# Question for proponents of the Public Option Plan/Single Payer Plan.



## Immanuel (Oct 16, 2009)

Democrats have been saying that they are all for the elimination of private health insurance.  Don't believe me, watch the videos in this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...lead-to-single-payer-government-run-care.html

How many jobs will that costs?  I am not just talking about the CEOs and upper management jobs but how many jobs of people like you and me who work hard every day just to put dinner on the table will be lost.  From the Janitor to middle management and don't forget the little guys, the independent agents who work for you to get you coverage.  Those CEO's employ you; your brothers, sisters, parents, children, friends.  

Where are those people going to go when the private health insurer disappears?

How many hundreds of thousands of jobs (Democrat jobs) are going to be lost?  What industry do you work in?  

Is your job safe?  

edit: Oh and let me ask you this, aren't you glad Barney Frank and Barack Obama are working so hard to eliminate those jobs?

Immie


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Oct 16, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Democrats have been saying that they are all for the elimination of private health insurance.  Don't believe me, watch the videos in this thread:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...lead-to-single-payer-government-run-care.html
> 
> ...



Well, a government run plan would have to hire people, too, so it's not clear to me how many jobs net would be lost or gained.  What we do know is that if private insurance were replaced by government run insurance similar to Canada's system, massive amounts of capital that insurance companies now invest in our private sector economy would be diverted to buy Treasuries, as Medicare and SS do with their reserve funds, and to pay for the federal government's deficits.  I've got to think that withdrawing this much capital from private investment would have a negative effect on economic growth and job creation.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 16, 2009)

Come on, Immanuel, those folks will need to find real jobs, just like the folks who are skimping pay medical bills of their loveds ones because the health insurance companies only insure the healthy.

Too darn bad.


----------



## Zona (Oct 16, 2009)

I dont think the insurance companies are making enough money.  Look, you have to understand, they make money when people pay, then get denied and dropped when they get sick.

Leave them alone!


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Oct 16, 2009)

Zona said:


> I dont think the insurance companies are making enough money.  Look, you have to understand, they make money when people pay, then get denied and dropped when they get sick.
> 
> Leave them alone!



That might well be how Medicare tries to hold costs down since, according to the AMA, Medicare denies more claims than any private insurance company.  

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/reportcard.pdf

Scroll down to metric 12.

Is this how the public plan Obama and Pelosi want would try to hold down costs, too?  By denying more claims than any private insurance company?


----------



## driveby (Oct 16, 2009)

This is how they'll create the jobs the stimulus package was supposed to create.........


----------



## veritas (Oct 16, 2009)

That's the only real question nobody has asked [except for me]. The truth is, the skills required are easily skills that would transfer to any clerical/office/administration sort of work. These are the job holders that the insurance companies shed first, and have already and they've started to stop insuring them and/or raising their rates for health insurance. There is only alarm because this is legislatively driven, if it were innovation driven then there would be no outcry whatsoever. Typesetters had to just dry up and go away with the advent of desktop publishing, steel workers just had to adjust and on and on......ad nauseum. Nothing is constant except for change itself. That's life. But these people are not highly skilled , nor do their skills relegate them to some obscure and small type of employment pool. Maybe they should get some education and be doctors or nurses. That's what the right says about the American auto industry......but they actually produce stuff.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Oct 16, 2009)

Interesting arguments, the one I like the most is what will happen to all the people employed by insurance companies.  I wonder, is this a concern for those who want to shrink government?  Do they ask what will the cop, fireman, clerk, prosecutor, child welfare worker, teacher, social worker, etc. do?
By the way, we know what each of these government workers does, and they do not answer their phone and seek to find away to deny you their services.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Oct 16, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


> Interesting arguments, the one I like the most is what will happen to all the people employed by insurance companies.  I wonder, is this a concern for those who want to shrink government?  Do they ask what will the cop, fireman, clerk, prosecutor, child welfare worker, teacher, social worker, etc. do?
> By the way, we know what each of these government workers does, and they do not answer their phone and seek to find away to deny you their services.



According to the AMA, the government workers at Medicare pick up their phones to deny your claims more often than workers at private insurance companies do.  


http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/reportcard.pdf

Since proponents of a public option argue it would be just like Medicare, does that mean that the public plan would also deny more claims than private insurance plans do?


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 16, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Come on, Immanuel, those folks will need to find real jobs, just like the folks who are skimping pay medical bills of their loveds ones because the health insurance companies only insure the healthy.
> 
> Too darn bad.





veritas said:


> That's the only real question nobody has asked [except for me]. The truth is, the skills required are easily skills that would transfer to any clerical/office/administration sort of work. These are the job holders that the insurance companies shed first, and have already and they've started to stop insuring them and/or raising their rates for health insurance. There is only alarm because this is legislatively driven, if it were innovation driven then there would be no outcry whatsoever. Typesetters had to just dry up and go away with the advent of desktop publishing, steel workers just had to adjust and on and on......ad nauseum. Nothing is constant except for change itself. That's life. But these people are not highly skilled , nor do their skills relegate them to some obscure and small type of employment pool. Maybe they should get some education and be doctors or nurses. That's what the right says about the American auto industry......but they actually produce stuff.



My question to the both of you, is how many "real jobs" do you think are out there?

Nationwide we are at 10% unemployment and rising... and of course, I blame President Obama for that... JUST KIDDING!, but jobs, real jobs are scarce these days.  I'm worried about my job.  The economy is struggling (part of the cycle, but it is still struggling) and the business I work in is being affected just like everything else.  

Do you think adding that many job seekers to the unemployment lines will help.  I tell you, I hope to God, I don't have to start competing for a job in the near future.

Immie


----------



## PeterS (Oct 16, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Democrats have been saying that they are all for the elimination of private health insurance.  Don't believe me, watch the videos in this thread:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...lead-to-single-payer-government-run-care.html
> 
> ...



Fine with me. I have no desire to protect an industry whose costs double every eight years. And fewer jobs means lower prices right? 

Sounds better all the time...


----------



## PeterS (Oct 16, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Come on, Immanuel, those folks will need to find real jobs, just like the folks who are skimping pay medical bills of their loveds ones because the health insurance companies only insure the healthy.
> ...



You are not talking about something that will occur over night and whether a business survives will depend on how well they are managed. The post office has not eliminated UPS or any other courier even though one is nonprofit and the others for profit. So just why are you assuming that the insurance industry cannot compete with a public option? Businesses that give better service at a competitive price will survive. Those that don't, won't, and I will shed nary a tear to see them go...


----------



## Big Black Dog (Oct 16, 2009)

OK, folks.  Here's a question for you.  Let's say for the sake of conversation the government ends up running the insurance companies out of business with the public option they are going to be offering up if it passes Congress.  The first thing you will notice is that there are indeed a lot of people out of work - everybody from CEO's to the guys that clean the insurance company offices and mow their grass.  The next thing you will notice is now the insurance companies are sitting on very large cash reserves because they are no longer obligated to pay claims.  They are out of business and so their responsibility to pay any medical claims is also gone.  I suppose the large cash reserves the insurance companies have would be split up among the share holders.  You don't honestly think the government is going to get all of this "unobligated" money from the insurance companies do you?  If passed, all the public option thing will do in the long run is make a select group of people very very much wealthier than they already are.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Oct 16, 2009)

Look here is the thing........You have THREE options for health care. Get it through your employer. Get it by buying it YOURSELF from an ins company(not possible for most people since it cost's over $1,000 dollars(more than a house payment for many) or go without and hope like HELL you or a family member NEVER gets sick. Now here's the REALLY bad thing. Let's say you get REALLY sick and lose your job because you can't work......Guess what.......Your ins is GONE when you need it MOST. I guess you could get COBRA for a few months but there is NO WAY you could afford it cause hey you are OUT OF A JOB!


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Oct 16, 2009)

So you go into HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of $$$s in debt or you DIE!!! Those are the options you are left with.


----------



## PeterS (Oct 16, 2009)

Big Black Dog said:


> OK, folks.  Here's a question for you.  Let's say for the sake of conversation the government ends up running the insurance companies out of business with the public option they are going to be offering up if it passes Congress.  The first thing you will notice is that there are indeed a lot of people out of work - everybody from CEO's to the guys that clean the insurance company offices and mow their grass.  The next thing you will notice is now the insurance companies are sitting on very large cash reserves because they are no longer obligated to pay claims.  They are out of business and so their responsibility to pay any medical claims is also gone.  I suppose the large cash reserves the insurance companies have would be split up among the share holders.  You don't honestly think the government is going to get all of this "unobligated" money from the insurance companies do you?  If passed, all the public option thing will do in the long run is make a select group of people very very much wealthier than they already are.



So buy stock in Blue Cross and get wealthier. What's the problem?


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 16, 2009)

PeterS said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Democrats have been saying that they are all for the elimination of private health insurance.  Don't believe me, watch the videos in this thread:
> ...



Fewer jobs means more people on the unemployment line.  I'm not talking about protecting the industry itself but the individuals like you and I who survive because of it.

That being said, I believe the only way to keep any industry honest is to have competition.  The public option is designed to eliminate competition.  In my humble opinion, that is a terrible idea.



PeterS said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



True, it will not happen over night.  It will happen (if HR 3200 correct number?) were passed it would take no longer than five years before many of the insurers were driven out of business.

As for your Postal Service example, it is a decent one, but there is one major difference between the Postal Service and the public option/health insurance idea.  The government has not mandated that UPS provide its services at $0.44 per delivery whereas under the health care plans that have been debated, private insurers are required to provide identical policies at identical prices as the public option and no other policies will be allowed.  Nor will insurers be allowed to offer policies to new customers.

Those two facts, in and of themselves will kill the industry and the videos discussed above prove that this is the goal of our elected politicians.

Immie


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Oct 16, 2009)

Well I am just a call from getting a seasonal job at Cost Co and I knew once I have a chance I will be hired FULL time permanent job. One of the best employers in the country. YEAH BABY!


----------



## Emma (Oct 16, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > I dont think the insurance companies are making enough money.  Look, you have to understand, they make money when people pay, then get denied and dropped when they get sick.
> ...


Now scroll down to the codes.


----------



## PeterS (Oct 16, 2009)

Immie





> Fewer jobs means more people on the unemployment line.  I'm not talking about protecting the industry itself but the individuals like you and I who survive because of it.



But you aren't taking capital out of the system and it is capital that creates jobs. This is the same argument the left used against free trade and it was a fallacy then and a fallacy now. 

Immie





> That being said, I believe the only way to keep any industry honest is to have competition.  The public option is designed to eliminate competition.  In my humble opinion, that is a terrible idea.



