# Can Public Option Work?



## SmellyLemmings (Oct 18, 2009)

President Obama's Healthcare Reform 'Public Option' Explained - LAist

I'm a little confused when it comes to the public option debate. I dont know if I should support it or not.

This website shows a nifty chart explaining how public option would work, which was very helpful. But I still can't ignore how public option reminds me of socialized medicine. What about the death panel debate, the limitations on doctors and individual patient options? Not to mention the HUGE cost for this small part to healthcare reform. My paycheck is as thin enough with the other governmental programs I still pay for. So is public option worth supporting, or are u like me; a little skeptical. thanks for the comments!!


----------



## Big Black Dog (Oct 18, 2009)

I am very leary of this whole Obama Health Care Reform business for several reasons.  The first being the socialized medicine if the Public Option portion of it is passed.  The government has no business in the insurance business at all.  It isn't allowed by the Constitution.  I believe there is a need for health care reform in the US - I think most people do - but if done so by the government it will just grow the size of government, give the government even more control over your life and privacy and cost way too much money.  The government can't even manage social security and medicare.  Those two programs are just for a small portion of Americans.  How in the world does anybody with any brains think the government can manage health care for the whole nation with their past track record?  Another big problem is the cost.  Just where is the money going to come from for this reform package being pushed by the government?  The US already is very deeply in debt to China and others.  The money we owe China alone is frightening and now they want to borrow more to pay for the reform?  A very bad move I am sure.  It will bankrupt the country.  The government says they will save enough from revamping medicare alone to pay for most of the reform.  I don't believe it.  The government never has saved anything in it's past history of financial endeavors.  Let's have them physically show us the savings before we jump like frogs into this mess.  It is a time for people to think with their brains and not with their hearts.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 18, 2009)

If it is run with the efficiency and integrity of Social Security, a public option makes sense.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 18, 2009)

Big Black Dog said:


> I am very leary of this whole Obama Health Care Reform business for several reasons.  The first being the socialized medicine if the Public Option portion of it is passed.  The government has no business in the insurance business at all.  It isn't allowed by the Constitution.  I believe there is a need for health care reform in the US - I think most people do - but if done so by the government it will just grow the size of government, give the government even more control over your life and privacy and cost way too much money.  The government can't even manage social security and medicare.  Those two programs are just for a small portion of Americans.  How in the world does anybody with any brains think the government can manage health care for the whole nation with their past track record?  Another big problem is the cost.  Just where is the money going to come from for this reform package being pushed by the government?  The US already is very deeply in debt to China and others.  The money we owe China alone is frightening and now they want to borrow more to pay for the reform?  A very bad move I am sure.  It will bankrupt the country.  The government says they will save enough from revamping medicare alone to pay for most of the reform.  I don't believe it.  The government never has saved anything in it's past history of financial endeavors.  Let's have them physically show us the savings before we jump like frogs into this mess.  It is a time for people to think with their brains and not with their hearts.



You say there is a need for health *care* reform and I disagree.  I see it as a need for health financial and health data management reform.

It's not the doctoring in America that needs attention, it's deciding what we should pay for and how we should structure the bureaucracy we employ to manage our health and financial data.


----------



## Big Black Dog (Oct 18, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> > I am very leary of this whole Obama Health Care Reform business for several reasons.  The first being the socialized medicine if the Public Option portion of it is passed.  The government has no business in the insurance business at all.  It isn't allowed by the Constitution.  I believe there is a need for health care reform in the US - I think most people do - but if done so by the government it will just grow the size of government, give the government even more control over your life and privacy and cost way too much money.  The government can't even manage social security and medicare.  Those two programs are just for a small portion of Americans.  How in the world does anybody with any brains think the government can manage health care for the whole nation with their past track record?  Another big problem is the cost.  Just where is the money going to come from for this reform package being pushed by the government?  The US already is very deeply in debt to China and others.  The money we owe China alone is frightening and now they want to borrow more to pay for the reform?  A very bad move I am sure.  It will bankrupt the country.  The government says they will save enough from revamping medicare alone to pay for most of the reform.  I don't believe it.  The government never has saved anything in it's past history of financial endeavors.  Let's have them physically show us the savings before we jump like frogs into this mess.  It is a time for people to think with their brains and not with their hearts.
> ...



I think it's a little more complicated than that.  I mean, why should it cost more in Los Angeles and New York City then it does in Dixon, Illinois to fix a broken arm?  Shouldn't it cost the same thing in every hospital in America?  Why do the hospitals bill the insurance companies, say $2,500.00 for medical services but accept only $950.00 that the insurance company pays them and writes the rest off?  Why does it cost over $100.00 to walk into an Emergency Room for any kind of a problem and then be charged more by the doctors, X-ray department, etc., etc., etc.  The point I am trying to make is the reform needs to be in the price structure of it all.  Nothing is a standard throughout America.  This is where the reform needs to start.  Granted, it costs lots of money to get through medical school, set up a medical practice, and all the rest that goes along with that but why not charge the same thing for office visits all across the country?  This is the point I am trying to make.


----------



## Chris (Oct 18, 2009)

SmellyLemmings said:


> President Obama's Healthcare Reform 'Public Option' Explained - LAist
> 
> I'm a little confused when it comes to the public option debate. I dont know if I should support it or not.
> 
> This website shows a nifty chart explaining how public option would work, which was very helpful. But I still can't ignore how public option reminds me of socialized medicine. What about the death panel debate, the limitations on doctors and individual patient options? Not to mention the HUGE cost for this small part to healthcare reform. My paycheck is as thin enough with the other governmental programs I still pay for. So is public option worth supporting, or are u like me; a little skeptical. thanks for the comments!!



National health insurance and socialized medicine are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

Socialized medicine is when the doctors and hospitals are owned by the government. Very few countries have socialized medicine, and it doesn't work as well as national health insurance alone IMHO.

National health insurance is when the government acts as the insurance company, and this seems to work pretty well. There are inherent efficiencies in a national health insurance system, and that is why the other industrialized countries pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. France seems to have the best system of all IMHO. 

A nice overview can be found at this link....

Universal health care - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## veritas (Oct 18, 2009)

SmellyLemmings said:


> President Obama's Healthcare Reform 'Public Option' Explained - LAist
> 
> I'm a little confused when it comes to the public option debate. I dont know if I should support it or not.
> 
> This website shows a nifty chart explaining how public option would work, which was very helpful. But I still can't ignore how public option reminds me of socialized medicine. What about the death panel debate, the limitations on doctors and individual patient options? Not to mention the HUGE cost for this small part to healthcare reform. My paycheck is as thin enough with the other governmental programs I still pay for. So is public option worth supporting, or are u like me; a little skeptical. thanks for the comments!!



There is no death panel debate. That's a hoax for stupid people.

Insurance is the very definition of socialism, except without the good parts. Pooling risk over a large sampling, or spreading risk by paying in is like socialism, except it's not egalitarian, which is where the profit  motive comes and claims are denied and people dropped or excluded from participating at all.

The public option has not been shown to be a huge cost, nor such a small factor, that's rhetoric.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 18, 2009)

Big Black Dog said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Big Black Dog said:
> ...



Nothing is standard.  A 2BR Apartment in Dixon IL doesnt cost nearly what it does in NYC.  A gallon of milk in Hawaii is a lot mroe than the same gallon in WI.  Costs vary throughout the country, including medical.  So what?
Hospitals bill lots more than they end up accepting because frequently they bill and collect nothing.  They are not allowed to turn away people because they can't pay.  So their unreimbursed expenses are large.
But none of that is responsive to the idea that we need the gov't intruding into what ought to be a private sector decision.  What will standardizing rates throughout the country do??


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 18, 2009)

veritas said:


> SmellyLemmings said:
> 
> 
> > President Obama's Healthcare Reform 'Public Option' Explained - LAist
> ...



Death panels are not a hoax.  Their absence is a trap for the credulous.  The way the system is set, there must inevitably be death panels because care will eventually have to be rationed.  It is pure economics 101: set the cost below market and you create shortages.  The shortages must be adjudicated in the same way the pricing mechanism would have done so.  Here, there will be a bunch of bureaucrats making the decision instead of the marketplace.
Insurance is not socialism. It is the opposite in fact.  Socialism is not egalitarian either, despite whatever rhetoric the communists are using these days.
Whenever this type of thing has been tried, the costs skyrocket and quality stinks.  This has been shown over and over and is supported by the economics of it.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 18, 2009)

Big Black Dog said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Big Black Dog said:
> ...



There are a slew of particulars that are both symptoms and causes of the inconsistencies,  expense and paperwork of healthcare but it boils down to one problem:

We are encouraging the management of our health and financial data to be run at a profit.

Can you imagine buying food like we buy health care?

We need two types - some sort of maintenance program for physicals and such and 'insurance' for if your kid gets leukemia.

Right now the private insurance bureaucracies are making bank because they have us paying in from our 20's through our working years when we don't make much in the way of claims statistically and as soon as we hit 65 and start seeing more doctors, they dump us on to the public rolls of Medicare.

We, the working tax-payers and insurance premium payers should be getting a smoke offered to us by the insurance-for-profit industry.....


----------



## Chris (Oct 18, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> veritas said:
> 
> 
> > SmellyLemmings said:
> ...



Lies, all lies.

Every other industrialized nation in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 18, 2009)

Chris said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > veritas said:
> ...



And they get about a tenth of the quality of care when they get sick.
No thanks, I'll stick to our present system.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 18, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> veritas said:
> 
> 
> > SmellyLemmings said:
> ...



We have death panels right now. They are when the insurance companies deny claims. They are when insured people find themselves bankrupted by medical bill because the insurance companies only cover certain things. 

No, what you claim is a bald faced lie. Little Costa Rica, which has had universal health care for 60 years, has the third highest average longevity in the world. And their infant mortality rate is far better than ours. In a nation where the average income is less than a tenth of that we enjoy.

Every other industrial nation in the world covers all of their citizens, and pay one half to three quarters of what we do, and they have far better results for their money.

If their quality stinks, why do they live longer, have healthier old ages, and a far lower infant mortality rate than we do? What stinks is your continued lying on this subject.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 18, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> There are a slew of particulars that are both symptoms and causes of the inconsistencies,  expense and paperwork of healthcare but it boils down to one problem:
> 
> We are encouraging the management of our health and financial data to be run at a profit.
> 
> ...



We do buy food like we buy healthcare.  Arguably we need to do more of it.  CUrrently no one asks about the price of a drug or treatment, even though cheaper and equally effective alternatives are out there.  Ask your doc next time if he knows what a particular prescription costs.  I would guarantee the answer is no.
The major problem is the people using the service are not the ones paying for it. So there is little incentive to reduce costs. No one needs insurance to cover a $50 office visit.  They do need it for a $15k hospital stay.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 18, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > veritas said:
> ...



I think you need to move to Costa Rica and enjoy that workers paradise.


----------



## Chris (Oct 18, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Horseshit.

The medical schools in France are much cheaper, so they have a third more doctors per capita than we do.

Their doctors can spend more time with their patients. More doctors, more time spent, equals better care. And they cover everyone for much less cost than we do.

Do a little reading. Seriously.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 18, 2009)

Chris said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



I would take that seriously except that you've proven yourself the chief dim bulb on this board.
Go look at cure rates and survival rates for major adverse health events.  The US has far better ratings than any other country.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 18, 2009)

We spend 16% of our GDP on health care, don't cover all of our citizens, and get lousy results. Japan spends 8%, has much better waiting times than we, and stellar results. And they cover all their citizens.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 18, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 18, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



*Cannot resist lying, can you. *

U.S. health care system ranks last compared with five other nations on measures of quality, access, efficiency

The U.S. health care system ranks last compared with five other nations on measures of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and outcomes, in the third edition of a Commonwealth Fund report analyzing international health policy surveys. 
While the U.S. did well on some preventive care measures, the nation ranked at the bottom on measures of safe care and coordinated care. 

Another new Commonwealth Fund report comparing health spending data in industrialized nations published today reveals that despite spending more than twice as much per capita on health care as other nations ($6,102 vs. $2,571 for the median of Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD] countries in 2004) the U.S. spends far less on health information technology, just 43 cents per capita, compared with about $192 per capita in the U.K. 

"The United States stands out as the only nation in these studies that does not ensure access to health care through universal coverage and promotion of a 'medical home' for patients," said Commonwealth Fund President Karen Davis. "Our failure to ensure health insurance for all and encourage stable, long-term ties between physicians and patients shows in our poor performance on measures of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and health outcomes. In light of the significant resources we devote to health care in this country, we should expect the best, highest performing health system."


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 18, 2009)

You're such an illiterate turd:
U.S. Vs. The World - Regulatory,Legislative and Tax Issues - Life and Health Insurance News
Most Cancer Survival Rates in USA Better Than Europe and Canada » Secondhand Smoke | A First Things Blog
Healthcare Economist · Low Life Expectancy in the United States: Is the Health Care System at Fault?


----------



## Chris (Oct 18, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Personal insults are not convincing arguments.

We are 37th in the world in healthcare rankings, and most people who get cancer in this country are treated by Medicare.

So I am glad you agree with me that government health insurance results in good cure rates and survival rates.


----------



## Varth Dader (Oct 18, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> We spend 16% of our GDP on health care, don't cover all of our citizens, and get lousy results. Japan spends 8%, has much better waiting times than we, and stellar results. And they cover all their citizens.



They also build better cars and don't engage is useless wars. So what's your point?


----------



## oreo (Oct 19, 2009)

SmellyLemmings said:


> President Obama's Healthcare Reform 'Public Option' Explained - LAist
> 
> I'm a little confused when it comes to the public option debate. I dont know if I should support it or not.
> 
> This website shows a nifty chart explaining how public option would work, which was very helpful. But I still can't ignore how public option reminds me of socialized medicine. What about the death panel debate, the limitations on doctors and individual patient options? Not to mention the HUGE cost for this small part to healthcare reform. My paycheck is as thin enough with the other governmental programs I still pay for. So is public option worth supporting, or are u like me; a little skeptical. thanks for the comments!!



To answer you:

1.  Did social security work?  No it's bankrupt
2.  Did Medicare work?  No it's bankrupt
3.  Did Medicade work?  No it's bankrupt
4.  Is the U.S post office in serious financial trouble?  Yes it is
5.  Is the Senate cafeteria in red ink?  Yes it is
6.  Is the federal government RESPONSIBLE for this current economic collapse & all the bail-out's?  Yes it is  (through their incompetent management of Fannie/Freddie--in which they decided it would be a great idea to lower lending requirements while co-signing our names to 50% of the mortgages in this country--which created a financial domino effect on banking--AIG--Wall street & others.)

So now--do you still believe it's a good idea for them to take over health care?--


----------



## Chris (Oct 19, 2009)

oreo said:


> SmellyLemmings said:
> 
> 
> > President Obama's Healthcare Reform 'Public Option' Explained - LAist
> ...



What a fantasy world you live in.

Yes, Social Security and Medicare work quite well, and the post office does a great job. As do the police, the firemen, the military, and most all of the other government workers.

And Phil Gramm's deregulation of Wall Street created the $516 TRILLION DOLLAR derivative bubble that destroyed our economy. It wasn't the housing crisis.

So keep on living in your fantasy world.


----------



## Chris (Oct 19, 2009)

Varth Dader said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > We spend 16% of our GDP on health care, don't cover all of our citizens, and get lousy results. Japan spends 8%, has much better waiting times than we, and stellar results. And they cover all their citizens.
> ...


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 19, 2009)

Chris said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> > SmellyLemmings said:
> ...



As I said, chief dim bulb of the board.  SS and Medicare are bankrupt.  PO is bankrupt.  Police and firemen are local, not federal.  Military is hardly the model of efficiency and survive only by having basically unlimited funds.
Deregulation of wall st (whatever that means) has resulted in mega increases in net worth in this country over the last 10 years.
WHo lives in a fantasy world again??


----------



## Chris (Oct 20, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > oreo said:
> ...



SS and Medicare will always be solvent. Taxes will be raised to make it so. 

Same with the post office. The cost of stamps will go up to cover expenses. 

Phil Gramm deregulation of Wall Street allowed the creation of derivatives and the $516 TRILLION DOLLAR derivative bubble. Here's a link....

Derivatives are the new ticking time bomb Paul B. Farrell - MarketWatch

And the middle class lost ground in the last 8 years in real terms.

You just can't get anything right, can you?


----------



## Oddball (Oct 20, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> We spend 16% of our GDP on health care, don't cover all of our citizens, and get lousy results. Japan spends 8%, has much better waiting times than we, and stellar results. And they cover all their citizens.


Japan also has American troops as the real backbone of their military forces, per the capitulation of 1945.

Next completely flaccid argument?


----------



## Chris (Oct 20, 2009)

Dude said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > We spend 16% of our GDP on health care, don't cover all of our citizens, and get lousy results. Japan spends 8%, has much better waiting times than we, and stellar results. And they cover all their citizens.
> ...



Which is beside the point.

Every other industrialized nation in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare.


----------



## Oddball (Oct 20, 2009)

The bandwagon argument is fallacious and irrelevant.

Next?


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 20, 2009)

Chris said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


Raising taxes does not make a program solvent: it confirms its bankruptcy.  By that argument AIG and Citibank were solvent too.
One article by one dim bulb doesnt really make the case.  Derivatives have allowed a lot of risk arbitrage.
I think you are the one smoking something.


----------



## Annie (Oct 20, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Yet the politicians, doctors, and nurses are opting out of that wonderful UK system:

3,000 NHS staff get private care - Times Online



> October 18, 2009
> 3,000 NHS staff get private care
> Marie Woolf, Whitehall Editor
> 
> ...


 I guess the rest of the country doesn't need to get back to work?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 20, 2009)

The facts are these: national health care works, the quality of life and delivery of service is better for the population, and it costs far less than in America.  My own desire is a two-tier system here in America, so those who can afford a private option may do so if they wish.

All we are doing now is watching the various parts of the Democratic Party hammer out the final versions before Senate-House reconciliation of the two versions.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 20, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> The facts are these: national health care works, the quality of life and delivery of service is better for the population, and it costs far less than in America.  My own desire is a two-tier system here in America, so those who can afford a private option may do so if they wish.
> 
> All we are doing now is watching the various parts of the Democratic Party hammer out the final versions before Senate-House reconciliation of the two versions.



Even more stinking turds from Jake, King ot he Unsubstantiated Statement!


----------



## Care4all (Oct 20, 2009)

Big Black Dog said:


> I am very leary of this whole Obama Health Care Reform business for several reasons.  The first being the socialized medicine if the Public Option portion of it is passed.  The government has no business in the insurance business at all.  It isn't allowed by the Constitution.  I believe there is a need for health care reform in the US - I think most people do - but if done so by the government it will just grow the size of government, give the government even more control over your life and privacy and cost way too much money.  The government can't even manage social security and medicare.  Those two programs are just for a small portion of Americans.  How in the world does anybody with any brains think the government can manage health care for the whole nation with their past track record?  Another big problem is the cost.  Just where is the money going to come from for this reform package being pushed by the government?  The US already is very deeply in debt to China and others.  The money we owe China alone is frightening and now they want to borrow more to pay for the reform?  A very bad move I am sure.  It will bankrupt the country.  The government says they will save enough from revamping medicare alone to pay for most of the reform.  I don't believe it.  The government never has saved anything in it's past history of financial endeavors.  Let's have them physically show us the savings before we jump like frogs into this mess.  It is a time for people to think with their brains and not with their hearts.



Can you please show me, what in the constitution does not allow citizens to BUY THEIR OWN HEALTH INSURANCE with their own money?

Can you please show me where Medicare or Medicaid or Social security insurance or flood insurance is UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

you and others keep SAYING this but I see nothing in the constitution that prevents this....???


----------



## Varth Dader (Oct 20, 2009)

Dude said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > We spend 16% of our GDP on health care, don't cover all of our citizens, and get lousy results. Japan spends 8%, has much better waiting times than we, and stellar results. And they cover all their citizens.
> ...



Funny, that reminds me of the "Canadian are living off of the US for their cheap medicine". Maybe it's time we take a hint?

(The best part is when politicians want to reimport drugs from Canada)


----------



## Care4all (Oct 20, 2009)

Dude said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > We spend 16% of our GDP on health care, don't cover all of our citizens, and get lousy results. Japan spends 8%, has much better waiting times than we, and stellar results. And they cover all their citizens.
> ...



and BECAUSE of THAT dude, the usa should be spending LESS of their gdp on health care than Japan....because we have a huge military industrial complex spending that is in our gdp, then our health care costs should be a smaller percent of the overall gdp when prorated.

and japan's health care costs of there gdp SHOULD BE A LARGER percent of their gdp because they do not have a military expense in their gdp.

so it is really much WORSE....we should be spending only +/- 4% of gdp on healthcare....or a lower percentage than Japan.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 20, 2009)

What does military spending have to do with health care spending?  It is totally fallacious.
WHat do Japanese health care costs have to do with American costs? It is totally fallacious.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Oct 20, 2009)

SmellyLemmings said:


> President Obama's Healthcare Reform 'Public Option' Explained - LAist
> 
> I'm a little confused when it comes to the public option debate. I dont know if I should support it or not.
> 
> This website shows a nifty chart explaining how public option would work, which was very helpful. But I still can't ignore how public option reminds me of socialized medicine. What about the death panel debate, the limitations on doctors and individual patient options? Not to mention the HUGE cost for this small part to healthcare reform. My paycheck is as thin enough with the other governmental programs I still pay for. So is public option worth supporting, or are u like me; a little skeptical. thanks for the comments!!



The public option WILL lead to socialized single payer health CARE run by the government.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...lead-to-single-payer-government-run-care.html

Many democrats, including those in Obama's administration agree
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndStT6c93rc]YouTube - Proof Positive the Public Option Will Lead to Single Payer[/ame]

My own democrat congressman also agrees
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3BS4C9el98]YouTube - Single Payer Action Confronts Barney Frank[/ame]


And so does President Obama


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk]YouTube - SHOCK UNCOVERED: Obama IN HIS OWN WORDS saying His Health Care Plan will ELIMINATE private insurance[/ame]

The Public option also will not be defecit neutral and will be taxpayer subsidized


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2aV6uJGkP0&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Christropher Hayes, Netroots Nation Day 1, Simple Explanation of the Proposed Public Option[/ame]

What does the "public" in "public option" really mean? - Consumer Watchdog


If you couldnt afford the full premium and you made less than 400% of the federal poverty line (about $43,000 for an individual or $88,000 for a family of 4), youd get a subsidy so your premium would be pegged to a fixed percentage of your income.

Its in the bill as such http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf



Did I help clear it up for you?


----------



## judyd (Oct 20, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



That is where you're wrong.  You must not have had a serious operation in the US, or had your elderly parent in the hospital if you think there is no problem in the US and we have the best treatment.  WE DON'T!!!  The insurance companies dictate to the hospitals in the US what can be done or not done for patients--if the hospitals want them to pay them, that is.  It's pretty harsh.  

And how about pre-existing conditions which don't get paid for in the US?  Many people are afraid to change jobs because they won't be able to get insurance again.  So they are stuck in deadend jobs.

People in other countries think the US system is insane and rightly so.  Why should employers have to be involved in our healthcare?  Why are we paying ridiculous rates for pharmaceutical products?  

I would love to have the healthcare system they have in most European countries.


----------



## Oddball (Oct 20, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


According to whom?

I don't suppose you realize that a lot of what Americans spend on medical services is for electives like lasik and boob jobs, do you?


----------



## Harry Dresden (Oct 20, 2009)

Chris said:


> Same with the post office. *The cost of stamps will go up to cover expenses.
> *
> You just can't get anything right, can you?



the cost of the stamp has very little to do with covering expenses....the so called junkmail is what keeps the cost of that stamp so low.....the direct mail advertisers are who pay the majority of the  expenses in the PO.......


----------



## Oddball (Oct 20, 2009)

Varth Dader said:


> Funny, that reminds me of the "Canadian are living off of the US for their cheap medicine". Maybe it's time we take a hint?
> 
> (The best part is when politicians want to reimport drugs from Canada)


I have no problem with that.....If Canadians want to subsidize medications, why not let Americans get in on their foolishness?


----------



## Harry Dresden (Oct 20, 2009)

Chris said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



when Japan has to start defending themselves and has to put more into their military....that will change....


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 20, 2009)

Actually my wife just spent time in both the ER and the hospital last week, so it's pretty fresh.
She got excellent timely care.  The ER offered us a deal if we paid the cost before we left.  I did so.  It was very reasonable.

The rest of the world has its head up its ass.  I don't care what they think.  You want Euro-style medicine, where survival rates for breast and ovarian cancer are worse than the US and tax rates are probably twice and structural unemployment is rampant, go move to Europe.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Oct 20, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Can you please show me, what in the constitution does not allow citizens to BUY THEIR OWN HEALTH INSURANCE with their own money?
> 
> Can you please show me where Medicare or Medicaid or Social security insurance or flood insurance is UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
> 
> you and others keep SAYING this but I see nothing in the constitution that prevents this....???



have they not been asking those like yourself to show them....where in the Constitution it says the govt should be involved in health ins.....it seems to go both ways......get everyone together and make an amendment.....that says this,case closed....until then....its the Ins. Industries ballgame....


----------



## Varth Dader (Oct 20, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Can you please show me, what in the constitution does not allow citizens to BUY THEIR OWN HEALTH INSURANCE with their own money?
> ...



It says that under the commerce clause or the general welfare clause.


----------



## Oddball (Oct 20, 2009)

Varth Dader said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


James Madison disagrees with you.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa41.htm


----------



## Varth Dader (Oct 20, 2009)

Dude said:


> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



James Madison is dead, the Federalist papers are not part of the signed document, the Federalist papers are not even mentionned in the document, the SCOTUS has an interpretation of the commerce clause that would likely support such a plan, etc.


----------



## Oddball (Oct 20, 2009)

Are you beiung obtuse on purpose?

In Federalist 41, James Madison (the architect of the Constitution), explained in very clear terms what was meant by "general welfare", and a fascistic takeover of the medical services industry doesn't come anywhere near that description.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Oct 20, 2009)

Varth Dader said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



Neither clause gives them this power.

To Provide the General Defense and PROMOTE the general welfare.   If they meant it to provide for the general welfare then the authors would have stated such.

I'm glad to see no one challenging my factful statement that the obama admin and dems in congress are planning to use the public option to lead to Socialized Single Payer Government Run Care.   I've posted this fact with links across multiple threads and not one supporter has dissagreed....i'm glad you guys all admit to this fact.  Kudos to you all.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 20, 2009)

The final portion of Rab's post at the top of the page is simply false.  He can't document it, which is his  burden, so let's move on.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Oct 20, 2009)

Varth Dader said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



thats already been debunked about 10x here in different threads....


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 20, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> The final portion of Rab's post at the top of the page is simply false.  He can't document it, which is his  burden, so let's move on.



I have several times in different posts.
So it's another smelly piece of shit from the keyboard of "Jake, King of the Unsubstantiated Statement."


----------



## Varth Dader (Oct 20, 2009)

Dude said:


> Are you beiung obtuse on purpose?
> 
> In Federalist 41, James Madison (the architect of the Constitution), explained in very clear terms what was meant by "general welfare", and a fascistic takeover of the medical services industry doesn't come anywhere near that description.



Like I said, what James Madison thought of the meaning of the words "general welfare" is of great interest, yet isn't "binding". No one voted for the Federalist 41, they voted for the constitution, and over time, it's our job to interpret the constitution. We are allowed to give words their plain meaning.


----------



## Oddball (Oct 20, 2009)

Varth Dader said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Are you beiung obtuse on purpose?
> ...


Jesus tapdancing Christ.....You _*are*_ being obtuse on purpose.

The Constitution itself was ratified as the law of the land, with the meanings of its semantics and intents being expounded upon in the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers.

Claiming that you get to change the meanings of the words and their clear intents to suit your situational ethics is straight out Orwellian bullshit.


----------



## Chris (Oct 20, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Actually my wife just spent time in both the ER and the hospital last week, so it's pretty fresh.
> She got excellent timely care.  The ER offered us a deal if we paid the cost before we left.  I did so.  It was very reasonable.
> 
> The rest of the world has its head up its ass.  I don't care what they think.  You want Euro-style medicine, where survival rates for breast and ovarian cancer are worse than the US and tax rates are probably twice and structural unemployment is rampant, go move to Europe.



Europe's unemployment rate is less than ours.

And their healthcare costs HALF as much per capita as ours, and they have a higher life expectancy. And the French have many more doctors per capita than we do.

But keep living in your fantasy world where you don't check facts.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 21, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > oreo said:
> ...



You do Rabbi.  There is a lot that government does that works well in spite of congress and their meddling with things for personal gain.

Safe food?  Thank government!

Do you ever use Roads, Bridges, Airports, etc?  Thank government!

Think about it!


----------



## Care4all (Oct 21, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



first, the government is not taking over health care and running it in these bills, they are regulating it...and it is within their powers to regulate imo.

Is Social Security, and Medicare, and medicaid unconstitutional?  I haven't had a chance to go back in the thread yet to see if anyone has answered that question, so I apologize if you answered already Harry....



Care


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 21, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



It isnt that they dont get things done.  It is that they get things done in the most expensive least efficient way possible.  And in doing so they destroy private enterprise, enslave the population, and reduce us to serfs.  The health care mess will be more of the same, a lot more.  And it is completely unnecessary.


----------



## Varth Dader (Oct 21, 2009)

Dude said:


> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



If Madison wanted to make anything really clear, then he had to put it in the document and people had to sign it. That is "clear" intent.

After that, you have to go in the heads of everyone that signed the constitution to really understand the meaning, and that's not possible to do.

If you write a clause in a contract, write the federalist paper to go along with it, but we both sign the contract, your signature is not worth any more or any less than mine, especially if you want the contract to be binding on both of us.

In any event, the type of static interpretation of the constitution you want is not appropriate in my humble opinion. Logic like yours is the one that gives us crappy decisions like Dred v Scott. This is part of the decision:



> It begins by declaring that,
> 
> [w]hen in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to [p410] assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature's God entitle them, a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
> 
> ...



That's the type of approach you take. Even though the words say "All men are created equal", surely the African race was "not intended to be included".


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 21, 2009)

I thought Obama said doctors were *all* for it?




> The White House and Democratic leaders are offering doctors a deal: They&#8217;ll freeze cuts in Medicare payments to doctors in exchange for doctors&#8217; support of healthcare reform.
> 
> At a meeting on Capitol Hill last week with nearly a dozen doctors groups, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said the Senate would take up separate legislation to halt scheduled Medicare cuts in doctor payments over the next 10 years. In return, Reid made it clear that he expected their support for the broader healthcare bill, according to four sources in the meeting.



Reid offers doctors a deal


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 21, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Bullshit, Rabid. They are not getting the job done. They are merely transfering the wealth of the producing people in our society to the parasites running the so called Health Care companies.

Time to emulate the other industrial nations and provide all citizens with coverage, and reduce the cost at the same time.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 21, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



Other than having it completely backwards you are correct 100%.


----------



## woodjack (Oct 21, 2009)

I am curious for the people that can afford health care insurance now and do not buy it.  If the Public option comes into play, will people really jump on it and pay the premiums for it?  For those that cannot afford it now but want it, I can see why they would get it; but then again they would still have to pay premiums to be able to get it albeit at a reduced cost.  Looking at insurance for vehicles and how many people do not have it, how can the government guarentee that people will pay their premiums for it to work.  

