, because again, you completely lack any vision.
> ...



Actually the way the system is set up, it is such that discrimination can take place against those who become sick.  Insurance is meant as a risk pool to cover all paying members.  Raising the rates of that insurance on anyone who becomes sick after the fact is the real theft.  It's changing the rules in the middle of the game to suit those who will benefit most.  That is the real theft, so basically you are stealing from me.  

I'm not referring to those who choose not to buy insurance and then become sick.  I'm referring to those who purchase insurance, and then due to becoming sick are forced to pay more for their care than everyone else.  That is real theft and it is discriminatory and is at the core of my issue with this entire mess.  So if you want to steal from me, that just proves my point.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jun 11, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



In an emergency situation you are correct.  However, if you need a organ transplant, you will not receive it if you don't have insurance or the cash up front.  Sorry, but they won't work out a payment plan for $500,000 to $1 million because they know they'll never collect it.  

No one is suggesting that having health insurance guarantees a long life.  That is a stupid statement.  What it does do is give a person the opportunity to receive necessary treatment that may be life saving.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jun 11, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > I find it very ironic that so many people continue to support the failed system of insurance companies when it comes to our healthcare.  A single payer plan, by all means makes the most sense.  The whole point is that the insurance industry is just the middle man making huge profits at the expense of both the consumer and the providers.
> ...



The insurance companies' profits are not the real problem.  The administrative costs created by them is the real problem.  Those administrative costs eat up nearly 25% of total healthcare costs, while countries with single payer systems only eat up around 5%.  My argument isn't so much against the insurance companies but against their discriminatory practices of forcing people out of the system whenever they become sick and is possible.  Due to certain governement regulations, it isn't always possible, but under others it is, and when it is, these companies will do everything they can to stop insuring someone who is sick, or they will make the rates so high that it becomes unaffordable.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jun 11, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> The first clause of Article I, Section 8, reads, "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and *general Welfare of the United States."* This clause, called the General Welfare Clause or the Spending Power Clause, *does not grant Congress the power to legislate for the general welfare of the country; *that is a power reserved to the states through the Tenth Amendment. Rather, it merely allows Congress to spend federal money for the general welfare. The principle underlying this distinctionthe limitation of federal powereventually inspired the only important disagreement over the meaning of the clause.
> 
> In United States v. Butler, 56 S. Ct. 312, 297 U.S. 1, 80 L. Ed. 477 (1936), the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a federal agricultural spending program because a specific congressional power over agricultural production appeared nowhere in the Constitution
> General Welfare legal definition of General Welfare. General Welfare synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
> ...



Damned, now I have my answer.  If I become a criminal and get sent to prison, then I'll get healthcare and I won't even have to pay for it.  Shit, imagine that.  We'll provide healthcare to criminals at no charge to them, but I can't get coverage that I'm willing to pay for at a reasonable price, being the price most others pay.  Talk about messed up.


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY (Jun 11, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> Actually the way the system is set up, it is such that discrimination can take place against those who become sick.  Insurance is meant as a risk pool to cover all paying members.  *Raising the rates of that insurance on anyone who becomes sick after the fact is the real theft. * It's changing the rules in the middle of the game to suit those who will benefit most.  That is the real theft, so basically you are stealing from me.


How do you figure that? rates are based on risk, that's the name of the game in Insurance if they didn't run their business that way they'd be out of the insurance business. Do you expect them to run their business at a loss? Now on the other hand if an Insurance company violates it's contractual agreement with a customer then of course the customer has the right to seek renumeration. So the "rules" are established according to the contract between the willing insurer and the willing insuree using mutually agreed upon terms. If said terms aren't acceptable to either party they should be free not to do business with one another, if you're the buyer that means you can find an alternative provider,self insure or go without coverage. 