In our current system price is negotiated between providers then packaged and sold to employers with cost to employees determined by the elimination of services and higher deductibles and co-pays. Where is the competition? 

And I have every respect for your opinion but we do not have a competitive freemarket system now because it is not the consumer, but provider, who determines price. 

Immie





> True, it will not happen over night.  It will happen (if HR 3200 correct number?) were passed it would take no longer than five years before many of the insurers were driven out of business.
> 
> As for your Postal Service example, it is a decent one, but there is one major difference between the Postal Service and the public option/health insurance idea.  The government has not mandated that UPS provide its services at $0.44 per delivery whereas under the health care plans that have been debated, private insurers are required to provide identical policies at identical prices as the public option and no other policies will be allowed.  Nor will insurers be allowed to offer policies to new customers.
> 
> Those two facts, in and of themselves will kill the industry and the videos discussed above prove that this is the goal of our elected politicians.Immie



True, if that is indeed what HR3200 does. Where does it say that though? Do you have a page number?


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 16, 2009)

PeterS said:


> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But, if you eliminate the company, you eliminate the capital. Those companies will disappear.



PeterS said:


> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The competition is in the fact that if I (employer generally) don't like the services/costs offered by United Healthcare I can take my business to AETNA.  Two years ago my employer had United Healthcare as its provider.  Last year, AETNA offered us a better deal with rates and deductibles so we switched to AETNA.  This year, United came back with competitive rates and now I am back with United.  Next year?  Will my employer have such a choice?




PeterS said:


> And I have every respect for your opinion but we do not have a competitive freemarket system now because it is not the consumer, but provider, who determines price.



Not sure what you mean here.  It is always, no matter what industry we are speaking of, the provider that determines the price.  It is the purchaser that decides whether or not he/she is willing to pay that price.  When I go to the store tomorrow for bread, the price is already set.  I can pay that price or I can go down the street and see if the next store has a better price.  I can't go into the first store and say, "Your bread is over priced and sliced to thick.  I'll give you $0.50 for a loaf."  I have to pay the price the store is asking or go without.

So, I'm not sure what you mean here.




PeterS said:


> Immie
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No page number and I have not read it in a while, but I think... think mind you, can't swear to it, that it was section 102.

Although, Plymco_Pilgrim was keeping a good watch on that bill.  Betcha he can tell you exactly how many sentences down from the first page it is.    Okay, maybe not sentences, but lines?

Immie


----------



## Coyote (Oct 16, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Democrats have been saying that they are all for the elimination of private health insurance.  Don't believe me, watch the videos in this thread:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...lead-to-single-payer-government-run-care.html
> 
> ...



I don't trust videos that only show part of what is being said - what's the context and what else was said?

Interesting analysis of both video and his position: PolitiFact | Obama statements on single-payer have changed a bit

They also note: 


> At his town halls as president, he routinely answers questions about single-payer by saying he would favor it if he were starting a system "from scratch." But he consistently adds that's not the goal of the current reform.* "For us to transition completely from an employer-based system of private insurance to a single-payer system could be hugely disruptive, and my attitude has been that we should be able to find a way to create a uniquely American solution to this problem that controls costs but preserves the innovation that is introduced in part with a free-market system," *Obama said in Annandale, Va., on July 1, 2009.



And that seems to be the direction he wants to go.  As you note - the insurance and associated industries represent a large economic force.


----------



## PeterS (Oct 16, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> But, if you eliminate the company, you eliminate the capital. Those companies will disappear.



Only if you burn it. The capital for the insurance industry lies in the consumers pocket. Again, you are making a failed left-wing argument. 



> The competition is in the fact that if I (employer generally) don't like the services/costs offered by United Healthcare I can take my business to AETNA.  Two years ago my employer had United Healthcare as its provider.  Last year, AETNA offered us a better deal with rates and deductibles so we switched to AETNA.  This year, United came back with competitive rates and now I am back with United.  Next year?  Will my employer have such a choice?



You are not negotiating the price of the product. The product is not the package sold by the insurance industry but the service provided by the doctor. You cannot have a free-market system when the consumer is cut out of the loop. Doctors negotiate with insurance providers and insurance providers negotiate with employers. Deals within this system can only be achieved by a reduction in services.

I could really give a flip what choice my employer has when I have no choice what so ever in the matter. 



> Not sure what you mean here.  It is always, no matter what industry we are speaking of, the provider that determines the price.  It is the purchaser that decides whether or not he/she is willing to pay that price.  When I go to the store tomorrow for bread, the price is already set.  I can pay that price or I can go down the street and see if the next store has a better price.  I can't go into the first store and say, "Your bread is over priced and sliced to thick.  I'll give you $0.50 for a loaf."  I have to pay the price the store is asking or go without.
> 
> So, I'm not sure what you mean here.



Go without bread and the price of bread drops. Go without health insurance and the price keeps going up. That's what I mean. 

Immie





> No page number and I have not read it in a while, but I think... think mind you, can't swear to it, that it was section 102.
> 
> Although, Plymco_Pilgrim was keeping a good watch on that bill.  Betcha he can tell you exactly how many sentences down from the first page it is.    Okay, maybe not sentences, but lines?Immie



I just read sec 102 and it does not peg the price of private insurance to public insurance. It does however state that the insurer cannot vary rates for certain risk groups without changing the premium for all enrollees. This means the premium for all enrollees covered by the health care organization are the same not that private and public premiums are the same. 

And keeping good watch on a bill does not mean you have a clue what the bill is about. The problem with hearsay is just that...it hearsay...


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Oct 16, 2009)

Emma said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...



I have.  What's your point?


----------



## Annie (Oct 16, 2009)

Kausfiles : Mickey's Assignment Desk: Explain Away the Health Care Shell Game, Please!

When has government been MORE efficient or effective than the private sector? When did they ever get 'estimates' right?

Lots of links:



> Mickey's Assignment Desk: Explain Away the Health Care Shell Game, Please!
> 
> Mickey's Assignment Desk: Senate Dems quietly move a bill to countermand a 21% cut in Medicare fees for doctors, which will add $247 billion to the deficit over ten years. Of course, the Baucus health care reform bill achieves its famed deficit neutrality through cuts in Medicare fees, mainly to non-physicians--saving (by my reading of the CBO analysis) at least $184 billion from Medicare over the same period. Plus there is a special panel set up to recommend further cuts.
> 
> ...


----------



## Zona (Oct 16, 2009)

Sen. Murray: Domestic Violence Not A Pre-Existing Condition
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TTb81phGW4"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TTb81phGW4[/ame]


The real death panel people..insurance companies...


----------



## NYcarbineer (Oct 17, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Democrats have been saying that they are all for the elimination of private health insurance.  Don't believe me, watch the videos in this thread:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...lead-to-single-payer-government-run-care.html
> 
> ...



I don't think you understand what the public option would do.


----------



## Annie (Oct 17, 2009)

NYcarbineer said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Democrats have been saying that they are all for the elimination of private health insurance.  Don't believe me, watch the videos in this thread:
> ...



Then again, perhaps you don't:

Regional inequities in health care reform  |  KeithHennessey.com



> Regional inequities in health care reform
> Posted on October 15th, 2009 by kbh in featured, health
> 
> In the pending health care bills, low-income individuals and families who buy health insurance outside employment will get large government subsidies.  Those subsidies vary by locale.  This represents a significant implicit policy decision with enormous distributional and political consequences.  I dont think most Members or their constituents have focused on this.  I think they should...
> ...



It's rather long, has lots of links, but is easy enough to understand...


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 17, 2009)

NYcarbineer said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Democrats have been saying that they are all for the elimination of private health insurance.  Don't believe me, watch the videos in this thread:
> ...



I do think I understand.  I also think that the proponents in Washington of public options are lying to you about what their ultimate goal is.  Their ultimate goal is to take control of our health care via a National Health Plan.  I will say that I am not sure that there is a "better" alternative, but I do not like the idea.  Other countries have tried it some with decent results.  

I have listed many "fears" that I have of the plan over the last several months, but I can honestly say that I don't have a better option and that keeping the status quo is not an option.

I believe that this plan will destroy private health insurance.  Many people who post here think that is a good thing.  I don't for many reasons... jobs is just one of those.

Something that bothers me, is those comments by our leaders in which they clearly state that they want a government run National health care system.  I am sorry to say it, but, although I believe in the ideas behind Social Security and Welfare, I do not believe that our government can successfully accomplish any of these things and that when they fail they do not go away, the government simply keeps throwing bad money after good.

PeterS, 

I'm not ignoring your post, thank you for it, I just can't think of how to respond without repeating myself and getting us into a circular argument.  If I can when I wake up, I'll comment again if others don't come up with a better response.

Immie


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Oct 17, 2009)

IMM

The competition is in the fact that if I (employer generally) don't like the services/costs offered by United Healthcare I can take my business to AETNA. Two years ago my employer had United Healthcare as its provider. Last year, AETNA offered us a better deal with rates and deductibles so we switched to AETNA. This year, United came back with competitive rates and now I am back with United. Next year? Will my employer have such a choice?(QUOTE)


Does it occure to you how difficult it is for your EMPLOYEES to have to figure out all the new litttle "DEDUCTABLES" and "COVERAGES" that they have to negotiate like a MINEFIELD?


No Probably not. I DO resepect you for trying to get your employees the best deal we just had a meeting at my wife's job to hear about benefits and although thepremium is about $250 a month and there are a HOST of deductables and co=pays but it is pretty good.......

But do you see the REAL problem with your story? TWO PROVIDERS!!!!! There are only TWO businesses to compete for your business. NOT GOOD BRO!!! REALLY NOT GOOD!!!


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 17, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> IMM
> 
> The competition is in the fact that if I (employer generally) don't like the services/costs offered by United Healthcare I can take my business to AETNA. Two years ago my employer had United Healthcare as its provider. Last year, AETNA offered us a better deal with rates and deductibles so we switched to AETNA. This year, United came back with competitive rates and now I am back with United. Next year? Will my employer have such a choice?(QUOTE)
> 
> ...



I agree it is not good, but are you saying one provider is better?  Under a single payer system that is what you will have.

Those things do occur to me.  I do not make the decision as to who my employer chooses, although I do have some input in the decision.  

I also realize that my employer cannot afford to provide health insurance for his employees, but despite my reluctant efforts to convince my boss that the over $125,000 (net of employee contributions) that he pays to cover his employees is double the net loss of the company, every year, my boss continues to insist that he will not increase employee contributions or eliminate the benefit.  

Yes, it does occur to me about the deductibles etc.!  Remember, I have to walk that minefield too.  However, paying the deductibles is better than not having insurance and having to pay everything up front.