I do think alot of people automaticly assume that the public option means free health care. most  of the uninformed probably think that, I also heard that they would fine people that do not get health care,  there is alot of assumption going on in the government, if they fine people for not getting insurance how are they going to pay for that as well as the premuims for health insurance.  

in a perfect world it would work, but there are alot of people that will not buy it "deadbeats" or do not even know they have to buy it.  are they going to offer classes to those people that do not understand it or will it all be controlled by some bureaucrats and who will enforce the fines?  

I could be all wrong about this and everyone will jump on it but I still do not think they will get the people to pay for it.  and on top of that have they actually coem up with how much the premuims will be anyway?  

I mean there are alot of folks that do not pay their child support/auto insurance and parking tickets/speeding tickets and numerous other things.  I am sick of the debate about it but looking at how people sometimes are it is hard for me to believe this is going to be all that they say it is going to be.


----------



## judyd (Oct 21, 2009)

woodjack said:


> I am curious for the people that can afford health care insurance now and do not buy it.  If the Public option comes into play, will people really jump on it and pay the premiums for it?  For those that cannot afford it now but want it, I can see why they would get it; but then again they would still have to pay premiums to be able to get it albeit at a reduced cost.  Looking at insurance for vehicles and how many people do not have it, how can the government guarentee that people will pay their premiums for it to work.
> 
> I do think alot of people automaticly assume that the public option means free health care. most  of the uninformed probably think that, I also heard that they would fine people that do not get health care,  there is alot of assumption going on in the government, if they fine people for not getting insurance how are they going to pay for that as well as the premuims for health insurance.
> 
> ...



i don't think you can compare health and auto insurance.  Those who don't have auto insurance are usually dropped because of DUI's or multiple accidents, and can't get affordable insurance with another company.  

People who don't get health insurance usually just can't afford it.  Also many younger healthy people figure they will forego insurance because they "never get sick".  They see it as a low priority.   Should it be a requirement, yes, I do believe most will get it.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Oct 21, 2009)

I support Single Payer Universal Health care-  Barack Obama
I support a public option as it is the way to lead to socialized single payer healthcare -Barney Frank
The public option isn't a trojan horse for single payer, its right there for everyone to see -Obama advisor (i forgot his name but i have a vid if you want me to post it AGAIN)


No a public option can't work as those who are implimenting it are doing so just to get Single Payer Government run care.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 21, 2009)

judyd said:


> i don't think you can compare health and auto insurance.  Those who don't have auto insurance are usually dropped because of DUI's or multiple accidents, and can't get affordable insurance with another company.
> 
> People who don't get health insurance usually just can't afford it.  Also many younger healthy people figure they will forego insurance because they "never get sick".  They see it as a low priority.   Should it be a requirement, yes, I do believe most will get it.



Why can't you compare them?  They are perfectly comparable.  People without health insurance generally think they can get by without it because of the expense.  Ditto with people without car insurance.
I really dont see a lot of difference.  They are there for the same reason.


----------



## judyd (Oct 21, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> judyd said:
> 
> 
> > i don't think you can compare health and auto insurance.  Those who don't have auto insurance are usually dropped because of DUI's or multiple accidents, and can't get affordable insurance with another company.
> ...



No, you can't compare them.  Are there any states that DON'T require auto insurance?  People who don't insure their cars are usually lawbreakers.  People who don't buy health insurance are not.  They are just prioritizing what they feel are their necessary expenses.


----------



## Oddball (Oct 21, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> judyd said:
> 
> 
> > i don't think you can compare health and auto insurance.  Those who don't have auto insurance are usually dropped because of DUI's or multiple accidents, and can't get affordable insurance with another company.
> ...


Because auto insurance protects you against liability if you harm someone else or damage their property...It doesn't cover your expenses for oil changes or new tires.


----------



## Maple (Oct 21, 2009)

SmellyLemmings said:


> President Obama's Healthcare Reform 'Public Option' Explained - LAist
> 
> I'm a little confused when it comes to the public option debate. I dont know if I should support it or not.
> 
> This website shows a nifty chart explaining how public option would work, which was very helpful. But I still can't ignore how public option reminds me of socialized medicine. What about the death panel debate, the limitations on doctors and individual patient options? Not to mention the HUGE cost for this small part to healthcare reform. My paycheck is as thin enough with the other governmental programs I still pay for. So is public option worth supporting, or are u like me; a little skeptical. thanks for the comments!!



Here's your answer.

Social Security- bankrupt
Medicare- Bankrupt
Medicaid - bankrupt
Freddie and Fannie - Bankrupt.
The postal service- bankrupt.

With a resume that looks like that, why would any sane person turn over another 6% of our economy? Answer- a sane person wouldn't, an insane person would.

The reason it reminds you of socialized medicine, is because, that's exactly what it is.


----------



## Maple (Oct 21, 2009)

The whole problem with the public option is that employers who now cover their employee's health insurance would dump their coverage on their employee's forcing them to go to the public option. 

Employers who don't insure their employees would be fined a payroll tax of 8%. Employers already pay MORE than 8% to cover their employee's insurance. This would be a very attractive incentive for business's to dump their health insurance plans forcing everyone onto the public option.


----------



## Maple (Oct 21, 2009)

" A government big enough to give you everything you need is big enough to take everything that you have." Thomas Jefferson


----------



## judyd (Oct 21, 2009)

Maple said:


> The whole problem with the public option is that employers who now cover their employee's health insurance would dump their coverage on their employee's forcing them to go to the public option.
> 
> Employers who don't insure their employees would be fined a payroll tax of 8%. Employers already pay MORE than 8% to cover their employee's insurance. This would be a very attractive incentive for business's to dump their health insurance plans forcing everyone onto the public option.



Why do you feel that employers should be saddled with the health insurance concerns of their employees?  I never understood why they had to get involved in that.  Some companies have to have a person dedicated just to working out the health insurance problems of the employees.  Why does that make sense to you?


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 21, 2009)

judyd said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > judyd said:
> ...



There used to be states that didnt require it.  TN didnt up until 3 years ago or so.  When the Baucus bill passes people who don't buy health insurance will be lawbreakers.
But I don't see why any of that matters.
Health insurance covers financial risks you can't afford to take.  Auto insurance covers financials risks you can't afford to take.  Where is the  difference??


----------



## judyd (Oct 21, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> judyd said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



I live in Maryland and if you can't provide proof of insurance when you renew your tags, you can't register your car.   It is illegal to drive a car without insurance.  

It is NOT illegal to go without health insurance in any state.  THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE!

There are a lot of healthy young people who don't have health insurance now simply because they don't see it as a priority.  But yes, they probably will comply with the law as it is written.  There also may be some lawbreakers--there are always a few.


----------



## auditor0007 (Oct 21, 2009)

Maple said:


> The whole problem with the public option is that employers who now cover their employee's health insurance would dump their coverage on their employee's forcing them to go to the public option.
> 
> Employers who don't insure their employees would be fined a payroll tax of 8%. Employers already pay MORE than 8% to cover their employee's insurance. This would be a very attractive incentive for business's to dump their health insurance plans forcing everyone onto the public option.



I understand your convictions, but your arguments fail miserably.  Not saying you are completely incorrect, but let's look at some of your points.

First of all you argue that all government programs have been failures.  You use Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Fannie May/Freddie Mac, and the USPS as examples.

Everyone of those programs have been successful.  However, they have been abused and/or miscalculated.  For instance, Social Security would still be very solvent had we not allowed our elected representatives to continually borrow from the funding of that program for the last 30 plus years.  

Funding for Medicare and Medicaid were calculated based on healthcare costs from the 60's and 70's when total healthcare spending only accounted for around 7% of GDP.  Now it accounts for 17%, and we're still trying to fund those programs based on them accounting for 7% of GDP.  Those programs didn't drive up the cost of healthcare; healthcare costs drove up the cost to fund those programs.  And what drove up the cost of healthcare?  Many things including unrealistic awards from lawsuits due to malpractice, new technologies, and employer provided Cadillac healthcare plans.  

As for the USPS, they lost a huge percentage of their volume due to the Internet, yet they continue trying to provide first class mail service at a low price.  It can't be done.  Neither UPS or Fed Ex could provide first class mail service for $.42 per letter.  They too would go bankrupt.  So the USPS needs to raise their rates, plain and simple.

In almost every case of government programs gone bad, the blame lies with the voters who elect representatives who do not serve their best interests, and then those same voters refuse to throw them out with the power of their vote.  

Now let's move on to your support of our current system.  You are assuming that by leaving things as they are, everything will be fine.  The fact is that healthcare costs are going to double again over the next ten years for employers who provide health insurance to their employees, and that will happen while our economy as a whole stagnates, so the cost will be in real dollars, not inflated dollars.  Employers will begin to go belly up or they will drop their insurance coverage for their employees.  Companies not permitted to drop coverage by law, will cut pay for employees and force employees to pay a much bigger percentage of their healthcare costs.  In the end, this will dramatically reduce the standard of living for most working Americans, and it will leave even more people without coverage.

If you have some great ideas as to how we can improve the system while actually cutting costs, I'd love to hear them, because that is what we need.  However, supporting our current failed system is no answer.


----------



## Oddball (Oct 21, 2009)

How to reframe and requalify miserable failures as successes in one easy post! 

Incredible.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 21, 2009)

judyd said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > judyd said:
> ...



Are you hard of reading?
When Obamacare passes it will be illegal to go without health care.
But what freaking difference does the legality or illegality of it make?? None.  States could change their laws to not require auto insurance.  States could start requiring health insurance (MA already does).
They are perfectly comparable in terms of what each insurance does.


----------



## auditor0007 (Oct 21, 2009)

Dude said:


> How to reframe and requalify miserable failures as successes in one easy post!
> 
> Incredible.



Well apparently health insurance companies would qualify as miserable failures also since they have played such a major role in driving costs through the roof, woudln't you agree?  Why is it that people are paying so much more for health insurance now then they did 30 years ago?  I thought capitalism and the market was the way to keep costs down?  Isn't that what you tell us all the time?  So why then have health insurance costs gone through the roof despite being left in the hands of private industry?  

Make all the excuses you want Dude, there is no justification, and blaming it all on the evil goverenment isn't going to cut it.  What is incredible is that you can't see this when it is as clear as a cloudless sky.


----------



## Annie (Oct 21, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > How to reframe and requalify miserable failures as successes in one easy post!
> ...


How about people buying insurance for everything from teeth to refrigerators? When it comes to 'health care' most can afford the necessities, but would crap out with hospitalization, yet were all over insured, which is what drove up the rates and made so many run to doctors when unnecessary. Which led to a mill effect at docs, where we no longer know the doc nor they us. No problem suing then...


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 21, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> Well apparently health insurance companies would qualify as miserable failures also since they have played such a major role in driving costs through the roof, woudln't you agree?  *Why is it that people are paying so much more for health insurance now then they did 30 years ago?*  I thought capitalism and the market was the way to keep costs down?  Isn't that what you tell us all the time?  So why then have health insurance costs gone through the roof despite being left in the hands of private industry?
> 
> Make all the excuses you want Dude, there is no justification, and blaming it all on the evil goverenment isn't going to cut it.  What is incredible is that you can't see this when it is as clear as a cloudless sky.



Maybe because health care is so much better than it was 30 years ago?  THere are millions of people, hundreds of millions, who are alive today, and who are functional today that would have been dead or severaly disabled 30 years ago.  Look at Hodgkins Disease.  I remember a boy in the Junior High class ahead of mine (this was about 1975) who had it and died.  Mortality was about 95% in those days.  Today the cure rate is about 95%.
Virtually every type of treatment and diagnosis has come light years from 30 years ago.  Is the extra cost worth it? Damn skippy it is.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Oct 21, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> If you have some great ideas as to how we can improve the system while actually cutting costs, I'd love to hear them, because that is what we need.  However, supporting our current failed system is no answer.



1) Allow people to purchase health insurance across state lines.  Increasing competition and driving down prices
2) Include Tort reform to lower malpractice insurance costs and waste through things such as overtesting just to avoid lawsuits.  (For example i said my shoulder hurt and they gave me an x-ray to see if it was broken, then they decided to do an MRI also WTF)
3) Pass regulations requiring insurance companies to uphold their end of the contract when you get sick.  No disqualifying patients for stupid little reasons just to get out of paying for what you promised to cover.
4) Provide a 100% income tax credit to all families making under 100,000 a year and individuals making under 70,000 a year (even if people like me making 40,000/year can afford to buy their own).  After that no credit.   Those making under 2x the poverty line will receive a tax refund directly relating to the amount they paid for insurance.


I also say pass each one of these ideas individually, based on their own merits.   Dont jam them all into some 1500 page bill that the congress wont read.

They say health care wouldn't kick in, if passed, till 2013 anyway, so why not start now with smaller steps instead of completely altering the entire system?



Its about time i made a real healthcare post instead of skipping like a broken record on the publicoptionbecomessingelpayeruniversalcare record


----------



## auditor0007 (Oct 21, 2009)

Annie said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



I agree.  These insurance policies that cover everything from A to Z just add to the administrative costs which in turn have helped drive costs even higher.  And most people could afford to pay out of pocket for the basics other than catastrophic coverage.  

Since I lost my coverage, I now pay cash.  It is much cheaper too.  When I go to my doctor, they have to figure out how much to charge me because they don't even know the rates themselves, becuase they are so used to punching in a code for whatever service based on the insurer.  Once they figure out what to charge, they then give me a 20% discount for paying cash.


----------



## auditor0007 (Oct 21, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Well apparently health insurance companies would qualify as miserable failures also since they have played such a major role in driving costs through the roof, woudln't you agree?  *Why is it that people are paying so much more for health insurance now then they did 30 years ago?*  I thought capitalism and the market was the way to keep costs down?  Isn't that what you tell us all the time?  So why then have health insurance costs gone through the roof despite being left in the hands of private industry?
> ...



More effective shouldn't necessarily mean more expensive.  That person with Hodgkins disease in 1975 was still treated.  It just didn't work.  Look at it this way; would you be willing to spend 100% of GDP on healthcare if it insured that no one ever died and we lived forever?


----------



## Oddball (Oct 21, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > How to reframe and requalify miserable failures as successes in one easy post!
> ...


Right...Deflect from you inane arguments, claiming that miserably failed gubmint programs are successful, by pointing at insurance companies.


----------



## auditor0007 (Oct 21, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > If you have some great ideas as to how we can improve the system while actually cutting costs, I'd love to hear them, because that is what we need.  However, supporting our current failed system is no answer.
> ...



While allowing insurnance companies to sell their policies across state lines sounds like a great idea, it won't change anything other than to allow people to keep their insurance when they move, and that would be a very good thing.  That is how I lost my insurance, because I moved to a different state and had pre-existing conditions.  The thing is that most insurance companies could do this already.  I was with Anthem, and Anthem is in the state I moved to also.  They could have offered me a similar policy as my old one if they wanted to keep me, but because I became sick while I was insured by them, they wanted to dump me.  All the years I had been with them didn't make a difference.

The thing is, the costs of these policies will still remain high if they try to cover everything for everybody.  And adding even more insurers for doctors and hospitals to deal with will not reduce costs; it will increase them as it will increase the administrative workload involved.  If costs are ever to be reduced, it will have to come at the point of delivery, not the middle man who just shuffles papers.


----------



## auditor0007 (Oct 21, 2009)

Dude said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Talk about deflection.


----------



## Oddball (Oct 21, 2009)

Still can't defend your hilarious spin, claiming bankrupt gubmint programs are successful, can you?


----------



## Harry Dresden (Oct 21, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Varth Dader said:
> ...



Care....i havent answered that Question....but the other day on c-span....a Dem Representative was saying "Govt.Run Health Care"....those were his words.....i also recall Pelosi saying those same words......so is Govt Run Health Care now just getting to mean the same as Govt Regulated Health Care to many people?.....these two terms are getting bandied about.....apparently....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Oct 21, 2009)

judyd said:


> Why do you feel that employers should be saddled with the health insurance concerns of their employees?  I never understood why they had to get involved in that.  *Some companies have to have a person dedicated just to working out the health insurance problems of the employees. * Why does that make sense to you?



so now we will get to have a govt employee doing the same.....only this time there will be a WHOLE bunch of them.....and im more than sure there will be a WHOLE bunch more problems....


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 21, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...



Your response is bizarre.
How do you think treatments become more effective?  THe tooth fairy?  No, these come about through research and development, which is expensive.  They add tremendously to the economic utility of the country, allowing people to have productive lives who would have been burdens, at best, on everyone else.  What is it worth to have Steve Jobs still working at Apple?
Your last question is just a puzzler.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Oct 21, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Health insurance covers financial risks you can't afford to take.  Auto insurance covers financials risks you can't afford to take.  Where is the  difference??



the difference is....when you get to those financial risks you cant afford to take.....the Govt is not going to be anymore helpful than any ins co out there.....the answer is still going to be TOUGH SHIT....unless of course you sign every fucking thing you own over to them....then they will talk....


----------



## Oddball (Oct 21, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Health insurance covers financial risks you can't afford to take.  Auto insurance covers financials risks you can't afford to take.  Where is the  difference??


Nobody expects that their auto insurance is going to cover oil changes and new tires.


----------



## auditor0007 (Oct 21, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



We now have computers that are much more effective than the first computers, and they cost much less in real dollars.   The same goes for cell phones.  Actually, the same holds true for most all newer technologies.  With advancements in technologies, things usually get cheaper.  But not so with healthcare.  In fact, it is just the opposite.  And no, they are not exactly the same, but the fact is that the new technologies are not the only reason healthcare costs have risen so much as a percentage of GDP or as a percentage of our income.  If that alone were the case, then there would be no real argument.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 21, 2009)

Okay, fair enough.  Even though developing drugs is infintely more expensive than developing computer chips.
But anyway.  Your point is good.
The issue is that the people buying healthcare and the people paying for it aren't the same people.  This is the problem with 3rd party payers, no one is really minding the store.  The Obamacare proposals (whatever they are this week) will do nothing to help that and everything to make it worse.


----------



## auditor0007 (Oct 21, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



How is my last question a puzzler?  It is an impossiblity of course.  We can't spend 100% of GDP on healthcare, because then there would be nothing left of our economy.  No one would have money for food yet alone shelter.  The question is, how much of our economy can we afford to devote to healthcare if we want a thriving economy and a decent standard of living for as many as possible?


----------



## auditor0007 (Oct 21, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Okay, fair enough.  Even though developing drugs is infintely more expensive than developing computer chips.
> But anyway.  Your point is good.
> The issue is that the people buying healthcare and the people paying for it aren't the same people.  This is the problem with 3rd party payers, no one is really minding the store.  The Obamacare proposals (whatever they are this week) will do nothing to help that and everything to make it worse.



I'm not sure that anything can make it worse, but I would agree that it won't do anything to make it better other than maybe make it possible for me to purchase health insurance.  But it won't reduce costs.  Neither will leaving things as they are.  Honestly, a one-payer system could reduce costs but it is not likely to give us great results when it comes to service.  The biggest problem with the current plan is that it just adds more garbage to an already disasterous system where the middle man is the big winner.


----------



## Political Junky (Oct 21, 2009)

Yes, it will work as Medicare for everyone or Medicare E. Anyone could subscribe to Medicare E, which has been very efficient at serving seniors.
Even cons and blue dogs would have trouble voting against Medicare.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Oct 21, 2009)

Political Junky said:


> Yes, it will work as Medicare for everyone or Medicare E. Anyone could subscribe to Medicare E, which has been very efficient at serving seniors.
> Even cons and blue dogs would have trouble voting against Medicare.


medicare is not as efficient as you seem to think it is.....to many seniors and Doctors it is a PAIN IN THE ASS.....


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 21, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, it will work as Medicare for everyone or Medicare E. Anyone could subscribe to Medicare E, which has been very efficient at serving seniors.
> ...



And with the scheduled cuts in payment, the ones the administration is bargaining to put off in return for support from the AMA, doctors will get so little that many of them are going to quit practicing altogether.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 21, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...



I dont think there is a number there.  It's like saying, how much of our economy can we spend on food, or anything else?  It is what it is. It costs what it costs.


----------



## Chris (Oct 22, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



What a crock of shit.

Providing government insurance for the old and the sick is not going to "enslave" anyone.

Every other industrialized country in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare.

And many of them have a higher life expectancy than we do.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Oct 22, 2009)

Chris said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



hey Chris....if thing passes and it turns into a absolute disaster....will we see Chris say he was wrong or will Chris just make sure he never posts on threads concerning this topic?....


----------



## Care4all (Oct 22, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



Well, I am getting confused myself on all of this...I know I differ with you all, but I think the Public Insurance option within each state's Insurance exchange is necessary for competition...I like the House 3200 plan for the Public Insurance Option...

Which gives NO PREFERENCE of any sort towards the public option...where they have to follow all rules that the private sector has to follow in the bill, 

and WHERE the Public option can not get tax payer's funds to help support it, WHERE it has to be FULLY PAID FOR THROUGH INSURANCE PREMIUMS of the policy holders and ONLY the policy holders. 

where there is no mandate that if one loses their job that they have to go on to this option...it is SIMPLY AN OPTION that anyone buying insurance on the exchange, can CHOOSE to buy.

HOWEVER, I heard someone on c-span talking about what Baucus says the public option should be and he mentioned Medicare and taxes and all kinds of shit and different things the public option could mean...MANY OF WHICH I DO NOT AGREE WITH....

So, I am at the state of total confusion on it now....  

Care


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 22, 2009)

Harry, if we could lock out Libs every time they were proved to be wrong we'd have gulags of these suckers in Kansas somewhere.
The Libs have been wrong about every issue from Communism in the 1930s to Great Society programs in the 1960s to Soviet intentions in the 1980s up to the present day.  A more failed record it would be hard to produce.  And yet they show no shame, no remorse, and certainly no admission of wrong.  Instead they blame someone else.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 22, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



How is a public option within a state going to produce competition with private providers?  What advantages will a public corporation have that existing companies dont that they can offer lower rates and/or better coverage?


----------



## Care4all (Oct 22, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



it would operate as a nonprofit coop....where plan holders pay for the company expenses.....if they do make a profit this profit has to go in to better benefits for the plan's policy holders, or a reduction in price for their policies.

the ceo's of each plan will get their millions, but with the public insurance plan i envision the ceo salaries not being as lucrative, like NO $200 MILLION A YEAR in salary for one person, but maybe $2 million or $5 million a year salary....

how it will be competition is by being efficient....if they can not operate on a lower overhead than the private insurance companies, then they will get no new customers because they will be offering insurance plans at about the same price as the private plans....but if they do find huge savings in overhead costs or inefficiencies and lower their prices substantially, THEN the private companies, in order to keep their market share of the business, will FIND the areas of their businesses that they can be more efficient in, so to compete...

they will NOT just throw in their hands and give up.....they will find a way to compete through dotting i's and crossing t's....this is why competition in capitalism is so critical....to keep prices reasonable and affordable through being more efficient, more productive with the dollars in hand to spend....

this is why monopolies are against the law....and for no other reason.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 22, 2009)

Let's start with profit margins at insurance companies are like 4% and under.  So any "non profit" company has a 4% advantage.
Unfortunately the tendency of non profits is not to work efficiently since there is no incentive to.  So that 4% is likely to get wasted in administrative expenses from the get go.
Further, if you cap executive salaries like that you will end up with people who can't cut it at the private insurers.  Those executives typically make that much because they earn it.  Obviously some of them are losers and they tend to get fired.  But for the most part the compensation is the function of the market.  If you pay peanuts, you hire monkeys, is the rule.
Finally there are already non profit co-ops out there operating.  Experience is that their premiums are no lower than competing private corporations, probably for all the reasons I've mentioned.
So, no it is not a cure all.

The only way it will "work" will be to take subsidies from taxpayers.  This will allow them to undercut private insurers, taking business away.  Of course they lose on every policy they write, requiring more and more subsidy.  Eventually we end up with "single payer" anyway.  And I suspect this was the game plan all along.


----------



## Bern80 (Oct 22, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> We need two types - some sort of maintenance program for physicals and such and 'insurance' for if your kid gets leukemia.



I think this is a good idea. But I would say maybe not even two type of coverage. Why not just have people pay out of pocket for there yearly flu, bumps, bruises, checkups, screenings, etc? Then just have some type of catastrophic coverage.

Personally I think HSA are a great way to do this. In our company you set how much you want in your account each year. You get that money from the start of the year and pay for it the rest of the year by having a portion come out of your paycheck. Best of all it is done before taxes.


----------



## Care4all (Oct 22, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Let's start with profit margins at insurance companies are like 4% and under.  So any "non profit" company has a 4% advantage.
> Unfortunately the tendency of non profits is not to work efficiently since there is no incentive to.  So that 4% is likely to get wasted in administrative expenses from the get go.
> Further, if you cap executive salaries like that you will end up with people who can't cut it at the private insurers.  Those executives typically make that much because they earn it.  Obviously some of them are losers and they tend to get fired.  But for the most part the compensation is the function of the market.  If you pay peanuts, you hire monkeys, is the rule.
> Finally there are already non profit co-ops out there operating.  Experience is that their premiums are no lower than competing private corporations, probably for all the reasons I've mentioned.
> ...



i never mentioned salaries being capped at the private companies....the private companies themselves with their shareholders and board will have to decide what their ceo is worth....they will not let the company fall, before renegotiating their salaries....

and i believe i had read profits for health insurance were around 6%...still a small number as you stated, but it is money that can be saved if the public option insurance plan is efficient....if they are not efficient, the Public option will become more expensive for the plan holders than purchasing a private plan and the plan holders will drop the public insurance plan and buy the private plan....and the public option falls by the wayside...pure capitalism....

As far as having the tax payer's subsidize....it is in the House 3200 bill that the plan must be 100% paid for by the pilicy plan holders ONLY....

It is also in the house 3200 plan that the policy holders can be charged a certain percentage more for their policies so to build up a kitty of money for emergencies, for when the public insurance plan might have underestimated their expenses....so THAT NO TAXES would ever be used...besides the fact as stated the law reads no taxes can be used...policy holder's premiums are to pay for it...if prices go up for the public insurance plan then prices go up for the policy holders....


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 22, 2009)

No, I may not have made myself clear.  If you cap salaries at the public entitites you will not attract top managerial talent, only people who couldn't cut it at the private, better paying, insurers.

How long do you think the no subsidies rule will continue?  We were assured that FNMA were not going to cost the public anything.  That was wrong.  When, not if, these public entities run a deficit Congress will pony up the money.

It is pure economics: risk costs something.  Insurance companies are in the risk business.  Gov't cannot repeal the laws of risk and reward.  It is simply statistical.  So given there is adequate competition right now how will additional public entities reduce costs?


----------



## Care4all (Oct 22, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> No, I may not have made myself clear.  If you cap salaries at the public entitites you will not attract top managerial talent, only people who couldn't cut it at the private, better paying, insurers.
> 
> How long do you think the no subsidies rule will continue?  We were assured that FNMA were not going to cost the public anything.  That was wrong.  When, not if, these public entities run a deficit Congress will pony up the money.
> 
> It is pure economics: risk costs something.  Insurance companies are in the risk business.  Gov't cannot repeal the laws of risk and reward.  It is simply statistical.  So given there is adequate competition right now how will additional public entities reduce costs?



your wrong...the private sector can do what they wish with their salaries of their ceos...

I NEVER MENTIONED A GOVERNMENT REGULATED CAP.

Are you saying the shareholders and board can not cut the salary of their ceo position?

don't be silly...they will do what is right for the company...if they can find a ceo replacement, who can make them a profit, they will in order to be more competetive....and if he is not as greedy as the other ceo wanting more money, then so be it.

you are a fool if you think someone at the 5 -10 million dollar level ceo is not capable of running a big corporation profitably....and only if they paid $100 million a year, could they do it....someone sold you the brooklyn bridge rab...on that one!!!!


----------



## Varth Dader (Oct 22, 2009)

Care4all said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > No, I may not have made myself clear.  If you cap salaries at the public entitites you will not attract top managerial talent, only people who couldn't cut it at the private, better paying, insurers.
> ...



They rejected the brooklyn bridge when we tried to sell it at 5-10 million dollars, but if you sell it for $100 million, they might actually buy it!


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 22, 2009)

Oy.  Let's try this one last time:
If you have a public entity that caps its executive salaries, they will not be able to compete effectively for top managerial talent against private entities that can pay whatever they want.  That is assuming the caps are below the "market rate" for such talent.  If they arent below that market rate, then what is the point of having them?

I think your understanding of the job market and executive pay is the thing you were sold a bill of goods on.  Executives at that level are under tremendous stress and basically have no lives.  They are interested in making as much money as possible.  If they weren't they would go into government.  And the best execs also produce the best results for their companies, and so are well worth their salaries.

But you haven't answered the objection that a public entity still has to contend with the statistical realities of insurance.


----------



## judyd (Oct 22, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> No, I may not have made myself clear.  If you cap salaries at the public entitites you will not attract top managerial talent, only people who couldn't cut it at the private, better paying, insurers.
> 
> How long do you think the no subsidies rule will continue?  We were assured that FNMA were not going to cost the public anything.  That was wrong.  When, not if, these public entities run a deficit Congress will pony up the money.
> 
> It is pure economics: risk costs something.  Insurance companies are in the risk business.  Gov't cannot repeal the laws of risk and reward.  It is simply statistical.  So given there is adequate competition right now how will additional public entities reduce costs?



Are you forgetting that the US is in a serious job crunch these days?  There are millions who have either lost their jobs or had their salaries cut.  And for the most part this was done by highly paid executives.   Also, a lot of high caliber executives have also lost their jobs in the last year or so, and if there is one who is in office and complaining about his salary cut--well, there are at least 100 ready to take his job at a much lower salary.  

No one is indispensable--especially those who drove their companies to the brink of financial ruin.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 22, 2009)

Typical Liberal short-sightedness.
Executives at the top level are hard to come by in any environment because they produce excellent results for the companies they run.


----------



## Care4all (Oct 22, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Oy.  Let's try this one last time:
> If you have a public entity that caps its executive salaries, they will not be able to compete effectively for top managerial talent against private entities that can pay whatever they want.  That is assuming the caps are below the "market rate" for such talent.  If they arent below that market rate, then what is the point of having them?
> 
> I think your understanding of the job market and executive pay is the thing you were sold a bill of goods on.  Executives at that level are under tremendous stress and basically have no lives.  They are interested in making as much money as possible.  If they weren't they would go into government.  And the best execs also produce the best results for their companies, and so are well worth their salaries.
> ...



I disagree with you....you have been sold a bill of goods....there are plenty of QUALIFIED ceo's out there that could whoop that ceo making 100 million a year's butt and then wipe the floor with it....  the ONLY reason is because the boaqrds and ceo's are in cahoots together...board members are just CEO's from other companies whose business does not conflict...they all run in the same circles and they are the ones who did THIS...make it where ceo's get so much more of the pie than previously when they were making 100 or 200 times the average worker to now nearing 400 times the average worker.

Goood smart people who are not greedy are out there to be had.....more transparency in the hiring practice to the shareholders and disclosure of deals to them might actually curb the board or some sort of rules put on to the board to prevent them from giving their ceo buddies the world and more on compensation and exit deals....

Shareholders are clueless on what is being stolen from them, and the ones in the know, are just ignored.....until something bad happens...

all the shareholders in 401k's are more than likely not the ones paying attention but the ones that rely on their fund managers....they are being ripped off imo, by these huge salaries...no where in the EU would they get their salaries or in Australia...

There is always a limit to what one should pay for any position and not just lower level employees, but every position....including the CEO.