> I'm not referring to those who choose not to buy insurance and then become sick.  I'm referring to those who purchase insurance, and then due to becoming sick are forced to pay more for their care than everyone else.  That is real theft and it is discriminatory and is at the core of my issue with this entire mess.  *So if you want to steal from me, that just proves my point.*


How do you figure that I want to steal from you? if you are a higher risk it SHOULD cost you more for insurance. I've made it pretty clear I don't want anything from you or my fellow citizens ('cept that you respect my rights and my property of course), I'm perfectly willing to pull my own weight, furthermore I am willing to stand up for your rights as a fellow citizen if anyone else (including the gub'ment) attempts to take what's rightfully yours by force.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jun 11, 2009)

Dude said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Except that most people aren't eligible for medicare or medicaid.  Whoops, there goes that theory.
> ...



It would be very interesting to see a detailed study on Medicaid/Medicare expenditures in relation to services rendered.  I would venture to guess that on the Medicare side, people are receiving quite a bit of healthcare for the money spent.  It is true that these programs have become more expensive than projected, but that is because actual treatment costs have grown well above the rate of inflation for the past thirty years.  It is the main reason we are paying double as a percent of GDP as we did thirty years ago.

The fact is that people on Medicare are older, and therefore have more health issues, and therefore use healthcares services much more than those in the work force.  We've already had the argument that private insurance costs have gone up because it is subsidizing Medicare, and I buy into that.  Medicare is underfunded, but that does not necessarily mean that is not being run efficiently.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jun 11, 2009)

Maple said:


> I think that you would need to be a multi-billionare, because if you have anything that is catastrophic it will bankrupt you.
> 
> I do not want a single payer system and I most certainly do not want a government run system. Rush is going over this plan as we speak on the radio and he makes sense. The problem with our healthcare now is medicaid and medicare, Americans don't have to price shop for services to keep procedures competitive because the government is involved and pays for everything anyway, so essentially there is no competition to keep costs down.  Americans who either choose not to get health insurance or can't afford it simply go to the emergency rooms for treatment and they get the bill paid by the rest of us in increased insurance premiums, that includes paying for illegals.
> 
> ...



So you would support mandatory insurance for everyone?  And a fair rate structure where being sick doesn't force you to pay higher premiums than everyone else?  But that is so un-American.  You can't force people to buy health insurance, lol.  

It sounds like you would support a system such as the one in Switzerland, which I think is a very good system.  But it does require mandatory participation, something conservatives hate.


----------



## Soaring (Jun 11, 2009)

Then check the BS that Obama is feeding you and compare that to what you were previously fed.   Which do you prefer?


----------



## auditor0007 (Jun 11, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> HORSE SHIT
> 
> You can go on the all butter diet, smoke 6 packs a day, live in a filthy house with mold and insects everywhere... your health has a LOT with the choices you make and the actions you take
> 
> But nice try



Yea, my genetic disorder was due to my own actions.  Try again.  If you smoke, you pay higher rates and deservedly so.  I have no problem with that.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jun 11, 2009)

STAND4LIBERTY said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Actually the way the system is set up, it is such that discrimination can take place against those who become sick.  Insurance is meant as a risk pool to cover all paying members.  *Raising the rates of that insurance on anyone who becomes sick after the fact is the real theft. * It's changing the rules in the middle of the game to suit those who will benefit most.  That is the real theft, so basically you are stealing from me.
> ...



Yes, rates are based on initial risk.  I had insurance with Anthem in Colorado.  Anthem is owned by Wellpoint.  I paid my premiums and became sick.  Now, I had to move to Ohio.  Anthem is in Ohio also, but they operate as a separate company, yet they are also owned by Wellpoint.  I had insurance with this company, purchased before I became high risk.  Now they will only offer me a new policy at three times the premium with a deductible five times higher than my old policy.

That is discrimination.  That is one way the insurance companies drive people out so they don't have to cover those costs.  The insurance companies will do anything they can to get someone off of their books who is ill.  It's in their best interest obviously.  The thing is that healthcare is not like auto insurance or homeowners insurance.  People who choose to purchase and pay for insurance should not be driven out and thrown to the wolves because they become sick, and this is what you support.  So long as it's good for the insurance companies, screw the people they are supposed to serve.  

I just laugh at those like you because if you were in my shoes, you would be pissed too, yet you'll defend these bastards to the end so long as it is not you who is being affected.