At my company, and I imagine it is typical of others, single coverage runs about $350/month.  My employer charges $52 a year.  I don't remember the cost for employee and spouse but employee and family is over $1200 per month and my employer charges me about $1400/year.  My employer may not be the best compared to the rest of the world, but in this case, I can say that he is pretty damned good.

Oh and one more thing about the employees, they don't have a clue as to how much the employer pays to cover their health insurance nor do they realize that that benefit is actually part of their wages when you get right down to it even though it is tax free at least for now.

Immie


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Oct 17, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > IMM
> ...







ANYONE who has had the "option" of COBRA knows exactly how much they pay.


----------



## midcan5 (Oct 17, 2009)

I find these threads bizarre. The onus is always on the other, the other is not sincere or has some ulterior motive. Those of us who think healthcare should not be so pathetic in our nation should invest in mirrors and have the wingnuts, conservatives, and republican naysayers look at themselves as they sure as hell accomplished nothing while in power except war debt and poverty. I laughed the other day when I heard again Tort reform, what BS, the republicans controlled all branches of government and didn't do a fluckin thing except make the rich richer. When you accomplish nothing good, it is time to STFU, and let others try. 

I love the jobs crying too, do you ever hear them question outsourcing or shifting work overseas, nah, of course not, corporate consciousness keeps them from thought. Speculative negativity must be rampant among the cave dwellers. 

There is a wonderful book which I post occasionally for anyone interested in understanding reactionary politics, see link.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Rhetoric-Reaction-Perversity-Futility-Jeopardy/dp/067476868X/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255790984&sr=1-4]Amazon.com: The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy (9780674768680): Albert O. Hirschman: Books[/ame]


----------



## Ravi (Oct 17, 2009)

If you didn't have to worry about health insurance, you wouldn't be tied to a dead end job. Lots of small businesses never get off the ground or fail because of the expense or unavailability of affordable health care.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 17, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> ANYONE who has had the "option" of COBRA knows exactly how much they pay.



Only the rich truly have the COBRA option.  It is no option for the unemployed.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 17, 2009)

Ravi said:


> If you didn't have to worry about health insurance, you wouldn't be tied to a dead end job. Lots of small businesses never get off the ground or fail because of the expense or unavailability of affordable health care.



You are right and how do you think the public option plan or single payer health care is going to change that?

Employers will be mandated to provide health insurance for their employees or face stiff fines.  This could put some employers out of business.  They are not required to offer this as a benefit.  They can still choose to deduct the full cost of health insurance out of their employee's paychecks if they so choose.

Working people whose employers refuse to pay for their health insurance and choose instead to pay the fine and the unemployed will still have to pay for their own coverage and those that can't afford it will also be fined.  I understand that the extreme poor will be given credits but that doesn't necessarily mean full credit nor if is it a tax credit (refunded at the end of the year) does it mean that during the rest of the year, when they have to pay their premiums, they can make ends meet.  

They are not going to "give away" health care.  They are going to charge you.  The current costs of health insurance for a family as I showed above is $1200/month or $14,400/year (varies, I am sure) but let's say the government plan brings that down to say $10,000/year and your employer does not cover your insurance.  Can you afford $10,000 per year?  How about self employed people who can't afford coverage?  They are now going to be mandated to carry coverage and what if they can't cover those expenses?

It seems to me that people who are arguing for this plan think that this insurance is going to come free to all, but I don't think that is the case... is it?

Immie


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Oct 17, 2009)

Ravi said:


> If you didn't have to worry about health insurance, you wouldn't be tied to a dead end job. Lots of small businesses never get off the ground or fail because of the expense or unavailability of affordable health care.



Then why are the Dems so dead set against reforms that would introduce choice and competition into the health insurance market to drive down health insurance costs and to make health insurance portable?  At no expense to taxpayers, Congress could amend ERISA so that your employer had to give you the choice of accepting the company's health insurance plan or receiving a voucher that you could use to buy an individual policy that you could carry with you if you wanted to move to another company, and if the Dems would drop their opposition to allowing insurers to sell national health insurance policies, the employee could carry that policy from state to state as opportunities arose.  

Under its authority to regulate interstate commerce, there is no impediment to Congress passing a law allowing private insurers to sell national health insurance policies, in addition to the state regulated policies they now sell, allowing hundreds of companies to compete for the business of every employee who chose the voucher over the company plan and thus introducing intense price competition among those insurers who are now frozen out of markets that cater to the needs of companies rather than to the needs of employees.  This choice and competition would not only drive down health insurance costs for both employers and employees and make insurance companies more responsive to the concerns of the policy holders, rather than to the concerns of their bosses, but it would also allow labor to move to its most highly valued use, thus facilitating economic growth and prosperity.  So why are the Dems, who claim to be in favor of choice and competition and lowering health insurance costs, so dead set against these reforms?

It isn't an either or choice.  These reforms could fit seamlessly into any of the proposed bills in Congress without adding one penny to the costs, so why are the Dems so dead set against these reforms?


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 17, 2009)

I would have called for the Nazis closing their death camps, if it weren't for the secretaries, janitors and people that were employed sweeping the ashes out of the ovens...

Hey pea brain...ACORN employs people...WHERE'S the outrage???


"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"
*Robert F. Kennedy Jr.*


----------



## judyd (Oct 17, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> PeterS said:
> 
> 
> > Immie
> ...




The question should be why would employers want to deal with this year after year?  How did healthcare get so tied up with employment?  I would think the employers would welcome the opportunity to be able to get out of healthcare problems and run their companies.  It would be a boon to them and they could put more of their money into their business, rather than employee healthcare.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 17, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> I would have called for the Nazis closing their death camps, if it weren't for the secretaries, janitors and people that were employed sweeping the ashes out of the ovens...
> 
> Hey pea brain...ACORN employs people...WHERE'S the outrage???
> 
> ...



Sure you would have BFGRN, sure you would have?   Just kidding!

So now you are comparing US citizens who happen to work for legal corporations doing the business of keeping you alive with NAZIs that ran concentration camps?  

I don't see anyone putting ACORN out of business do you?  I think the President just signed a stimulus package earlier this year, that rewarded them for their service quite well.  In much the same manner as George Bush rewarded Halliburton for its services.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 17, 2009)

judyd said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > PeterS said:
> ...



Except that they are not being given a way out.  In fact, those who have now either chosen or been forced to drop their employee's coverage will be forced to either pick it up again or pay a fine aka tax, for not providing coverage.  

I stated earlier that my employer cannot afford it, yet, he continues to insist that his company provides it to the employees.  Many companies simply cannot afford it and have been forced out of the market to the detriment of the employees and every year more and more companies or being forced out.  

Now, companies are going to be required to cover their employees or be taxed 8% of their payroll?  Ouch! Small business is going to get creamed.

Immie


----------



## Ravi (Oct 17, 2009)

You wouldn't need to penalize businesses with a single payer plan. It would work like medicare...a portion of your income goes toward the program. Businesses can't opt out of medicare, if they would they'd be penalized.

And again, if no one has to worry about insurance, all kinds of creative stuff could happen. IMO it would be a boon for anyone with a business plan that was afraid to make a move because they'd be without insurance (as it often happens now).


----------



## Care4all (Oct 17, 2009)

many insurance companies will convert to the supplemental health insurance business and elective surgery health insurance....

also, most of these insurance companies diversify their investments.


----------



## rdean (Oct 17, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Democrats have been saying that they are all for the elimination of private health insurance.  Don't believe me, watch the videos in this thread:
> ...



Providing a government option would put Health Care out of business EXACTLY the same way the Post Office put Fed Ex and UPS out of business.  It would be EXACTLY the same.  No difference at all.


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 17, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > I would have called for the Nazis closing their death camps, if it weren't for the secretaries, janitors and people that were employed sweeping the ashes out of the ovens...
> ...



Insurance cartels have NOTHING to do with keeping anyone alive... they are literally the DEATH panels you pea brains have angst over...

And they are eugenics labs too!!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN2jcAf45_c&feature=related]YouTube - Peggy Robertson on ABC Nightly News[/ame]


----------



## Care4all (Oct 17, 2009)

but, i must say....these companies WILL NOT ROLLOVER AND DIE, if the public option were instituted either....they will tighten their belts to be more competititve...if the ceo does not get his $300 million a year as his salary, then so be it....the company and shareholders come first....they will find a way to compete.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 17, 2009)

Ravi said:


> You wouldn't need to penalize businesses with a single payer plan. It would work like medicare...a portion of your income goes toward the program. Businesses can't opt out of medicare, if they would they'd be penalized.
> 
> And again, if no one has to worry about insurance, all kinds of creative stuff could happen. IMO it would be a boon for anyone with a business plan that was afraid to make a move because they'd be without insurance (as it often happens now).



How large of a payroll tax?

Remember, Social Security started out at almost nothing and has creeped up to 6.2% and actually 12.4% when you add the employers portion and it will probably go higher.  What percentage (1, 5, 10, 25, 40%) would need to be deducted from every payroll check to cover the cost of a single payer system like the one you have just described and can you and I afford that?  Remember, you still have to pay income taxes as well. 

As it is now, most employers still cover at least a portion of employee health insurance.  That would end the day the single payer plan you just described went into law.  Most likely your employer would be charged a percentage of your payroll as well, (1, 5, 10, 25, 40%), but you are still going to be charged.

This is not going to be free. Is it?

The start-ups that you are championing here would have to pay that percentage as well.  A 25% tax on payroll would put a damper on someone's entrepreneurial designs as well. 

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 17, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Finally something I agree with Senator Mikulski about.

Nobody is defending the health insurance companies.  Rather we are trying to prevent the government from becoming the next one and maybe the only one.  

The government won't be any different than "Golden Rule".

Immie


----------



## Ravi (Oct 17, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > You wouldn't need to penalize businesses with a single payer plan. It would work like medicare...a portion of your income goes toward the program. Businesses can't opt out of medicare, if they would they'd be penalized.
> ...


I don't know that I'm championing anything. I don't know what would be better, a public option or single payer.

According to this chart (page 2), "we" already pay 46% of health care costs of Americans through taxes. So if you double what we pay now, we'd be able to pay for 92% of health care costs. I don't know the rates of local and state costs, but Medicare/Medicaid is 2.9% per employee.

And the rate could be held down if we taxed ALL forms of income, not just payroll.

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/PieChartSourcesExpenditures2007.pdf


----------



## obama2ndterm (Oct 17, 2009)

Private insurance companies have raped the tax payer for many years. So if they refuse to compete, nobody cares if they fold!Anti trust laws will be repealed.