----------



## judyd (Oct 22, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Typical Liberal short-sightedness.
> Executives at the top level are hard to come by in any environment because they produce excellent results for the companies they run.




I believe the ones the government is targeting are the ones who didn't produce excellent results--the government had to bail them out.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 22, 2009)

Care4all said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Oy.  Let's try this one last time:
> ...



While there can be and is abuse in general people get paid what they are worth.  How much was Jack Welch worth?  The man made hundreds of millions of dollars, maybe more, for GE's employees and shareholders.  You don't replace someone like that too easily, as Immelt has discovered.
No one takes a job like that out of public service.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 22, 2009)

But you continue to dodge the central issue of how a "public option" is going to help reduce costs without taking taxpayer subsidies.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Oct 22, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Harry, if we could lock out Libs every time they were proved to be wrong we'd have gulags of these suckers in Kansas somewhere.
> The Libs have been wrong about every issue from Communism in the 1930s to Great Society programs in the 1960s to Soviet intentions in the 1980s up to the present day.  A more failed record it would be hard to produce.  And yet they show no shame, no remorse, and certainly no admission of wrong.  Instead they blame someone else.



i just wanna know if Chris and Old Rocks will come forward and say they were wrong....if it passes and becomes the beacon of Health Care world wide.....ill let Chris and Rocks pelt me with cowshit.....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Oct 22, 2009)

Care4all said:


> the ceo's of each plan will get their millions, but with the public insurance plan i envision the ceo salaries not being as lucrative, like NO $200 MILLION A YEAR in salary for one person, but *maybe $2 million or $5 million a year salary*....



like it was at one time....i dont have any problems with this....i have always felt that paying someone hundreds of millions of dollars a year to run a company is kinda ridiculous...especially when the co. is not doing well....and when 30 guys are going to get laid off making 30 thou a year....if that.....


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 22, 2009)

The far rightoids continue to believe in a world that does not exist.

The health insurance bill is going to pass.  Eventually a public option will come into play.  Based on the European models (which we, with American ingenuity, will certainly improve), our health rates will improve drastically and our costs will go down.

The health insurance industry has already proved that it only works for itself, not for the American citizen.  Rightoids, we are not going back to your pretend world.  That was decided last fall and will reaffirmed next fall.


----------



## Annie (Oct 22, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> The far rightoids continue to believe in a world that does not exist.
> 
> The health insurance bill is going to pass.  Eventually a public option will come into play.  Based on the European models (which we, with American ingenuity, will certainly improve), our health rates will improve drastically and our costs will go down.
> 
> The health insurance industry has already proved that it only works for itself, not for the American citizen.  Rightoids, we are not going back to your pretend world.  That was decided last fall and will reaffirmed next fall.



There will be no public option, nor a national health plan. Only idiots would want to give that sort of control to fed, higher taxes with less coverage. Not happening.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Oct 22, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> The far rightoids continue to believe in a world that does not exist.
> 
> The health insurance bill is going to pass.  Eventually a public option will come into play.  Based on the European models (which we, with American ingenuity, will certainly improve), our health rates will improve drastically and our costs will go down.
> 
> The health insurance industry has already proved that it only works for itself, not for the American citizen.  Rightoids, we are not going back to your pretend world.  That was decided last fall and will reaffirmed next fall.



so the world that Pelosi and Reid live in is real?.....


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 22, 2009)

Which is why Reid lost a huge procedural vote on the Senate floor yesterday.  Even the less radical Dems arent going for his shit.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 22, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The far rightoids continue to believe in a world that does not exist.
> ...



The far, far left is as delusional as the far, far right.  Even Rab will agree with at least the first part of that.  Moderate GOP and conservative Dems will not buy off on a far liberal program.  The final program is going to look something like Olympia Snow wants.


----------



## Thinman (Oct 22, 2009)

woodjack said:


> I am curious for the people that can afford health care insurance now and do not buy it.  If the Public option comes into play, will people really jump on it and pay the premiums for it?  For those that cannot afford it now but want it, I can see why they would get it; but then again they would still have to pay premiums to be able to get it albeit at a reduced cost.  Looking at insurance for vehicles and how many people do not have it, how can the government guarentee that people will pay their premiums for it to work.
> 
> I do think alot of people automaticly assume that the public option means free health care. most  of the uninformed probably think that, I also heard that they would fine people that do not get health care,  there is alot of assumption going on in the government, if they fine people for not getting insurance how are they going to pay for that as well as the premuims for health insurance.
> 
> ...



You raise a lot of very good questions.  I would add: what about the family guy that has recently been laid off?  Is he going to buy food and shelter for his family, or health insurance?  If he doesn't buy health ins., does he get a bill from the IRS when he files his tax return?  Since I'm on this rant, I might as well add, the devious ways that they intend to pay for this are all bogus.  The tax payer pays for everything.  If they tax a corporation, they will pass it on to the consumer.  They have to maintain a profit margin because there stock holders (you and I) demand it.  We, the taxpayer are the bottom line.  If government can't get the money from us, they are powerless.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 22, 2009)

Annie said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The far rightoids continue to believe in a world that does not exist.
> ...



Proof that you are living in a delusional world.  When it passes, I will remind you of your statement.  Guaranteed.


----------



## Annie (Oct 22, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



The vast, overwhelming majority of Americans find the idea of universal healthcare by force, an abomination. They hate Obama, but moreso the Democrats in Congress that want to back his idiotic program.


----------



## Varth Dader (Oct 22, 2009)

Annie said:


> The vast, overwhelming majority of Americans find the idea of universal healthcare by force, an abomination. They hate Obama, but moreso the Democrats in Congress that want to back his idiotic program.



This comments reminds me of Bush saying that "By Far the Vast Majority of My Tax Cuts Go to Those at the Bottom"...

Where do you get yours stats?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 22, 2009)

Varth Dader said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > The vast, overwhelming majority of Americans find the idea of universal healthcare by force, an abomination. They hate Obama, but moreso the Democrats in Congress that want to back his idiotic program.
> ...



Annie is delusional, Varth Dader.  The first clue is her mistaking health insurance reform for universal health care.  The second clue is the inference that Americans overwhelmingly support the far right agenda as some how being mainstream. She is just sick, as are so many on the loony fringe right.


----------



## Maple (Oct 22, 2009)

I have recently talked to two general practice physicians, one late 40's the other mid 50's, both stated they would retire early or go into another professions should the government get that involved. Now you add an additional 40 million people to the health care system and you have some 50% of physicians, by an IBD poll, that state that they will retire early or quit all together, where is anyone going to go for health care. Just hope you don't end up getting in a serious car accident, because you might just end up in a hospital that doesn't have any doctors present to save your life.


----------



## Political Junky (Oct 23, 2009)

Maple said:


> I have recently talked to two general practice physicians, one late 40's the other mid 50's, both stated they would retire early or go into another professions should the government get that involved. Now you add an additional 40 million people to the health care system and you have some 50% of physicians, by an IBD poll, that state that they will retire early or quit all together, where is anyone going to go for health care. Just hope you don't end up getting in a serious car accident, because you might just end up in a hospital that doesn't have any doctors present to save your life.


Cool, two less greedy doctors.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 23, 2009)

Really dont have a clue, do you?

Anyway, this one's for Jake, King of the Unsubstantiated Statement.  Guess you were wrong.  Once again.


> Speaker Nancy Pelosi counted votes Thursday night and determined she could not pass a robust public option  the most aggressive of the three forms of a public option House Democrats have been considering as part of a national overhaul of health care.


Exclusive: Pelosi lacks votes for most sweeping public option - Yahoo! News


----------



## Care4all (Oct 23, 2009)

Well, in my opinion, we are absolutely NUTS to pass this health care plan without the Public option in the House version.

And it is NUTS to leave the mandatory requirement in this bill, IF THERE IS NOT a public option....I say this because without a public option, and with mandatory purchase of insurance, means that the Health Insurance industry via FORCE ON THE plan purchaser, gets near every single citizen's business...via mandate...SOOOOOOOOOOO, there is NO reason to have to compete for these uninsured mandatory customers.

PRICES WILL GO UP....

IF they had to compete for these uninsured customers, then the chances are, prices would go down...they are sitting on supply...they can WRITE as many policies that they can write....the demand is sitting back and not buying because the prices are too high....if the insurance companies wanted to capture more of this demand (uninsured) out there, they would need to lower their prices...but with a MANDATE that ALL must have insurance...there is no fighting or competing with eachother to get these potential demand (customers) to come to them, and become insured....there is a mandate telling these people they HAVE TO buy this company's product....

In addition to this, without the public option, people will HAVE TO BUY it from a private business making a buck off of them....forced, forced forced to choose a private business getting a profit off of you?  SOOOO TOTALLY WRONG.......

Also, making it mandatory, makes it mandatory for our government to give out these "affordability credits" because how can you get blood out of a turnip?  So those qualifying, over and above the very low waged Medicaid recipients, through a means test, will also be given some "affordability credits"....this means people, via our taxes, will be FORCED to purchase a plan from these private businesses making a profit off of us with our tax dollars?  That is just wrong....

WE ARE HANDING THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY THE BIGGEST *GIFTHORSE* BY CONGRESS SINCE THE MEDICARE PILL BILL WAS HANDED TO THE PHARMA INDUSTRY!


----------



## Care4all (Oct 23, 2009)

the insurance industry comes to $235 billion a year...

ALL OF THAT is money that is middle man money, money spent on NOTHING TO DO WITH health care SERVICES RENDERED....just for paper pushers...THAT'S 20% of what we collect for our entire nation in income taxes a year....just to put it in to perspective...and to show the money down the drain that could be saved or used to improve all of our actual health CARE needs.


----------



## judyd (Oct 23, 2009)

Care4all said:


> the insurance industry comes to $235 billion a year...
> 
> ALL OF THAT is money that is middle man money, money spent on NOTHING TO DO WITH health care SERVICES RENDERED....just for paper pushers...THAT'S 20% of what we collect for our entire nation in income taxes a year....just to put it in to perspective...and to show the money down the drain that could be saved or used to improve all of our actual health CARE needs.



Just cutting out the money they spend on advertising would save a lot.  The same is true of the pharmaceutical companies.   It seems like every other ad on TV now is for one drug or another.  Since when is it sensible to tell people to ask their doctors about some new drug?  Most doctors know exactly what is new and could be helpful to a patient.  

Cancer centers have also joined in the advertising frenzy.  All of them seem to stress that they are the only way to get cured.


----------



## Varth Dader (Oct 23, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Annie is delusional, Varth Dader.  The first clue is her mistaking health insurance reform for universal health care.  The second clue is the inference that Americans overwhelmingly support the far right agenda as some how being mainstream. She is just sick, as are so many on the loony fringe right.



Delusion... that sounds like a good place to find these fake numbers.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 23, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Well, in my opinion, we are absolutely NUTS to pass this health care plan without the Public option in the House version.
> 
> And it is NUTS to leave the mandatory requirement in this bill, IF THERE IS NOT a public option....I say this because without a public option, and with mandatory purchase of insurance, means that the Health Insurance industry via FORCE ON THE plan purchaser, gets near every single citizen's business...via mandate...SOOOOOOOOOOO, there is NO reason to have to compete for these uninsured mandatory customers.
> 
> ...



Not paying attention, I see.
I tisn't a free lunch.  Insurance companies will have to take all comers.  And they wont be able to price pre-existing conditions.  So the 300lb 55yr old smoker with diabetes will have to be offered the same rate as the 20-something yr old non smoking athletic female.  Some bargain.
Additionally the insurers will be competing against each other, just as they do now.  Notice all those ads for coverage at the top of your screen?  Yeah thats them.
I will agree that rates will have to rise dramatically, mainly to cover the additional cost of expensive policies.  A public option won't help that any as they will be contending with the same demographics.


----------



## Care4all (Oct 23, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Well, in my opinion, we are absolutely NUTS to pass this health care plan without the Public option in the House version.
> ...



in most states, yes most states there is a monopoly of 1 insurer...where 70-90% of the people in the state are insured by one provider...

there IS NO COMPETITION under these conditions...you should agree...


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 23, 2009)

Care4all said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



Which states have only one insurer writing health insurance policies?  I want a list and a source.
If you can actually show that, then you are right that rates will have to skyrocket to make up for all the previously uninsurables who represent a net drain.  But introducing a public option won't help that.


----------



## 5079 (Oct 23, 2009)

Just ask yourself a very broad question: overall, have U.S. entitlement programs stayed within their budget, or have they gone massively overbudget? Your answer will answer if a public option will work.


----------



## Care4all (Oct 23, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



i had heard this on the 24/7
here is some info on it that i have been able to find
Health insurance is an Oxymoron! | Capital Gains and Games

Stop Playing Monopoly with Health Insurance - Break Up the BUCAs and Restore Competition in the Marketplace | Reuters



The Justice Department considers an industry to be highly concentrated if one company has 42 percent of the market.


looks like congress is trying to do something about it, but not in this health care bill...a separate act, which i was unaware of....  which is good.......


> New Bill Would Break Up Health Insurance Monopolies
> September 24, 2009 - by Donny Shaw
> 
> Sen. Patrick Leahy [D, VT] and Rep. John Conyers [D, MI-14] have thrown a new concept into the health care reform debate. Theyre pushing legislation to take away insurance companies exemption from federal anti-trust laws.
> ...


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 23, 2009)

Here is example of government controlled health care. TennCare started with "public option".

Imagine this on the federal level.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFPYnOyZb78]YouTube - 323,000 (Tenncare Cuts)[/ame]


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Oct 23, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Varth Dader said:
> 
> 
> > Annie said:
> ...



Annie is just listening to what Obama, Obama's advisors, and Barney Frank have told her about the public option.  That being it is a gateway to socialized, government run, single payer health care.

Do you need the proof?  http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...lead-to-single-payer-government-run-care.html



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndStT6c93rc]YouTube - Proof Positive the Public Option Will Lead to Single Payer[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3BS4C9el98]YouTube - Single Payer Action Confronts Barney Frank[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk]YouTube - SHOCK UNCOVERED: Obama IN HIS OWN WORDS saying His Health Care Plan will ELIMINATE private insurance[/ame]


I know the truth of the matter makes it more difficult to uphold your position in support of the public option but dont lie to yourself or others about the intent of those in government who are pushign for the public option...it is not what they are trying to represent it as.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Oct 23, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Varth Dader said:
> ...



Oh... Now THAT's gonna leave a mark...

But on a secondary note... I suppose of all of the ridiculous things which can be said to prove delusion... asserting that Steady Annie is such, is about as solid a foundation for Clinical Certification as such gets.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Oct 23, 2009)

Care4all said:


> the insurance industry comes to $235 billion a year...



Come on Care... 235 billion against what liabilities?  Do you have any idea?  

I mean sure, there's money being made, no question; but they're on the hook for exponentially rising liabilities and I know who you're an advocate of 'FAIRNESS'; and there's nothing FAIR about looking at one's would-be profits and dismissing the liabilities which DWARF those profits...


----------



## Care4all (Oct 23, 2009)

Ame®icano;1644333 said:
			
		

> Here is example of government controlled health care. TennCare started with "public option".
> 
> Imagine this on the federal level.
> 
> YouTube - 323,000 (Tenncare Cuts)



ummmm tenncare is their MEDICAID program....  it is NOTHING like the hr3200 public option which is PAID FOR BY THE POLICY HOLDER....  

what is it that you guys can not GRASP on this...why do you guys keep repeating things that don't relate to the public option in the house bill?

do you want me to link it again?

care


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Oct 23, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Ame®icano;1644333 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




As long as you dont parrot the lie about it being defecit neutral I dont mind .


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 23, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Ame®icano;1644333 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> *TennCare is a Medicaid waiver*, or demonstration, program. Its purpose is to demonstrate that the use of managed-care principles can generate sufficient savings to enable the state to cover more than Medicaid eligible people.



Problem with Tenncare started when people begin dropping their insurances and signing up with state controlled insurance because of the cost saving. Now, isn't that *exactly the intention* of federal promoted "public option"? 

Today, Tenncare has huge budget problems so TN government simply started dropping people. The same will happen sometimes in the future with federal health care... don't ya think?


----------



## Care4all (Oct 23, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > the insurance industry comes to $235 billion a year...
> ...



those liabilities are already taken out PI, the $235 billion is the net sales....cost of goods had been taken out already....just think about it...all but 45 million out of our 300 million are insured...  our total health care industry including pharma is about 2.2 trillion annually....  now let's estimate that even though seniors are only a small portion, about 30 million, 12% right now of the insured 255 million people...they could be 40% of all health care expenses with those on disability etc...  medicaid costs, maybe another 5% of the insured...

so let's say 55% of that $2.2 trillion...that's roughly $1.2 trillion that goes through the hands of the insurance companies, the middle man...or there a bouts...i am certain i am missing some figures but as said, ''roughly''....and THIS is where i came up with the conclusion that the $235 billion mentioned this morning was their net sales figure....or perhaps even gross profit figure

care


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 23, 2009)

Rabbi, in post 137 above, links partial proof for the position that I have been supporting, that something short of a complete public option will pass if the GOP would get on board.  Snow in the Senate is now on board, and others will follow. Pelosi recognizes now that she cannot get an ouright public option.  Politico suggests that the compromise "would clear the way for backers to sneak a limited public option through the Senate by attracting moderate Democrats and then to win President Barack Obama's signature."

Thanks, Rab.  All can read further at Pelosi lacks votes for most sweeping public option - Yahoo! News


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 23, 2009)

Just watch and listen!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09u5EhIaViM]YouTube - HEALTH CARE: FOX Looks At TennCare[/ame]


----------



## Care4all (Oct 23, 2009)

Ame®icano;1644435 said:
			
		

> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;1644333 said:
> ...



the thing with the hr3200 public option americano, is that it is on the public insurance exchange with all other private insurers in your state and no tax dollars goes towards it to sustain it or it's adminitrative costs but the POLICY HOLDERS through premiums pay for it, the ones that choose the plan....so if there is no savings, just switch plans....you or your company are not obligated to stay with any particular insurance plan....they can go right back to a private plan if the premiums go up the following season....is how i understood the plan option, when i read the actual bill....  

so, it hurts no one, if they mess up and prices go higher than the other insurers, they just lose customers to the better private plans...


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Oct 23, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Rabbi, in post 137 above, links partial proof for the position that I have been supporting, that something short of a complete public option will pass if the GOP would get on board.  Snow in the Senate is now on board, and others will follow. Pelosi recognizes now that she cannot get an ouright public option.  Politico suggests that the compromise "would clear the way for backers to sneak a limited public option through the Senate by attracting moderate Democrats and then to win President Barack Obama's signature."
> 
> Thanks, Rab.  All can read further at Pelosi lacks votes for most sweeping public option - Yahoo! News



If the democrats truly want the republicans to jump on board they need to stop demeaning them for wanting something different than what pelosi and obama are proposing.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 23, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Necessary -vs- not necessary is strictly a matter of opinion..... I believe you are in the minority of opinions saying change in the way we 'do' health care in this country is 'unnecessary'.

That being said I stand by my thinking that the real change needs to be in the way we bill ourselves for health care.

'Insurance' was never meant for maintenance like physicals and pap smears, insurance is for when your kid gets leukemia.

We need to be able to buy insurance from private insurance for the catastrophes that we, as individuals, fear and pay our local hospital system a maintenance fee or 'tax' for routine doctoring and emergencies.

Why *do* we force the hospitals to contract the billing and financial data management aspect of healthcare out to private insurance companies, adding another layer of bureaucracy making a handsome profit by creating paperwork.....?   

Traveling Americans is the bitch frustration, that is why the federal government must be involved - that being said, if a company the size of Boeing can 'self insure' their employees for health, I see no reason for a state as small as Rhode Island not to be able to..... if all 50 states tried to 'self insure', in 20 years our children will have 50 working models to work with.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 23, 2009)

woodjack said:


> I am curious for the people that can afford health care insurance now and do not buy it.  If the Public option comes into play, will people really jump on it and pay the premiums for it?  For those that cannot afford it now but want it, I can see why they would get it; but then again they would still have to pay premiums to be able to get it albeit at a reduced cost.  Looking at insurance for vehicles and how many people do not have it, how can the government guarentee that people will pay their premiums for it to work.
> 
> I do think alot of people automaticly assume that the public option means free health care. most  of the uninformed probably think that, I also heard that they would fine people that do not get health care,  there is alot of assumption going on in the government, if they fine people for not getting insurance how are they going to pay for that as well as the premuims for health insurance.
> 
> ...



If the Public Option is set up with payments based on current age and at what age coverage was started, it will work.  

If a guy decides to get 'coverage' when he is 20 and maintains that coverage until he retires, he should pay less per month than the guy who buys in for the first time at 45.

Everyone who is not boring as shit has some kind of risk in their lives..... if premiums are based only on age, your lifestyle would be your choice.  A concept that is not going to sit well with the status quo...


----------



## Annie (Oct 23, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



If that were what was being offered, wouldn't be as expensive as it will be. It's only been for the past 35-40 years that people are insuring their dental, dogs, physicals, flu shots, glasses, etc. If all they were 'buying protection' for was catastrophic, the costs would be much lower, their deductibles could be much lower, and in all likelihood the coverage would be better regarding services rendered. That is NOT what the Congress is looking for.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 23, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Ame®icano;1644435 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



OK, so you admit that your assertion that many states had one health insurance provider was simply not true.
Glad we got that cleared up.
To "public option": if what you say is so, then what is the possible advantage of a public option?  Just because a company is "public" doesnt suddenly mean they suspend the laws of averages, which is what insurance is built on.  Any company, public or private, still contends with pricing policies based on risk.  And removing the profit incentive will introduce inefficiencies that will eat up any savings that might go to profit.
As to TennCare: the program became so expensive and awful that Gov Bredesen made a hard political choice and ended it.  He has also come out against Obamacare, saying it will be too expensive for the states.  And this is a Democrat who was rumored to be HHS head until Obama picked Sebelius.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 23, 2009)

Annie said:


> If that were what was being offered, wouldn't be as expensive as it will be. It's only been for the past 35-40 years that people are insuring their dental, dogs, physicals, flu shots, glasses, etc. If all they were 'buying protection' for was catastrophic, the costs would be much lower, their deductibles could be much lower, and in all likelihood the coverage would be better regarding services rendered. That is NOT what the Congress is looking for.



Just because people buy policies with all that crap shouldn't make health insurance in general more expensive.  The people wanting "dog dental insurance" would just pay more for it.
What has made it expensive is that each state determines what MUST be offered in any policy sold.  In NY you must have mental health coverage in your policy.  It doesnt matter if you want it or not, need it or not.  No policy can be sold there without it.  And it is not cost-free, obviously.
THAT is the problem right there.  Allowing companies to sell acrosss state lines would eliminate that.


----------



## Annie (Oct 23, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > If that were what was being offered, wouldn't be as expensive as it will be. It's only been for the past 35-40 years that people are insuring their dental, dogs, physicals, flu shots, glasses, etc. If all they were 'buying protection' for was catastrophic, the costs would be much lower, their deductibles could be much lower, and in all likelihood the coverage would be better regarding services rendered. That is NOT what the Congress is looking for.
> ...


What you say is correct, but so was what I said. There was a time that the doctor's office had a nurse and a receptionist. Now they need a 'staff' to deal with insurance claims. If you go to doc or dentist without insurance, they will knock down the rate and make payment arrangements with you. Part of the reason is because you will actually cost less to service. Not to mention, that your likelihood of suing drops drastically, since they became 'personal' in dealing with you. Sort of like when people 'knew' their doctor and their doctor, them.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 23, 2009)

Yeah, OK.  That goes back to the whole 3rd party payer issue.
A proposal that would reduce costs would start by shoving more costs on the consumer of medical services and making him more responsible for paying.  None of Obamacare's proposals remotely do that.


----------



## keee keee (Oct 23, 2009)

The more the people know about Obama care the more they are against it that is why they are trying to shove this on us without even allowing the public to read this horrible plan. what happened to the tranparency that Obama promised us? This health care plan suck thats why the senator and congressmen exempted themselves and families from it. Ill think about it if they use it too!!!!


----------



## Annie (Oct 23, 2009)

keee keee said:


> The more the people know about Obama care the more they are against it that is why they are trying to shove this on us without even allowing the public to read this horrible plan. what happened to the tranparency that Obama promised us? This health care plan suck thats why the senator and congressmen exempted themselves and families from it. Ill think about it if they use it too!!!!



Indeed.[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNQdp9m3TNs&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Behind Closed Doors[/ame]


----------



## Harry Dresden (Oct 23, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Annie is delusional, Varth Dader.  The first clue is her mistaking health insurance reform for universal health care.  The second clue is the inference that Americans overwhelmingly support the far right agenda as some how being mainstream. She is just sick, as are so many on the loony fringe right.



if you think Annie is that "far right" Jake ...then i dont think you know Annie.....


----------



## JimH52 (Oct 23, 2009)

The public option will work of:

-there are strict guidelines on who is eligable along with income limitations
-the government sponsored program is closely monitored to avoid abuses as in the present welfare program
-direct competition between private insurance providers and the public program is limited.

Look, there are thousands of so called "public option" programs that give monetary assistance to citizens, but the guidelines for these programs are strict and exclude persons whose economic means and income status allows them to seek private sector assistance.  One that comes to mind is  downpayment assistance programs through HUD.

To avoid embarassment from wide spread abuses, a public health care option would have to be air tight and monitored well.  JMHO


----------



## Harry Dresden (Oct 23, 2009)

judyd said:


> *Since when is it sensible to tell people to ask their doctors about some new drug?*



are you serious?....if you had a condition and nothing seems to be working,and you heard about a new drug that is getting good results,you would not ask your doctor about it?.....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Oct 23, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Rabbi, in post 137 above, links partial proof for the position that I have been supporting, that something short of a complete public option will pass if the GOP would get on board.  Snow in the Senate is now on board, and others will follow. Pelosi recognizes now that she cannot get an ouright public option.  Politico suggests that the compromise "would clear the way for backers to sneak a limited public option through the Senate by attracting moderate Democrats and then to win President Barack Obama's signature."
> 
> Thanks, Rab.  All can read further at Pelosi lacks votes for most sweeping public option - Yahoo! News



any thing that Pelosi is pushing should be a red flag to EVERYONE to get the hell off that bus....NOW........


----------



## judyd (Oct 23, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> judyd said:
> 
> 
> > *Since when is it sensible to tell people to ask their doctors about some new drug?*
> ...



The drugs that are advertised on television are not new, they are just being heavily promoted by the pharmaceutical companies.   Most doctors are quite familiar with those in their field of medicine.   We have only had this sort of advertising for the last decade or so, and it has gradually increased to the point of almost all the commercials are for one drug or another.   Doctors did fine before this type of amateur diagnostic phenomena entered the fray.  "If you have these symptoms, ask your doctor if you can take this for it".    Many of the things they are promoting could be done without, if a patient applied a proper diet and exercise routine.  It's getting rather silly that the US has become such a drug-driven society.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 23, 2009)

woodjack said:


> I am curious for the people that can afford health care insurance now and do not buy it.  If the Public option comes into play, will people really jump on it and pay the premiums for it?  For those that cannot afford it now but want it, I can see why they would get it; but then again they would still have to pay premiums to be able to get it albeit at a reduced cost.  Looking at insurance for vehicles and how many people do not have it, how can the government guarentee that people will pay their premiums for it to work.
> 
> I do think alot of people automaticly assume that the public option means free health care. most  of the uninformed probably think that, I also heard that they would fine people that do not get health care,  there is alot of assumption going on in the government, if they fine people for not getting insurance how are they going to pay for that as well as the premuims for health insurance.
> 
> ...



We all pay for it now.  Most employer covered people pay something, and their employer pays more on their behalf.... hell, even folks over 65 pay 100 bucks a month for medicare - does anyone know _exactly_ how much they spend on health insurance and health care?  

I think for myself and my bride it is a total of $400 bucks a month and I'm 50.  How many friends, lovers and neighbors would it take kicking in $200 a month each to create a fund big enough to help cushion the blow of tragic medical news for those in the co-op?   

I suppose it depends on what you pay the data freaks required to do the paperwork.......  10 million bucks a year for one of 'em at AIG, I hear!


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 23, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> judyd said:
> 
> 
> > i don't think you can compare health and auto insurance.  Those who don't have auto insurance are usually dropped because of DUI's or multiple accidents, and can't get affordable insurance with another company.
> ...



The two are similar, but very different too..... You buy auto insurance hoping you never have to use it and you buy health insurance knowing damn well you're going to use it, and soon.

We need two separate programs - something for maintenance and physicals that you pretty much cover yourself as needed and another program for if your kid gets cancer.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 23, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Annie is delusional, Varth Dader.  The first clue is her mistaking health insurance reform for universal health care.  The second clue is the inference that Americans overwhelmingly support the far right agenda as some how being mainstream. She is just sick, as are so many on the loony fringe right.
> ...



Then Annie is deliberately being malignant in actively engaging in deception.  Why?  (1) Health insurance reform is not universal health care.  (2) Americans overwhelmingly oppose the far right windbag rhetoric. includings Republicans, even to the extent that the windbaggers are threatening mainstream Republican candidates.

Go back and read our respective posts.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 23, 2009)

Maple said:


> SmellyLemmings said:
> 
> 
> > President Obama's Healthcare Reform 'Public Option' Explained - LAist
> ...




So what's your answer, Maple?

Get together with 20 other couples and buy 20 acres and a lot of guns?

There *is* a place for 'government' in modern society - hell we couldn't have it _without_ 'government'!

You want to toss the baby with the bath-water, or shall we *fix* the infrastructure our ancestors gave so much blood to build for us?


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 23, 2009)

Maple said:


> " A government big enough to give you everything you need is big enough to take everything that you have." Thomas Jefferson



"308 million people trying to live together and maintain a _shitload_ of shared property and infrastructure will _require_ a government that is HUGE by the standards of Thomas Jefferson's time in history, if the life-style to which Americans have become accustomed to is to be maintained"

Average American Joe, 2009


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 23, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Ame®icano;1644435 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That would mean forcing states to accept public option regardless of how states regulated their health care and that is against tenth Amendment. Also, they opening back door to compete against insurances within the states while that door is staying closed to other insurances. Do you find that right?

You're saying it hurts no one. I say Tenncare is fine example who gets hurt.


----------



## jeffrockit (Oct 23, 2009)

judyd said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


----------



## driveby (Oct 23, 2009)

SmellyLemmings said:


> President Obama's Healthcare Reform 'Public Option' Explained - LAist
> 
> I'm a little confused when it comes to the public option debate. I dont know if I should support it or not.
> 
> This website shows a nifty chart explaining how public option would work, which was very helpful. But I still can't ignore how public option reminds me of socialized medicine. What about the death panel debate, the limitations on doctors and individual patient options? Not to mention the HUGE cost for this small part to healthcare reform. My paycheck is as thin enough with the other governmental programs I still pay for. So is public option worth supporting, or are u like me; a little skeptical. thanks for the comments!!




No.......


----------



## jeffrockit (Oct 23, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> Maple said:
> 
> 
> > Everyone of those programs have been successful. However, they have been abused and/or miscalculated. For instance, Social Security would still be very solvent had we not allowed our elected representatives to continually borrow from the funding of that program for the last 30 plus years. .
> ...


----------



## Chris (Oct 23, 2009)

jeffrockit said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Maple said:
> ...


----------



## MajikMyst (Oct 24, 2009)

Ame®icano;1645254 said:
			
		

> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;1644435 said:
> ...