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY (Jun 11, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> Yes, rates are based on initial risk.  I had insurance with Anthem in Colorado.  Anthem is owned by Wellpoint.  I paid my premiums and became sick.  Now, I had to move to Ohio.  Anthem is in Ohio also, but they operate as a separate company, yet they are also owned by Wellpoint.  I had insurance with this company, purchased before I became high risk.  *Now they will only offer me a new policy at three times the premium with a deductible five times higher than my old policy.*


Is that because you moved to a different state? 




> I just laugh at those like you because if you were in my shoes, you would be pissed too, yet you'll defend these bastards to the end so long as it is not you who is being affected.


Actually I have been in your shoes pal, I have a wife that's been chronically ill for years due to no fault of her own and have never once asked anybody else to pay the premiums on her health insurance. I'm defending the RIGHTS and PROPERTY of me and my fellow citizens from those that want to take them by force, that doesn't mean I believe the system cannot be improved, it does however mean that I do not accept that the way to improve it is to engage in further legalized theft from my me and my fellow citizens, the amount of legalized plunder that we already put up with is more than enough.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jun 11, 2009)

STAND4LIBERTY said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, rates are based on initial risk.  I had insurance with Anthem in Colorado.  Anthem is owned by Wellpoint.  I paid my premiums and became sick.  Now, I had to move to Ohio.  Anthem is in Ohio also, but they operate as a separate company, yet they are also owned by Wellpoint.  I had insurance with this company, purchased before I became high risk.  *Now they will only offer me a new policy at three times the premium with a deductible five times higher than my old policy.*
> ...



Because I moved to a different state, they treat me as a new applicant.  Therefore, they can make the costs so high, it is basically unaffordable.  

Tell me something; how much do you pay for your wife's insurance and healthcare per year?  I was paying $6000 per year between premiums and out of pocket to cover deductibles.  That was just for myself, not including my kids coverage.  Now, it will cost me around $16,000 per year.  Going without insurance, it will cost me around $4000 per year for the care I need.  Of course, I would no longer have the insurance covering me in case my condition becomes critical.  It likely will not, so I'll go without.  However, if I do all of a sudden need a new liver, I'll be left to die, and my kids will lose the only surviving parent they have. 

The dumb thing is that once my business is up and running, then I can get insurance through a small business plan, but I'll have to cover another employee.  Then the cost will drop dramatically.  But being self-employed with no other employees leaves myself and many others out of the loop.

What bothers me is that these companies only care about their bottom line.  If it wasn't for other existing laws such as Hipaa, they would deny even more.  To give you a better idea of how these companies operate, when I applied for a new policy in Ohio for my kids, I was told their rates would be around $130 per month.  My kids are completely healthy with no health issues.  After learning of my condition, they upped the rate on my kids to over $200 per month for each of them.  I got basically the same policy for my kids through Aetna for $89 per month, because Aetna was not aware of my condition.  So Anthem used my condition against my kids even though they have no medical condition themselves.  And you think these insurance people are all on the up and up?  LOL.  There's good reason we need government intervention in their activities, because they will scam anyone they can given the opportunity.


----------



## oreo (Jun 11, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> I find it very ironic that so many people continue to support the failed system of insurance companies when it comes to our healthcare.  A single payer plan, by all means makes the most sense.  The whole point is that the insurance industry is just the middle man making huge profits at the expense of both the consumer and the providers.
> 
> However, there is another idea.  We could allow hospitals and doctors to set up their own networks, providing their own plans that would compete with the insurance companies.  Doctors would need to network with certain hospitals, but many already do this.  There are some troubles with such a plan, but nothing that can't be worked out.  For instance, these networks would also have to include drug plans, and they would have to work out a system of payment for out of network treatment in cases where people are traveling or find themselves in an emergency situation outside of the network.
> 
> ...




In Colorado--small business had that kind of plan you're talking about.  It was insurance aimed at small businesse's provided by Doctors & Hospitals.  As a group of small businesse's we were able to get affordable medical insurance for ourselves--as owners--and our employees.  It lasted for about 2 years & was great--THEN somehow the state of Colorado screwed it up--& this plan ended--making it impossible for small business to pay for group insurance which included our employees.  We eventually had to set our employees up in single pay insurance--& they would have to pay for any dependents they had & extras.  Eventually even that too--skyrocketed--so we then just paid out of pocket for all of our employees to find their own private pay policy.