----------



## Care4all (Oct 17, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



this is a tough question but it could easily be figured out by the people that would have all the numbers...some actuary somewhere could do it.

The 2.9% paid in medicare is 45 years of working, in general, BEFORE anyone draws on the insurance at 65...of course there is the exception of someone maybe working 20 years instead of the 45 or 50 years...

Basically, I am saying the 2.9% would be low....

Any low wage earner...say a family making about 25-30k a year pays now out of his pocket for his and his wife's insurance including dental about 10-20% of his/her salary a year....and the employer might pay double that for his employee as his part on their health insurance....i dunno?  But on higher paid employees it could come to a lesser percentage....and the big guns, like the CEO on the health insurance company probably pays less than 1/2 of 1% of his salary toward's his health insurance and his family's....

i would guess that something like 6% in taxes for everybody and every business matches for each employee, should more than cover it....but ones health insurance monthly premium bill is now virtually gone....

Again, this is a wild guess....there are alot of figures to be taken in to consideration that we are not privy to and things like the gvt already paying 46% of the health care bill....so we only need to calculate insurance costs for those under 65 not receiving any gvt assistance on their health care costs which in general ARE MUCH LESS than the health care costs of seniors or the disabled that the gvt is paying.

again, I dunno....


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 17, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > I dont think the insurance companies are making enough money.  Look, you have to understand, they make money when people pay, then get denied and dropped when they get sick.
> ...



Not to mention that private insurance, whatever horror stories people like to tell, are contractually obligated to cover certain things.  Generally, when someone gets denied, it's for something that wasn't in the contract, or could be construed as not there.

Medicare, on the other hand, isn't contractually obligated to cover jack.  Insurance billers are taught in their training for certification that any work done under Medicare is, technically speaking, done on spec.  They will PROBABLY pay for a procedure that they've paid for many times before, but they are very clear that nothing is guaranteed, and they reserve the right to refuse any claim at any time.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 17, 2009)

Wry Catcher said:


> Interesting arguments, the one I like the most is what will happen to all the people employed by insurance companies.  I wonder, is this a concern for those who want to shrink government?  Do they ask what will the cop, fireman, clerk, prosecutor, child welfare worker, teacher, social worker, etc. do?
> By the way, we know what each of these government workers does, and they do not answer their phone and seek to find away to deny you their services.



Yes, actually, they do.  Did you really think Medicare and Medicaid was staffed by Ghandi and Mother Theresa clones, just existing to find a way to pay your medical bills and be helpful?  Please.  There is no bigger pain-in-the-ass stickler for the rules than a pissant civil servant with a taste of power over you.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 17, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> So you go into HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of $$$s in debt or you DIE!!! Those are the options you are left with.



Oh, horseshit.  Spare us the scary children's stories, because I don't see us sitting around a campfire, roasting marshmallows.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Oct 17, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > You wouldn't need to penalize businesses with a single payer plan. It would work like medicare...a portion of your income goes toward the program. Businesses can't opt out of medicare, if they would they'd be penalized.
> ...






Between PREMIUMS,CO-PAYS and DENIED COVERAGE I am paying about 40% of my earnings RIGHT NOW and more often than not they DENY COVERAGE.

So how about YOU tell me how great our ins cos are?


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Oct 17, 2009)

Gosh I just LOVE my ins co!


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Oct 17, 2009)

I am financially STRESSED to the point of RAGING at my health provider. They blame the Ins Cos which is EXACTELY where the blame lies.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Oct 17, 2009)

If the choice is a face less name less politician or a name less face less INSURANCE EXEC that gets paid MILLIONS for denying EVERY procedure he can I will take a gov't worker. ANY FUCKING TIME!


----------



## Intense (Oct 17, 2009)

Town Hall type meeting with Health Care Professionals going on right now on FOX. Glenn Beck is hosting.  It's worth seeing.


----------



## MajikMyst (Oct 18, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting arguments, the one I like the most is what will happen to all the people employed by insurance companies.  I wonder, is this a concern for those who want to shrink government?  Do they ask what will the cop, fireman, clerk, prosecutor, child welfare worker, teacher, social worker, etc. do?
> ...




Well.. You better go read your little website again.. Cause as usual.. Another noetard can't read english and doesn't understand the topic.. 

First, Medicare doesn't deny claims.. However it's payments are governed by contract or law. The doctor can bill, but he may not get paid or paid what he bills for. Depends on the terms or the laws in that state and also what medicaid does.. Which doesn't seem to be covered in your little chart.. If Medicaid pays then medicare pays 0.. In most states like mine, medicare pays it's contracted portion and medicaid picks up the rest. Or whatever other supplemental insurance a person might have will pay what is left.. 

Medicare has never denied for any reason other than fraud.. They have denied payment but for the reasons stated above.. Situations very, but someone has not gone without medical care because of medicare.. The law prohibits it and I don't see tons of seniors complaining about.. 

Please find something more credebile than the American Medical Association, which is a lobbying group for insurance.. To back up your claims..


----------



## MajikMyst (Oct 18, 2009)

While we can all sit here and bounce numbers around and try to understand who will lose their job or how much this all costs.. Here is a number to consider.. 

$102,000 dollars an HOUR is how much the CEO of United Healthcare gets for killing americans.. Some 40,000 americans each year.. 

We are 37th on the list for quality healthcare for industrialized nations.. All the nations with government health care above us.. France being number 1 for healthcare for it's citezens.. 

We are dead least in preventable deaths.. Dead last!!

24th in life expentancy.. Want to live longer?? Don't live in the U.S. 

Now figure this one out?? We are 2nd in spending for healthcare?? So France which is in 10th place for spending is number 1 in providing quality healthcare for it's people?? What the hell are we doing wrong?? 

The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems

We are supposed to be the best and the brightest.. We are the United states and we are getting our asses handed to us on a silver platter over healthcare.. Over 40,000 people die each year due to lack of insurance or denial of coverage.. 

If france can do it with less cost, then there is no reason we can as well.. WE can even use France as a working model..


----------



## judyd (Oct 18, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> If the choice is a face less name less politician or a name less face less INSURANCE EXEC that gets paid MILLIONS for denying EVERY procedure he can I will take a gov't worker. ANY FUCKING TIME!



I agree.  I would rather pay more in payroll taxes and nothing to insurance companies.  At least it would take a vote in congress to increase the taxes if needed.  The insurance companies just raise their rates each year, and no one gets to vote on it.   So many other countries have government health care and they are doing much better than we are.  I don't understand the citizens of the US who are against this.  It's more understandable that some politicians are, since they receive such large donations from the insurance companies.


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 18, 2009)

judyd said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > If the choice is a face less name less politician or a name less face less INSURANCE EXEC that gets paid MILLIONS for denying EVERY procedure he can I will take a gov't worker. ANY FUCKING TIME!
> ...



You mean like the teabaggers that march on Washington at an event funded by corporate lobbyists to protest FOR taxation WITHOUT representation? It's because their brains are smaller than a pea...


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 18, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Between PREMIUMS,CO-PAYS and DENIED COVERAGE I am paying about 40% of my earnings RIGHT NOW and more often than not they DENY COVERAGE.
> 
> So how about YOU tell me how great our ins cos are?



1) Never said that the insurance companies are great.  In fact, I have said quite the opposite in these discussions.

2) If, and I do mean if, your Insurance company is denying so much coverage, then you need a new insurance company or you need to read your policy and stop attempting to get so many elective procedures done at the expense of your insurance company

2a) I say if, because your insurance company, unless you went with "Fly by Night Insurance Co." is going to cover all standard medical procedures just like every other plan.  I also think you are using hyperbole to make your point.

3) *If you think bureaucrats are going to be any more accommodating to your health needs, head on down to the welfare office and ask for help.*

Immie


----------



## Maple (Oct 18, 2009)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Democrats have been saying that they are all for the elimination of private health insurance.  Don't believe me, watch the videos in this thread:
> ...



Good post, " negative effect," is a massive understatement, The federal government has bankrupted Social Security, medicare, medicaid, freddie and fannie, the postal service, it's insanity to let them take over 6% of our economy. Yet, alot of these libs like to stand in line with their hands out, feeling very comfortable with the federal government in total control of their health care decisions. I guess they are used to standing in line being like dependent children as long as it does not involve their dime that's paying for it.


----------



## Maple (Oct 18, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> judyd said:
> 
> 
> > Cold Fusion38 said:
> ...



I have been at those tea-parties and I can tell you without a DOUBT, that no-one is funding them. If you take a look, those are all homemade signs. They are not the busloads of ACORN workers and Union workers who have been bused in with pre-made look alike signs, those are your paid dummies.


----------



## Care4all (Oct 18, 2009)

pajesus mary and joseph!

the misinformation being told about the public option is astounding...

can any of you please tell me WHY YOU REFUSE TO READ THE BILLS REGARDING the public option and what the Bills actually say on it?


----------



## Intense (Oct 18, 2009)

Care4all said:


> pajesus mary and joseph!
> 
> the misinformation being told about the public option is astounding...
> 
> can any of you please tell me WHY YOU REFUSE TO READ THE BILLS REGARDING the public option and what the Bills actually say on it?



Post a link. 

Tell me what is to stop the Bill from being turned on it's head, with added amendments,  before signing? The Process needs repair.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Oct 18, 2009)

I say leave the health care part of the equation alone...our care is the best in the world and we shouldn't be tinkering with it.    Then let the people tell the congress what to do along the lines of regulating the insurance companies so that we, the consumer, are protected.

Some of these Ideas:


Open up competition by letting people buy private insurance across state lines.
Regulations making it illegal to deny a current patients claims if they get very sick.
Tort reform to help eliminate overtesting (waste) out of fear of lawsuits and to lower malpractice insurance costs, and therefore medical costss.
I'd even be for some sort of backup entitlement plan for catastrophic medical events, say a health savings account that can only be spent on medical things where every dollar you put into it the government matches a dollar (or gives you a 100% tax break which would be the same thing basically).

Those are just 4 reasonable and effective ideas that wont take a complete overhaul of our care system, 1000 page bills, or billions to trillions of dollars to impliment.


I have more faith in people like you and my fellow americans than I do in the congress.


After seeing those videos I know the true intent of what the government is proposing right now and there is no way I will support a public option aka single payer government run health care.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Oct 18, 2009)

Care4all said:


> pajesus mary and joseph!
> 
> the misinformation being told about the public option is astounding...
> 
> can any of you please tell me WHY YOU REFUSE TO READ THE BILLS REGARDING the public option and what the Bills actually say on it?