Hmmm?? That would mean a law forcing us to buy car insurance is against the 10th amendment to then.. Hmmm.. I don't think so.. You repukes just don't understand the 10th amendment...


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 24, 2009)

MajikMyst said:


> Ame®icano;1645254 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Let's start with this.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Since car insurance is required and regulated by the state laws, it's constitutional.


----------



## Care4all (Oct 24, 2009)

Ame®icano;1645734 said:
			
		

> MajikMyst said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;1645254 said:
> ...



I'm not certain you or I understand the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of it completely....I personally need to do some reading up on all of this again...

what I had read on it, only puts insurance companies on the same level of ALL other industry with Federal Antitrust Laws...now that does not appear to me as being unconstitutional?  Having all industries falling under Federal Antitrust Laws EXCEPT the Insurance industry seems unjust to those companies that don't get this HUGE FAVOR, ya know?


Having the Public  Insurance Option on the State Insurance Exchange along with all other Private Insurance options on the State Exchange does not stop the State from Regulating them on equal turf with the private insurance options....

the main issue with the Act I spoke of earlier is to have all insurance companies be subject to all federal anti trust laws as all other industries.  Once that is in place then the States can not give favors and keep insurance companies as monopolies within their states, WHICH IS PRECISELY what the state government officials have done because key insurance companies have kept their pockets lined with gold, is my understanding of it....AND this will make capitalism ACTUALLY WORK, with more competition, bringing prices down....MORE COMPETITION makes companies more efficient, and that's a fact.

so, I would not be so quick to shoot this down....it would be considered a GOOD THING imo...

Care


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 24, 2009)

The far right wind bags are suggesting the 10th Amendment prohibts health insurance reform?

That demonstrates their delusionality and their irrelevance to the great majority of Americans.

They don't get it, they won't get, and it does not matter because they don't matter anymore.


----------



## Varth Dader (Oct 24, 2009)

Ame®icano;1645734 said:
			
		

> MajikMyst said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;1645254 said:
> ...



How about registering for Selective Services?


----------



## Annie (Oct 24, 2009)

Varth Dader said:


> Ame®icano;1645734 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Article 1, Section 8.


----------



## JimH52 (Oct 24, 2009)

This is my last post in tihs thread.

Welfare and the Constitution.

The major objective of WELFARE AND THE CONSTITUTION is to argue for a welfarist or positive vision of governmental obligation under the U.S. Constitution as articulated by Abraham Lincoln and the authors of the FEDERALIST PAPERS.  James Madisons belief that the real welfare of the people must be the supreme object of constitutional government is the bedrock principle animating this superb work.

Some of you may not understand this.  Sorry...


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 24, 2009)

JimH52 said:


> This is my last post in tihs thread.
> 
> Welfare and the Constitution.
> 
> ...



If you can't change the constitution, you change the meaning of the words to suit your needs.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 24, 2009)

Americano, you are insisting that you are right and by inference the Court rulings that don't support you as wrong.  That is . . . just downright silly.  But . . . give us law or court rulings that agree with you.  Even minority opinions would be helpful.  Can you do that?


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 24, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Americano, you are insisting that you are right and by inference the Court rulings that don't support you as wrong.  That is . . . just downright silly.  But . . . give us law or court rulings that agree with you.  Even minority opinions would be helpful.  Can you do that?



Before the FDR's "New Deal" or after?


----------



## Care4all (Oct 24, 2009)

Ame®icano;1646319 said:
			
		

> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > This is my last post in tihs thread.
> ...



actually, as you mentioned on auto insurance...  welfare is handled by the states...  the fed may help the state monetarily but no one goes to the fed for welfare, the states administer it, no?


----------



## Harry Dresden (Oct 24, 2009)

judyd said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > judyd said:
> ...



Judy.....that is not what i asked.....read it again....and remember what you said up above.....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Oct 24, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Americans overwhelmingly oppose the far right windbag rhetoric. includings Republicans, even to the extent that the windbaggers are threatening mainstream Republican candidates.
> 
> Go back and read our respective posts.



they also oppose the far left wing rhetoric....so that brings us to my question.....if the people in the middle from both parties reject both fringes....why the fuck are those people still in positions of power and inflence,and why do we allow them to fuck with our lives?....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Oct 24, 2009)

Chris said:


> I love it....gubbermint run healthcare.
> 
> Every other industrialized nation in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare.



hey Chris if this thing passes close to the way you want it,and is a disaster....will you say you were wrong or, we just wont see Chris in any threads about this....???


----------



## Harry Dresden (Oct 24, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> The far right wind bags are suggesting the 10th Amendment prohibts health insurance reform?
> 
> That demonstrates their delusionality and their irrelevance to the great majority of Americans.
> 
> They don't get it, they won't get, and it does not matter because they don't matter anymore.



aint that something....the far left windbags are suggesting the second amendment does not give you the right to bear arms....
That demonstrates their delusionality and their irrelevance to the great majority of Americans.
they dont get it either....etc...etc.....just sayin....


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 24, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Ame®icano;1646319 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Correct. It started as federal grant to support state welfare programs back in 30's. Latest chages were made in 1996 Welfare Reform Act where grants to states were limited and with more conditions.

Auto insurances are regulated by the states. Federal enforcement would be unconstitutional, but... fed have their role there. They required states to have auto insurance laws in order to receive certain faderal grants.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 24, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The far right wind bags are suggesting the 10th Amendment prohibts health insurance reform?
> ...



Show how the 10th prohibits health insurance reform, when neither the SC, the Congress, or the Pres agree.  Because you don't?  Yep, you are delusional.


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 24, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



The 10th Amendment establishes reserved powers. Anyone with 1st grade reading comprehension can understand the amendment. However, the framers didn't anticipate such overwhelming illogical and idiotic people from inhibiting the country hundreds of years later. You see in Article 1 section 8, there are 18 clauses which grant expressed powers to the Federal Government. Section 9 has the clauses that prohibit certain powers of the Federal Government. Mandated healthcare isn't in either -- hence, the 10th Amendment.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 24, 2009)

A lot of verbage, and you are still delusional.


----------



## Chris (Oct 24, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > I love it....gubbermint run healthcare.
> ...



What we have now is a disaster.

What they pass probably won't be close to being enough, thanks to the swines in the Senate.

Meanwhile the rest of the industrialized world pays HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare and laughs at us.


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 24, 2009)

Chris said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



That's rude of them---why don't they pitch in and help us ?


----------



## elvis (Oct 24, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> A lot of verbage, and you are still delusional.



Putting yourself down help won't help solve that problem.


----------



## Chris (Oct 24, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



Actually they are.

A lot of our vaccines are made in England because the for profit companies here won't make them because there is no profit in it.


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 24, 2009)

Chris said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



So England is taking advantage of our plight ? Those cheeky bastards


----------



## JW Frogen (Oct 25, 2009)

Any actuary, if they are drunk and so honest, will tell you the trick to making an insurance policy cost effective for everyone is to spread the risk to the most amount of people. The more people in a plan, the more cost effective. Spread the bet.

Public option.

It works in Australia, combined with a private top up option.

I receive far better care here, at much less cost than I ever did from the private sector in the US.

And as a country we get better macro outcomes than the US.

Still, Obama fucked this up mightily farming out his entire healthcare plan to Congress who by their very nature were determined to come up with a complex plan that would be costly and easy for the Republicans to pick apart like crows on roadkill, rather than presenting a disciplined initial plan that just stated anyone who wishes can choose a publically funded medical insurance option that can be moved from job to job.

In time many Americans would see this as the most cost effective option with better results than many, if not most HMOs.

Still, if you all are determined to keep getting jacked off by the invisible hand, be my guest


----------



## Chris (Oct 25, 2009)

JW Frogen said:


> Any actuary, if they are drunk and so honest, will tell you the trick to making an insurance policy cost effective for everyone is to spread the risk to the most amount of people. The more people in a plan, the more cost effective. Spread the bet.
> 
> Public option.
> 
> ...



That is the most accurate assessment of the situation I have seen.

Kudos.


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 25, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> A lot of verbage, and you are still delusional.



If I am delusional, there are drugs for that condition, but for your stupidity, there is no help, period. Anyways, since your understanding of the 10th Amendment is somewhat lacking, allow me once again to attempt to enlighten you.

The 10th Amendment specifically says:



> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.



What this means is that if it is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, the federal government can't do it. If it's not specifically prohibited to the states by the Constitution, the States and/or We The People can do it.

Now, if the people overwhelmingly decide that they want the federal government to provide health insurance for them, then they must first be able to invoke a part of the Constitution that specifically authorizes the federal government to do so. 

If it's not there, and We The People really do want it, the founding fathers specifically provided a mechanism through which it can be done, it's called Article 5 of the US Constitution, which has been invoked exactly 17 times since the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. Lacking such an invocation of Article 5, any law that provides for the taxing and spending for anything not specifically authorized in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution is unconstitutional on it's face.

I doubt you got it, but at least I've tried.


----------



## Chris (Oct 25, 2009)

Ame®icano;1647992 said:
			
		

> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > A lot of verbage, and you are still delusional.
> ...



The "founding fathers" owned slaves and the constitution counted black people as "three fifths of a person."

Taking care of the old and the sick is the right thing to do.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 25, 2009)

Hey bubba.  No one is stopping you.  We'll tell you where to send your check.


----------



## chanel (Oct 25, 2009)

Did anyone else see this?



> A little-noticed tidbit in Saturday's Washington Post is sure to raise eyebrows among liberal supporters of a gorvernment-run healthcare plan: the plan is likely to be administered by a private insurance company, the very companies that progressive activists are trying to unseat.



Public option likely to be managed by private insurance company | Raw Story


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 25, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Americans overwhelmingly oppose the far right windbag rhetoric. includings Republicans, even to the extent that the windbaggers are threatening mainstream Republican candidates.
> ...



Because the money behind corporate influence and the 'lawyer' industry, from where 95% of our politicians come from, have managed to stay in bed long enough to consolidate power in the hands of a few by using the squeaky fringes to win elections.

The most commonly used tactic is keeping us arguing over social issues like gay marriage and abortion while they divert huge sections of the cash-flow that is the US economy straight into their pockets.

They successfully fuck with us because it is extremely profitable, and we are chumps who are willing waste our political time arguing over mandating life-styles instead of focusing on economic rules that are fair no matter what life-style one chooses.


----------



## veritas (Oct 25, 2009)

chanel said:


> Did anyone else see this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Read this, it is the paper the article talks about:

HR 3200âs âpublic optionâ will not resemble Medicare - PNHP&#039;s Official Blog


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 25, 2009)

JW Frogen said:


> Any actuary, if they are drunk and so honest, will tell you the trick to making an insurance policy cost effective for everyone is to spread the risk to the most amount of people. The more people in a plan, the more cost effective. Spread the bet.
> 
> Public option.
> 
> ...



Other than your inference that getting jacked-off by an invisible hand is a bad thing,


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 25, 2009)

Chris said:


> Ame®icano;1647992 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Do you know how many were slave owners and to what party they belong?
Do you know that slave owners wanted to count slaves as "whole person", but those against slavery opposed it. Do you know why was that?

We The People ended the slavery and amended the constitution. Do you know how?

I do agree that, taking care of the old and the sick is the right thing to do. I do NOT agree with the way that is proposed.


----------



## Care4all (Oct 25, 2009)

veritas said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> > Did anyone else see this?
> ...



That's what I have been saying ALL ALONG, the public option in HR 3200 is nothing like a single payer universal plan, EACH PERSON who chooses the Public option has to pay for it through their premiums and the plan has to be fully funded through premiums as with all other private insurance plans.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 25, 2009)

Care4all said:


> veritas said:
> 
> 
> > chanel said:
> ...



You have weasled out of every question I've put to you as to why this is going to be preferable to the system that exists now, and how gov't is magically going to make reality, in the form of statistics, disappear.
So I'll ask this one again.


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 25, 2009)

Care4all said:


> veritas said:
> 
> 
> > chanel said:
> ...



That part is correct.

Only problem with public option is that imposing public option to the states require one of two things, amending the constitution or changing state laws. Once public option is forced to the states as an alternate, state borders should be open for the other alternates too. Government want's to compete with the private sector, but preventing private sector to compete with government at the same time.


----------



## dilloduck (Oct 25, 2009)

The plan is being built by politicians-----that in itself should be enough to scare everyone to death.


----------



## Care4all (Oct 25, 2009)

Ame®icano;1648407 said:
			
		

> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > veritas said:
> ...



From what I read in HR3200, the Public option is offered within a State, and the price for the premiums for the public option will be priced for those who buy the Public insurance option WITHIN the state....

The way it is worded in hr3200, appears as though there will be 50 different public options...so there is no privileged Government plan that crosses State lines.

Of course, this is bad...the public and private plans should be able to cross state lines.....it limits true competitiveness keeping them within the state along with other measures each state has put forth through their own regulations which only causes the price of health insurance to stay higher than what the market really can support, though as you state, constitutional....


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 25, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Ame®icano;1648407 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why this is going to be preferable to the system that exists now, and how gov't is magically going to make reality, in the form of statistics, disappear.
And if you open each state to competition then why do you need a public option at all??


----------



## Conservanoid (Oct 25, 2009)

No the public option is stupid


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 25, 2009)

Ame®icano;1648357 said:
			
		

> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;1647992 said:
> ...



Would you be happy if all the states were to each do their own thing?

If nothing else, our children would have 50 to 20 working models to look at over the next 8 decades.....


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 25, 2009)

Ame®icano;1648407 said:
			
		

> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > veritas said:
> ...



Nobody is forcing anything on anyone.  The key word in Public Option is 'option'.

Option:  You choose.  Group with your fellow employees in a tiny little bullshit group with between some and not much influence in the insurance purchasing market or Group with your fellow Americans.

The bigger the Group the more stable the insurance.  Bring profit down to the level of the middle-class bureaucrats required to run it and you have potential to create a very stable fund indeed.


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 25, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> Ame®icano;1648357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not sure I understand your questions.


----------



## Ame®icano (Oct 25, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> Ame®icano;1648407 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Read again. I made it easy for you this time.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 25, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;1648407 said:
> ...



I'd be happy if We, The People offered to put me and everyone else under 65 and not disabled on Medicare for a fair premium based exclusively on our age.

Folks 'round here in Florida seem to like the service Medicare offers and it travels well...


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 25, 2009)

Ame®icano;1649912 said:
			
		

> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;1648357 said:
> ...



Just thinking out loud.  About your post - if the bill before The People sucks, would you have more confidence in the government involvement if it were more localized?

Would our children's children thank us for giving them many plans to evaluate instead of the one.......?   

Just  out loud.....


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 25, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



I'd be happy if anyone, I don't care who, offered to pay my bills and subsidize my life-style.
But the chances of that happening are nil.  Nor would I particularly support such a move since inevitably it will become unsustainable and the whole system will come crashing down.


----------



## Chris (Oct 26, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Horseshit. 

Every other industrialized country in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF what we pay for healthcare.

It is our system that is crashing.


----------



## elvis (Oct 26, 2009)

Chris said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



Go move to one of those countries, you Goddamned leech.


----------



## jeffrockit (Oct 31, 2009)

Chris said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Yeah and those other countries have much higher tax rates in order to fund  the "free" health care. I don't think they are laughing about that.


----------



## Care4all (Oct 31, 2009)

jeffrockit said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



no they don't....not when you take what we pay in insurance for our own health care...and add that to our taxes paid.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Oct 31, 2009)

Care4all said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



That would add 6% to my "tax" burden.   Still well under the rates of european countries.

That is from a 5 figure salary.  If i made more it would be an even smaller percentage.


----------



## Care4all (Oct 31, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > jeffrockit said:
> ...


good morning plymco
i can see that for someone making over 100 grand that it may not up your tax percentage that much compared to your income....but 80% of Americans do not make 6 figures in salary in our great country and many of them are paying 20-50% of their salaries in health care insurance costs....and some do not have it at all.

Edit:  my mistake, thought you said 6 figures


----------



## NYcarbineer (Oct 31, 2009)

Care4all said:


> veritas said:
> 
> 
> > chanel said:
> ...



This is widely misunderstood, or, in many cases, purposely misrepresented by the anti-reformers.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Oct 31, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > jeffrockit said:
> ...



Then, you have to add what you pay out of pocket towards your healthcare, i.e., that which your plan/insurance doesn't cover.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 31, 2009)

jeffrockit said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



Just pretend for a moment that the premiums you pay and the premiums paid on your behalf paid by your employer are health insurance 'taxes'.  Who pays more in 'taxes' now?

Not to mention the sensitive health and financial data that we trust to private corporations that don't give a shit about protecting our privacy...... thank (insert your preferred Deity here) that there is *some* regulation on the buying and selling of that information.

Can you imagine what the Social Security data base would go for on the open market?


----------



## Care4all (Oct 31, 2009)

matt and I pay about  30% of our household income for healthcare insurance and out of pocket deductibles that we have had to use....  I have tried everything to find a cheaper insurance that covers more than his work's piece of crap insurance plan and it is triple the cost than what we get through his work on the group plan, so there is no hope...


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Oct 31, 2009)

Care4all said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



its all good.  I pay 40 bucks a week for health insurance.  thats 6-7% of my income.   

Some people do pay a lot more, if my employer didn't help i'd be paying 12-14% of my income in insurance (not including any money i might make on the side)


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Oct 31, 2009)

Care4all said:


> matt and I pay about  30% of our household income for healthcare insurance and out of pocket deductibles that we have had to use....  I have tried everything to find a cheaper insurance that covers more than his work's piece of crap insurance plan and it is triple the cost than what we get through his work on the group plan, so there is no hope...



See this little tidbit of knowledge you gave me here gives me HUGE insight into your strong desire for some kind of government run care.   If i was paying that much of my income to health care i'd probably be uninsured and more accepting of all this talk out of pelosi and obama about a public option.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Oct 31, 2009)

Care4all said:


> matt and I pay about  30% of our household income for healthcare insurance and out of pocket deductibles that we have had to use....  I have tried everything to find a cheaper insurance that covers more than his work's piece of crap insurance plan and it is triple the cost than what we get through his work on the group plan, so there is no hope...



Yup.  The money behind the insurance industry has us enslaved to them.  They have managed to enslave both the consumers of health care and the providers using fear of catastrophic illness and its related expense as the whip to keep us in line. 

Placing the word "industry" after insurance is a joke.... it makes nothing, it serves nothing.  It is a bureaucracy, not an industry.  Bureaucracies do not deserve to make a profit.


----------



## Contumacious (Oct 31, 2009)

SmellyLemmings said:


> Can Public Option Work?!



Ask yourself some questions:

1- Are you a parasite?

2- Do you believe that your neighbors owe you a living?

3- Do you believe that government has the right to loot and plunder on your behalf?

.


----------



## Care4all (Oct 31, 2009)

Contumacious said:


> SmellyLemmings said:
> 
> 
> > Can Public Option Work?!
> ...



WHAT are you talking about?

maybe you need to tell us WHAT YOU THINK the public insurance option is....?????

HOW is choosing to PAY the public insurance option your PREMIUM instead of being FORCED to pay a Private insurance company with their overhead and profit in their premium, being a parasite?

you are clueless on this public insurance option and what it means, aren't you?

care


----------



## Contumacious (Oct 31, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > SmellyLemmings said:
> ...




....the word *insurance *has become corrupted in public discourse. What most people mean when they talk about obtaining health insurance is "How can I find a third party who will provide me with unlimited consumption of health care at no or minimal cost to me?" The current health care debate seems to be about the search for a system where everyone can obtain unlimited care at no cost to anyone."


----------



## Chris (Oct 31, 2009)

Contumacious said:


> SmellyLemmings said:
> 
> 
> > Can Public Option Work?!
> ...



I believe it the right thing to do for the government to take care of the old and the sick.

I also believe it is more fair and cheaper.


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 31, 2009)

Chris said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > SmellyLemmings said:
> ...



Do you believe in Santa Claus and teh Easter bunny as well?
Why do you believe the government ought to do these things?  In most countries historically families were responsible for this.  Or communities.  Why is gov't responsible?
How is it fair?  Every dollar taken from me in taxation means one less dollar I can spend on my own health care or that of my family (see above).  How is any of that fair?
As for cheaper, when has government ever done anything cheaper than private enterprise?


----------



## Contumacious (Oct 31, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



Mr. Fucktard, Sir:

Are you aware that the US National Debt is :








.


Yes_____  or No______

that is ALL I want to hear.

.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Nov 1, 2009)

Contumacious said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



Contumacious,

Anyone who does not look for the best price for a good or service, quality notwithstanding, is a fool.

Reducing the cost of seeing a doctor is definitely part of the public debate - the question before us is do we allow a private corporation to profit from the management of our health and financial data base or, do We, The People hire a bunch of clerks and bureaucrats at reasonable middle class salaries and tell the million dollar insurance executives currently deciding if a person is deserving of coverage to go fuck themselves?


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 1, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



Because we know that all government services are provided at better prices and with better quality than private services, right?
If you really believe that you are an idiot.  If you believe health insurers are simply greedy vultures, you are a bigger idiot.  ANd if you think this debate is simply about making life better for all Americans you are King Fool.


----------



## Care4all (Nov 1, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > matt and I pay about  30% of our household income for healthcare insurance and out of pocket deductibles that we have had to use....  I have tried everything to find a cheaper insurance that covers more than his work's piece of crap insurance plan and it is triple the cost than what we get through his work on the group plan, so there is no hope...
> ...



I don;t want a public plan that is paid for by others, I want to buy our own insurance as we are now, but we need the prices for health care insurance to come down...we need real competition and real reform to take place so we can afford food, property taxes and health insurance...the only reason we can afford to pay the 30% is because we don;t have a mortgage, we own our home....but there are many much worse off than us because they also have to pay a mortgage or rent and health insurance, so they don;t pay for health care, because they can't afford to and also get by....

yes, I am closer to those in need than you are, for certain!  But we still have it better than others, so the glass is half full to me, not half empty....

we just need access to AFFORDABLE health care that we can buy, I don;t give a hoot on how we actually get there....we just need THIS to be the end result....and with making it mandatory that we buy the private insurers policy.....with no other competition on the table, this is a GIFT HORSE to the insurance industry and there is absolutely no incentive to compete with eachother to capture more of the market share.....THAT'S A REAL PROBLEM....

And I honestly see this as keeping the prices high, not lowering them plymco.


----------



## Care4all (Nov 1, 2009)

I don;t believe health insurers are necessarily greedy, nor do i believe the greatest savings in our health care costs are in the Insurers...

Our greatest costs in health care now a days are prescription drugs....and what the medicare pill bill for the seniors costs us each year in taxes.....this was another gift horse...only given to PHARMA by the Republicans in congress on that one....

the deal the republicans made with PHARMA on us not being able to negotiate bulk discounts is ABSURD and not being able to buy drugs cheaper from Canada is absurd....and yes, the profit margins of the PHARMA industry are absurd...they are not free market earned profits, they are tax payer's money handed to them with the pill bill and regulations that keeps them profitable such as the 2 i mentioned above....

And the inefficiencies in hospitals is also something that could give us huge savings if they corrected them...

and medical mal practice reform....

the most important thing that could have been done, is rid insurance companies of "group" policies and allow us all to buy our own health insurance policy, with the help of a company benefit....like a credit given to us and then we can choose which policy is best for us....this truly gives us control of our own health care instead of being enslaved to ones employer and their choices in insurance.

we should ALL be considered ONE BIG GROUP, after all...they have a captive audience....


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 1, 2009)

Care4all said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



Well, latest scoring from CBO says the gov't option will be MORE expensive than private insurance.  So I guess that goal is down the toilet.
You still have not managed a coherent answer as to how a gov't option would lower costs.  As I've pointed out, often, margins are low in the industry.  With gov'ts well known aptitude for waste any savings from being non-profit making will quickly evaporate.  Even if the public drones were as efficient as private industry rates would be 2-3% lower.  Is that really worth imposing huge mandates and taxes on everyone?
No.
This bill sucks.  Any bill likely to be produced by the Dums is going to suck.  People who have never created wealth have no business telling those of us who have what to do.


----------



## Care4all (Nov 1, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...


Got a link for the cbo scoring and for what public option they scored Rabbi?

I did answer your post and questions on this:



> prove it rabbi, that it is like a fannie mae.... no where is there a guarantee in the public option that our gvt taxes will pay for it....hr3200 specifically states that premiums are to pay for the whole shebang AND SOME....the plan has to take in even more than it costs to run the plan, in case they do need more money from any miscalculations?
> 
> and, having worked my entire life for corporations....there is a ton of waste to be skimmed.... just the 'expenses' alone that are turned in by employees could save a ton, and the twice a year company meetings at 5 star resorts for a week, with massages at spas etc.... we did all of that...paying $300 bucks a night for a hotel room for every executive and every salesman of the company...we could eat anything we wanted...lobster, surf and turf, caviar....we drank until we fell over....all on ''the company''.... all of this exorbitant spending was unnecessary....we could have put on a great Sales meeting on our home turf or a hotel nearby....but noooo, we spent a fortune shipping all of the next season's product, from massachusetts to scottsdale arizona's 5 star marriott camelback resort for our sales reps to preview it.... and that ain't even a smidgen of the waste....
> 
> ...


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 1, 2009)

CBO Rebuts Pros, Cons of Public Option - WSJ.com

Anyway, your "answers" are absurd and betray an ignorance of business that is profound.  If you think gov't employees are somehow going to be more efficient than private employees I'd like you to recount your last visit to the DMV.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Nov 1, 2009)

Care4all said:


> I don;t believe health insurers are necessarily greedy, nor do i believe the greatest savings in our health care costs are in the Insurers...
> 
> Our greatest costs in health care now a days are prescription drugs....and what the medicare pill bill for the seniors costs us each year in taxes.....this was another gift horse...only given to PHARMA by the Republicans in congress on that one....
> 
> ...



There certainly are ways for We, The People to 'make' private insurance more fair, and true competition is a key step towards the problem of price.  

The reason I lean toward a public option is that the idea of a profit motive driving the decisions behind the management of the health and financial data bases with MY personal information on them kind of scares me.

Thank (insert your preferred Deity here) for the regulations with the public interest in mind that we have!


----------



## Care4all (Nov 1, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> CBO Rebuts Pros, Cons of Public Option - WSJ.com
> 
> Anyway, your "answers" are absurd and betray an ignorance of business that is profound.  If you think gov't employees are somehow going to be more efficient than private employees I'd like you to recount your last visit to the DMV.



rabbi, how was the corporate wastes listed above absurd or ignorant of what goes on behind the scenes?

are you certain it isn't YOU who lives in this idealistic world of the corporations are perfect as perfect can be?   

I can assure you, that there are always ways to cut expenses in a huge corporation and there are always ways to improve and become more efficient....unfortunately, good runs on business makes us more slack and these possible efficiencies are ignored....it is only when business is tough, that more time is spent actually evaluating ones expense waste and inefficiency wastes.

NO, i didn't forsee gvt employees taking trips to 5 star resorts, or not having a cap on their expenses, nor did i think they could drink till they couldn't walk on the shareholder's dime or in their case the taxpayers dime...

yes, our gvt is filled with plenty of their own waste....but don't be thinking huge corporations don't have an equal bureaucracy and wastefulness on someone elses dime.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 1, 2009)

You dont get it.
Yes, corporations do have some waste and inefficieny built into them.  But they have incentives to remove them, especially when revenue is flagging, like now.
Gov't has no incentive to remove waste and inefficiency.  Gov't agencies have far more waste than any private corporation does.   Look at the military.  Look at FEMA.  Why will a public corporation of health insurance be different?  It won't.  It will be worse, not better.
In any case, how much does that waste and inefficiency amount to?  The answer is that amounts to as much as it would cost to get rid of it.


----------



## Care4all (Nov 1, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> You dont get it.
> Yes, corporations do have some waste and inefficieny built into them.  But they have incentives to remove them, especially when revenue is flagging, like now.
> Gov't has no incentive to remove waste and inefficiency.  Gov't agencies have far more waste than any private corporation does.   Look at the military.  Look at FEMA.  Why will a public corporation of health insurance be different?  It won't.  It will be worse, not better.
> In any case, how much does that waste and inefficiency amount to?  The answer is that amounts to as much as it would cost to get rid of it.


i don't disagree...because there is no budget restrictions with all of this government borrowing from foreign countries and from our social security surplus funds...if we don't collect enough in taxes, let's just continue to expand spending and borrow the money....attitude.

IF the government had kept borrowing down, or borrowing only within our country, then these huge expansions in gvt spending could not have occurred and ALL GVT DEPTS would have been forced in to efficiency due to the lack of their budget increase or funding....this CAN STILL BE DONE with our gvt...it may take a near miracle and perseverance from here to kingdom come, but it is feasible, we should not just give up in this respect....

same with corporations, they can always change and become better, become smarter....there is no real incentive for the guys running the show to ''tighten up'' either, as long as they show their shareholders the 3%-6% in profit or a 12% ROI either...


----------



## AVG-JOE (Nov 1, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> CBO Rebuts Pros, Cons of Public Option - WSJ.com
> 
> Anyway, your "answers" are absurd and betray an ignorance of business that is profound.  If you think gov't employees are somehow going to be more efficient than private employees I'd like you to recount your last visit to the DMV.



It's not the clerks and bureaucrats that make the difference - the folks answering the phone and inputting data into terminals are going to be pretty much the same faces in either a private or public bureaucracy; the question is: Should their managers be motivated by profit, or by job performance creating the best service according to the rules established by our representatives in congress?


----------



## Care4all (Nov 1, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> CBO Rebuts Pros, Cons of Public Option - WSJ.com
> 
> Anyway, your "answers" are absurd and betray an ignorance of business that is profound.  If you think gov't employees are somehow going to be more efficient than private employees I'd like you to recount your last visit to the DMV.



the article makes some good points, pros and cons...

i'm living in one of those states that would benefit and have savings as the article mentions....maybe the senate version where states can opt out would be better for all?

i have no problems with negotiation of rates slightly above medicare determined rates...

if our gvt would have just done this type of regulation, there would be no need for this monsterous bill imo...  that would have been reform enough....

though at that point, it puts the ow-nous on the hospitals and drug makers to cut their inefficiencies, unnecessary expenses and advertising, and overhead....in order to be profitable or to break even if a nonprofit hospital....


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 1, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > CBO Rebuts Pros, Cons of Public Option - WSJ.com
> ...



No they are not the same.  I see you dont spend much time dealing with gov't workers.
Gov't workers largely cannot be fired.  Thus they have no incentive to perform well.  And since gov't jobs typically pay less than private jobs (that is the trade-off--less pay but more security) they also attract a lower caliber of worker.
So whatever "standard" Congress establishes is irrelevant.  Customer service is going to suck because it always sucks since without incentive to perform well they dont.


----------



## oreo (Nov 1, 2009)

SmellyLemmings said:


> President Obama's Healthcare Reform 'Public Option' Explained - LAist
> 
> I'm a little confused when it comes to the public option debate. I dont know if I should support it or not.
> 
> This website shows a nifty chart explaining how public option would work, which was very helpful. But I still can't ignore how public option reminds me of socialized medicine. What about the death panel debate, the limitations on doctors and individual patient options? Not to mention the HUGE cost for this small part to healthcare reform. My paycheck is as thin enough with the other governmental programs I still pay for. So is public option worth supporting, or are u like me; a little skeptical. thanks for the comments!!