Obtaining afforable medical insurance--the laws--are a can of worms.  I believe if the government would just MANDATE that everyone gets their own medical insurance--like we have to with auto liability insurance--this alone would dramatcially reduce premiums.

But--I think where this is going--is that they are going to tax group health benefits on the employees that are covered in this country by their employers--in order to pay for those without insurance.  I doubt--the employees that get it free today--or paid for by their employers--are going to be real happy about this plan.

The one thing I do not WANT--is government taking control over health care in this country.  _As we have seen with their past actions they cannot be trusted to run any industry in the private sector._


----------



## oreo (Jun 11, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> STAND4LIBERTY said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...




My husband & I--he is 62 & I am 56--we pay $796.00 per month--with a $2000 per year deductible on an 80/20 plan.  And we're healthy marathon runners!   I really believe this outrageous cost comes from so many uninsured.  We are paying for them too--with our premiums.

Mitt Romney fixed health care in his state of MASS.  He found out that 45% of the unisured in his state actually made more than 75K per year & just chose not to cover themselves.  People who could have easily afforded it.  He then mandated that everyone have their own medical insurance--& it dramactically lowered premiums to all.

Again--I don't believe that the Federal Government should take over health care.  They would make for very lousy managers--& they would bankrupt the system within months.  But they can make laws--tough laws--in order for Americans to get affordable health insurance.  They need to open up the competition from one state to the next.  They need to encourage nurse practitioners to be put in walk-in clinics in pharmacies across this nation.  Thereby--keeping people with common colds & flu symptons out of our expensive emergency rooms.


----------



## oreo (Jun 11, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> STAND4LIBERTY said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...




I don't know what state you're in but in mine if you are an s-corporation you are considered an employee along with your wife.  Based on that you would be able to get group insurance.  YOU'RE lucky.  In the state of Colorado they screwed all of us in the small business catagory.  We can no longer get afforable group coverage.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 11, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> It would be very interesting to see a detailed study on Medicaid/Medicare expenditures in relation to services rendered.  I would venture to guess that on the Medicare side, people are receiving quite a bit of healthcare for the money spent.  It is true that these programs have become more expensive than projected, but that is because actual treatment costs have grown well above the rate of inflation for the past thirty years.  It is the main reason we are paying double as a percent of GDP as we did thirty years ago.
> 
> The fact is that people on Medicare are older, and therefore have more health issues, and therefore use healthcares services much more than those in the work force.  We've already had the argument that private insurance costs have gone up because it is subsidizing Medicare, and I buy into that.  Medicare is underfunded, but that does not necessarily mean that is not being run efficiently.


"Underfunded" my ass!!!!!!


How 'bout we study the costs for Medicare/Medicaid today, versus what they were projected to be when those scams were initiated....Even adjusted for inflation.

G'head....Look it up...We have time.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jun 12, 2009)

oreo said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > STAND4LIBERTY said:
> ...



Honestly, that makes more sense than any other.  But of course, people will argue that they shouldn't be forced to buy health insurance.  If it was made mandatory, and they didn't permit group plans, then everyone would fall under the same umbrella.  This is very similar to the way it is set up in Switzerland.  

The biggest reason we are seeing such a push for more government control is that the current system is out of control and nobody in the current system wants to make any changes.  On top of that, these insurance companies have people believing there isn't anything wrong with the way things are, and that is the furthest thing from the truth.


----------



## editec (Jun 12, 2009)

Dude said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Good for you. You are obviously a multi-millionaire then. Most of us are not. When you are diagnosed with leukemia and need a stem cell transplant along with all of the other care necessary, then you won't complain about the $1.5 million cost.
> ...


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY (Jun 12, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> Because I moved to a different state, they treat me as a new applicant.  Therefore, they can make the costs so high, it is basically unaffordable.