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

IT WILL BE 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]


Care if you couldn&#8217;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&#8217;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


----------



## veritas (Oct 18, 2009)

> * Open up competition by letting people buy private insurance across state lines.
> * Regulations making it illegal to deny a current patients claims if they get very sick.
> * Tort reform to help eliminate overtesting (waste) out of fear of lawsuits and to lower malpractice insurance costs, and therefore medical costss.
> * I'd even be for some sort of backup entitlement plan for catastrophic medical events, say a health savings account that can only be spent on medical things where every dollar you put into it the government matches a dollar (or gives you a 100% tax break which would be the same thing basically).



The across state lines thing is a sham. Unless and until all the health insurance laws are made uniform across the entire country, it will only result in a least regulated base ops situation as in the credit card industry.

Tort reform is a sham as well. The insurance companies pay lawyers to keep them on staff to deny claims and fight claims more than all the malpractice BS put together.

What good does a health savings account do if you can't roll it over and you can't make any interest?

Try again.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Oct 18, 2009)

veritas said:


> > * Open up competition by letting people buy private insurance across state lines.
> > * Regulations making it illegal to deny a current patients claims if they get very sick.
> > * Tort reform to help eliminate overtesting (waste) out of fear of lawsuits and to lower malpractice insurance costs, and therefore medical costss.
> > * I'd even be for some sort of backup entitlement plan for catastrophic medical events, say a health savings account that can only be spent on medical things where every dollar you put into it the government matches a dollar (or gives you a 100% tax break which would be the same thing basically).
> ...



Using your debate tactic I say HR3200 and the Baucus bills are shams.


Try again and   unless you are interested in being honest


----------



## Care4all (Oct 18, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > pajesus mary and joseph!
> ...


pp
i just read the article, please POINT OUT where you believe it says that it will be subsidized....?


----------



## Intense (Oct 18, 2009)

veritas said:


> > * Open up competition by letting people buy private insurance across state lines.
> > * Regulations making it illegal to deny a current patients claims if they get very sick.
> > * Tort reform to help eliminate overtesting (waste) out of fear of lawsuits and to lower malpractice insurance costs, and therefore medical costss.
> > * I'd even be for some sort of backup entitlement plan for catastrophic medical events, say a health savings account that can only be spent on medical things where every dollar you put into it the government matches a dollar (or gives you a 100% tax break which would be the same thing basically).
> ...



Tort reform is needed. I think we should tax Lawyers more, and cap their fee's. 

Insurance Reform to address the unfair burdens on doctors, is what needs to be addressed. Stop trying to divert attention.


----------



## veritas (Oct 18, 2009)

I'm being as honest as possible. I've waded through one state's code, it voluminous. All of tort reform and portability and "across state lines" is involved with the codes, all 51 of them. Until you understand that you can't go forward. 

The Baucus bill _is_ unmitigated crap. HR3200 is better, much better. HR 676 is even better.


----------



## Care4all (Oct 18, 2009)

because anyone, as I HAVE POINTED OUT UMPTEEN TIMES, that qualifies for ''affordability credits'' can CHOOSE any insurance plan they want on the insurance exchange, they are not obligated to buy ONLY the public option insurance plan...they can use credits towards UHC, BCBS, CIGNA whoever is on their state's exchange


----------



## Care4all (Oct 18, 2009)

hr3200 is the best of the lot, so far imo as well...


----------



## MajikMyst (Oct 18, 2009)

Maple said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



So Freddie and Fannie are government agencies now?? LOL Man you repukes are sure stupid!! Bush gave them billions in bail out money to keep them out of bankruptcy.. They bankrupted themselves.. If you want to blame the government then blame rebuttlicans for removing all the regulations.. 

As for the rest of your post? The only problem our government has is conservatives.. Ever since Social security and medicare were created, you morons have tried to defund them or steal from their coffers to pay for your escapades... How much Social security money went to Iraq?? 

Grow a brain will you and get a real arguement!


----------



## MajikMyst (Oct 18, 2009)

Maple said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > judyd said:
> ...



So that big painted bus was free?? All those sticks used to make those signs was free?? All the cardboard paper to make those signs was free?? All those people have no job and all the time in the world to go somewhere and do nothing but piss on the people of this nation in favor of insurance companies that like to kill us? Tea parties and all the lies they spread are totally funded by the insurance companies.. 

Acorn has done nothing wrong and that has been proven if you have followed it at all.. It is just another example of how repukes have tanken down another organization that is dedicated to helping those in need.. Shame on you!!


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Oct 18, 2009)

So hear is my thought on CONTINUED healthcare when you lose your job due to illness. As it is if you lose your job due to illness you have three choices. Pay for COBRA which is more then my mortgage, buy it yourself which is MORE than COBRA, or lose your coverage when you MOST need it. Now you have lived a good clean life you always pay your premiums on time you pay your deductables and you pay out of pocket for some services that you NEED but they won't cover you are a good family man. Now you are diagnosed with colon cancer which if treated EARLY has a high rate of sucessful treatment. The problem is that you are TOO SICK TO WORK!!! So you lose your job AND your coverage for you AND your family. You have NO income unless your wife works and because of life altering exp you could get on your wifes ins which is likely worse than yours so that's why you were insured with them in the FIRST place.....


So anyway you lost your job AND your health coverage. So you are financially DESTITUDE. You may lose EVERYTHING including your HOUSE unless you go to bankruptcy. 


Now here is MY plan. If you lose your job due to an illness the company has to pay their portion of your healthcare and the Gov't pays the remainder. If your illness is TERMINAL the company pays their share till you die. That way you can work on your RECOVERY rather than what bills you can pay this week. Whether you can pay your mortgage, your utilities, your food for your children, your meds your doctors 
what on EARTH will you do. You will die and your wife will have to claim bankruptcy after you're gone because she won't be able to AFFORD to pay the massive uncovered bills.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Oct 18, 2009)

I see nobody wants to bebate my common sense plan. Too expensive for the COs who fire people because they are too sick to work? Too much money for the Gov't to pay to insure that every citizen doesn't have to choose between eating, paying bill, or going bankrupt?


----------



## Intense (Oct 18, 2009)

MajikMyst said:


> Maple said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...



Bank Robbers defending Bank Robbers, defending bank robbers. 
Crime wave engulfed the House, the Senate, and the Executive Branch. Follow the money. Follow the Control and Oversight. How much did you profit from the scheme MajikMist?????

The lot of you should be barred from public employment, and be made to pay back every penny. Selling something for nothing. Cleaning up the mess by destroying what we were built on. Fuck off and die sound too harsh? Well, May you reap what you sow, and leave me out of it. Pay for your own clean up.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Oct 18, 2009)

Intense said:


> MajikMyst said:
> 
> 
> > Maple said:
> ...







So people who are of lesser means should just be left to die? Sounds like you've got your OWN little death panel going on.


----------



## Intense (Oct 18, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> I see nobody wants to bebate my common sense plan. Too expensive for the COs who fire people because they are too sick to work? Too much money for the Gov't to pay to insure that every citizen doesn't have to choose between eating, paying bill, or going bankrupt?



You bring up valid concerns, yet there are many holes in your plan. You have Government, Insurance Company, Employer, Family, and Self, all a part of the equation. Why are you dumping everything on the employer? Tiny Company, Medium Company, Large Company, Major Company, Government Employer? Each would be effected differently. 
Was the sickness or injury related to work? that is a factor. 

It would seem that the best formula for compensation and care expenses would work out between Government and Insurance Company. The money has to be generated from something other than thin air, right? What are you paying into over the years? Does it address the issue in any way? if not that should be discussed and considered. 

Sometimes when tragedy strikes, consolidation is a part of the resolution, as unfair as it would seem that you would have to sell assets to pay off what you are responsible for, the problem is compounded when you take out your neighbors with you. Prudence is a virtue you might spend more time developing. 

The actual Medical costs should be something we discuss openly and fairly. Do they disappear when the person dies, or do they transfer? There are different categories and stages to consider. Different types of treatments, some sanctioned more than others, yet, it's your life, so that makes it your choice, provided you get the medical people to work with you. Right?  So there are legal issues, responsibilities, much to be considered.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 19, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> So hear is my thought on CONTINUED healthcare when you lose your job due to illness. As it is if you lose your job due to illness you have three choices. Pay for COBRA which is more then my mortgage, buy it yourself which is MORE than COBRA, or lose your coverage when you MOST need it. Now you have lived a good clean life you always pay your premiums on time you pay your deductables and you pay out of pocket for some services that you NEED but they won't cover you are a good family man. Now you are diagnosed with colon cancer which if treated EARLY has a high rate of sucessful treatment. The problem is that you are TOO SICK TO WORK!!! So you lose your job AND your coverage for you AND your family. You have NO income unless your wife works and because of life altering exp you could get on your wifes ins which is likely worse than yours so that's why you were insured with them in the FIRST place.....
> 
> 
> So anyway you lost your job AND your health coverage. So you are financially DESTITUDE. You may lose EVERYTHING including your HOUSE unless you go to bankruptcy.
> ...



The COBRA laws suck.  No if's and's or but's about it.  Unless you are a CEO who just collected a very nice Golden Parachute at your termination you have no hope of continuing coverage.  

Now, since you seem to be so angry at insurance companies (who are not at fault for the COBRA laws) would you explain how a single payer plan, the inevitable goal of the liberals in Congress, is going to make things better.  Do you think you will still be able to afford coverage under a single payer plan?  Do you think your employer will still pay a portion of your coverage or will it all come out of your payroll taxes?   My guess is that the employer will be taxed as it is with Social Security, but you will have to pay your own share without any choice in the matter as too how much they charge you nor any choice in deductibles or coverage.  Taxes going up and up and up!

Immie


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 19, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > So hear is my thought on CONTINUED healthcare when you lose your job due to illness. As it is if you lose your job due to illness you have three choices. Pay for COBRA which is more then my mortgage, buy it yourself which is MORE than COBRA, or lose your coverage when you MOST need it. Now you have lived a good clean life you always pay your premiums on time you pay your deductables and you pay out of pocket for some services that you NEED but they won't cover you are a good family man. Now you are diagnosed with colon cancer which if treated EARLY has a high rate of sucessful treatment. The problem is that you are TOO SICK TO WORK!!! So you lose your job AND your coverage for you AND your family. You have NO income unless your wife works and because of life altering exp you could get on your wifes ins which is likely worse than yours so that's why you were insured with them in the FIRST place.....
> ...



The Cobra law doesn't suck... before there was a Cobra law, when you lost your job, you lost your health insurance...

The higher Cobra premium reflects A) the loss of employer participation AND B) medical providers cut huge deals for employer based insurance claims and the soak the shit out of individual policies...

WHY are you so f_cking stupid???


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 19, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Cold Fusion38 said:
> ...