  A question to answer your question:  *Do you believe the Federal Government has done a great job getting out & despering H1N1 vaccinations, aka the Swine Flu?* 

Something they knew about since last spring?  *Millions of Americans waiting in line for hours--only to be told they ran out of the vaccine--after standing in line for hours.*

Can you imagine them with your health care--


----------



## AVG-JOE (Nov 1, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Be careful how you generalize..... Do you realize that you just called the men and women of the US Military, all employees of the Federal Government, sub-standard to their privately employed counterparts?

There are a lot of reasons for people to choose serving in government over working in the private sector - money is just not too high on the list, at least for employees who serve outside of D.C.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 1, 2009)

The problem here is third party payment not the health care system in general.

Why is it that we know the costs of everything we purchse except for medical services and products?

Think about it.  We have effectively insulated the medical industry from market forces.  Is it any wonder that prices keep rising?

Don't you think that if we had the option to look around for a deal on a CAT scan or a blood test etc that we would choose the clinic that provided that service for the least cost?


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 1, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



I'm fine with that.
Of course active duty soldiers will not be the ones administering your health care plan.  So it is really a red herring.
But you knew that of course.

People tend to choose bureaucrat office jobs for the reasons I mentioned, job security and guaranteed benefits.  They are willing to less salary in return.  The result of that is you get second rate people.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Nov 1, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Bullshit, Man!  If your personality is geared toward marketing, a job behind a government data terminal is going to drive you crazy, but if making sense out of data is a job you dig, there are lots of opportunities in government right up your alley.

There are lots of jobs in both sectors that would bore me to tears - fortunately those jobs are perfect for someone else and we are all free to choose.

It is not a matter of 'right' and 'wrong', it is finding a gig that one is capable of handling and willing to do for the pay offered.

Thank (insert your preferred Deity here) we all don't have to do the same damn thing for a living!


----------



## Christopher (Nov 2, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> You dont get it.
> Yes, corporations do have some waste and inefficieny built into them.  But they have incentives to remove them, especially when revenue is flagging, like now.
> Gov't has no incentive to remove waste and inefficiency.  Gov't agencies have far more waste than any private corporation does.   Look at the military.  Look at FEMA.  Why will a public corporation of health insurance be different?  It won't.  It will be worse, not better.
> In any case, how much does that waste and inefficiency amount to?  The answer is that amounts to as much as it would cost to get rid of it.



As someone who provides consulting for government agencies, I have definitely seen this first hand.  I had a co-worker tell me that after he began working for the County that his supervisor told him to slow down after only a few months.  He was getting too much done and making everyone else look bad.  I think military personnel tend to be better, though.


----------



## Care4all (Nov 3, 2009)

Skull Pilot said:


> The problem here is third party payment not the health care system in general.
> 
> Why is it that we know the costs of everything we purchse except for medical services and products?
> 
> ...



yes, it is insulated from market forces...and insurance companies insulate....they should be wiped out....  all gvt tax write-offs for businesses and individuals for health insurance should be wiped out, Medicare for seniors wiped out, and emergency room care paid by our gvt wiped out, and all research and development gvt grants wiped out, and all rules closing the purchase of drugs worldwide be wiped out...

ONLY THEN could we truly have a situation where market forces to keep prices lower would work...

we are so far gone in subsidies, even without this health care insurance bill....there is no way that all those things above will stop being funded by our gvt....not imo....  so, if they will not cut all those programs mentioned then what's next?  can anything else other than price caps on fees/hospital/doctor charges work?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 3, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > The problem here is third party payment not the health care system in general.
> ...



One could argue that the ability to shop around for the best price would bring down the cost of insurance.

Take auto insurance as an example.  if I have under X dollars of claims against my collision coverage I can avoid a surcharge or at least only get assessed a lesser surcharge.

If I need a fender repaired I am free to find a guy who will do it for the lowest price thereby keeping my premiums lower.  We didn't have to abolish car insurance to do it.

Similarly, if my health insurance policy worked so that I was free to find the best deal on a CAT scan then my insurer would have less to pay out and premiums would go down.

there is no need to abolish insurance to implement this simple strategy.


----------



## Care4all (Nov 3, 2009)

Skull Pilot said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



right now your insurance company is doing the negotiating....if the hospital charges a thousand for the cat-scan, negotiated with the insurance company to only charge $600 for it.....

this hasn't brought the costs of healthcare to where it is affordable...even though they are getting 40% off of the catscan....  prices are still too high.

insurance companies do negotiate for the BEST PRICE already, only upfront....and prices are still through the roof....?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 3, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



How can we know we are getting the best price when we are out of the loop?

And really, do you think the hospital would make a deal where they didn't get the maximum profit.

i guarantee you if the price of services was known, competition would spur a price war.

You would see things like CAT Scans R Us where you could get a doctor's order and walk in to get scanned at a cut rate price.

shit my Vet has an X ray in his clinic and the quality of the film is just as good as the one's you can get at a big people hospital.  My vet charges less than 100 bucks for the same service the human doctor charges twice or three times as much for.

Why?  because I can call the other 5 vets within 30 miles of me and ask what they charge for an x ray.  I guarantee that we could get better prices than the insurance companies do.


----------



## Care4all (Nov 3, 2009)

Skull Pilot said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



i am not disagreeing with you in theory skull....in theory it should work precisely as you have stated....i do want to talk it through, sharpshoot it even....but i gotta get some freshly brewed coffee....brb.

c.


----------



## veritas (Nov 3, 2009)

That's because vets are the best doctors there are. There are very few vet schools and only the best of the best get in. Vets read their own films, there's no radiologist in the middle _interpreting_. They know all about people too because they had to to get into vet school. They are all surgeons and superb diagnosticians because their patients can't talk.


----------



## Chris (Nov 3, 2009)

Skull Pilot said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



No one is going to abolish insurance.

But if you want to continue to pay insurance companies to lobby Congress to deny you coverage, more power to you.

I refuse to give those bastards one cent of my money.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 3, 2009)

veritas said:


> That's because vets are the best doctors there are. There are very few vet schools and only the best of the best get in. Vets read their own films, there's no radiologist in the middle _interpreting_. They know all about people too because they had to to get into vet school. They are all surgeons and superb diagnosticians because their patients can't talk.



vets routinely consult with radiologists via e mailed films.  i know this because my vet has done it for a second opinion and that service only costs 50 bucks.

so once again competition can only take place when consumers are informed and have the ability to find the best price.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 3, 2009)

Chris said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



Just don't come a cryin to me when you get sick or need an appendectomy,


----------



## eagleseven (Nov 3, 2009)

_*"Fixing the healthcare industry with a public option is like fixing a broken window with a brick."*_

Best. Quote. Ever.


----------



## Chris (Nov 3, 2009)

eagleseven said:


> _*"Fixing the healthcare industry with a public option is like fixing a broken window with a brick."*_
> 
> Best. Quote. Ever.



Every other industrialized nation in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because the healthcare lobbyists gave $3.4 BILLION DOLLARS to members of Congress in the last decade.


----------



## eagleseven (Nov 3, 2009)

Chris said:


> Every other industrialized nation in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because the healthcare lobbyists gave $3.4 BILLION DOLLARS to members of Congress in the last decade.


When was the last time our President was flown to Europe for treatment he couldn't get here?

Rehashed one-liners aside, if you want National Healthcare so badly, perhaps we could just contract the French government to setup and run our system? Frankly, I trust the French bureaucrats far more than the incompetent assholes that pass for legislatures in this country...


----------



## Chris (Nov 3, 2009)

eagleseven said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Every other industrialized nation in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because the healthcare lobbyists gave $3.4 BILLION DOLLARS to members of Congress in the last decade.
> ...



Every other industrialized country in the world has national health insurance and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. That is a fact.

And the French have a better system than ours. No question.

They also have many more doctors per capita. Why? Because their medical schools are free. That means more doctors and lower medical costs. 

Increase the supply and the cost goes down. Pretty smart.


----------



## Varth Dader (Nov 3, 2009)

eagleseven said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Every other industrialized nation in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because the healthcare lobbyists gave $3.4 BILLION DOLLARS to members of Congress in the last decade.
> ...



Stop talking about the treatment of the few, and let's pay attention to the treatment of the many.

Anyways, using your logic, how many Americans flew to India or other countries last year to get treatment? This report (http://www.ipa.org.au/library/59-4_HANSEN.pdf) says between half a million to 3/4 of a million.


----------



## Care4all (Nov 3, 2009)

Skull Pilot said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



let me use aetna group dental  insurance as example....if i go to one of the dentists inside their negotiated group, to have a tooth pulled it is $75 bucks, but if you do not have dental insurance....which my mother does not, it is $140 bucks for the tooth extraction from the same dentist....

aetna has a tool online where you can get their negotiated price info for your or any  zipcode and also get the 'normal' expected price without insurance for the procedure....

They negotiate a price per region they are in....  in maine where i am, the cost of these different dental procedures is 10%-20% higher than in Florida where my parents live, but their discount once negotiated is still comparable in the reduction in price...as example my insurance company may pay $90 bucks to an in network dentist up here, but the normal price for the procedure without insurance would be something like $170 bucks.

Well anyway, i gave this info to my mom and she said to herself, I'll be damned that they can only charge you "x" for the same thing they are charging me XX for...so she tried to negotiate with them....the best they would give her is a charge of $112, 20% off....so, my negotiated insurance price of $75 bucks is much greater savings than my mom's individual negotiating power...and she called several dentists to negotiate, not just one.

-------------------------------------------

I suppose what i am trying to say is that I do believe that insurance companies negotiate to the best of their ability and are not SLACK in that area and i believe they can negotiate better than the individual.  

they would be negligent to their business if they did not get the best and cheapest price possible for the services of the hospital and doctor....and I am not certain that individuals have as much power in negotiation as individuals....

I guess I need more information on how this plan that you speak about would work....

Also, when you need a catscan, it is usually an emergency and taking the time to call around and negotiating the fee is not really that likely...

Health care does not seem to fit, like other widgets would....because you can bet your bottom dollar that I would check the prices of a 42 inch flat screen from every retailer out there before i buy it...and with routine health care, i might do such, but with any kind of emergency or critical situation, I would not even THINK about what this was costing me....it would be "save the life" first...that's all that would be on my mind.

Ideally, if insurance companies never got involved, if businesses were never encourage through tax breaks to buy insurance for their employees, if hospitals were never funded by the government for emergency rooms, if PHARMA was never funded with subsidies for R and D, and if the elderly were never given a government sponsored insurance such as medicare...you can not necessarily bet your bottom dollar that health care services would be much less expensive...because then the hospitals will be paying their own emergency room fees for the indigent, and PHARMA would be paying 40% more for their research and development, and all the elderly would either be turned down for their health care by the hospitals and die on us, unless they had boo coos of money....

the only thing that might come down in price are routine doctor visits i suppose?  Because those would be the things that we could have the time to negotiate over...

I guess i just don;t understand how you forsee this working?


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 3, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > The problem here is third party payment not the health care system in general.
> ...



Darn and here I thought you were learning something.
Yes, the issue is 3rd party payers.  When it is someone else's money you dont spend it as wisely.
The solution has to start with empowering individuals to shop for their healthcare like anything else.  There will be and should be insurance for things most people cannot afford to pay for themselves. But I suspect most expenditures in medicine are not of that type but more the "my kid has an ear ache" type.


----------



## eagleseven (Nov 3, 2009)

Chris said:


> They also have many more doctors per capita. Why? Because their medical schools are free. That means more doctors and lower medical costs.


No. I practically live in a Medical School, and can tell you the costs aren't the problem.

The American Medical Association is.

We have thousands of bright young people desperate to become doctors, but they cannot, because of arbitrarily high and completely irrelevent standards the AMA maintains to create an artificial scarcity. You wouldn't understand unless you saw the process up-close and personal.

As Obama's bill does not dismantle the American Medical Association, but rather placates them (the AMA supports the bill), American medical costs will remain sky-high. Don't even get me started on the proposed prescription drug reform...more like handout to the pharmaceutical companies.

The public option is not a silver-bullet, but rather, just that, an expensive *option* that does _nothing_ to solve the underlying flaws in our system. Pouring more and more money into our current system solves nothing, yet this is all Obama proposes to do...


----------



## Care4all (Nov 3, 2009)

eagleseven said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > They also have many more doctors per capita. Why? Because their medical schools are free. That means more doctors and lower medical costs.
> ...



the AMA is definitely the problem....  we need to increase our medical students and schools ASAP....  without any reform, we will need these doctors for the boomers and an increase in doctors IS AN INCREASE IN SUPPLY, prices should fall....


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 3, 2009)

eagleseven said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > They also have many more doctors per capita. Why? Because their medical schools are free. That means more doctors and lower medical costs.
> ...



Your contention would seem to be contradicted in this thread;
http://www.usmessageboard.com/healthcare-insurance-govt-healthcare/92396-friedman-on-curing-healthcare-no-licensure-of-physicians.html
fwiw, I think you're right.
But I disagree Obama wants to pour more money in. He wants to pour more money some places but take it out of others.  Like Medicare.


----------



## eagleseven (Nov 3, 2009)

Let us look at the American Medical Association's proposed "reforms" line by line, shall we?

AMA - Our Vision for Health System Reform



> Health insurance coverage for all Americans


_More demand, with continued AMA-restricted supply, means even higher wages for currente AMA doctors._



> Insurance market reforms that expand choice of affordable coverage and eliminate denials for pre-existing conditions


_Forcing insurance agencies to pay for more treatments means higher demand, and higher doctor salaries._



> Assurance that health care decisions will remain in the hands of patients and their physicians, not insurance companies or government officials


_All the fun of a government-sponsored monopoly, but none of the regulation! Have your cake, and eat it too!_



> Investments and incentives for quality improvement, prevention and wellness initiatives


_We need MORE free money from the government to do our jobs. We just can't do our jobs making only $300k a year...
_


> Repeal of the Medicare physician payment formula that would trigger steep cuts and threaten seniors' access to care


_Medicare doesn't pay doctors enough...this must be changed. Medicare should pay full price, like everyone else! Didn't I mention we don't get paid enough?_



> Implementation of medical liability reforms to reduce the cost of defensive medicine


_Dammit, how are we supposed to afford malpractice insurance when we make only $300k a year? We need to make it so nobody can sue us!_



> Streamlining and standardizing of insurance claims processing requirements to eliminate unnecessary costs and administrative burdens


_Paying secretaries to fill out paperwork all day takes a big chunk out of our salaries, you know. In fact, if the government could make insurance paperwork illegal, so that we automatically get paid whatever we want to charge, that'd be great!_


Am I the only one who is VERY concerned that the AMA supports Obama's healthcare reforms? They stand to make off like kings, at our expense...


----------



## Care4all (Nov 3, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



I understand what skull is saying, and idealy, he is correct and you are too when it comes to us being out there shopping around for our own doctor....who charges less....

But as I mentioned, i believe this can be done for routine situations, like your yearly physical, your yearly tests such as mammogram and pap smear or PSA test or colonoscopy, or routine blood work....and SOME savings could occur....

But the health care things that are expensive, that you imply should be covered by insurance....how is this really going to save on health care...it is insurance and they may not negotiate better than the individual if you use the same standard you are using for regular insurance that covers everything including routine?


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 3, 2009)

I dont understand your question/objection.  Most medical expenditures probably occur as routine things.  So controlling those costs through shopping/competition will save money overall.  The expensive treatments will be negotiated by insurance.


----------



## Care4all (Nov 3, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> I dont understand your question/objection.  Most medical expenditures probably occur as routine things.  So controlling those costs through shopping/competition will save money overall.  The expensive treatments will be negotiated by insurance.



i don't believe the most expenditures are routine costs....it is just the opposite....the most expensive part of health care are hospitalization and prescription drug costs.

I'm not certain that we could negotiate any better deal than the insurance companies do, which is about half the cost of the doctor's visit than without the insurance....at least it APPEARS to be...

everything is so messed up, it's hard to be sure....  the reason i say this is because hospitals/doctors could be inflating the ''normal, non-negotiated prices'' in order for them to say they are taking 'a loss' on their income taxes when they are forced to pay gvt medicare prices negotiated.

but back to medical costs, i think that if we did handle our own routine check ups and had hospitalization/catastrophic insurance only, it would not lower prices enough for the most costly part of health insurance, which is hospitalization....

and group plans at work places are already changing....at my hubby's work, they offered for next year, only one insurance choice, aetna i believe, and it is a plan where basic physicals and tests are paid 100%, but any other procedure or doctor's visit is paid only 80% and you pay the rest....  like if you are sick with the flu or appendicitis or tonsillitis, have diabitis etc. then you pay the 20% plus the doc visit co pay fee of $35... and drug copay $35, and until matt and i spend $5 grand in the year out of our own pocket in network, $10 grand out of network within the year, before the insurance does come back in to pay 100% of it....AND the price of the insurance is the same as ly's while last years with his company was $2500 out of pocket for the 2 and only $25 bucks an office visit  and $25 for drug copay.....

they 'believe' this type of plan will DISCOURAGE people to go to the doctor....  

it be one thing if there was any SAVINGS from their plan this year, so that could be used towards the 100% higher deductibles, but it is the same price as the better coverage plan they had last year?


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 3, 2009)

Care4all said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > I dont understand your question/objection.  Most medical expenditures probably occur as routine things.  So controlling those costs through shopping/competition will save money overall.  The expensive treatments will be negotiated by insurance.
> ...



HArd for me to get data right off.  But look here:
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/highlights.pdf
Of all spending only about 32% was due to hospitals.  So there is a lot of routine health care spending out there.


----------



## namvet (Nov 3, 2009)

*will accept cash with proper ID*


----------



## Care4all (Nov 3, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Interesing link/report.  Thank you Rabb.  so, a good chunk is in preventative medicine, and minor sickness and savings could be had if we let the market work....how long do you think it would take for the market forces to lower prices?  3 years?  5 years?  10 years?  it does take competition to work down the prices and 'supply' as well...

and if it is going to work, (which it should), WHY would we leave out an area that is more than 50% of these costs off the table to reform or the chopping block?  the catastrophic or hospitaliazation insurance plans?


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 3, 2009)

Care4all said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



Well, when AT&T was broken up how long did it take for rates to drop?  I think it was within 6 months.
I don't understand your second paragraph as it isn't English.


----------



## Care4all (Nov 3, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



why still buy catestrophic insurance?  isn't that just keeping prices higher as well, because market forces can not work?  why not eliminate the middle man there?


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 3, 2009)

I dont understand that.
Health insurance is there to pay for things that you cannot afford to pay for.  Catastrophic insurance would seem to be one of those things.  Maybe the main one.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 4, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> I dont understand that.
> Health insurance is there to pay for things that you cannot afford to pay for.  Catastrophic insurance would seem to be one of those things.  Maybe the main one.



In fact, that is how insurance used to work.

You paid your doctor for check ups and such and insurance was only for the big ticket items like operations and major injury.


----------



## Claudette (Nov 4, 2009)

Cost is the problem with healthcare. If they removed the regs and let the insurance companies compete against each other country wide you would see costs go down. Every person and company would be looking for the best coverage at the least cost. Thats human nature.  Its also common sense. Something the clowns in DC have none of. The free market would work if the clowns would only let it. They want to dismantle our whole system and remake it withtthe Govt running the show. The Govt that can't run anything cheaply or well. Jeeze. Morons one and all. The public option will end up costing the taxpayers more and more. You have 47% of the people in this country who pay no taxes at all. Those paying taxes  will be footing the bill for everone.

When I first started working back in 70's my healthcare costs were about $2.50 a week. Thats right. What drove up the cost? Medicare which was instituted in 65. The Govt only pays doctors what they want to pay them. The rest is passed on to anyone with insurance. The 47% that don't pay taxes will just be riding the gravy train provided by those that pay taxes. Such a deal for them.

Tort reform is something that is also needed. The doctors have to pay such high malpractice insurance costs and they pass that onto their customers. Don't get me wrong, there are some crappy doctors out there that should be sued but there are also loads of frivilous lawsuits out there that drive up the costs of healthcare. Tort reform is a hot potatoe that neither party wants to touch. After all, the minute anyone mentions tort reform the lawyers lobby starts throwinig money at both parties and end of story. 

Oh yeah. Theres loads of ways to reduce costs in healthcare. To bad the clowns in DC can't see it or don't want to see it. Public healthcare?? Bunch of BS in my book. I sure don't want our disfunctional Govt, run by a bunch of clowns, to run my healthcare. How about you???


----------



## Care4all (Nov 4, 2009)

When i was under 18 all of my medical was paid for by the government, the military, so our family never had to worry about paying for it....one of the reasons my parents are wealthy today, is because the government has paid for their health care their entire lives and still is paying for near all of it....thank goodness, because now they are at the age where they really need it. (Father spent 22 years in the Military before he retired, and then another 20 years with the FAA, Miami Center, before he retired from them)

Rabb-

If hospitalization, (Catastrophic Insurance) works because you can not afford it otherwise, then why wouldn't health care coverage work, because you can not afford it otherwise?

What makes catastrophic insurance "work" and why does it "not work" for full coverage or for Doctors visits and routine visits?

What is the business model that makes it work?


----------



## Care4all (Nov 4, 2009)

maybe it works because most people pay for it their entire lives BUT NEVER HAVE TO USE IT?  Like car insurance???


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 4, 2009)

Care4all said:


> When i was under 18 all of my medical was paid for by the government, the military, so our family never had to worry about paying for it....one of the reasons my parents are wealthy today, is because the government has paid for their health care their entire lives and still is paying for near all of it....thank goodness, because now they are at the age where they really need it. (Father spent 22 years in the Military before he retired, and then another 20 years with the FAA, Miami Center, before he retired from them)
> 
> Rabb-
> 
> ...



when Patients actually pay their doctors for things, there exists a different relationship.  People become not just patients but customers and when they know what they pay for services doctors have more incentive to treat people better and to make their prices competitive.

Then you get a true doctor patient relationship and not the 10 minute office visit and a referral or prescription

Let insurance pay for the big ticket items when needed and premiums will be lower


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 4, 2009)

Care4all said:


> maybe it works because most people pay for it their entire lives BUT NEVER HAVE TO USE IT?  Like car insurance???



SO you are getting it after all.
Catastrophic illnesses I suspect represent a small percentage of total health care spending.  But even there insurance companies negotiate rates.  So there is some incentive to control costs.
There is much greater incentive when people are spending their own money.  So the more routine stuff is more susceptible to cost control through competition.


----------



## Claudette (Nov 4, 2009)

My dad retired from the military after 22 years also and us kids were covered till we were 18. I don't think of the military as a public option. This is something owed all the men and women that serve this country. 

Govt employees?? Well thats a whole other kettle of fish in my book. These folks have gold plated benefits and retirement all payed for by the taxpayers. They along with Congress will be exempt from the public system if it passes. I wonder why that is?? Mayby the public system will suck big time and these Govt employees are better than the average taxpayer??? If the public option is so great how come the Govt employees, Congress aren't front and center to partake of the marvels of the public system???? Anyone got an answer for that one??


----------



## Navy1960 (Nov 4, 2009)

Frankly I cannot understand how anyone can advocate borrowing  vast sums of tax money knowing the  track record for Govt.  programs like healthcare  then expect  this one to be any different and  suddenly  bring down the costs  of healthcare for everyone through coverage mandates without addressing overall costs.  Someone  has to pay for this eventually and if you choose to call it  a tax  or Value Add whatever the American people will pay for it.  It will not effect service delivery, nor will effect cost in the least little bit.  How do you expect cost to come down when costs are not  the mitigating factor  being addressed in the bill but rather coverage.  Perhaps the best way to provide coverage for those that need and want it, is to make it available at such a price point that people are willing to purchase it.  Here is the main falacy in this  so called "public option" it assume's that by mandating coverage on everyone you mitigate  costs by bringing in healthy young people too offset those with pre-existing condition that will flood the system.  The problem with that is that these young people 18-29 will have to be able to purchase this healthcare at such a reduced cost to make it appealing vs. paying the penalty imposed for not having the insurance. The current penalty is 2.5% vs. 1200.00 to 1500.00 a year for  low cost basic insurance. So if your a young person and are faced with paying a 300.00 dollar penalty that can be offset  by deductions or paying 1500.00 a year for healthcare what do you think they will do?  So your left with a system that brings in those that need it most with little of the offsets and  no costs being addressed, and in the end you have accomplished nothing other than to create a new department in the Govt. to push this nation even faster into bankruptcy when  healthcare reform can be addressed with the application of  reform measures  without massive spending.


----------



## Care4all (Nov 4, 2009)

i think the cost of medicare....(exclude new prescription drug plan) is less expensive than what it would be for seniors having to buy private insurance at this time in their life, because medical prices are capped through regulation.

IT WAS a Gifthorse to the insurance industry by our government removing those who are sickest from the pool of people insurance companies cover.

our health insurance costs would be much, much higher if seniors were part of the Pool of people in our plans...


----------



## Care4all (Nov 4, 2009)

Claudette said:


> My dad retired from the military after 22 years also and us kids were covered till we were 18. I don't think of the military as a public option. This is something owed all the men and women that serve this country.
> 
> Govt employees?? Well thats a whole other kettle of fish in my book. These folks have gold plated benefits and retirement all payed for by the taxpayers. They along with Congress will be exempt from the public system if it passes. I wonder why that is?? Mayby the public system will suck big time and these Govt employees are better than the average taxpayer??? If the public option is so great how come the Govt employees, Congress aren't front and center to partake of the marvels of the public system???? Anyone got an answer for that one??



no, that's not right.

those in congress are NOT exempt from the new health insurance plan....the insurance companies in their plan will be part of the reform and insurance exchange and will follow all the rules and regs required by this new insurance reform.


----------



## manifold (Nov 4, 2009)

SmellyLemmings said:


> Can Public Option work?



That's a good question.  But I think there is an even more fundamental question that must be answered before even considering it.  Do we NEED a public option?

I've repeatedly asked proponents of the public option to explain why it's necessary but so far nobody has even attempted to answer the question, let alone do so convincingly.

I'm not going to support anything that grows the size of our government by more than 10% (based on estimates I've seen) unless there is a very demonstrable and convincing *need* to do so.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Nov 4, 2009)

manifold said:


> SmellyLemmings said:
> 
> 
> > Can Public Option work?
> ...



Thats a great question manifold.   The administration and pelosi's people claim that the public option will lower costs due to increased competition (you know I think there is a nefarious purpose to the public option but ill leave that alone) but we could also increase competition without creating a new government beurocracy by allowing the purchase of insurance across state lines.

10% is a conservative estimate IMO, it will grow to even larger within years under the current proposal's framework.


----------



## manifold (Nov 4, 2009)

This is one of those decisions, if we go with it, from which there is no turning back.  Once we introduce a public option, it's here to stay.  That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, but again, I'd like to be absolutely certain that it's necessary before I support taking the leap.

And considering the complete unwillingness of anyone, here or publicly, to address this question sincerely, I'm pretty much left with no alternative but to oppose it.  I simply do not see a need.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Nov 4, 2009)

manifold said:


> This is one of those decisions, if we go with it, from which there is no turning back.  Once we introduce a public option, it's here to stay.  That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, but again, I'd like to be absolutely certain that it's necessary before I support taking the leap.
> 
> And considering the complete unwillingness of anyone, here or publicly, to address this question sincerely, I'm pretty much left with no alternative but to oppose it.  I simply do not see a need.



Hey now I adressed it sincerely.....but I'm not a supporter of it.


----------



## Intense (Nov 4, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > SmellyLemmings said:
> ...



It will grow every year along with their wage increases, in spite of the deficit.


----------



## manifold (Nov 4, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > This is one of those decisions, if we go with it, from which there is no turning back.  Once we introduce a public option, it's here to stay.  That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, but again, I'd like to be absolutely certain that it's necessary before I support taking the leap.
> ...



Yes you did.  (I'll rep you for it shortly  )

But I'm specifically looking for supporters to address the question of need.  As I've said repeatedly, when it comes to expanding the power and/or influence of government (especially the federal government), my *default* position is always against.  That is unless and until I'm convinced there is a need.


----------



## Care4all (Nov 4, 2009)

manifold said:


> SmellyLemmings said:
> 
> 
> > Can Public Option work?
> ...



the public option was not what is costing the 'money' in this plan, the public option is just another insurance option that the customers pay for through their premiums....if your state, like mine, has ONLY 2 insurance companies that represent 90% of the people in your state who are insured, there is NOT enough insurers that can effectively compete, to bring prices down....a public option in my state could be a third choice for us to buy insurance from instead of the Duopoly that we have here and a 33% increase in insurance options, though it just goes from 2 insurers to 3.....

Capitalism RELIES on vigorous competition to keep prices down....3 options to buy insurance is probably still not enough competition in my state to bring insurance down as much as needed, but a start....I SUPPOSE?

what is costing tax payers more are the ''affordability credits'' given to people making up to 300% or 400% of poverty, which they can use to buy private insurance with...

this is suppose to cover about 25 million more people that are uninsured now....that is where the bulk of the 'money' is going in this bill...whether the public option is there or not.


----------



## Intense (Nov 4, 2009)

Care4all said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > SmellyLemmings said:
> ...



It's a diversion from the real problem, not a solution.


----------



## Intense (Nov 4, 2009)

We're the USPS to bring down UPS and Fed-Ex, would We be better off?


----------



## Care4all (Nov 4, 2009)

Intense said:


> We're the USPS to bring down UPS and Fed-Ex, would We be better off?



how does the question relate?


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 4, 2009)

Care4all said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > SmellyLemmings said:
> ...



You have identified the problem as gov't interference, namely permitting only two companies to write insurance. The solution is obviously not more gov't interference but less.  Allowing people to purchase across state lines would instantly open the market to competition.


----------



## Intense (Nov 4, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > We're the USPS to bring down UPS and Fed-Ex, would We be better off?
> ...



Competing while being subsidized, operating at a loss.


----------



## manifold (Nov 4, 2009)

Care,

There are several examples throughout our history of the federal government stepping in and breaking up monopolies, and oligopolies without jumping into the arena as a fellow competitor.  Why do they NEED to this time?


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 4, 2009)

In this case the gov't created the monopoly/oligopoly in the first place.


----------



## Care4all (Nov 4, 2009)

Intense said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



well, the whole plan could be useless other than paying for insurance for the 25 million newbies that didn;t have insurance, that's for certain...  

but the way they got the public insurance option, done within each state, it will never bring the insurance companies to their knees....not when the public insurance option has to carry and cover ALL that the Private insurance companies do on the insurance exchange....  at most, if they are efficient, they may be able to affect prices of the other 2 insurance companies in my state that they would be competing with....by maybe 5%....
-------------------------------------------------------
Do you go to ups or fedex to mail a letter?  Why not?


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Nov 4, 2009)

manifold said:


> Care,
> 
> There are several examples throughout our history of the federal government stepping in and breaking up monopolies, and oligopolies without jumping into the arena as a fellow competitor.  Why do they NEED to this time?



In addition, the current public option will subsidize anyone who makes 4x the poverty line or lower...how is that funded without using tax money?


----------



## Care4all (Nov 4, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Care,
> ...



you just don;t get it...Pymouth

The public option, whether there is one or there is not, DOES NOT AFFECT the part of this insurance reform that PAYS for those at %400 of poverty.

Those making 400% of poverty without the public option will still GET THE AFFORDABILITY CREDITS to PAY for their Insurance with possibly a MORE EXPENSIVE private plan....

THE TAX PAYER WILL STILL BE PAYING FOR THIS, with or without the public option in the plan.

AFFORDABILITY CREDITS, are completely a separate entity, in and of itself....in this insurance reform....and do not just GO AWAY because there is not a Public Insurance Option that citizens can BUY.