Might the increased cost be due to the variation in regulation in your new state? I'm no expert on insurance but I do know that variations in state regulations can cause wild swings in the price of insurance from state to state without a corresponding differential in the actual cost of the healthcare itself. Regulatory review is one area where the government can actually do a great deal to reduce both the costs of healthcare and health insurance, unfortunately that's hard work loaded with political land mines and something they seem to be unwilling to undertake. So instead of attacking the root cause of rising costs they seek to instead implement an unaffordable band-aid at the taxpayers expense for the sole purpose of buying votes. 



> Tell me something; how much do you pay for your wife's insurance and healthcare per year?  I was paying $6000 per year between premiums and out of pocket to cover deductibles.  That was just for myself, not including my kids coverage.  Now, it will cost me around $16,000 per year.  Going without insurance, it will cost me around $4000 per year for the care I need.  Of course, I would no longer have the insurance covering me in case my condition becomes critical.  It likely will not, so I'll go without.  However, if I do all of a sudden need a new liver, I'll be left to die, and my kids will lose the only surviving parent they have.


Around $7200 a year, however I also incur a great deal of cost in deductibles for care and prescriptions, I haven't totaled it all up this year but it's well over $1000. I sympathize with your situation I really do and would gladly help someone in your situation voluntarily, my beef comes when others want to use the government to put a gun to my head and try and make me do it, especially when I KNOW that the current proposal on the table in Washington D.C. is completely unaffordable and will just saddle future generations with additional crushing debt. 



> What bothers me is that these companies only care about their bottom line.  If it wasn't for other existing laws such as Hipaa, they would deny even more.


Well not to sound callous but if they didn't care about their bottom line they wouldn't have a bottom line to care about, and their costs include a whole range of items that are derived directly from government regulation, do the objectives of those regulations justify the costs they entail? are the regulations achieving those objectives they were created for? are the regulations generating unintended negative unintended consequences? Nobody knows because the government (both federal and state) seem to only want to operate in two modes regulation for regulations sake or deregulation for deregulations sake.


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY (Jun 12, 2009)

Dude said:


> "Underfunded" my ass!!!!!!
> 
> 
> How 'bout we study the costs for Medicare/Medicaid today, versus what they were projected to be when those scams were initiated....Even adjusted for inflation.
> ...


The problem isn't "underfuding" it's UNFUNDED future liabilities as in the government knew the future costs would exceed the revenue intake of the promises made by Medicare to it's citizens and instead of saving for those costs, they've gone ahead and not only spent everything they have taken in but much more besides that. It's as if you promised your child that you would pay for a Harvard Education for him if he agrees to pay in a $1 per week into a college fund and instead of saving anything to fullfill your promise you spend everything you make, your child's $1 per week and then rack up everything you can in credit. 

The long term picture for Medicare looks like this (long term unfunded liabilities):



Source:The Real National Debt

And these unfunded liabilities are growing every year we continue to save absolutely nothing against them. I've seen credible sources that suggest that by around the year 2030 the federal government will only take in enough revenue (under the current tax regime) to pay for Social Security, Medicare, Debt Service and NOTHING else.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 12, 2009)

Yes, I've been aware of the tens of trllions of unfunded promises to pay out coming down the pike for quite some time now.

My comment was directed more at the lame-assed talking point, that arises with alarming regularity, about (your favorite handout program here) is "underfunded", despite the fact that its spending far exceeds the projections made for it at the outset.

It's like dealing with spoiled rotten little Lord Fauntleroy brat children....No matter what they get, it's_* never ever*_ enough for them.


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY (Jun 12, 2009)

Dude said:


> Yes, I've been aware of the tens of trllions of unfunded promises to pay out coming down the pike for quite some time now.
> 
> My comment was directed more at the lame-assed talking point, that arises with alarming regularity, about (your favorite handout program here) is "underfunded", despite the fact that its spending far exceeds the projections made for it at the outset.
> 
> It's like dealing with spoiled rotten little Lord Fauntleroy brat children....No matter what they get, it's_* never ever*_ enough for them.



Gotcha,  , just wanted to throw out the real unfunded debt numbers for those that were unaware of how bad the Medicare situation really is.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jun 12, 2009)

STAND4LIBERTY said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Because I moved to a different state, they treat me as a new applicant.  Therefore, they can make the costs so high, it is basically unaffordable.
> ...