Why are you?

You get laid off your job, in the next thirty days you get a letter from your employer telling you that you have the option to continue your health insurance coverage.  Within the next 30 days or so, you have to pay last month's and next month's health insurance premiums and you must maintain your payments throughout your unemployment and most likely for the 90 days until your new employer picks up your coverage.

That is impossible for the vast majority of people.

What part of that don't you understand, idiot?

Oh, and by the way, with the COBRA laws, if you can't pay you still lose your coverage.

What part of that don't you understand, stupid?

Immie


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 19, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Well pea brain, you are officially qualified as a DOLT...

WHAT PART of before COBRA there will be NO phone call, just a "You are canceled" notice in the mail...

BTW, If the phone call comes 30 days later, THEN last months premium is past due...

IF you lose you job and can't afford COBRA, you probably can't afford ANY health insurance, BUT you can apply for new insurance, but NOW any illness covered before you lost your job is NOW a preexisting condition...coverage DENIED for that affliction...

You are a drowning victim that is thrown a life jacket and whines that he wants a cabin cruiser...

IF you want FREE health care, move to CANADA!!!

Just IMAGINE (requires brains and empathy) where the elderly would be today without Medicare (government run health care), you know; those useless people that lose their job because they are too old to work leave the workforce...

BUT, help is here...THANKS to the evil Democrats!!!

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 as signed by Barack Obama includes a 65% subsidy to employees for COBRA-enabled insurance for up to 9 months after an involuntary termination. An employee is eligible for this subsidy if

    * the termination of employment was involuntary,
    * the terminated employee has no other group sponsored health insurance option, and
    * the terminated employee is otherwise eligible to enroll in COBRA.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 19, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



You are the one that wants free health care, not me and by the way the proposals going through Congress right now are not going to be free.

Yes, before COBRA, an employee was without, after COBRA the employee is still without.  The COBRA law sucked.  It didn't help and the ARRA doesn't help a whole hell of a lot either.

The problem is that normal laidoff person could not (pre-ARRA) and still cannot (post ARRA) afford health insurance during such a period.  It doesn't help at all.  ARRA is an effort to improve conditions, but it is not sufficient for most people who when laid off have to worry about where the mortgage is going to come from and can't even begin to worry about how they can pay health insurance premiums.  Even with ARRA it is out of reach.  That is why the COBRA laws suck.

Immie


----------



## Intense (Oct 19, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > MajikMyst said:
> ...



Funny that you would interpret it such. Public School Indoctrination????

I think that the Parasite Elites should stop building Their Wealth on the backs and necks of whats left of the true middle class and the poor, and maybe find productive work. Your management skills are too lacking, your compensation is off the charts.


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 19, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Well pea brain, you've identified the very HEART of our health care crisis, coverage is tied to your job and NO ONE can afford health insurance on their own, especially if they lose their job, and if you want to improve yourself by changing jobs, you have to weigh the value of the coverage you will lose due to "now" preexisting conditions...but your pea brainism is placing the BLAME on a program that has absolutely NO blame at all, COBRA offers SOME assistance vs. ABSOLUTELY NONE before it's enactment...

So, paying 35% vs. 100% is still not good enough for you, and you accuse ME of wanting free health care...

Immie is now DOLT certified ...


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 19, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



I don't want free health care.  Although, I would be more than happy to be taxed to help those who need it.

COBRA does not do the job for those in need, nor does ARRA solve the problem.  Both are government failures... and idiots like you want to add another failure to the package.  I am not opposed to helping the poor.  I never have been.

I am, however, concerned about adding another program doomed to failure that won't solve the problem.

Immie


----------



## logical4u (Oct 19, 2009)

The Truth About the Health Care Bills -
	              Michael Connelly,
	              Ret. Constitutional Attorney
	              08.24.09

	              Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.

	              To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.

	              The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled.

	              However, as scary as all of that it, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.

	              The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.

	              This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.

	              If you decide not to have healthcare insurance or if you have private insurance that is not deemed "acceptable" to the "Health Choices Administrator" appointed by Obama there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a "tax" instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the "due process of law.

	              So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much out the original ten in the Bill of Rights that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn't stop there though. The 9th Amendment that provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;" The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.

	              I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation" to support the Constitution. If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.

	              For those who might doubt the nature of this threat I suggest they consult the source. 
	              Here is a link to the Constitution:http://www.archives.gov/ex hibits/charters/constituti on_transcript.html
	              And another to the Bill of Rights: http://www.archives.gov/ex hibits/charters/bill_of_ri ghts_transcript.html

	              There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.

	              Michael Connelly

	              Retired attorney,

	              Constitutional Law Instructor

	              Carrollton , Texas


----------



## Ravi (Oct 19, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> The problem is that normal laidoff person could not (pre-ARRA) and still cannot (post ARRA) afford health insurance during such a period.
> Immie


Guess what? Normal, everyday people that don't work for big companies can't afford health care at all. At all.

This entire discussion about COBRA is silly.


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 19, 2009)

immanuel said:


> bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > immanuel said:
> ...



lol


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 19, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > bfgrn said:
> ...



Obviously, you have no argument.

It has been proven to you over and over that COBRA is a failure.  The citizens who are to be assisted by both COBRA and ARRA are not helped by it, yet you continue to claim it is a great program.

You are the dolt, Bfgrn, yes you.  You said that the program did not suck because it continued health care for those who are unemployed.  Yet, when it is proven that it does not provide health insurance for the poor you fall back on mularky and claim, I want free health insurance without even a basis for such a lie.

Yeah, your are an idiot of the third class.  Come up with a real argument as to why you think COBRA is a worthwhile program, if you can.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 19, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is that normal laidoff person could not (pre-ARRA) and still cannot (post ARRA) afford health insurance during such a period.
> ...



Tell that to Bfgrn.  He thinks that COBRA helps the unemployed and that a single payer system will solve everyone's problems.

Immie


----------



## Ravi (Oct 19, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...


You're the one that is wrong. COBRA does help the unemployed...they can choose to continue their health care insurance if they can afford it until they are employed once again. No one forces anyone to take COBRA. And yes, it is expensive since the employee must pay the employer's previous share of insurance as well as their own.

COBRA wouldn't be needed if we had a single payer system that was paid for by tax dollars.

Your arguments get weaker, and weaker, and weaker.

You never even responded to the fact that we as taxpayers are already paying for 46% of all American's medical coverage...and the most expensive groups to boot.


----------



## Intense (Oct 19, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



If it was paid for by private dollars the incentive would be more towards what is affordable, rather than blank check spending. We want expenses to be transparent and accountable, not a black hole.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 19, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Where you are wrong, RAVI, is that the people who really need COBRA are not the ones who leave one employer and move to another right away, it is the people who are laid off and do not have a job and no prospects on the horizon.  Those are the ones that COBRA was designed to protect.  Even people who leave their jobs for another job and have to wait for 90 days before they are covered on their new employer's plan cannot usually afford the additional premiums.

I thought you liberals cared about the needy... am I wrong?

Immie


----------



## Ravi (Oct 19, 2009)

Intense said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...


If what was paid for by private dollars? Health care? You must be joking if you are going to claim that the free market keeps health insurance costs down. If that were true, we'd not be having this discussion.

Expenses under Medicare are way more transparent and accountable than they are under private health care providers.


----------



## Ravi (Oct 19, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...


I don't know where you aren't understanding that before COBRA there was no option but trying to qualify for Medicaid. So if you were layed off and got into an accident or diagnosed with cancer you were pretty well screwed.

If this is your objection to a public option I don't understand where you are coming from. A public option or a single payer system would affordably cover these people you are worrying about.


----------



## Intense (Oct 19, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



The Free Market could keep Health Care down Ravi. Tort Reform, Liability coverage Reform, Cost of Schooling and loan repayment Reform, anything legitimate to bring cost of services down.  Unjustified mandates multiply cost. Unnecessary testing increases cost. Clarify, simplify. We need less chaos, not more. What you advocate will overwhelm and multiply cost. It will bankrupt us.


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 19, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > immanuel said:
> ...



COBRA is NOT assistance... it is a law that was passed to prevent insurance cartels from canceling people's health insurance when they lose their jobs by allowing them to PAY for their coverage under group rates...WITHOUT Cobra, the premium would be at an individual rate that would make COBRA look like every day is Christmas...


----------



## Ravi (Oct 19, 2009)

Intense said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...


 You aren't talking about the free market...you are talking about rewriting the rules so the insurance companies can do whatever they want without penalty. Which isn't really very far from what it is now. The free market has NOT kept health care costs down.

There are plenty of countries that have some form of public option or single payer health care and none of them are bankrupt or in danger of becoming so.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 19, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



It has nothing to do with my objection to the Congressional plans.

If you go back and read the thread, you will see that Cold Fusion was complaining about COBRA and insinuating that it was private insurance's fault.  COBRA has little to do with the current plans and would, in fact, be eliminated by the current plans.

My objection to the current plans come from the fact that we are exchanging private insurance which is in itself shitty for government moderated insurance and I believe that the government will fail as it has proven itself to do with everything it gets its hands on.  Once it has its hands in health insurance, the entire idea of coverage for medical expenses is doomed to end up a failure and in the laps of taxpayers down the line ie our great grandchildren.  

Why is it that Congress has no problem passing along massive deficits to our great grandchildren?

Immie


----------



## Intense (Oct 19, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



I'm going to guess that it also takes care of the pre existing condition clause a bit too.


----------



## Intense (Oct 19, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



No I am not talking about rewriting the rules so the insurance companies can do whatever they want without penalty. I'm talking about making the laws understandable and functional.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 19, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Yet, it fails!  It fails because people who lose their jobs, cannot keep the coverage even though the cartel is prevented from cancelling their health insurance.  That is why it fails.  So, technically, they can lay the blame at the feet of those who lose their jobs.

The insurance cartel: "Don't blame us! You could have continued your coverage under the COBRA laws but you chose not to."

The unemployed worker: "But, I had to pay my mortgage and feed my children."

The cartel: "Tough F'ing shit.  We need to pay our CEO." 

That is why COBRA sucks.

Immie


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 19, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



COBRA sucks because of the cartels and the CEO's...NOT because it exists...it exists FOR THE SAME REASON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 19, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



At least you finally admit that it sucks, which is what started this entire conversation.

It sucks only because it does not help those who need it the most.  People who change jobs and have to wait 90 days before the new employer's plan kicks in can get away with not accepting it for 60 days.  If before that point they find that they have unexpected medical expenses that will cost more than the premiums, they can elect to extend coverage, if not, they only need to sweat the next 30 days.