----------



## manifold (Nov 4, 2009)

So basically, Care's argument is we need a public option because it will cost less taxpayer dollars in the long run than not having one.

If that were true, it would at least be a reasonable justification of a need.

But I don't believe it's true.  Not for a nano-second.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 4, 2009)

manifold said:


> So basically, Care's argument is we need a public option because it will cost less taxpayer dollars in the long run than not having one.
> 
> If that were true, it would at least be a reasonable justification of a need.
> 
> But I don't believe it's true.  Not for a nano-second.



I dont know what point she is making.
I have asked several times what the government running an insurance company will do that private enterprise running it will not do.  Aside from the tiny profit margin there is no difference.  The only real difference is that without a profit motive inefficiency and waste will go wild, eating up any "savings."
But the credits have to be an integral part of the "reform."  Otherwise it loses the "affordability" aspect of the plan.  I mean the alleged afforability because there is no affordability when gov't is involved.


----------



## Care4all (Nov 4, 2009)

the things that could bring health care prices down, is also rigorous competition....this means we need more supply.

More hospitals, more doctors, more nurses, more medical schools, etc....(whatever it takes to get that done)

In addition to this, better regulation in the pharmaceutical area...to initiate more competition is needed.
We should be allowed to purchase drugs from overseas if they are cheaper and we should be able to negotiate bulk discounts for medicare pills, as the VA does for their veterans....we should reduce the time on the market where the branded drug is protected....not allow for an extension and only give them the first 10 years or even less, where they can charge through the roof for a life saving drug and keep generics off the market.

Even letting insurance companies cross state lines, the insurance companies still have to deal with the higher costs of health care that come from the doctors and hospitals and diagnostic tests....so the only saving seen if this legislation were to pass, is that the insurance companies could have a larger "pool of people" to prorate the costs of health care across.

the same with adding all the uninsured, this gives the insurance companies more people in their pools of people to prorate the actual costs of the health care they have to pay for....

and it gives the hospitals more people to prorate their fixed costs....the same MRI machine cost them $200 grand, whether they have 10 people a day using it for tests at $1000 bucks each, bringing in $10k a day to pay for it or 20 people a day at a $1000 each, bringing in 20k a day to help pay for it.


----------



## Intense (Nov 4, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > So basically, Care's argument is we need a public option because it will cost less taxpayer dollars in the long run than not having one.
> ...



The Government will Guarantee Wage and benefit increases to all of it's employee's, further indebting Us.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Nov 4, 2009)

Care4all said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



According to the CBO report on the current House bill, the public option would likely have higher premiums than private insurance.  



> That estimate of enrollment reflects CBOs assessment that a public plan
> paying negotiated rates would attract a broad network of providers but
> would typically have premiums that are somewhat higher than the average
> premiums for the private plans in the exchanges. The rates the public plan
> ...



http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10688/hr3962Rangel.pdf  (page 6)

That being the case, why would you want a public option in the bill?


----------



## Care4all (Nov 4, 2009)

all i want is to be able to go and buy insurance for my husband and I as individuals, or for me alone, because my husband is a Disabled vet and he can get his healthcare from the VA which is about 50 miles from here....

we can not afford $2000+ a month for the 2 of us, nor can we afford the $1000+ a month for a policy just for me.

It is ridiculous that one has to work in order to get and buy insurance that is affordable....


----------



## Care4all (Nov 4, 2009)

Intense said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



Pajesus almighty intense...WHY OH WHY DO YOU KEEP SAYING THESE THINGS THAT ARE NOT TRUE?  why?  

It says right in the bill that the public insurance plan CAN NOT DRAW FROM TAXES and must completely pay for itself, through the premiums charged to customers....so if there are raises for these employees, the raises will come out of THE PREMIUMS.

Why is that so hard to understand?


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Nov 4, 2009)

Care4all said:


> all i want is to be able to go and buy insurance for my husband and I as individuals, or for me alone, because my husband is a Disabled vet and he can get his healthcare from the VA which is about 50 miles from here....
> 
> we can not afford $2000+ a month for the 2 of us, nor can we afford the $1000+ a month for a policy just for me.
> 
> It is ridiculous that one has to work in order to get and buy insurance that is affordable....



But according to the CBO, the public option will not help you to achieve this end, so again, why do you support a public option is its premiums, according to the CBO, will be higher than private insurance premiums?


----------



## Care4all (Nov 4, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



yes, it may not save money for the consumer INITIALLY.

But how about answering my MAJOR POINT correcting YOU on the 400% of poverty claim that the public insurance option is what pays for this....

As i said, WITHOUT THE PUBLIC OPTION, your taxes will still go to pay for the health insurance of those making 400% of poverty.

do you accept this or still deny this PP?


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Nov 4, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Why would you believe that would stick when the House has already passed a stand alone bill reversing cuts in reimbursements to physicians from Medicare that are required by a law passed in 1998?  In fact, every year but one since 1998, Congress has refused to allow the cuts required by the law it passed in 1998 to go into effect, so what makes you think if the Dems continued to hold the House and a public option needed a taxpayer bailout, the House would not attach a rider to an appropriations bill, that cannot be blocked by filibuster in the Senate, to provide extra funds to a public option?


----------



## Care4all (Nov 4, 2009)

manifold said:


> Care,
> 
> There are several examples throughout our history of the federal government stepping in and breaking up monopolies, and oligopolies without jumping into the arena as a fellow competitor.  Why do they NEED to this time?



as rabbi stated our state governments created the monopolies, duopolies already, through their own state insurance laws....

Adding one additional insurance plan will just be a minor, slight, thorn in the private insurers side....no monopoly is going to be broken by it BECAUSE IT IS NOT GOVERNMENT FUNDED, it is funded by ONLY THE POLICY holders, those paying premiums.

The only saving with the public option is the 5% that the Private insurers make in profit and any efficiencies that save money that they may institute.

What the public option does do, is provide another insurance plan for people to choose from and not give ALL THE PEOPLE who HAVE TO BUY INSURANCE DUE TO THE MANDATE in this plan, to the private insurance companies on a silver platter....a gift horse to them, if they do not have to compete for these customers with better plans or prices than the next insurer....imo.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Nov 4, 2009)

Care4all said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



There is no reason to believe the public option contained in the current House bill will ever reduce costs to the consumer, so again, that being the case, according to the CBO, why would you want a public option? 

As for your MAJOR POINT, that's a discussion you were having with some one else.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 4, 2009)

Care4all said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Care,
> ...



It's not directly funded.  But once the gov't hands out subsidies then those subsidies will go to the public entity.
Let's look at the public entity:  Why would someone sign up for that?  One good reason is they couldn't get insurance any other way.  For example, I have a disabled son.  We cannot get insurance, no one will write it (we have it grandfathered in from before he was born btw).  If someone were to write it, it would be terribly expensive.  So private insurance is not able to price the risk of insuring him.  That would throw us into the public pool.  But the public entity still has to contend with the reality of higher risk of claims.  So the insurance is inherently more expensive.  It has nothing to do with greed or anything else.  If the gov't then wants to give me subsidies I will spend the subsidies buying the insurance and gov't is simply subsidizing its own policies.
It makes no sense.


----------



## Care4all (Nov 4, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...



yeah, i see NOW that i was responding to you toomuchtime instead of Plymouth, MY MISTAKE!  

I think the congress should take seriously what the CBO is saying about this and i do appreciate the information....but they TOO should appreciate the CBO's report as well and do something to change it...change or tweak some things in their plan for this option that will not have the same results with CBO, and reduce costs....the plan hasn;t been passed and is not static....congress should be reacting to CBO's scoring and make the changes necessary to price it better, send it back to CBO to score and see how it comes out...

And for goodness sakes, if the public insurance option is not in this bill, DO NOT MAKE HEALTH INSURANCE MANDATORY!  make the insurance companies compete for the extra customers, not hand them to them on a silver platter.


----------



## Care4all (Nov 4, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...


The affordability credits, will be handed out whether there is a public option or there is not one.

my understanding is that all preexisting conditions coverage will be mandatory for all insurers...  and even in the CBO's scoring, shows that many people with the affordability credits will be buying PRIVATE insurance with them....so could you, with your disabled son...once preexisting condition coverage is law.


----------



## Care4all (Nov 4, 2009)

RABB,

this is for you, from an argument last week, that i meant to post for you....



Maine: 2 insurance companies control 88% of the market.

Missouri: 2 insurance companies control 79% of the market

North Dakota: 1 company control 89% of the market.

As stated before, 94% of the health insurance markets across the country ARE NOT COMPETITIVE MARKETS. 



> Did you know that the federal government has anti-trust (monopoly) law PROTECTION for health care insurance corporations? Insurance corporations CAN LEGALLY discuss AMONGST EACH OTHER, pricing, discuss coverage, discuss insurance limits, discuss &#8220;pre-existing conditions&#8221; and AGREE to NOT compete with each other, who will cover what territory and so forth.
> 
> 
> 
> The McCarran-Ferguson legislative bill was passed in 1945 when health insurance companies were a very small industry under the basis that there was no &#8220;interstate&#8221; insurance industry. It has been in place ever since and never updated. Other than Major League Baseball, NO OTHER INDUSTRY SECTOR enjoys this anti-monopoly PROTECTION.


Health care insurance: Did you know? | ItsYourTimes.com

i am still looking for a more reputable link....but i will find one, in time, and will post that when i do...

oh and i thought it was just the states that made them monopolies but it appears it is aq Federal Law?


----------



## Care4all (Nov 4, 2009)

here Rabb....another article discussing the monopoly situation:

a clip from the article below...
Health insurance markets out of whack



> The AMA is very concerned that federal regulators continue to turn a blind eye toward the reality that in much of the country health insurance markets are not competitive. Health insurers have amassed significant market power through mergers and acquisitions but have received minimal scrutiny. Mr. Botti himself can point to just one instance where the federal agencies have challenged a health insurer merger: the 1999 Aetna/Prudential merger.
> 
> In contrast, physicians have been placed under a far higher level of scrutiny than is warranted by their comparative economic strength in today&#8217;s market. In April 2002, the FTC announced its intention to "find and bring" cases against physicians. Between April 2002 and December 2004, it brought 21 complaints against physician entities. Of these, 20 entities decided to settle rather than engage in a protracted and financially devastating legal battle with the FTC. This scrutiny is misplaced given that physicians are by far the least consolidated component of the health insurance industry.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 4, 2009)

Good.
So getting gov't out of the insurance market is the fix, not letting them take over even more.
Right?


----------



## Care4all (Nov 4, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Good.
> So getting gov't out of the insurance market is the fix, not letting them take over even more.
> Right?



leaving it the way it is now and not change anything, is bad....

and *perhaps* this bill overall, is bad.....

That's the best i can do for you at this time


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 4, 2009)

Care4all said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Good.
> ...



No this bill is the pits.  It wont help people at all.  It wont make insurance cheaper.  It wont make health care better.  It substitutes command economics for the market.  It will be expensive for the gov't, expensive for health care providers, expensive for insurers, and expensive for the general public.
We can do better.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Nov 4, 2009)

Care4all said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



The individual mandate is a terrible idea with or without a public option.  It is, in effect, a tax on healthy people to pay for the health care of sick people.  If we as a people want to have these reforms, principally insurance for people with pre existing conditions, then we as a people should pay for it and not shift the entire burden of these costs on to one segment of the population.  

Get the individual mandate out of the bill and get rid of the requirement that sick people be accepted at standard rates.  Instead provide sliding scale subsidies to people with pre existing conditions based on income and wealth - we don't need to subsidize high risk insurance premiums for some one who earns $500,000 as the present bills do - and pay for it with a surcharge on income tax so that whatever you would ordinarily pay will be increased by a factor of 1.0X (X is a variable that will be whatever is needed to cover the projected costs of the sliding scale subsidy for the following year).  

The income tax is our most progressive tax.  It is what we as a people have decided is the right way to share the financial burden of running this country.  If we are unwilling to pay the bill for insuring sick people in this way, then we don't really want this reform.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Nov 4, 2009)

Care4all said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



Part of the problem lies in the name...  "Insurance"

When you're in your 30's with a mortgage and 2.2 kids to raise, you buy life 'insurance' hoping you never have to use it, but glad your spouse won't loose the house if you kiss a bus.

When you drive a car you buy collision 'insurance' hoping you never have to use it.

You 'insure' your house and your business against fire, hoping you never have to use it.

Health 'insurance' is the only insurance product sold that the customers and the underwriters both know full and well that use and claims will begin before the ink on the signature line is dry.

What we need is a maintenance program for physicals, pap smears and the occasional boo-boo sold separately from the 'insurance' we need for if our kid gets leukemia.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Nov 4, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> I dont understand that.
> *Health insurance is there to pay for things that you cannot afford to pay for.*  Catastrophic insurance would seem to be one of those things.  Maybe the main one.



'Insurance' can NOT make things more affordable - it is a pool of funds used to spread risk over a group of people or a span of time.

If you can't afford something in the first place, how can hiring a million dollar insurance executive to do the paperwork for you possibly make it more affordable? 

Hiring a bureaucracy to track health care payments will only work if everyone understands that it is an additional expenditure that is worth the cost because it helps spread the cost of an unexpected bad day over time (pay premiums starting when you're 20 so there is medical money available when you're 70) or over a group (I'll help cover your broken leg today, 'cause I know your premiums will help cover my ulcer next summer).


----------



## AVG-JOE (Nov 4, 2009)

Claudette said:


> My dad retired from the military after 22 years also and us kids were covered till we were 18. I don't think of the military as a public option. This is something owed all the men and women that serve this country.
> 
> Govt employees?? Well thats a whole other kettle of fish in my book. These folks have gold plated benefits and retirement all payed for by the taxpayers. They along with Congress will be exempt from the public system if it passes. I wonder why that is?? Mayby the public system will suck big time and these Govt employees are better than the average taxpayer??? If the public option is so great how come the Govt employees, Congress aren't front and center to partake of the marvels of the public system???? Anyone got an answer for that one??



I work for the federal government - non military.  I was hired fairly recently, so I do NOT have a 'cushy' job.

Health coverage for my wife and I costs about $500 per month.  I have to assume that if I was buying my coverage outside my place of employment, my paycheck would be about that much more, but my official payroll contribution is $170.  

It looks cheap because my wife and I are pretty healthy and we chose a plan that has substantial co-payments for routine stuff and good coverage for heart attacks and cancer, over more expensive plans more suited to young families with snot-nosed little petrie dishes running through the house.

The only real difference between working for the rest of you and working for just one of you is that I have 3 companies, each with a couple of plans, to choose from instead of just 1, due to the size of the 'group' that federal employees represent.

The days of the cushy federal job began to be grandfathered out in 1984.  The sooner we vote out the deadwood hired to congress before 1984, the sooner our leadership will have a vested, personal interest in fixing things like Medicare and Social Security.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Nov 4, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> Frankly I cannot understand how anyone can advocate borrowing  vast sums of tax money knowing the  track record for Govt.  programs like healthcare  then expect  this one to be any different and  suddenly  bring down the costs  of healthcare for everyone through coverage mandates without addressing overall costs.  Someone  has to pay for this eventually and if you choose to call it  a tax  or Value Add whatever the American people will pay for it.  It will not effect service delivery, nor will effect cost in the least little bit.  How do you expect cost to come down when costs are not  the mitigating factor  being addressed in the bill but rather coverage.  Perhaps the best way to provide coverage for those that need and want it, is to make it available at such a price point that people are willing to purchase it.  Here is the main falacy in this  so called "public option" it assume's that by mandating coverage on everyone you mitigate  costs by bringing in healthy young people too offset those with pre-existing condition that will flood the system.  The problem with that is that these young people 18-29 will have to be able to purchase this healthcare at such a reduced cost to make it appealing vs. paying the penalty imposed for not having the insurance. The current penalty is 2.5% vs. 1200.00 to 1500.00 a year for  low cost basic insurance. So if your a young person and are faced with paying a 300.00 dollar penalty that can be offset  by deductions or paying 1500.00 a year for healthcare what do you think they will do?  So your left with a system that brings in those that need it most with little of the offsets and  no costs being addressed, and in the end you have accomplished nothing other than to create a new department in the Govt. to push this nation even faster into bankruptcy when  healthcare reform can be addressed with the application of  reform measures  without massive spending.



Does everyone understand that if the extreme happens and the government mandates a tax to cover the health care of all, we won't have to buy insurance anymore?

For me, I already pay $500 per _month_ in health care 'taxes'........  that's for me and my bride, so multiply $250 per month by the 80% of us who are working in the worst of economies and you have quite a shit-pile of money to invest in a health care without raising taxes one single penny.

It isn't a question of raising or lowering 'taxes', it's all about finding a cheaper bureaucracy  to track the nations sensitive health and financial data.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Nov 4, 2009)

Care4all said:


> i think the cost of medicare....(exclude new prescription drug plan) is less expensive than what it would be for seniors having to buy private insurance at this time in their life, because medical prices are capped through regulation.
> 
> IT WAS a Gifthorse to the insurance industry by our government removing those who are sickest from the pool of people insurance companies cover.
> 
> our health insurance costs would be much, much higher if seniors were part of the Pool of people in our plans...



Ya hit the nail on the head, Care.  The dirty, but profitable, secret in health insurance is the concept of collecting premiums from us while we are young, healthy and making few claims if any, only to dump us on to the tax payers via Medicare when we hit 65 and begin to need the coverage.

Lobbying our representatives in government for profit is a practice that needs to end.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Nov 4, 2009)

manifold said:


> This is one of those decisions, if we go with it, from which there is no turning back.  Once we introduce a public option, it's here to stay.  That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, but again, I'd like to be absolutely certain that it's necessary before I support taking the leap.
> 
> And considering the complete unwillingness of anyone, here or publicly, to address this question sincerely, I'm pretty much left with no alternative but to oppose it.  I simply do not see a need.



If you *need* a car, you probably don't *need* a Mustang GT, but it's nice to have options.

If considered on it's own merit, the public 'option' should be just that, an option.

I have heard a lot of good praises for Medicare here in Florida, I would be happy if we scrapped the whole bucket of lobby-brewed 'reform' and just made Medicare A & B available to me as an option for a fair premium.  If it were offered for less than private companies currently charge and the coverage were adequate, why not?


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 4, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > This is one of those decisions, if we go with it, from which there is no turning back.  Once we introduce a public option, it's here to stay.  That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, but again, I'd like to be absolutely certain that it's necessary before I support taking the leap.
> ...



Why would I buy FIAT 500 from the Government Motors for the price of Mustang GT when I can buy Mustang GT directly from Ford Company for the same price?


----------



## Intense (Nov 4, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > Frankly I cannot understand how anyone can advocate borrowing  vast sums of tax money knowing the  track record for Govt.  programs like healthcare  then expect  this one to be any different and  suddenly  bring down the costs  of healthcare for everyone through coverage mandates without addressing overall costs.  Someone  has to pay for this eventually and if you choose to call it  a tax  or Value Add whatever the American people will pay for it.  It will not effect service delivery, nor will effect cost in the least little bit.  How do you expect cost to come down when costs are not  the mitigating factor  being addressed in the bill but rather coverage.  Perhaps the best way to provide coverage for those that need and want it, is to make it available at such a price point that people are willing to purchase it.  Here is the main falacy in this  so called "public option" it assume's that by mandating coverage on everyone you mitigate  costs by bringing in healthy young people too offset those with pre-existing condition that will flood the system.  The problem with that is that these young people 18-29 will have to be able to purchase this healthcare at such a reduced cost to make it appealing vs. paying the penalty imposed for not having the insurance. The current penalty is 2.5% vs. 1200.00 to 1500.00 a year for  low cost basic insurance. So if your a young person and are faced with paying a 300.00 dollar penalty that can be offset  by deductions or paying 1500.00 a year for healthcare what do you think they will do?  So your left with a system that brings in those that need it most with little of the offsets and  no costs being addressed, and in the end you have accomplished nothing other than to create a new department in the Govt. to push this nation even faster into bankruptcy when  healthcare reform can be addressed with the application of  reform measures  without massive spending.
> ...



Listen to Yourself. *"A Cheaper Bureaucracy!!!"*


----------



## AVG-JOE (Nov 5, 2009)

Ame®icano;1682642 said:
			
		

> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



That sir, is is a question that you must decide in the privacy of your own mind for yourself.

But isn't it nice to have _options_?​


----------



## AVG-JOE (Nov 5, 2009)

Intense said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Does everyone understand that if the extreme happens and the government mandates a tax to cover the health care of all, we won't have to buy insurance anymore?
> ...



Yeah, a cheaper bureaucracy.  What do you think companies like Blue Cross are?  It's not like they actually *make* something to sell...  They track data and payments!

Here's an example:  The largest insurance company on the planet, Social Security, runs at an efficiency of just 1.2%, meaning for every dollar of your FICA 'premium', only one and two-tenths of a penny goes toward overhead and administration.

Blue Cross, by comparison runs at about 22% - for them 22 pennies out of every dollar must go to overhead.

As bureaucracies go, some run more efficiently than others..... True, Social Security is kind of an unfair comparison because they don't have million dollar executives and profit-demanding shareholders to feed, but they do have The President for a boss and Congress as their board of directors.  That has to add a few tenths of a penny to the overhead.


----------



## Missourian (Nov 5, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Listen to Yourself. *"A Cheaper Bureaucracy!!!"*
> ...


 
Social Security will be broke by 2041...that doesn't sound very efficient.

*(AP) * The trust fund for Social Security will go broke in 2041  a year earlier than previously estimated  the trustees reported Wednesday. Trustees also said that Medicare, the giant health care program for the elderly and disabled, faces insolvency in 2020.
Social Security Broke In 2041? - CBS News​


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 5, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


Not so.
Do you understand how insurance works? It works by statistics and probability.  All of that gets priced into the policy, or more accurately the policy pool.
You can insure against any event as long as you have good historical data to predict its probability.
btw, I had health insurance for probably 20+ years before I made claim one on it.  I never got sick and had a routine visit to the doctor probably every 5 years.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 5, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > I dont understand that.
> ...



You clearly do not understand what insurance is and how it operates.  I'd suggest some basic research on the topic before you go blundering off again.


----------



## Claudette (Nov 5, 2009)

Well CAre. I would have to see that in writing to believe it. If its true. You can just bet your boots they will have the cards stacked so they will still get their great benefits payed for by me and you. You could probably make book on that.

AT one of the Town Hall meetings one of those same Congresswomen was asked about why she was exempt. Her answer was that she and all of us would have the choice to keep what we have or use the public option. She, of course, would keep her gold plated bene's. 

No. I would have to see proof of that Care.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Nov 5, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> Ame®icano;1682642 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It sure is but if we allow the public option to pass we will no longer have options....according to those in government who support it at least.


----------



## saveliberty (Nov 5, 2009)

It appears Obamacare has a death penalty for those with pre-existing conditions.

If you are declined by an insurer for a pre-existing condition, you must wait six months for coverage under Obamacare.  Six month wait while you have a failing heart or cancer?  That is a death sentence.


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 5, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> What we need is a maintenance program for physicals, pap smears and the occasional boo-boo sold separately from the 'insurance' we need for if our kid gets leukemia.



Totally agree (from the kid (well not a kid anymore) that got leukemia). Doesn't GEICO kind of do this already? Another idea that people can already do would be to set up an FSA or HSA for the more routine medical issues. I set aside about $1000 a year for checkups and prescriptions out of my paycheck. That's pretax, so it's really less than $1000 over having to pay straight out of pocket. All we need is for the insurance companies to offer this kind of option. My only fear would be that knowing them they would make the premiums higher than normal coverage.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Nov 5, 2009)

saveliberty said:


> It appears Obamacare has a death penalty for those with pre-existing conditions.
> 
> If you are declined by an insurer for a pre-existing condition, you must wait six months for coverage under Obamacare.  Six month wait while you have a failing heart or cancer?  That is a death sentence.



Thats how it works in europe and canada.   You have to wait months for specialists.


----------



## Chris (Nov 5, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > It appears Obamacare has a death penalty for those with pre-existing conditions.
> ...



Bullshit.

France has very low waiting times.

Do a little research.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 5, 2009)

saveliberty said:


> It appears Obamacare has a death penalty for those with pre-existing conditions.
> 
> If you are declined by an insurer for a pre-existing condition, you must wait six months for coverage under Obamacare.  Six month wait while you have a failing heart or cancer?  That is a death sentence.






Verses being denied FOREVER by the ins COs? Wow that post makes a lot of sense.


----------



## Chris (Nov 5, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > It appears Obamacare has a death penalty for those with pre-existing conditions.
> ...



The right and their corporate masters have lied and lied and lied about national health insurance, but anyone who does even the slightest bit of research can see through their lies.

Every other industrialized country in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 5, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > It appears Obamacare has a death penalty for those with pre-existing conditions.
> ...



Coverage is denied where people have lied on their applications.  Newsflash: the scumbags are often the insureds, not the insurers.


----------



## saveliberty (Nov 5, 2009)

Chris said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.web/product_files/WaitingYourTurn2008.pdf

Despite a one week fall from the high reached in 2007, the total wait time remains high,
both historically and internationally. Compared to 1993, waiting time in 2008 is 86
percent longer. Moreover, academic studies of waiting time have found that Canadians
wait longer than Americans, Germans, and Swedes (sometimes) for cardiac care,
although not as long as New Zealanders or the British.


----------



## Intense (Nov 5, 2009)

Chris said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...




France focuses on care not Bureaucracy, Small administrative staffs.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Nov 5, 2009)

Chris said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



And Cuba, Canada, and England have to wait several months for specialists.   I had to see a heart specialist a few months ago and I had to wait a week for an appointment.

Cherry pick one country....good job.


----------



## saveliberty (Nov 5, 2009)

Actually I found France has a very high ratio of doctors to patients.  A shorter waiting time seems very likely.  The doctors pay very little for malpractice coverage and make about $55,000 a year.  The tax rate is 40%, but much of that is not paid by doctors as part of the plan.  Also, most of a doctor's education is government paid.  Unlikely such a plan would work here.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 5, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...





total backwards out your ass bullshit. It's the people who are TRUTHFULL about their pre-exsisting conditions who have them denied as pre-exsisting and therefor DENIED! Quit you bullshit outright LIES.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 5, 2009)

Oh and Rabbi you are quickly becoming the biggest liar on this board. Try to start posting FACTS rather than your OPINION.


----------



## saveliberty (Nov 5, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > It appears Obamacare has a death penalty for those with pre-existing conditions.
> ...



In the cases I suggest the person is dead either way.  Pre-existing conditions are supposed to be covered by private insurers under Obamacare.  Do they get to wait six months or just the government plan?


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 5, 2009)

saveliberty said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...






You have to understand that the ins COs are motivated by only one thing......PROFIT! So when you have adjusters getting 6 figure bonuses for keeping payout as low as possible then people will NOT get fair coverage.


----------



## saveliberty (Nov 5, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Cold Fusion38 said:
> ...



Some might view that as cost control.  Seems like that was one of the big reasons government had to be a part of this.  I would be interested in seeing your 6 figure bonuses for adjusters list.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Nov 5, 2009)

saveliberty said:


> Actually I found France has a very high ratio of doctors to patients.  A shorter waiting time seems very likely.  The doctors pay very little for malpractice coverage and make about $55,000 a year.  The tax rate is 40%, but much of that is not paid by doctors as part of the plan.  Also, most of a doctor's education is government paid.  Unlikely such a plan would work here.



Indeed, the existence or non existence of a national health insurance program is irrelevant to the cost of health care/insurance.  In wealthy countries that have substantially lower health care costs than the US, the governments achieve lower health care costs by mandates lower reimbursements to health care providers.  

The less health care providers are paid, the lower health care/insurance costs are with or without a public plan of any sort.  There are two ways to lower payments to health care providers.  We can do it the way Canada and some other countries have by not allowing providers to charge more for covered services even if consumers are willing to pay it, or we can get rid of archaic federal and state laws that limit price competition in the health care markets, specifically by passing a law to allow insurance companies to sell national health care policies and by amending ERISA so that workers can use the company's contribution to by individual policies instead of being forced, as the present system requires, to buy a health care policy that was designed to serve the company's interests rather than the worker's interests.  

These two steps would greatly increase competition in all health insurance markets with insurance companies putting downward pressure on providers in order to maintain profits as consumers sought the least expensive policies that served their needs, but companies that paid too little would find few providers wanted to do business with them, so that by increasing competition in this way, free markets would find the lowest sustainable health care costs that would not require us to sacrifice quality.

On the other hand, in countries like Canada that used coercive legislation to lower health care costs the lower costs of health care are subsidized by consumers who must endure months of pain and suffering while waiting for back surgery or joint replacements and other care the government deems non urgent, and cancer patients must endure the older anti cancer drugs that will do the job but cause much more pain and suffering and collateral damage than newer ones.  And even France, which has much higher health care costs than Canada has, although lower than the US, is finding its low rates of payments to health care providers is causing a too low rate of capital investment so that it may soon have to start raising taxes or turn to longer wait times and less advanced medical technologies as Canada has been forced to do.  France is now trying to stretch the euro to put off the time when it will have to do these things by encouraging primary care physicians to limit access to tests and specialists just as Obama has proposed doing in his "rewarding quality not quantity" sloganeering.

Obviously, it makes more sense to leave health care and health insurance costs to negotiations between consumers and providers in free market negotiations than to leave these decisions up employers or to politicians who are seeking to please one or another special interest group.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Nov 5, 2009)

saveliberty said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



That's very open minded of you.  Some might simply dismiss the claim as bogus since the AMA claims Medicare denies a higher percentage of claims than private insurers do.

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/reportcard.pdf

See metric 12.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 5, 2009)

Health Care is ALL ABOUT PROFIT!!! They don't give a SHIT about the HUMAN cost of their policies. They would let you die rather than pay out make no mistake about that.


----------



## saveliberty (Nov 5, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Health Care is ALL ABOUT PROFIT!!! They don't give a SHIT about the HUMAN cost of their policies. They would let you die rather than pay out make no mistake about that.



Yes, I am sure people who take health care jobs don't care about people.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 5, 2009)

saveliberty said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > Health Care is ALL ABOUT PROFIT!!! They don't give a SHIT about the HUMAN cost of their policies. They would let you die rather than pay out make no mistake about that.
> ...






What a stupid post. Of COURSE the people who administer heath care DRs and to a MUCH higher degree nurses OBVIOUSLY care about people but the topic of this thread is INSURANCE COs. They don't give a f about you, me, or ANYONE ELSE. Like I said they would rather see you DEAD than pay out a claim.


----------



## DiamondDave (Nov 5, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Health Care is ALL ABOUT PROFIT!!! They don't give a SHIT about the HUMAN cost of their policies. They would let you die rather than pay out make no mistake about that.



Them damn farmers are about profit and making a living too.. damn them for not just doing it and giving it because you want and 'need it'

And damn them house builders wanting profit.. you NEED shelter

And damn those water plants.. charging you for the water you so badly need


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 5, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Cold Fusion38 said:
> ...



I would ask for some kind of proof but that would assume that you can a) read and b) understand properly what you've read.  You haven't demonstrated any ability for either.
And btw does your mom know you talk like that?