The increased cost is due to the fact that I am uninsurable through normal underwriting due to pre-existing conditions.  Of course, Anthem told me I would not have to go through underwriting and that I would be issued a plan as close to my old plan as possible and at a comparable rate.  After I moved and put the paperwork through, they then told me they were wrong, and that I could only receive a policy that is guarantee issue.  Well the rates on guarantee issue are astronomically high, so high that I can't afford them.  

The plan they offered me and then the add on for my kids would cost me $14,000 per year in premiums plus an additional $4000 to $6000 out of pocket with a maximum out of pocket total of around $28,000 per year.

The biggest issue is that I had insurance at a decent price.  Had I not moved, I would not be in this situation.  The bottom line is that at the rate we are going, no one will be able to afford healthcare for much longer.  When that happens, we will see all kinds of rationing.  

When we look at the overall numbers, we see that the medium household income in the US is around $45,000.  If we add the employer funded amount of approximately $9000 toward health insurance for a family of four, that brings total compensation to $54,000 per year.  Of that, $12,000 per year goes to health insurance premiums, $3000 covered by the individual.  Add in out of pocket expenses of $1000 per year for the average family, and we see that the average family is spending $13,000 out of their $54,000 on healthcare or 24% of their total income.  Add to that the combined 2.8% going toward Medicare, and we hit nearly 27% of total income going toward healthcare.

Now, we know that healthcare costs have doubled in the last 30 years in real dollars and percentage of income, and it is predicted to double again in the next 20 to 25 years.  In other words, within the next 20 to 25 years, half of the US population will be paying over 50% of their earnings toward healthcare.  Understanding this leads to the realization that this system is completely unsustainable.  It is going to collapse.  When it does, everyone will be effected, including those who may still be able to afford it.  

Currently, we have a substantial percentage of people who are uninsured.  That is only going to increase dramatically to the point that eventually half of our population will be without coverage.  Without coverage, less services will be rendered and availability of services will be decreased even to those who can afford it.  

So what will happen?  The only thing that can happen.  Healthcare will be rationed.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 12, 2009)

All of which works off of the presupposition that everyone has a _*right*_ to have a third person cover their medical expenses.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 12, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> I don't want nor need healthcare insurance. I pay all my medical expenses in cash. So you can take your health insurance and stick it up Obama's ass.



Must be they do things different in Texas. (Well, yes...) Most doctor's offices are reluctant to take on new patients without insurance, even if that person flashes a wad. Why? Because maybe next visit, or the one thereafer, the one where he's diagnosed with something serious and expensive, will find the same bloke broke. Then the doc is up a creek without a paddle.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 12, 2009)

STAND4LIBERTY said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > The government could put everyone on a level playing field by ending the discrimination that exists in pricing by removing group discounts and by *making it mandatory for everyone to be accepted that wants to purchase a network plan.*
> ...



The Constitution doesn't specifically provide for a lot of things you now enjoy and couldn't live without--like paved roads and Internet access. Frankly, I'm sick of seeing people _USE_ the Constitution as their crutch.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 12, 2009)

Dude said:


> gravity said:
> 
> 
> > Let's examine:
> ...



Still trying to spread that lie, I see. That bogus claim has of course been completely misconstrued, and yet, ironically, private health insurers have been TELLING YOU for decades whether or not you are deemed "healthworthy" and whether or not you will be allowed to have certain procedures done. But because it is "private" companies doing just that, it's fine. Correct?


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 12, 2009)

STAND4LIBERTY said:


> gravity said:
> 
> 
> > STAND4LIBERTY said:
> ...



Nobody plans to FORCE you to do a fucking thing, moron.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 12, 2009)

Dude said:


> gravity said:
> 
> 
> > And as we live within a great democratic process in the United States, we choose who governs us.  I do feel much better about that.
> ...



But but but, isn't forcing government at gunpoint more of a Russian thing? _Dude?_


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 12, 2009)

Dude said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > I guess you're lucky that neither you, your wife, or kids never had to face a life threatening illness.  I have though.  My wife died from leukemia and I have health issues that could shorten my life considerably without the proper care.  But as I said before, until it effects you personally, it's no big deal, because again, you completely lack any vision.
> ...