And for the record, I never said it sucks "because it exists", I have always stated that it sucks because it does not help those who need it the most.

Immie


----------



## Ravi (Oct 19, 2009)




----------



## Immanuel (Oct 19, 2009)

Ravi said:


>



So what you are saying then is that liberals are nothing but liars.  They tell the poor that they look out for them, in order to scare them into voting Democrat, but in reality they don't give a damned about the poor.  Is that where you have a problem?  Someone who really does care about those in need?

Immie


----------



## Ravi (Oct 19, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


No, what I'm saying is you don't really know what you're talking about. Especially when it comes to COBRA.

It also rather fascinates me that you seem to think a democratic republic is a bad thing.


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 19, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



COBRA is NOT designed to GIVE you free health coverage...IT DOES make PAYING FOR health insurance under a group rate POSSIBLE...

Maybe if we play a TV Game Show it will register...OK?


_So Immie...You have a job that offers health insurance...your employer pays $600 and you pay $400 per month...Your wife has breast cancer and is going for chemotherapy...

BTW..........YOU"RE FIRED!!!_

Let's play...

Choose door # 1, 2 or 3...

Door # 1- Your health insurance is canceled...tough shit...BTW, you now owe County Hospital $10,000 per month for Chemo...

Door # 2- Your health insurance is canceled...tough shit...BUT, you can go out and purchase health insurance on your own...$2500 per month... BTW, you STILL now owe County Hospital $10,000 per month for Chemo...because your wife's breast cancer is a preexisting condition...

Door # 3- COBRA...You can CONTINUE your health insurance at $1,000 per month and continue coverage for your wife's illness...

And because of President Obama, Democrats and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, abbreviated ARRA... THE STIMULUS PACKAGE...your premium for the next 9 months is $350...

TAKE YOUR TIME...


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 19, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



I am sorry, but you don't know what the hell you are talking about.  I deal with COBRA all the time and people who are faced with having to decide how they are going to make ends meet in between jobs.  Most of them can't.  

As for your false claims that I think a Democratic Republic is a bad thing, well, that is all it is... a false claim.  I think our politicians in Washington are a bad thing.  I do not believe that the ideas that founded our republic are a bad thing.  However, if we could resurrect the founding fathers and show them what their ideas have turned into, I suspect everyone of them would croak of a massive coronary after they said, "I told you so."  This is what they worried about 200+ years ago.

Unfortunately, I think that we, the citizens of this great country, have failed because we have allowed corruption to run amok in Washington.

As a matter of fact, we no longer live in a Democratic Republic.  The political leaders in Washington now dictate to us how we will live.  We are now their subjects.  Take us back to a Democratic Republic and I will be right there with you, but don't you dare claim that we live in such a thing any longer.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 19, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



One word: Bullshit!

Possible only if you are a rich son of a bitch.  Other than that, it is of no use at all, that is all I have said throughout this discussion.  It is impossible for most people to continue their coverage under COBRA and ARRA does not change that.  ARRA attempts to address the problem, but it too falls short.  I never asked for free insurance.  I simply stated that COBRA does not make it possible for people who have lost their jobs to continue coverage.

Immie


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 19, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Well, then maybe FREE would be low enough for you...

Immie, based on your "entitlement" mentality, I will choose Door # 1 FOR you...So you better start packing...BTW, it's cold in Canada, but they have great beer...


----------



## Care4all (Oct 19, 2009)

when matt was unemployed a few years back, we paid our cobra bill for 10 months, $650 a month (plus food, mortgage, utilities...it was scary)....we ate in to our savings, until matt found another job with insurance coverage...nothing happened to us, we did not get sick, we could have taken our chances to go without it I suppose, but we didn't think it was worth the risk...

yes, if we had not had savings and emergency fund, we could have not managed...and it'll take several more years to build the emergency fund up again....the State of massachusetts will help with your COBRA or allow you to go on a blue cross blue shield of massachusetts coverage where they pay 80%, you pay 20% of your COBRA bill...that is means and monthly bills, tested, so if you did have a hardship, they would come in to pay 80%...

You should check to see if Florida has a program for those collecting unemployment Immie.

THIS is a State issue, not federal....federal provided the rule that allowed you to keep your group coverage at the group coverage price....  it is up to each state, to decide if they are willing to subsidize such, for those who can't afford even that, while unemployed.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 19, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Maybe what you can't comprehend is the difference between possible and allowed by law?  You see you seem to think that something that is allowed by law is possible where as I think that just because the government says you can do something does not mean that you can actually afford to do it.  The government says that I have the legal right to buy an Alpha Romeo.  The fact is that I cannot afford one.

Also, if you had ever used "Hooked on Phonics" and you were actually ability to read, you would see that I have never stated that the COBRA laws should be changed to make it *possible* for those who are needy to continue their insurance.  I would like nothing more than to help the poor.  However, I have only stated that COBRA laws do no such thing.  I simply stated that under those laws, it is not possible for them to do so.

Immie


----------



## Ravi (Oct 19, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


Excellent post and dead on the money.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 19, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Excellent post and dead on the money.



I take it you need to brush up on your reading skills as well.

Immie


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 19, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Immanuel, your paragraph above reveals you either immoral, ignorant, or malignant.  Which is it?  Because what you wrote is flatly wrong.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 19, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Pissed off might be the word for it and tired of being accused of something that is entirely untrue by two liberals who have done nothing but lie throughtout the last couple of pages of this thread.

And besides, despite fact that I missed the "?", that first sentence was obviously a question and not a statement.  I asked her if she was saying they were liars, I was not saying they were.

You should probably try going back and reading the thread too.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 19, 2009)

OMG!  How is it possible that the only conservative in this discussion is speaking about helping the poor and the three liberals and possibly a fourth are saying F* the poor?

Immie


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 19, 2009)

Immanuel, I understand now that you were going for hyperbole.  OK.  But the conservatives have offered nothing constructive since before the election.  Health insurance companies have screwed everyone they can, bribed every elected official and appointed regulator they can, and it is going to stop now!  Period.  Health insurance reform is happening this term.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 19, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Immanuel, I understand now that you were going for hyperbole.  OK.  But the conservatives have offered nothing constructive since before the election.  Health insurance companies have screwed everyone they can, bribed every elected official and appointed regulator they can, and it is going to stop now!  Period.  Health insurance reform is happening this term.



Conservatives have not done shit for eight years or more and you are right, reform is needed... NOW.  I am not at all sure that it will come this term or even the next, but it is sorely needed.

Nor am I certain what form it should take!

Given no reform or the Public Option, I'd have to say something is better than nothing, but I am very concerned that the public option is the first step to utter failure of the health insurance industry.

Immie


----------



## Ravi (Oct 19, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> OMG!  How is it possible that the only conservative in this discussion is speaking about helping the poor and the three liberals and possibly a fourth are saying F* the poor?
> 
> Immie


I don't know what you're smoking, but I'd like some.

COBRA isn't meant to help the poor...it's meant to help the temporarily unemployed. And it does, even though it is expensive. 

If you are concerned about the poor perhaps you should support a public option of single payer instead of what we've got now.

And WHO said fuck the poor? Not one of us.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 19, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > OMG!  How is it possible that the only conservative in this discussion is speaking about helping the poor and the three liberals and possibly a fourth are saying F* the poor?
> ...



I would consider the temporary unemployed the poor.  Sorry, but I see no income, or unemployment insurance to mean the poor.



> If you are concerned about the poor perhaps you should support a public option of single payer instead of what we've got now.



You probably posted this before you got to see my last most.  I don't support the "Public Option" because I think it is wrong for everyone including the poor, but it is more than likely better than what we have now.

You three have basically been saying F* the poor.  My point through this entire discussion has been that it doesn't help those that need it the most and you guys keep acting like you don't give a damned... meaning F* the poor.

Immie


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Oct 19, 2009)

COBRA is a cruel joke. They should just put a REAL Cobra in front of you and say good luck charming it. If you do you get to live one more day. Tomorrow we will start again.


----------



## Ravi (Oct 19, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...


I had to take COBRA once when I was between jobs...and I didn't consider myself poor. Many unemployed people don't consider themselves poor, especially if they expect to be come employed again soon. 

You're right...COBRA doesn't help the poor. It was never meant to help the poor. It's meant to allow people to keep their insurance temporarily before they find another job with insurance benefits.

The poor DON'T HAVE INSURANCE AT ALL. And neither do many of the not actually poor.


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 19, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel, I understand now that you were going for hyperbole.  OK.  But the conservatives have offered nothing constructive since before the election.  Health insurance companies have screwed everyone they can, bribed every elected official and appointed regulator they can, and it is going to stop now!  Period.  Health insurance reform is happening this term.
> ...



Immie...the first step to the utter failure of the health care industry is to do what the insurance cartels and the Republicans are trying to do...undermine our president's honest attempt to make health care affordable for EVERY American...

The Cost of Doing Nothing

*Affordability*
As health care costs continue to grow faster than wages, health insurance will become more and more unaffordable for more and more American families every day. The financial burdens associated with health care and health insurance will only get worse over time without action.The cost of the average employer-sponsored health insurance plan (ESI) for a family will reach $24,000 in 2016. This represents an 84 percent increase over 2008 premium levels. Under this scenario, we estimate that at least half of American households will need to spend more than 45 percent of their income to buy health insurance.


----------



## Intense (Oct 19, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Sorry guys, It's bad math that will compound the problem. Making Health Care more affordable is the solution, not a Hostile Take Over.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 19, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



The point is Ravi, that most people in between jobs simply cannot afford it and that is the problem.  It does not help most people who need it.  You and Care may have chosen to continue your coverage.  Such a choice may or may not have benefited you.  My guess is that both of you paid more for coverage than you needed to pay and that you both would have been better off "gambling" and declining the coverage.

When I moved to Florida, it took me four months to find a job and from there I had to wait 90 days in my new job before I was eligible for coverage.  I did not take COBRA as I could not afford it.  You should have seen me the day before my new coverage was to take effect... I walked in the house and told my three children, "Sit down and don't move! I'm not going to have one of you break an arm or a leg 6 hours before we have coverage again"

COBRA is simply unreachable for most people.

Like most social programs, the idea behind COBRA is a great idea.  However, the practicality of the situation means that the program literally sucks.  For as long as I have been administrating health benefits, I have only known one person who maintained coverage and he was elderly, his wife was always in the hospital and they could not afford to pay for COBRA but neither could they afford not to have health insurance.



Bfgrn said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Bfgrn,

I think I wrote that two years ago.  I have been saying that for years.  I fully understand that we are in dire need of a reform of our health insurance.  However, I am in disagreement with you in regards to letting the government take control of another social program.  They have proven with every program they have undertaken to be unsuccessful.  