----------



## saveliberty (Nov 5, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Cold Fusion38 said:
> ...



Yes your post was not very accurate.  Yet, they are part of the health care system and also in the business of making money.  Making a profit is bad according to you.  I have no problem with a profit margin.  In fact, it is necessary to encourage people to create jobs in an yindustry.  If it was 40% or greater, I may question it or choose another provider.  I have not had a single claim not paid.  No one at work has had a claim not paid.  Reviewing claims is necessary to control fraud.  I hope the government does the same if they get more involved.  By the way, the government will simply ration care if it gets too expensive.  That will kill you too.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Nov 5, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Health Care is ALL ABOUT PROFIT!!! They don't give a SHIT about the HUMAN cost of their policies. They would let you die rather than pay out make no mistake about that.



Health care should be about profit.  This is America.  Reasonable profit is the American Dream.

_*Everyone*_, from the medic who scrapes you off the street to the nurse who makes sure the drugs you get are correct, to the doctor and the surgeon who put Humpty Dumpty back together again, right down to the clerks who input the data to track your bad day and make sure your premiums are collected and your bills are paid deserve to make a REASONABLE profit.  

Are their services and the products they sell worth what you are required to pay for them?  This is a question that must be answered in the privacy of one's own mind.

I see the question on the table as: Are the bosses of the army of clerks tracking our health and financial data worth what we currently pay them, or can we find people of adequate quality at middle class wages to manage the clerks who manage the countries health-data bureaucracy?  

Personally, I think we can do better.


----------



## Intense (Nov 5, 2009)

Is High Risk Investment worth it? Who do You think Pays for those losses? We could do better.


----------



## Chris (Nov 5, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



Thank you.

We should copy the systems that works like the French one.

Cuba and England are socialized medicine which doesn't work as well as national health insurance.


----------



## Chris (Nov 5, 2009)

saveliberty said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



You are lucky.

The insurance companies are killing Americans every day. 

You are living in a fantasy world.


----------



## Care4all (Nov 6, 2009)

all the doctors are paid, all the nurses are paid all the administration is paid all the board members are paid all the medical technologists are paid, all of the mri machines and cat scans and all other medical instruments are paid and even the light bill for the hospital and the healthcare for all employees are paid ETC,

BEFORE a DIME OF PROFIT IS MADE.

PROFIT is over and above salaries and the cost of doing business...

Those of you using the word profit for people's salaries are not using the term correctly.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 6, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Health Care is ALL ABOUT PROFIT!!! They don't give a SHIT about the HUMAN cost of their policies. They would let you die rather than pay out make no mistake about that.



if it wasn't about profit, there would be no MRI's or new effective cancer treatments and your doc would still be doing surgery with ether on a rag for anesthesia


----------



## AVG-JOE (Nov 6, 2009)

saveliberty said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > Health Care is ALL ABOUT PROFIT!!! They don't give a SHIT about the HUMAN cost of their policies. They would let you die rather than pay out make no mistake about that.
> ...



It's not about the people who work in health*care*, it's about the people we hire to manage the sensitive health and financial data base.

Do we *need* to pay high-6 and 7 figures to attract quality people to the middle and upper levels of management for the health-financial data base, or will a nice upper-middle class salary of $50,000 to $150,000 attract people of sufficient caliber to do the job?

What's a good book-keeper worth these days?


----------



## AVG-JOE (Nov 6, 2009)

Intense said:


> Is High Risk Investment worth it? Who do You think Pays for those losses? We could do better.



Ultimately, when the current crop of insurance executives deny coverage it is you and I, the taxpayers, who pick up the tab for everything from indigent health care to disasters that overwhelm FEEMA.

We, The People are already on the hook for the big bad days, why should a small group of individuals make personal millions on the every-day bad days we all occasionally have?

Fucking vultures if you ask me.


----------



## Care4all (Nov 6, 2009)

i have had 2 instances where i needed to use my health care insurance...

once in 1992 when i had surgery, the bill was almost $20k when all added up...my insurance company refused to pay it.

the second time was 2 years ago, a different insurance company, the bill was $2,000, and my insurance refused to pay it.

the best health care (insurance) i ever had, was Fallon Plus....in massachusetts.... which only operates there or perhaps in a couple of other new england states...the clinic the member doctors operate in was open 24 hours, my doctor and all of her associated doctors, was AN AMERICAN who actually spoke english as a first language!!!! so i could understand her....  she was extremely thorough with testing and in explaining things.   

i don't even know what kind of insurance it really was...like an hmo?  or non profit of some sort???

whatever it was, it was a good, solid plan, with excellent coverage, in or out of the system.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Nov 6, 2009)

Skull Pilot said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > Health Care is ALL ABOUT PROFIT!!! They don't give a SHIT about the HUMAN cost of their policies. They would let you die rather than pay out make no mistake about that.
> ...



You are right, but extreme.

There are other motives for innovation besides money..... in health-care, saving lives is one.


----------



## saveliberty (Nov 6, 2009)

Front Row Washington » Blog Archive » House healthcare bill doesn&#8217;t boost public support - Poll | Blogs |

"In the latest poll, conducted after House Democrats unveiled their legislation last week, 54 percent opposed the legislative effort on healthcare reform. That was up three points from the previous week and unchanged from two weeks earlier."

This means no health care reform, because the majority rules right?  That is the usual Democrat position lately.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Nov 6, 2009)

Missourian said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



Imagine how much sooner the poor management by congress would catch up if the program were run privately by million dollar executives instead of the middle-class bureaucrats who swore an oath to defend the constitution when they were hired on......


----------



## AVG-JOE (Nov 6, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...




Clearly.


----------



## Care4all (Nov 6, 2009)

SS was suppose to go in the red by 2000 also, but tweeking of it extended it 40 plus years.

SS is a problem but not that big of a problem...if it were not tweaked again at all, in 2041 it will still be collecting enough to pay everyone on it, at least 75% of what they were promised....with tweaking, this can be overcome....

medicare....that's a whole nuther story!    the pill bill could be addressed and save some of the deficits perhaps?


----------



## AVG-JOE (Nov 6, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano;1682642 said:
> ...



If the public option drives ALL other insurance bureaucracies completely out of business in your lifetime it will have done something incredibly right; you and I will be paying less than we are now and our children will have a much smaller mess to face than we do.

If it doesn't, you and I will be paying less than we do today and our children will face a smaller mess than we do today.

I don't see the down-side.


----------



## Oldandtired (Nov 6, 2009)

Public option CAN work.
Socialism CAN work as well.
Communism CAN work as well.
Democracy CAN work as well.
Nationalization of all industries CAN work as well.

None of this has EVER been in question.

The question is....is there a way to reform healthcare WITHOUT a public option...is there a way we can reform healthcare WITHOUT having to rely on the government to run it.

Interestingly, the current administration and the current congress majority do not want to find a way to do it WITHOUT government control.

THAT is what we are complaining about.

But yes...a public option CAN work....but it will change America forever.

SO maybe we can do something a little less radical?


----------



## AVG-JOE (Nov 6, 2009)

Care4all said:


> SS was suppose to go in the red by 2000 also, but tweeking of it extended it 40 plus years.
> 
> SS is a problem but not that big of a problem...if it were not tweaked again at all, in 2041 it will still be collecting enough to pay everyone on it, at least 75% of what they were promised....with tweaking, this can be overcome....
> *
> medicare....that's a whole nuther story!    the pill bill could be addressed and save some of the deficits perhaps?*



Medicare part D, GW's silver platter gift to the pharmaceutical lobby, will break the back of not only Medicare but the general budget if it is not addressed soon.

I'm usually not a doom & gloom kind of guy, but Part D will break this country as boomers age if it is not addressed and addressed soon.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Nov 6, 2009)

Care4all said:


> i have had 2 instances where i needed to use my health care insurance...
> 
> once in 1992 when i had surgery, the bill was almost $20k when all added up...my insurance company refused to pay it.
> 
> ...



According to the AMA, Medicare denies a larger percentage of claims than private insurers do, so whatever your experience has been with private insurers denying claims, it is reasonable to expect it would have been worse had you been on a public plan.

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/reportcard.pdf

See metric 12.

The facts simply do not support the arguments that private insurers, with uncommon exceptions, do not pay the claims they should or unfairly cancel policies.  The AMA report shows the argument that private insurers unfairly deny claims is bogus, and if you paid careful attention to Obama's speech before the joint session of Congress, you know the President demonstrated that the argument that private insurers unfairly cancel policies when you get sick is also bogus, although that was clearly not his intention.  

The President gave two examples intended to show that private insurers unfairly deny claims and and cancel policies when people become sick, but he had to lie to do this because the facts in both cases simply did not support his argument.



> To highlight abusive practices, Mr. Obama referred to an Illinois man who "lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found he hadn't reported gallstones that he didn't even know about." The president continued: "They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it."
> 
> Although the president has used this example previously, his conclusion is contradicted by the transcript of a June 16 hearing on industry practices before the Subcommittee of Oversight and Investigation of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. The deceased's sister testified that the insurer reinstated her brother's coverage following intervention by the Illinois Attorney General's Office. She testified that her brother received a prescribed stem-cell transplant within the desired three- to four-week "window of opportunity" from "one of the most renowned doctors in the whole world on the specific routine," that the procedure "was extremely successful," and that "it extended his life nearly three and a half years."





> The president's second example was a Texas woman "about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne." He said that "By the time she had her insurance reinstated, her breast cancer more than doubled in size."
> 
> The woman's testimony at the June 16 hearing confirms that her surgery was delayed several months. It also suggests that the dermatologist's chart may have described her skin condition as precancerous, that the insurer also took issue with an apparent failure to disclose an earlier problem with an irregular heartbeat, and that she knowingly underreported her weight on the application.



Scott Harrington: Fact-Checking the President on Health Insurance - WSJ.com

If with all the resources at the command of the WH the President believed he had to lie to make his case about abusive practices of private health insurers, clearly he believes all the trash talk about private insurers we've been hearing from him and Pelosi is bogus and entirely without foundation in fact as far as the WH researchers were able to discover.  

So why have Obama and Pelosi been lying to us about private insurers denying claims and unfairly canceling policies, and since the CBO has told us the public option in the current House bill will have higher premiums than private insurers,



> That estimate of enrollment reflects CBOs assessment that a public plan
> paying negotiated rates would attract a broad network of providers but
> would typically have premiums that are somewhat higher than the average
> premiums for the private plans in the exchanges.
> ...


why do Obama and Pelosi want to establish a public plan that will cost us more than private insurance and, like Medicare, be more likely than private insurance to refuse to pay our medical bills when we become sick?


----------



## Oldandtired (Nov 6, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



Seems like a sound plan.

So lets do it with others that profit on life necessities as well.

Let us drive those grocery stores out of business and have a public option food bank and make food costs less as well.

Let us get rid of those manufacturers ands retailers of winter coats...and have a public option coat store and it will be cheaper to  buy coats.

And...oh my...those evil landlords that charge rent. Lets have the government pass legislation for a "public option residency" and rent will be cheaper.

Oh wait...and I forgot...Those funeral homes...how dare they profit on death....lets have a public option burial service so we do not need to spend so much money burying our dead.

You just dont get it.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 6, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



Yes because you continue to post idiotic class-envy statements that show me your undestanding of the entire capitalist system is poor at best.
Would you rather have profit-motivated executives who can be fired or replaced or gov't bureaucrats answerable to no one making life and death decisions for you?


----------



## Care4all (Nov 6, 2009)

The only thing I can think of is regulation that CAPS prices...and that is so repulsive to so many....

but it is the better alternative to a windfall tax of any kind imo....  

A windfall Tax, discourages making a profit....that is not so good....imo.

HOWEVER, a reasonable, with EMPHASIS ON REASONABLE cap on procedures and products for every procedure and everyone, including medicare recipients, at LEAST gives the company a chance to modify their budget to come in profitably...

A cap on prices is like a cap on ones budget in the free market...where the corporation tells you that you only have X amount of money to achieve X amount in your sales goal....and you sit there and say WTF?  they want me to have a 20% increase in sales over last year with 20% less in inventory to accomplish this??????????  They've GOT to be kidding????  

THEN, the rubber hits the road, and you figure every way possible to cut corners while not cutting sales, to come in to that figure..."When the going gets tough, the tough get going" is a model that can not be discounted, in my humble opinion.

So putting a cap on what insurance companies are charged for your procedures done by doctors and and hospitals and labs, is like what i explained above.....IT FORCES EFFICIENCIES....it forces these various portions of the health care businesses to give themselves another look, on becoming more productive or more efficient in order to still be profitable with the limited money or...caps.

having only medicare prices caps, defeats the purpose, because businesses then calculate their losses from the medicare caps in to the prices of those with regular insurance or those without Medicare....it even forces doctors to stop taking in medicare patients etc.....

HOWEVER, if the caps were on the entire field, and not just for medicare patients, then there would be NO ONE for the health care industry to pass these prices on to, and if this were the case, then I can assure you they would have to become more efficient, and they would become more efficient and they would change their business model to accommodate such...they WILL NOT let their companies/corporations fall....  "when the going gets tough, the tough WILL GET GOING"...trust me on this....they will not just throw in their hands and fold.

care


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Nov 6, 2009)

Oldandtired said:


> Public option CAN work.
> Socialism CAN work as well.
> Communism CAN work as well.
> Democracy CAN work as well.
> ...



The public option is entirely irrelevant to achieving any of the goals of health care/insurance reform and is no more than an expression of an ideological bias in favor of government run health care; it is without merit or value in any other way.  From the CBO report on the current House bill, we know that the public option in that bill will charge higher premiums than private insurers and we know from an AMA report that like Medicare it will be more likely to deny our claims than private insurance, so it's clear the public option would bring benefits to no one other than some left wing politicians who are trying to deceive voters into believing they are doing something worthwhile.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10688/hr3962Rangel.pdf (page 6)

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/reportcard.pdf (See metric 12.)


----------



## AVG-JOE (Nov 6, 2009)

Oldandtired said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



Oh, I get it.  There is a huge difference between manufacturing or retail and insurance.  Insurance "Industry" is an oxymoron - there is nothing 'industrious' about it - Insurance companies do not incur risk by making anything or even take a risk buying wholesale and selling retail.  All you need to run an insurance data base is money, a computer and a shit load of middle-class clerks, things the federal government has in spades.

The last thing I want the government doing is managing a manufacturing or retail operation - there is way too much risk there to be effectively managed at the speed of government.

'Insurance' is different.  We, The People are already the final source of 'insurance' in this nation via FEMA, why not expand the concept?


----------



## Oldandtired (Nov 6, 2009)

The problem is our government is not being truly honest with us.
They talk about the "trillions" of dollars in profit by the insurance companies.

However, they do not talk about what ANYONE KNOWLEDGABLE ABOUT BUSINESS talks about.....profit margin.

Last year, those "trillions of dollars" in profit amounted to a 4% profit.

Now you tell me......do you believe the government has a proven track record to operate at a 0% profit? 

Their track record is a LOSS of well more than 4%....

So anyone who thinks it will LOWER premiums nd not increase the deficit...or increase taxes above the proposed taxc  increase is someone who does not know of the governments track record of running industry.

Social Security?
Medicare?

How about this....do a google search on* "armored plating".......*now THERE was a great business move by government....ended up costing us millions of dollars to find out that it cost us twice as much to make armored pating than it did to simply buy it from the free market....and government shut it down after 3 months...AFTER MILLIONS OF TAX DOLLARS TO SET IT UP.


----------



## Oldandtired (Nov 6, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> Oldandtired said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



Spoken by an individual who obviously knows nothing about business.
Insurance is a service...and has just as much "risk" as manuufacturing.
Employee law suits.
Errors and omissions
discrimination claims.
corruption
accounting irregulartities
real estate requirements
INSURANCE fraud
technology issues.
I can go on.....but I am beating a dead horse


----------



## Oldandtired (Nov 6, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> Oldandtired said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...





I noticed you did not respond to:

Housing...a need for all....NOT manufacturing
Mortuary services....not manufacturing but a need for all

There are others as well......and ALL are expensive....and ALL result in the 4% profit for those industries...so why not them as well?


----------



## Care4all (Nov 6, 2009)

I would never recommend true universal health care, like medicare for all, UNLESS the health care industry's double digit increases in prices or costs could be put under some kind of control...

health care insurance is going up each year primarily because health care costs have gone up each year....yes, there is the money in the multi millions being handed out to ceo's but i think they probably pale in comparison to just health care prices that they negotiate with the hospitals/doctors/labs are going up.

There are some reforms that the health insurance industry could use, I am not personally negating such, as much as 25% saving could be done with streamlining the paperwork...which is the relationship between insurance companies and the billing departments.

I had heard on C-span that John Hopkins Medical Center has 700 DIFFERENT payment plans to the various insurance companies and people without insurance on their books....

That is just AMAZING to me and HAS TO BE HIGHLY INEFFICIENT, just has to be...ya know? 

But the bulk of the savings can come to us through finding a way to lower prescription drug prices for us americans...we should not have to fund the entire R & D in our prices while the entire rest of the world gets to negotiate and not pay these expenses while they get to enjoy the medicines....and at a much lower price....that's just one thing that irks me...


----------



## Care4all (Nov 6, 2009)

we just need a kazillion more doctors, hospitals, nurses, med schools and labs...the increase in the SUPPLY of such should bring on competition and lower prices at the hospitals and doctors offices


----------



## AVG-JOE (Nov 6, 2009)

Oldandtired said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Oldandtired said:
> ...



Housing is both manufacturing and retail and the mortuary business was so corporately corrupt in the 80's and 90's that it remains the most paperwork intensive industry in the country, worse than medicine to hear some tell.  

People should be free to purchase as much house or as nice a casket as their means will allow, but what do you want from your insurance company other than fair premiums and the bills paid on time?  

I stand by my thesis that 'Insurance' is different, it is just a bureaucracy and we don't need to pay individuals millions to run the damn thing.  They are not worth what they charge and they should be fired.


----------



## AVG-JOE (Nov 6, 2009)

Care4all said:


> we just need a kazillion more doctors, hospitals, nurses, med schools and labs...the increase in the SUPPLY of such should bring on competition and lower prices at the hospitals and doctors offices



I am going to respectfully disagree Care.  I believe that the current level of health-care providers could easily handle the work load if they didn't have to spend 1/3 to 1/2 of their working hours filling out paperwork out of fear of being sued.

What we need is not a different health*care* system, we need a more efficient way to track the health and financial data of the nation.

When 22 to 25 pennies out of every dollar we spend on coverage is used to feed the private bureaucracy that we currently hire to track the financial side of health data in this country, and a similar bureaucracy is humming along right under our noses since 1935, serving almost every American born in the last 100 years, at an efficiency of just over 1 penny for every dollar collected, we look stupid to our neighbors.

Oh, sure... they're not likely to laugh in our faces or say anything 'cause we have guns and we are not afraid to use them, but behind our backs, they're laughing at us.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Nov 6, 2009)

Care4all said:


> I would never recommend true universal health care, like medicare for all, UNLESS the health care industry's double digit increases in prices or costs could be put under some kind of control...
> 
> health care insurance is going up each year primarily because health care costs have gone up each year....yes, there is the money in the multi millions being handed out to ceo's but i think they probably pale in comparison to just health care prices that they negotiate with the hospitals/doctors/labs are going up.
> 
> ...



Health care providers and insurers all use the same billing codes for the same procedures and nearly all of this work is done electronically, so the only difference between billing one insurer and 700 is using different company codes at the top of the (electronic) page, and how much time can it take to look up a company code?  

Moreover, if we limit the discussion to health insurance for those under 65, since all the reform proposals would effect only those, and eliminate all those Medigap insurance plans and Medicare Advantage insurance plans, that 700 number you cited would be much smaller, and if we can believe Obama and Pelosi, a big if, most insurance markets are dominated by only a few insurers, so the vast majority of the billing goes to only a few companies.  So from 700 companies we're down to 3 or 4, if we can believe Obama and Pelosi, along with occasional billings to some smaller companies, and since this is all electronic with standardized billing codes, the number of companies doesn't matter anyway.  Clearly all this stuff about the cost of inefficiency and paperwork is just a phony argument invented by those who would try to justify a public plan in spite of the fact that we know from the CBO and the AMA that a public plan would charge us higher premiums than a private insurer would while refusing to pay for a higher percentage of our medical bills than a private insurer would.

I do agree that the rest of the world should start paying its fair share of drug R&D costs.  Although I'm uncertain of what the legal mechanism would be to put this into effect, I think the fairest solution would be for the US to refuse to pay more for a drug than the average paid by the other wealthy countries.  Of course, if we did this, Canada would probably declare war on us, since drug companies would rather lose the entire Canadian market than have to substantially raise US prices, so Canadian prices would go up to compensate for any lowering of US prices, increasing health care costs in Canada, hitherto partly financed by high US prices, and probably higher Canadian taxes to subsidize this cost increase and sending Canadian resentment of the US off the charts, but hey, after hockey, being angry at the US is the leading entertainment in Canada anyway.


----------



## Oldandtired (Nov 6, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> Oldandtired said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



Insurance profits were 4% last year....less than most service industries
Furthermore, they employed millions.
Finally, such is capitalism....it works you know.

Housing is NOT any more manufacturing than insurance. Once the owner has a built structure, what he offers the consumers is a service...you pay him X amount of dollars, he gives you a roof over your head. Not only a service, but no less essential to life as insurance. And before you say "there are many that survive without a roof over their head", lets make it an equal playing field....there are probably more that survive without health insurance.

The real question that has yet to be answered and is a basic business question I have...

Insuracne premiums go up dramatically every year. However, their profits dont.

What needs to be analyzed AND fixed is "what is causing such increases in costs to insure?".....becuase it is not profits that are driving the rates...it is operating costs.

Now many, myself included believe frivilous law suits are a main reason.

But put that aside for a minute....

If insurance companies that are skilled at maximizing profits can not control the costs to operate...what makes ANY OF US think that governemtn can?


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 6, 2009)

Oldandtired said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Oldandtired said:
> ...




Imagine what will happen to costs, and to taxes, when insurance is run by the least efficient business model known to mankind with no concern for a bottom-line....


----------



## Oldandtired (Nov 6, 2009)

ThePickledPunk said:


> Oldandtired said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



My exact point and thanks for the elaboration.

Read about the industry. Contrary to what the blogs say, 4% profit is not a monumnetal profit rate....and it has been stagnent at that number for years.
However, the premiums increase by double digits a year.

If the government knows the formula to keep the rates down without putting the companies out of buisiness, why dont they simply tell the industry the formula?

Obviously, they do not have the formula.

So can ANYONE here tell me that the authors of the bill are being genuine when they say it will not oncrease the deficit, and the premiums will no longer go up dramatically every year?

It is not logical. 

Time to apply your own intelligence folks...and stop simply hearing the key words they want you to hear.


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 6, 2009)

Oldandtired said:


> ThePickledPunk said:
> 
> 
> > Oldandtired said:
> ...



They are not being genuine.  There will be a myriad of unintended consequences that this bill will produce that will cause the actual costs of its implementation to explode beyond anyone's wildest imaginings.


----------



## Maple (Nov 6, 2009)

ThePickledPunk said:


> Oldandtired said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



You are so right, the feds could not run a neighborhood lemonade stand without bankrupting it.

This debate is over, Obama care and Cap and Trade are burned, dead and buried. Pelosi stated she would bring it to a vote today, then it was postponed to tomorrow, then postponed to Sunday, now sometime next week. It's quite obvious that after the humiliating democratic loses in Virginia and New Jersey, the horrific jobs report today, that she is losing votes by the dozens. They are sneaking out the back door on her and Obama care. Cap and trade is dead on arrival in the senate. 

" First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." Mahatama Gandi

First they ignore you= the tea partiers.
Then they laugh at you= the tea partiers.
Then they fight you= the tea partiers
Then you win= the tea partiers and landslide elections in Virginia and New Jersey.


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 6, 2009)

Maple said:


> ThePickledPunk said:
> 
> 
> > Oldandtired said:
> ...



Actually- they could run it forever, as long as the tax base was viable.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Nov 6, 2009)

Care4all said:


> The only thing I can think of is regulation that CAPS prices...and that is so repulsive to so many....
> 
> but it is the better alternative to a windfall tax of any kind imo....
> 
> ...



Setting lower reimbursements for health care services will lower overall health care/insurance costs, but what price is too low a price for a given service if we do not want to sacrifice quality or how much quality are we willing to sacrifice to lower costs?  At what point will peak efficiency be reached and doctors begin to see so many patients to keep their incomes up that they can't do their best work?  Hospitals cut back on capital improvements so that there are fewer hospital beds and operating rooms and MRI's, etc. and people have to wait too long for tests and procedures?  At what point will medical device manufacturers stop trying to improve their pace makers or joint replacements, etc. because the rate of return on research is too low to attract enough capital to pay for the research?

I don't know how low reimbursements can go before we begin to sacrifice too much quality, or even if too much is the same for everyone, and I doubt you know or that anyone in the WH or Congress or even in the health care industry knows.  It is because no one knows at what point peak efficiency is reached that planned economies are always less efficient than free market economies, and in the case of controlling health care/insurance costs, why free market competition is more likely to lead us to sustainable reimbursements at peak efficiency than are government mandates.  

The problem is not that the free market in health insurance has failed us, it is that archaic federal and state laws have made a truly free market in health care/insurance impossible.  We can reached peak efficiency, meaning the best price-quality combination, in three easy steps at hardly any cost to taxpayers.  

1.  Have Congress pass a law allowing insurance companies to sell national health insurance policies, so that when you shop for a policy you will have hundreds or thousands to choose from instead of just the few choices you now have.

2.  Amend ERISA so that companies must allow employees to choose between the company plan and a voucher that can be used to buy an individual policy.  

3.  Require all health insurance policies to use the same format at the Exchange and present all information in easy to understand language, and supply easy to use software so that a shopper can easily sort through the hundreds or thousands of choices for the benefits he/she wants at the price he/she wants to pay.

These three steps will create intense competition that will allow the most efficient insurers and providers to drive down costs to the lowest sustainable levels and allow consumers with different priorities to find the policies that best suit their individual needs instead of being told what they are allowed to buy by some politicians.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 6, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...






You just spout out blatant fucking LIES and act like they are TRUE because you WANT them to be. Why would an applicant LIE about pre-exsisting conditions if they would not be DENIED coverage for those conditions. So you have tried to place the BLAME for denial of pre-existing conditions on the VICTIM rather than where it belongs with the ins co.


----------



## saveliberty (Nov 6, 2009)

Hoyer: House vote may be pushed back - Health care reform- msnbc.com

"House passage of the 10-year, $1.2 trillion legislation that extends health coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans and puts tough new restrictions on insurance companies would be a breakthrough for Obama's agenda."

I thought Obama was going to veto anything above $900b.?


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 6, 2009)

Care4all said:


> The only thing I can think of is regulation that CAPS prices...and that is so repulsive to so many....
> 
> but it is the better alternative to a windfall tax of any kind imo....
> 
> ...



Let's analyze that a second.
What is "reasonable"??  If government caps the price at a rate above the market rate (and there is a market rate for everything), then the cap will be ineffective, actually counter-productive since companies will raise prices to the limit.
If it caps it below the market rate then you will create fewer providers and more buyers.  This creates a shortage, which will come out as rationing.  Whether it will be gov't rationing (you get a coupon to see the cardiologist once a year) or market rationing (there is one cardiologist in town and his next appointment is 6 months from now) is irrelevant.
But it is the absolute certain result of gov't fiat pricing.


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 6, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Cold Fusion38 said:
> ...



You ever hear a lefty open her mouth without cryin about victim status?


----------



## Care4all (Nov 6, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > The only thing I can think of is regulation that CAPS prices...and that is so repulsive to so many....
> ...



*some of those measures are in this reform bill already, your number 3 is part of the bill.  

on #2, individual policies are 2-3 times more expensive than ANY group policy, a voucher to buy an individual policy is of no help at all when they are sooooooo expensive in the first place....

there should be someway to pool all those looking for individual coverage in to one group for more reasonable group coverage.... 

and on number #1 i agree but it is easier said than done...  and does this infringe on States rights?*


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Nov 6, 2009)

Care4all said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



Your assumption that the government would be able to calculate how low reimbursements can go before they are too low is clearly mistaken.  That's why the Sustainable Reimbursement formula Congress passed into law in 1998, which should have lowered reimbursements to physicians from Medicare by about 3% to 4% every year, has been overridden by Congress in every year but one since then and will be overridden again this year.  Congress didn't know what the correct formula was for deciding how much doctors should be paid back in 1998, and after thinking about it for 11 more years, Congress clearly still doesn't know.  

Individual policies are not 2 to 3 times more expensive than group policies.  The companies, on average pay about 70% of the cost of a group policy so it seems individual policies are 2 to 3 times more expensive, but if the company had to give you a voucher for the same amount it pays for the company plan you would be able to find an individual policy for about the same price as the company's plan.  So if the average family policy cost about $13,000, the company would pay $9,100 and the worker would pay $3,900.  What I am suggesting is that the company be required to offer the worker a choice of paying $3,900 for the company plan or receiving a voucher for $9,100 to buy an individual policy, so he/she would still only pay the difference between the full cost of the policy, still approximately $13,000, and the $9,100 voucher you would receive.  

The only reason group policies are cheaper than individual policies is that the administrative cost of servicing a group policy, including sales commissions, is less that the administrative costs of servicing many individual policies, but administrative cost is one area where efficiencies can almost always be achieved if necessary, so if employers were required to offer vouchers instead of forcing employees into the company plan, more efficient insurance companies would find ways to cut their costs, perhaps by eliminating sales commissions and selling directly to the consumer or by reducing reimbursements to some providers, and offer individual health insurance policies for less than the company plan would cost or with greater benefits than the company plan offered.  

In order to keep too many workers from defecting from the company plan, the insurance company that had that contract would have to find ways to lower its costs or offer more benefits, and this competition between the insurer that had the company plan contract and the hundreds of insurers who were trying to lure workers away from the company plan would not only put downward pressure on administrative costs but it would also put downward pressure on providers, and this downward pressure would continue until reimbursements got so low that quality could not longer be maintained if they went any lower.

A federal law that defined national health insurance policies would be a matter of inter state commerce, which clearly falls under the jurisdiction of the federal government, not the states, which are prohibited by the Constitution from passing laws that limit or inhibit commerce between states.  The only reason the states have the authority to regulate insurance companies to the extent they do now is the anti trust exemption Congress passed years ago and that the Dems are determined to overturn now.


----------



## Care4all (Nov 6, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...



*So if the anti trust exemption is removed, then this could happen constitutionally?  then GREAT, this should be done....  however, as said, if we really look at the big picture, insurance companies are only one part of the problem with higher health care costs.*


----------



## AVG-JOE (Nov 6, 2009)

Oldandtired said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Oldandtired said:
> ...



I'll bet you $1 (US funds) that your 4% figure does not include the 'profits' handed out to executives in the form of bonuses.  7 figures is a lot for a bureaucrat.

Are they worth it?

In my humble opinion, we pay the bureaucrats we know as Insurance Executives too  money to do their jobs.  I believe we can find willing and able people who will do them for a lot less.  The easiest path to reasonable prices for the job of Insurance Executive is a public option patterned after Social Security, where you must pay into the system to get more than the most basic of coverage and let people choose their own level of personal risk.


----------



## Annie (Nov 6, 2009)

Something honest from a 'pro-reform healthcare', it's lies, but lies that are justified. Won't be able to be undone, that's the beauty of it, regardless of outcome. The freshness of truth! Well as good as it gets from someone fine with lies:

Some Vaguely Heretical Thoughts on Health-Care Reform: Rational Irrationality : The New Yorker



> NOVEMBER 4, 2009
> SOME VAGUELY HERETICAL THOUGHTS ON HEALTH-CARE REFORM
> 
> With the publication of H.R. 3962, the House Democrats&#8217; mammoth, 1,990-page proposal to restructure the health-care system (the outlines of which can be found in this detailed summary), decision time is fast approaching in the big reform debate. Paul Krugman, in his usual forthright style, says, &#8220;History is about to be made&#8212;and everyone has to decide which side they&#8217;re on.&#8221; Democrats and progressives can line up behind the reform legislation that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi put forward last week, or they can help to kill reform for another generation by aligning with hard-line conservatives.....
> ...