Sometimes you are so off-the-wall _out there_, I wonder if you just smoke it or stick it in your arm.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 12, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Another _really_ dumb question.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 12, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Still trying to spread that lie, I see. That bogus claim has of course been completely misconstrued, and yet, ironically, private health insurers have been TELLING YOU for decades whether or not you are deemed "healthworthy" and whether or not you will be allowed to have certain procedures done. But because it is "private" companies doing just that, it's fine. Correct?


Misconstrued nothing.

When the yearly budget for things like hip replacements and knee ligament surgeries runs out  in places with socialized medical services, like Canada and England, then you can just suck your thumb and wait until next year....If your far along enough on the waiting list.

If that's not bureaucrats determining who is and isn't "healthworty" nothing is.

Replacing one screwed up collectivized third-party system with an even worse screwed up collectivist third-party payer system, does nothing to solve the inherent problems that come with insulating the end user  from the costs of the services they seek.

If anyone here is lying, it's you. And you're lying to the worst person in the world you can....Yourself.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 12, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Some clown on C-Span the other day was making a similar argumet as Lonewolf (ooops, Lonestar), only he added at the end of his rant that *"only the strong should survive anyway."* Sound familiar? This has become a cultish mentality oozing from the depths of inbred ignorance of history, unfortunately.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 12, 2009)

gravity said:


> My fourth and final post on this website and I feel already that I must move on.  Not because I am anything that your forthcoming responses may describe me to be, but because I have quickly come to the conclusion that you are for the most part a group of dismissive, closed minded individuals.  I am assuming that those posting in this thread are a fair sampling of the people on this site and that is probably a simplification, but it is my decision to make.  Continue your game without me as my time can most certainly be better spent elsewhere.



I hope you stick around, gravity, or at least check in from time to time. Not everyone from the opposing political side is as warped as some of those you're reading in this thread. You'll also note that certain ones tend to clump together at particular times during a 24-hour period, so the conversation can often take a more civil and intelligent tone in late afternoon as opposed to wee hours. But not always.


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY (Jun 12, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> The Constitution doesn't specifically provide for a lot of things you now enjoy and couldn't live without--like paved roads and Internet access. Frankly, I'm sick of seeing people _USE_ the Constitution as their crutch.



Obviously a person that has zero understanding of the constitution says, means or what the original intent of it's creation was .... perhaps if you bothered to do some homework you wouldn't have to be "sick" of people bringing up the constitution at times that are inconvienient for your silly notions.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 12, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> The first clause of Article I, Section 8, reads, "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and *general Welfare of the United States."* This clause, called the General Welfare Clause or the Spending Power Clause, *does not grant Congress the power to legislate for the general welfare of the country; *that is a power reserved to the states through the Tenth Amendment. Rather, it merely allows Congress to spend federal money for the general welfare. The principle underlying this distinctionthe limitation of federal powereventually inspired the only important disagreement over the meaning of the clause.
> 
> In United States v. Butler, 56 S. Ct. 312, 297 U.S. 1, 80 L. Ed. 477 (1936), the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a federal agricultural spending program because a specific congressional power over agricultural production appeared nowhere in the Constitution
> General Welfare legal definition of General Welfare. General Welfare synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
> ...



Thanks for the background. Of course even the Gitmo detainees had better medical care than many of our own citizens, for free. It's really one of those WTF? hypocrisies in light of today's ongoing debate. 

I've also always found it curious that the general welfare clause in the Preamble is the ONLY phrase therein that has ever been raised as questionable as the Preamble relates to the text that follows it.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 12, 2009)

Dude said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Except that most people aren't eligible for medicare or medicaid.  Whoops, there goes that theory.
> ...