 It gets worse, or 'better' depending on your perspective...


----------



## Chris (Nov 6, 2009)

ThePickledPunk said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Horseshit.

Watch Glenn Beck sometime.

"THEY don't surround us."

"WE surround THEM."


----------



## Care4all (Nov 6, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> Oldandtired said:
> 
> 
> > AVG-JOE said:
> ...



you are correct Ajoe, 

those high salaries and bonuses and stock options given and luxurious sales meetings and cars to drive or limo services are PAID before that profit figure comes in to play.


----------



## Chris (Nov 6, 2009)

Care4all said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> > Oldandtired said:
> ...



And the $3.4 BILLION DOLLARS that the healthcare lobbyists paid to Congress over the last decade came from where?


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Nov 6, 2009)

Care4all said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



I think you're confused about the insurance premiums.  If you're paying $10,000 for the company plan and the company is paying 60% of the cost of the policy then the company is paying $15,000.  $15,000 is 60% of $25,000, which is what you say an individual policy would cost you.  If the company had to offer you a voucher equal to what it pays towards your insurance, the voucher would be for $15,000, the company's current contribution for your health insurance, and you would still have to pay $10,000 for health insurance, but you would be able to choose the policy and insurance company you wanted not just the one your husband's employer wanted you to have.  

Now if everyone had the option of choosing the voucher and every health insurer in the country could sell you a policy, you would have $15,000 of the company's money to spend and some of these companies that you currently can't choose are probably more efficient than the ones that are now available to you, so after applying the $15,000 voucher you might only have to pay an additional $9,000 or $8,000 or perhaps some more efficient insurance company would offer you additional benefits you would like to but don't want to pay extra for.  Highly competitive markets not only drive prices down, but they also cause companies to find more creative ways of attracting customers.  

You are mistaken about how Medicare reimbursement rates are set.  Medicare does not negotiate with providers the way private insurers do.  Medicare rates are set by law, either by new acts of Congress or by formulas that were established by past legislation.  That's why it takes an act of Congress to change the rates.  Obviously, when Congress established the Sustainable Growth Rate formula in 1998, it did not even consult with providers, let alone negotiate with them.  If it had, it would not have been necessary to pass legislation every year but one since to prevent the formula from taking effect.  There are no tools to determine before hand how low rates can go before quality of care is effected.  If there were, Medicare would use them to set its rates and establish its formulas and Congress would not have to pass special legislation each year to try to correct its past mistakes.

It is a myth that health insurers offer some sort of volume discount to groups.  There are only two factors that determine premiums, claims experience and administrative costs.  If the underwriting is the same for groups and individuals, the claims experience should be the same, so the only difference in the insurance company's costs are the administrative costs, which are higher for individual policies than they are per capita for group policies.  Most of the administrative costs are involved in underwriting and sales, but if the proposed reforms go through, insurers will have to accept everyone, so very little underwriting will be necessary, and if the individual policies are sold directly by the company, either through the Exchange or on the internet or even by phone, the sales costs will be very low and very close to the per capita administrative costs for group plans.  

Doctors who accept HMO's do not get paid one rate for patients that have group policies and another rate for patients that have individual policies.  Their agreements with the insurance company cover all patients with the same kind of coverage, group or individual.


----------



## Care4all (Nov 6, 2009)

Toomuch, just reading your post...and to answer your first part....no, the 10k, is the amount of the policy, emplyees would pay about 4 grand a year for it....maybe it is 12k max this year but last year it was about 10k for that policy plan....the company pays 60%.  this is an out of state headquartered corporation, not certain if they get better rates because they have thousands of employees nationwide vs the individual anthem, blue cross/blue shield plan that i priced within our state.  we have only 2 insurance companies in the state that supply 88% of the insurance policies....no competition, a duopoly here in maine...


haven't read the rest of your post yet....


----------



## Care4all (Nov 7, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...



tmt

it is not a myth...



> Group Health Insurance
> The majority of people under the age of 65 have medical insurance through their employers' group insurance. According to the National Coalition on Health Care, in 2005, over 80 percent of employees were eligible for employer-group insurance and 83 percent of those who were offered, opted for these types of plans. *This is usually because employers and other organizations can get better rates because they have a large number of people to cover. The insurance company sees it as good risk because they'll probably end up paying out very little for many people in the group, while collecting premiums from everyone. Normally, this translates into premiums that are much lower than those found in individual health insurance plans and are the same price for everyone in the group regardless of their health*.


HowStuffWorks "Group Insurance vs. Individual Insurance"


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Nov 7, 2009)

Care4all said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



If you think about it, this makes no sense.  Why would the insurance company expect to pay out less to 1,000 people who participate in a group plan to to 1,000 people who bought individual policies?  How much the insurance company expects to pay out in claims is determined by the risk profile of the group from the company or the group of individual policy holders.  If the risk profiles are the same, the company will expect the claims experience to be the same and will have the same costs.  The only difference in the company's costs will come from the fact that it will cost more per capita to sell and service 1,000 individual policies than to sell and service one group plan.

Employers want you to believe that group insurance is cheaper because it allows them to hold on to employees.  Insurance companies want you to believe that group policies are cheaper because once they sell the contract to the employer, they have a monopoly on sales to the employees, and unions want you to believe it because it makes the membership feel more dependent on the leadership, but from your own example you posted earlier, if you are paying $10,000 and your company is paying 60% of the cost of the policy, then the total cost of the group policy is $25,000, exactly the same as an individual policy would cost you.  Clearly, it's a myth.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Nov 7, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Toomuch, just reading your post...and to answer your first part....no, the 10k, is the amount of the policy, emplyees would pay about 4 grand a year for it....maybe it is 12k max this year but last year it was about 10k for that policy plan....the company pays 60%.  this is an out of state headquartered corporation, not certain if they get better rates because they have thousands of employees nationwide vs the individual anthem, blue cross/blue shield plan that i priced within our state.  we have only 2 insurance companies in the state that supply 88% of the insurance policies....no competition, a duopoly here in maine...
> 
> 
> haven't read the rest of your post yet....



There is simply no way the insurance company's per capita costs for 1,000 individual policies can be 2 1/2 higher than the per capita costs for 1,000 people in a group if the coverage is the same.  Either you've made a mistake or Maine's insurance industry is vastly different from the rest of the country's.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 7, 2009)

Here's the thing.......We have an industry that PROFITS by providing the lowest number of products possible. So lets apply this to another industry the auto  industry. If they made MORE money by providing FEWER products would that be GOOD for the auto industry? Let's see what would be a pre-exsisting condition, I guess if you come in driving a ford to a Chevy dealership you would have to pay a penalty for having a PRE-EXSISTING condition. 


When you have an industry that makes profits based on DENYING as many claims as possible then you have an industry that treats people as nothing more than $$ signs and that is NOT good when you are making some of the most difficult decisions in a persons life. You may not have the money for that heart transplant, now you may go to taiwan to get that heart transplant, but you will more than likely decide to put your affairs in order and prepare for death! Why should a 40 year old man have to explain to his children that he will not be there for them as they grow up. How about sitting with your wife who loves you SO much and you love HER so much that you tell her to find happiness with another after you are gone. How about the OTHER medical bills that are not covered such as a heart stress test.....Guess what as you med bills start overwhelming you wife she will have to ruin her credit by claiming BANKRUPTCY!!!! Quite a deal since your Med Ins will PROFIT off of your pain and heartbreak. 




Yeah the heath ins COs sure are conserned whith there clients.


----------



## Care4all (Nov 7, 2009)

can we solve this through supply....more docs and hospitals and labs....  they would be begging for that heart transplant, to help pay for their new operating room...then they cut the deal with the insurance company for less money for each procedure just to get more customers to buy or pay for their supply?


----------



## AVG-JOE (Nov 7, 2009)

Care4all said:


> can we solve this through supply....more docs and hospitals and labs....  they would be begging for that heart transplant, to help pay for their new operating room...then they cut the deal with the insurance company for less money for each procedure just to get more customers to buy or pay for their supply?



Do you have any idea how much _*PAPERWORK*_ is involved in starting a hospital?!?!?

Just about what you'd expect from a government run by lawyers who grew up to be politicians and grew rich when they then became lobbyists.   

A shortage is built into the complicated rules... being a doctor is risky - you really do not want to fuck-up on the job if someone can die if you do.


----------



## FactFinder (Nov 7, 2009)

*Can Public Option Work? *

nope

It would be doomed to the same fate as all govt managed social programs. Fraud, waste, abuse and unsustainability.


----------



## Chris (Nov 7, 2009)

FactFinder said:


> *Can Public Option Work? *
> 
> nope
> 
> It would be doomed to the same fate as all govt managed social programs. Fraud, waste, abuse and unsustainability.



This is the Big Lie of the Republican Party.

Modern day conservatism is just the political codification of selfishness.


----------



## Annie (Nov 7, 2009)

Chris said:


> FactFinder said:
> 
> 
> > *Can Public Option Work? *
> ...



Give some stats there, Gomer.


----------



## Navy1960 (Nov 7, 2009)

The public option while well meaning will not work because it assumes that  the risk of bringing into the system high cost individuals is offset by mandating coverage for otherwise healthy young people. The problem with that is that those young people are faced with a choice of paying  a small penalty which in most if not all cases will be offset by deductions or pay a high health insurance payment.  Forgetting, the obvious constitutional issue that mandates face it's clear that the intended people that are needed to offset the high risk individuals will simply not materialize under this bill and leave another  massive spending program when you have one that is  close to insolvant.


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 7, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Here's the thing.......We have an industry that PROFITS by providing the lowest number of products possible. So lets apply this to another industry the auto  industry. If they made MORE money by providing FEWER products would that be GOOD for the auto industry? Let's see what would be a pre-exsisting condition, I guess if you come in driving a ford to a Chevy dealership you would have to pay a penalty for having a PRE-EXSISTING condition.
> 
> 
> When you have an industry that makes profits based on DENYING as many claims as possible then you have an industry that treats people as nothing more than $$ signs and that is NOT good when you are making some of the most difficult decisions in a persons life. You may not have the money for that heart transplant, now you may go to taiwan to get that heart transplant, but you will more than likely decide to put your affairs in order and prepare for death! Why should a 40 year old man have to explain to his children that he will not be there for them as they grow up. How about sitting with your wife who loves you SO much and you love HER so much that you tell her to find happiness with another after you are gone. How about the OTHER medical bills that are not covered such as a heart stress test.....Guess what as you med bills start overwhelming you wife she will have to ruin her credit by claiming BANKRUPTCY!!!! Quite a deal since your Med Ins will PROFIT off of your pain and heartbreak.
> ...



None of what you posted is remotely the truth.  It is the very opposite of the truth in fact.  I would suggest acquainting yourself with insurance in general and what it does, and health insurance in particular before you go off sounding like an ignorant nit.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 8, 2009)

The Rabbi said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > Here's the thing.......We have an industry that PROFITS by providing the lowest number of products possible. So lets apply this to another industry the auto  industry. If they made MORE money by providing FEWER products would that be GOOD for the auto industry? Let's see what would be a pre-exsisting condition, I guess if you come in driving a ford to a Chevy dealership you would have to pay a penalty for having a PRE-EXSISTING condition.
> ...






I'm dealing with a health ins co RIGHT NOW so I know EXACTLEY WTF I am talking about.

You are the DOUCHE BAG that tried to lay pre-exsisting conditions at the feet of those who are DENIED coverage claiming that they LIE on their ins applications.......Yet you never explained WHY they would lie if they weren't worried about having pre-exsisting conditions denied.


----------



## Full-Auto (Nov 8, 2009)

Chris said:


> FactFinder said:
> 
> 
> > *Can Public Option Work? *
> ...



Are you stupid?

The waste, fraud and slow pay and no pay have proven you ....

a bit off.


----------



## Intense (Nov 9, 2009)

Chris said:


> FactFinder said:
> 
> 
> > *Can Public Option Work? *
> ...



You are just so Noble with Other Peoples Money aren't you?  How come when you take control of it, it is not selfish? Why when You take something from someone else, that is not yours, that you have no right to, that is ripe for fraud and abuse, it is not selfish? How can this be? If possession of money is so selfish, Why do do spend so much time scheming to relieve people of it? The people with the money work for it, right? I have an idea... Why don't you? Maybe you having earned it, would value it differently?


----------



## LilOlLady (Nov 9, 2009)

It IS working. WE have government run healthcare and we have private run healthcaer and nothing will change.


----------



## saveliberty (Nov 9, 2009)

Chris said:


> FactFinder said:
> 
> 
> > *Can Public Option Work? *
> ...



Or it is a recognition that entitlements damage a person far more.  That maintaining their liberties and improving opportunity for a future they define is the highest gift a government can preserve.  BY the by, the ultimate in selfishness is taking from someone else for your own benefit.  That is what this health care plan is going to do.


----------



## Intense (Nov 9, 2009)

How do You control Fraud and Abuse?  Excuses are not the Answers We want.  By what standard do You decide when enough is enough with Our funds?


----------



## Care4all (Nov 9, 2009)

Intense said:


> How do You control Fraud and Abuse?  Excuses are not the Answers We want.  By what standard do You decide when enough is enough with Our funds?



but where were these legitimate questions when the Republicans held congress?

It's not that you are wrong, I believe you are correct, but without a disclaimer in these kind of statements, like..."I know we did not do a good enough job of complaining about this stuff while under president Bush's and the Republican Congressional reign, because IF I HAD, then my representatives would have listened to me sooner and taken this (now convenient) conservative stance, earlier..." and then begin on your comments on this kind of stuff or the hundred other things you guys are bitching about...?  And I am not saying that the bitching isn't due, but IT IS A DAY LATE AND A DOLLAR SHORT in my humble opinion.

We were PUT, on THIS ROAD TO DISASTER, 8 years ago...yes, we were.

If the budget had been curbed back then, it would NOT be so easy to continue this trend of spending more than we got....

If the fraud in medicare were addressed years ago, we would NOT be talking about it now..

If the concerns with the CRA and housing for the poor were a concern then WHY wasn't it addressed when President Bush offered HIS NEW HOME INITIATIVES


----------



## Intense (Nov 9, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > How do You control Fraud and Abuse?  Excuses are not the Answers We want.  By what standard do You decide when enough is enough with Our funds?
> ...



I sympathize with You there. I don't like Corruption Anywhere. I will point it out where I find it. The ball is in your court, so it appears that I am rooting against Your teem. In Truth, I want the Fire or Fires put out. The harm done is real. I don't care for a second, what brand of Totalitarianism, We are up against, They All end the same. We Need control over Our Own Lives.


----------



## Care4all (Nov 9, 2009)

Intense said:


> How do You control Fraud and Abuse?  Excuses are not the Answers We want.  By what standard do You decide when enough is enough with Our funds?



but where were these legitimate questions when the Republicans held congress?

It's not that you are wrong, I believe you are correct, but without a disclaimer in these kind of statements, like..."I know we did not do a good enough job of complaining about this stuff while under president Bush's and the Republican Congressional reign, because IF I HAD, then my representatives would have listened to me sooner and taken this (now convenient) conservative stance, earlier..." and then begin on your comments on this kind of stuff or the hundred other things you guys are bitching about...?  And I am not saying that the bitching isn't due, but IT IS A DAY LATE AND A DOLLAR SHORT in my humble opinion.

We were PUT, on THIS ROAD TO DISASTER, 8 years ago...yes, we were.

If the budget had been curbed back then, it would NOT be so easy to continue this trend of spending more than we got...., no?

If the fraud in medicare were addressed years ago and enough was enough back then, we would NOT be talking about it now...?

If the concerns with the CRA and housing for the poor were a concern, then WHY wasn't it addressed when President Bush offered HIS NEW HOME INITIATIVES for the poor back in 2002, and 2003 and 2004?

I can go on and on Intense, and my only answer to those questions, is that things that we don;'t agree with, just seem to be okay, when it is "our guy" doing it....this is the case on both sides of the aisle....i think it is a "trust" factor or a blind belief that is inside of us, that just makes us let things slide with our own side, more so than when the "other side" does it...because "our side" can't be as evil as the "other side"....or there must be a good reason for it, (if it is one of our guys doing it)?

I know you can see this...if you just take a step back and view it objectively.  and this rant of mine is not necessarily about you, but the YOU in general, YOU....the plural you....that includes ALL of us.

Okay, so let's presume you do somewhat agree with me....

HOW do we break this cycle, that your side and my side seem to continually do?

When can I stop saying your side and my side?  When do we become, Americans again and just complain about bad things (and praise good things) without blaming an entire side of the aisle for it, but by going in detail of why it hurts our country and try this type of convincing debate?

I dunno...

care


----------



## Intense (Nov 9, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > How do You control Fraud and Abuse?  Excuses are not the Answers We want.  By what standard do You decide when enough is enough with Our funds?
> ...



The problem goes back a lot farther than 8 years. It is more related maybe to the stretch of License of Representative Government. Too many changes too quick, that we neither have voice in or are even aware of. That's the primary problem when we stray from enumerated powers. We systematically build on the tangled mess and expect it to repair itself. Where else in Life would a strategy like that be helpful?


----------



## saveliberty (Nov 9, 2009)

A viable third party means compromise and working together are required.  The Democratic party ranges from the far left to blue dogs that equal the far right at times.  Refining that base and pealing off the others to a third party might help that process.


----------



## Chris (Nov 9, 2009)

Intense said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > FactFinder said:
> ...



Thanks for proving my point.

I don't mind my taxes going to help old and sick Americans.

I do mind when my taxes are spent on a hole in the desert called Iraq.


----------



## Chris (Nov 9, 2009)

saveliberty said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > FactFinder said:
> ...



No, what the healthcare plan does is take care of sick Americans.

No amount of bullshit about "liberty" changes that.


----------



## saveliberty (Nov 9, 2009)

Chris said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Yes the Pilgrims migrated here for the excellent health care benefits.  Later, the founders felt health care coverage was so important they left it out of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  Finally the 111th Congress passed a health care plan that still leaves out 26 million Americans.  From your comments I see you are in favor of the stealing option.  A thief's point of view is worthless to me.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 9, 2009)

Well I guess if I lose my Health INS I will just go to the ER. Little cough ER. Stomache ache ER. Stubbed toe ER. Hangover ER. Head ache ER. 


Now do all of you who are AGAINST a public option get it? If people have INS and they can go to their PRIMARY PROVIDER then they will NOT have to go to the ER. So if we can keep the ER for ONLY EMERGENCIES. So you see by giving people the option of going to a doctor they know and trust they will get BETTER CARE and are much less likely to need expensive treatments because they will be found before they become CRIICAL illnesses. So do you see how we could SAVE money?


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 9, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> *Well I guess if I lose my Health INS I will just go to the ER. Little cough ER. Stomache ache ER. Stubbed toe ER. Hangover ER. Head ache ER.*
> 
> 
> Now do all of you who are AGAINST a public option get it? If people have INS and they can go to their PRIMARY PROVIDER then they will NOT have to go to the ER. So if we can keep the ER for ONLY EMERGENCIES. So you see by giving people the option of going to a doctor they know and trust they will get BETTER CARE and are much less likely to need expensive treatments because they will be found before they become CRIICAL illnesses. So do you see how we could SAVE money?



Perhaps you should go to an urgent care center, dumbass.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 9, 2009)

Urgent care hell I can't afford that I will just go to the ER where they CAN'T deny me treatment, DUMBASS!


----------



## Navy1960 (Nov 9, 2009)

"The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the Bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.. corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money powers of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed.   Abraham Lincoln

"We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our selection between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat in our drink, in our necessities and comforts, in our labors and in our amusements, for our callings and our creeds...our people.. must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live..  We have not time to think, no means of calling the mis-managers to account, but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow suffers.  Our landholders, too...retaining indeed the title and stewardship of estates called theirs, but held really in trust for the treasury, must...be contented with penury, obscurity and exile.. private fortunes are destroyed by public as well as by private extravagance.

This is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of society is reduced to mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering... And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression."   Thomas Jefferson

I cannot imagine an American willing to lay thir liberty on the table in exchange for short term comfort , because in the end they will have none. We live in a nation where the right to choose  our own destiny even in healthcare  matters belongs to us and not the Govt. we elect. so yes liberty matters and always will as long as you live in the United States of America.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Nov 9, 2009)

The let's see they have to send out blood work that's another $150. So you see I can just ABUSE the current system and not have to worry about out of pocket expense.......Do you get it yet DUMBASS!!??


----------



## AVG-JOE (Nov 9, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> "The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the Bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.. corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money powers of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed.   Abraham Lincoln
> 
> "We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our selection between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat in our drink, in our necessities and comforts, in our labors and in our amusements, for our callings and our creeds...our people.. must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live..  We have not time to think, no means of calling the mis-managers to account, but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow suffers.  Our landholders, too...retaining indeed the title and stewardship of estates called theirs, but held really in trust for the treasury, must...be contented with penury, obscurity and exile.. private fortunes are destroyed by public as well as by private extravagance.
> 
> ...



Great post!

I still favor a public option in insurance, not because our government will run it but in spite of the fact.

With only two choices that have the capital to start up an insurance bureaucracy, private corporations or government, I still see the lesser of two evils as the public option.  If it is half as successful as Social Security, our children will have an opportunity to be free from the enslavement described above.


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 9, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Urgent care hell I can't afford that I will just go to the ER where they CAN'T deny me treatment, DUMBASS!



Cant fix stupid.  And it is exactly that kind of thought process that keeps you occupyin your sad position in life.


----------



## ThePickledPunk (Nov 9, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> The let's see they have to send out blood work that's another $150. So you see I can just ABUSE the current system and not have to worry about out of pocket expense.......Do you get it yet DUMBASS!!??



If you think the current sysytem is easy to abuse I can see why you would like to supplant it with a system that is even more prone to abuse.


----------



## Intense (Nov 9, 2009)

AVG-JOE said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > "The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the Bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.. corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money powers of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed.   Abraham Lincoln
> ...



The Government should be able to set guide lines without having to take everything over in order to accomplish a Reasonable Objective.


----------



## Chris (Nov 9, 2009)

ThePickledPunk said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > The let's see they have to send out blood work that's another $150. So you see I can just ABUSE the current system and not have to worry about out of pocket expense.......Do you get it yet DUMBASS!!??
> ...



Big Pharma and the insurance companies are the ones abusing the current system.

Ever heard of the term "pre-existing condition?"


----------



## saveliberty (Nov 9, 2009)

Chris said:


> ThePickledPunk said:
> 
> 
> > Cold Fusion38 said:
> ...



Yes, it is normally refering to:

1.  Drug addicts.
2.  Alcoholics.
3.  Prior heart condition.
4.  Prior cancer.
5.  Morbidly obese.

Your talking points people managed to find eight states with outdated laws.  What are the profit margins of drug companies and insurance companies?  What is an "abusive" return?  Insurance industry profits amount to 1% of health expenditures.


----------



## Ame®icano (Nov 9, 2009)

Chris said:


> ThePickledPunk said:
> 
> 
> > Cold Fusion38 said:
> ...



If stupidity qualifies as pre-existing condition, you got it.


----------



## immto (Nov 10, 2009)

It seems they were not able to get it done without adding verbiage that would exclude abortion services. It seems there were just enough Pro-life Democrats who took the stand on this issue and would not vote for it otherwise. This is a slight improvement but it's still nowhere near the bill I would prefer to see pass. I've already heard that this verbiage may have a built in backdoor so we don't even know how solid it will be in the long run. Even with an exclusion for abortion the bill still does not address Insurance companies ability to sell insurance across the country nor does it address portability. No tort reform, in fact there is anti-tort reform in the restrictions for states who have caps on damages one can receive in health related lawsuits. 

Another interesting fact I heard on the radio this morning. Many of the congressman still had not received copies of the bill Friday night, so they were being printed. The printed copies were being taken as quick as they could get them out. The printed copies did not include the revisions, so they were not even receiving the bill they would eventually vote on. 

This leads to the question I think begs to be asked. 

WHY DO OUR CONGRESSMEN NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO OBTAIN AND READ A DIGITAL FILE???

Being limited to paper copies seems archaic to me. Do we really have people representing us that need to have a paper copy. I know this may seem like a petty thing to be upset about but I think it's just one more piece of evidence that goes to show our leaders shear inability to relate to the American people. 

So here we have it, a health care bill that could lead to our health care changing in a fundemental way that may or may not exclude abortion. 

I guess it's up to the Senate now.


----------



## Navy1960 (Nov 10, 2009)

I've said this on a few posts,  and will say it here, after much thought no the issue  I see nothing wrong with a Govt. run insurance program for that wish to PURCHASE into it.  Howevever, there are a few issues here where I part company with the current legislation and thats the fact that there is no need to create a whole new department  to do what a department in Govt. already does. It's spending money that we don't have to create that department when the one that we have no is already insolvent and needs to be fixed rather than cut to support the new one. It's rather like this, having a company that is doing badly and going to a bank and getting a line of credit and using that line of credit not to make the company stronger  so that it may help more people, but rather  to create a whole new company and thats just complete nonsense.  The other issue I have with this  program are the mandates, if you truley want people to have healthcare then make it affordable for those that NEED it and those that WANT it and do not use some warped view of the constitution to support a mandate for being born in this nation as some  excuse to punish Americans into having healthcare insurance.  Congress could have fixed this issue very simply by allowing  any American that wished to purchase Medicare  and funded it  by a  .05 VAT on goods and services to keep the price to the point where it would be low enough to make it attractive for people to buy it.  The problem is the people we elect do not represent us anymore, they represent special interests and could care less what the true feelings of  Americans are. Come on, you didn't think that the Stimulus was actually going to keep jobs from going overseas did you?


----------



## Intense (Nov 10, 2009)

Chris said:


> ThePickledPunk said:
> 
> 
> > Cold Fusion38 said:
> ...



Change That.


----------



## CMPI (Nov 17, 2009)

This is a video that really gets you thinking about the Public Option Health Care. Just think about how a Government-Run Health Care Option makes the referees into players. The Public Option: A Flagrant Foul. Visit the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest to view the video "Health Care Hoops."


----------



## saveliberty (Nov 17, 2009)

Obama pointed to the USPS as a model of efficiency and cost containment, when trying to make a case for a public health care option.  Fiscal year 2009 for the USPS?  Did they make money?  No.  Did they break even?  Try $3.8 billion in the hole, after cost cuts.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Nov 17, 2009)

Can Public Option Work?

Yes if you want to destroy our quality of healthcare
No if you want to keep or raise our quality of healthcare

too simple for you?  Sorry


----------



## Chris (Nov 17, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> "The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the Bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.. corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money powers of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed.   Abraham Lincoln
> 
> "We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our selection between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat in our drink, in our necessities and comforts, in our labors and in our amusements, for our callings and our creeds...our people.. must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live..  We have not time to think, no means of calling the mis-managers to account, but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow suffers.  Our landholders, too...retaining indeed the title and stewardship of estates called theirs, but held really in trust for the treasury, must...be contented with penury, obscurity and exile.. private fortunes are destroyed by public as well as by private extravagance.
> 
> ...



What a crock of shit.

National health insurance allows you to still "choose your own destiny."

You have government health insurance, why can't we all have it?

Every other industrialized nation in the world has national health insurance, and in most cases it works quite well for them. Are they smarter than we are? Yes.


----------



## Chris (Nov 17, 2009)

saveliberty said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > ThePickledPunk said:
> ...



Bullshit.

Big Pharma has the highest profit margin of any industry.


----------



## saveliberty (Nov 17, 2009)

Chris said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Oh really, did you ever look at the margin on the diamond industry or communications?

Fortune 500 2008: Top Performers - Most Profitable Industries: Return on Revenues

Who does your research?  The Slowskis?


----------



## Chris (Nov 17, 2009)

saveliberty said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



Three of the top nine were health industry profits.

Thanks for proving my point.

You are the best!


----------



## Sinatra (Nov 17, 2009)

Chris said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...




Dance Chris - Dance!!!


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G2QTSf9TIo]YouTube - GAY DANCE[/ame]


----------



## Chris (Nov 17, 2009)

3 of the top 9 highest profit industries in America are healthcare.

The $3.4 BILLION DOLLARS that the healthcare lobbyists gave Congress in the last decade paid off!


----------



## saveliberty (Nov 18, 2009)

Chris said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



No, your point was they were #1.  YOU were wrong as usual.  The industrial breakdowns were somewhat arbitrary too, which skewed the results.  They do have a healthy bottomline, it is true.


----------



## Navy1960 (Nov 18, 2009)

Chris said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > "The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the Bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.. corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money powers of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed.   Abraham Lincoln
> ...



First of all Chris  if you had bothered to read any of  the several hundred postings  I have made on the subject of healthcare you would see that I am not opposed to anyone purchasing Govt. health insurance.  The reference above  shows that with  "mandates" you cannot choose your own desitiny Chris because if you don't it will be choosen for you.  As for every other nation, we also have  national health insurance it's called Medicare , so are other nations smarter than we are?  It would depend on if you like the  W.H.O.  or not I suppose when it comes to matters of healthcare.  As I'm not going to turn this into a debate on that body of individuals I will reserve comment.  The other thing  that I find  tragic here, is that many democrats claim to be democrats have have no idea the bill they are supporting is going to enrich the very same people they hate "insurance companies", further, most if not all this bill directly contradicts  many Democrat principles that have stood for many years  in matters of  personal choice, equality, and yes even your goal of  Universal Healthcare, because Chris, if you think for one moment this bill is akin to that your sadly mistaken.


----------



## Chris (Nov 18, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...



I am not sadly mistaken. I am against any bill that requires purchasing healthcare from insurance companies. I favor the public option. 

And yes, the rest of the world is smarter than we are. That's obvious.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Nov 18, 2009)

Chris said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



You mean you are against any bill that requires purchasing healtcare from insurance companies that are not run  by the government .


----------



## Chris (Nov 18, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...



Absolutely.

I am not giving my money to insurance companies, so they can use that money to lobby Congress to deny me coverage. That would be stupid.


----------



## saveliberty (Nov 18, 2009)

Chris said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



So you denied *yourself* coverage because you don't want to pay insurance companies.  On the chance you may be denied coverage.  Sort of a pre-emptive strike deal?  Do you apply that same logic to banks?  You don't borrow money from them because they might decline your loan?


----------



## Navy1960 (Nov 18, 2009)

Chris said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



So given that last statement are you for the current legislation then? You do realize that the mandate applies to healthcare insurance no matter where you purchase it.  As for the "public option" who do you think is going to administer it? The Govt.?  They don't even do that with Medicare, so again are you for this current legislation given your stance for on private insurance?


----------



## Richard-H (Nov 18, 2009)

*The bottom line is this:

The Public Option will definitely work - no doubt about it!

The reason is simple:

Absolutely anything will work better than the current Healthcare system!

IT SIMPLY COULD NOT BE MORE FUCKED UP THAN IT IS!

That all there is to it!*


----------



## The Rabbi (Nov 18, 2009)

Richard-H said:


> *The bottom line is this:
> 
> The Public Option will definitely work - no doubt about it!
> 
> ...



Bwahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think they said that in Cuba in 1958.


----------