Medicare is not grossly inefficient. It has become costly because people are living longer and therefore being added to the system in greater numbers. The reason they are living longer is because of all the high tech stuff that maintains life and which is covered by Medicare. A double whammy. It's a no-fucking-brainer. As for Medicaid, that's only as efficient as the individual states administer the program. They are given grant money for Medicaid; how it is disbursed and controlled is not governed at the federal level.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 12, 2009)

Dude said:


> They have lower _*administrative costs.*_. However administration is not the only item of outlay on a balance sheet. Nonwithstanding those administrative costs, Medicare/Medicaid are still exorbitantly over their projected costs, by no less than a factor of three, and likely more.
> 
> Also, outside of administration, Medicare/Medicaid are rife with fraud, duplication of services, and abuse from stem to stern.



The abuses originate from physicians and hospital administrators. Surprise surprise.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 12, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> HORSE SHIT
> 
> You can go on the all butter diet, smoke 6 packs a day, live in a filthy house with mold and insects everywhere... your health has a LOT with the choices you make and the actions you take
> 
> But nice try



And what would you guess is the percentage of those types of people compared to a normal household? 

Nice try.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 12, 2009)

oreo said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > STAND4LIBERTY said:
> ...



I don't know why more regional small businesses don't get together and investigate health insurance pools, which provide access to a number of health plans for employees from several companies, from low-cost discount cards for medical services to comprehensive benefit packages. The employers select a single health insurer to provide the health plans, which have lower prices than individual health insurance policies or single choice health insurers for the individual small businesses.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jun 12, 2009)

Dude said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Still trying to spread that lie, I see. That bogus claim has of course been completely misconstrued, and yet, ironically, private health insurers have been TELLING YOU for decades whether or not you are deemed "healthworthy" and whether or not you will be allowed to have certain procedures done. But because it is "private" companies doing just that, it's fine. Correct?
> ...



Well...ya know, just like Lonestar who doesn't worry about getting sick until it happens, if and when I need knee replacement, I guess I'll just have to deal with whatever is available at the time to cover the surgery. I don't _*AGONIZE*_   over what "might be" the way you people do. For one thing, any USA universal health care would *not* model itself after the worst of England and Canada offers!


----------



## oreo (Jun 12, 2009)

I am a little concerned that they're going with something called "Play or Pay".  Resulting in raising taxes or fining employers if they do not pay for medical insurance for their employees.

The problem here since I am small business.  If I cannot afford to insure my employees--there's only be one thing I am going to do.  Lose some employees.


----------



## KittenKoder (Jun 12, 2009)

oreo said:


> I am a little concerned that they're going with something called "Play or Pay".  Resulting in raising taxes or fining employers if they do not pay for medical insurance for their employees.
> 
> The problem here since I am small business.  If I cannot afford to insure my employees--there's only be one thing I am going to do.  Lose some employees.



It eill be another regulation so the government can drive out the competition of anyone who isn't bribing them. It's regs like this that have destroyed small business as it is.


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY (Jun 12, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> STAND4LIBERTY said:
> 
> 
> > gravity said:
> ...



Typical left winger response, doesn't understand the issue and can't demonstrate enough self control to refrain from name calling. 

I hate to break this too you but when the government takes your money against your will under threat of legal sanction that is FORCE , it's the same thing as if they stuck a gun to your head and in the REAL WORLD we call that THEFT.


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 12, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> I don't want nor need healthcare insurance. I pay all my medical expenses in cash. So you can take your health insurance and stick it up Obama's ass.


Your very fortunate to be a multi-millionaire. Funny, none of the very wealthy are complaining about healthcare ... just the middle class and under.


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 12, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > I find it very ironic that so many people continue to support the failed system of insurance companies when it comes to our healthcare.  A single payer plan, by all means makes the most sense.  The whole point is that the insurance industry is just the middle man making huge profits at the expense of both the consumer and the providers.
> ...


Have you checked out how much CEOs of those insurance companies make? Try Google.


----------



## STAND4LIBERTY (Jun 12, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Have you checked out how much CEOs of those insurance companies make? Try Google.


What does CEO compensation have to do with anything? the compensation in a corporation is set by the board of directors, who represent the shareholders, who are the owners of the company... if the company is privately owned the owners set the CEO compensation directly... so what's your point?


----------



## KrisMinar (Jun 18, 2009)

I'm planning to get my insurance but I'm still looking for some referrals and reviews of people around who has already one.


----------