I happen to like the idea of not having to deal with health insurance anymore.  I would love the idea of never having to worry about my coverage again.  The thought of having Uncle Sam provide coverage for me and take out a payroll deduction from my check seems great.  Hassle free for life!  Where do I sign up?

But in reality, the program will run at a deficit for ever.  Uncle Sam will fiddle with the laws and in a few years it will be bankrupt and the only thing keeping it going will be red ink and IOU's.

Do I have a better solution?  Sadly, no!

But for people to preach that this is the saving grace of the American people and let's face it, that is exactly what you guys are doing, is absolutely ludicrous.

We've been in a health care crisis for at least 10 years.  Things have been out of hand and ignored by those in Washington for a long time.  Now that Liberal Democrats have control they see an opportunity for a power grab and frankly, I see this as frightening.  

This is clearly an attempt to socialize medicine.  The powers that be in Washington have said as much.  When they finish with medicine what will be next?  What kind of freedoms will we have when they are done?

Immie


----------



## chanel (Oct 19, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



What about Medicaid?  In NJ we have NJ Familycare.    A family of four can make up to $77,000 and qualify for a $6000 policy.  I don't see that unreasonable.  If I thought the feds could come up with a similar program, I would support it.  But I am certain that all of us will be paying more.


----------



## Care4all (Oct 19, 2009)

The only reason it is bad math, is because it is done with the insurance industry and a gift horse of tax dollars to them, and because it is NOT a hostile take over of the industry, a Universal, single payer plan.imho


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 19, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> COBRA is a cruel joke. They should just put a REAL Cobra in front of you and say good luck charming it. If you do you get to live one more day. Tomorrow we will start again.



And you!  You are the one that got me in so much trouble!

I simply agree with you and get half the liberals on the planet pissed off at me and you run and hide!!!  I owe you and I owe you big time!



Immie


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 19, 2009)

Immie, no is pissed at you.  Just startled at your poor logic.


----------



## Intense (Oct 19, 2009)

Care4all said:


> The only reason it is bad math, is because it is done with the insurance industry and a gift horse of tax dollars to them, and because it is NOT a hostile take over of the industry, a Universal, single payer plan.imho



I don't support the stepping stone to Totalitarian Health Care, where the privileged get favors and we get screwed.  It's bad math because there is abuse in the equation, that does remain and will continue to remain embedded. You are not addressing the symptoms, but justifying them through ignorance. Not your fault, they are well fortified and entrenched. Until we address the cost of service from the value perspective and break it down, we will continue to be sheared.  It is wrong to think Government has no place with the muggers.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Oct 19, 2009)

Sorry Imm I had to get ready for a party we are having for a friend I ran into at my 20th HS reunion. I have know her since the 1st grade!!

If you must put me in front of a COBRA I can be pretty charming.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 19, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Immie, no is pissed at you.  Just startled at your poor logic.



Oh great who is this "no"?  Some one else I pissed off I see.  

And I don't think my logic is poor.  COBRA laws help almost no one and if they do not help many people they suck which is what started this conversation in the first place!

Now, let me ask you, if COBRA laws don't help people except fro maybe the very rich like Care and RAVI, then do they no suck?

Immie


----------



## Ravi (Oct 19, 2009)

COBRA isn't a social program. Jesus Fucking Christ!

Please, dig up Ronald Reagan and bitch about it to him, he's the one that signed it into law.



People should have more options. That is what the Democrats, as misguided and wussy as they are, are trying to provide. I have no faith that they will come through.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Oct 19, 2009)

Just don't put a PISSED OFF COBRA in front of me I mean gimme a chance.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 19, 2009)

Ravi said:


> COBRA isn't a social program. Jesus Fucking Christ!
> 
> Please, dig up Ronald Reagan and bitch about it to him, he's the one that signed it into law.
> 
> ...



More options?  

Please explain how the "misguided and wussy" Democrats are giving us more options.

Immie


----------



## Care4all (Oct 19, 2009)

Intense said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > The only reason it is bad math, is because it is done with the insurance industry and a gift horse of tax dollars to them, and because it is NOT a hostile take over of the industry, a Universal, single payer plan.imho
> ...



intense, are you saying the problem lies in the cost of health care and not necessarily the cost of insurance because it is just a byproduct of hospital, medical tests, doctor,  etc costs?

And are you saying that congress should be involved in regulating such....somehow to prevent the mugging???  or is congress the muggers???   

care


----------



## Intense (Oct 19, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Immie, no is pissed at you.  Just startled at your poor logic.
> ...



Cobra is going to help those that can afford six months to a year ahead, being unemployed, or having treated what would otherwise be considered preexisting condition, on a new plan. It was not meant for everyone. 

True Health Care Reform could address that regardless who the carrier is, just understand that nothing is for nothing. It will cost someone, the question is who?


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 19, 2009)

Intense said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



The thing is that only the Very Rich CAN afford it.  I thought those liberals that wanted to skin me alive for sticking up for the poor, hated the Very Rich.  

Seems to me that is a misconception.  

Immie


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Oct 19, 2009)

Hey Imm just got the Fed Ex box........That COBRA was PISSED!!!! Calmed him down with my trusy flute he is just chillin now. Just have to keep my cats from "PLAYING" with him or is it her do you know how to tell?


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Oct 19, 2009)

Here is ALL you need to know about COBRA........When I lost my job it would have been MORE THAN MY HOUSE PAYMENT!!!


----------



## Ravi (Oct 19, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...


That's not true, either. I saved up for it because I knew I was going to need it. A rule of thumb is to keep three months set aside in case all goes wrong (maybe six would be better). Has nothing to do with wealth...just common sense and planning ahead.


----------



## Ravi (Oct 19, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > COBRA isn't a social program. Jesus Fucking Christ!
> ...


I think they already did give some money to help the unemployed be able to afford Cobra... The public option would be more options.


----------



## Care4all (Oct 19, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



the rich don't need cobra, they can buy their own individual policy at any price...so to continue insurance.

the poor don't need cobra to continue being insured, they never were insured by their employers, they have medicaid.

Cobra is for the middle to upper middle, who can not afford the price of an individual plan, as the wealthy can...

the middle and the lower middle won't be able to afford it, but in many states, they help fund your cobra via means testing while collecting UE that does help the middle, lower middle....


----------



## Care4all (Oct 19, 2009)

if you think cobra is high try pricing an individual insurance plan without a group rate...$25k here for 2 healthy people.


----------



## Ravi (Oct 19, 2009)

Care4all said:


> if you think cobra is high try pricing an individual insurance plan without a group rate...$25k here for 2 healthy people.


Yep...and that is why we need a public option.


----------



## Intense (Oct 19, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...




The problem lies in both the Cost of Insurance and the Cost of Care. 

I don't trust Congress much until it rediscovers original intent. I would love to see an unbiased accounting of the costs of where we are now, full disclosure, and what can't be justified, wiped away. I would love to see a few independent proposals based on cost break down, with a reflection of open bidding, like ambulance services and the like. the cost of a bed, per night, per week, by group(Type of Room, if specialized), there is so much that we take for granted. I want AMA input on cost break downs. 

What we witness today is a power struggle. It's about who controls, who decides. How much is secondary.  I am not a Nationalist. I see Nationalism as the Road to Totalitarianism. If we establish Principle through Government, we establish the parameters, the rules of play. So far we are really bad at it, and desperately need to improve.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 19, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



Six months is the minimum recommended by Financial Planners.  Unfortunately, when you are raising a family that is not so easy to do.  In fact, it is about as possible as affording COBRA.



Ravi said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



So, you think taking the availability of plans (coverages/deductibles/costs/prescription plans etc.) and dropping it down to one is more options?



Care4all said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



Guess, what the lower middle to middle class already cannot afford it.  That has been the entire discussion.  The only people that can afford it are the super rich... that is why it sucks.

Immie


----------



## Care4all (Oct 19, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



yes, they can NOT afford it Immie..COBRA was never meant to be affordable for the masses....it was meant to keep ones coverage going, if they were sick or a family member was sick....the $700-1000 a month is outrageous, but it is still BETTER than the $2500 a month that it would cost you for your family if you had to buy insurance as an individual without the group rate and....

thus the need for health care insurance reform...the reform that you are fighting against....

I personally have no problems if we ever went to a single payer plan, with doctors and hospitals still in the private sector....  My personal experience with the insurance companies HAS NOT BEEN GOOD and if i never have to deal with them again, I would be a happy person....maybe other people have had better experiences, but I haven't....and I can only go on my own experience.

Care


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 19, 2009)

Care4all said:


> yes, they can NOT afford it Immie..COBRA was never meant to be affordable for the masses....it was meant to keep ones coverage going, if they were sick or a family member was sick....the $700-1000 a month is outrageous, but it is still BETTER than the $2500 a month that it would cost you for your family if you had to buy insurance as an individual without the group rate and....
> 
> thus the need for health care insurance reform...the reform that you are fighting against....
> 
> ...



Funny, I know of no one who has fought against health care reform, rather they have been fighting against the idea that there is only one way to reform health care and that being a full blown jump into socialism.  

As I have stated repeatedly, I don't have another solution, but a government run fiasco is not a solution either.  If you are wrong, and you are, we cannot afford the disaster that will follow.  I know the industry needs a complete overhaul, but how is that to be done?  We can't trust the politicians.  We can't trust the insurance providers.  Doing nothing is not an option, but neither is handing an entire industry and hundreds of thousands of jobs over to the government and giving them control of our health and our well being.

Immie


----------



## Ravi (Oct 19, 2009)

Single payer would limit your choices for basic needs, but it wouldn't limit your choices for private insurance for other needs.

But like I said, I'm not sold on one vs. the other. I do know that most people, you included, can't afford private insurance unless your employer pays a portion of it...

I also realize Cobra isn't affordable when you are raising a family...which is why you need to plan ahead. It was cheaper for me, and better for my family, to tough it out on Cobra for a few months.

I think, Immie, you are more liberal than you admit...why you rail against your inner nature is pretty strange...and funny. 

IMO, life in general would be easier and more productive if we didn't have to worry about health insurance.

You've STILL not addressed the fact that we already pay for 46% of Americans through taxes.


----------



## Ravi (Oct 19, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


Care, single payer doesn't mean doctors and hospitals aren't in the private sector. It only means that insurance would be structured like Medicare...Medicare is an insurance plan, not an employer of doctors.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 19, 2009)

Ravi said:


> I think, Immie, you are more liberal than you admit...


 





> why you rail against your inner nature is pretty strange...and funny.



I do no such thing, I rail against the men and women, we as a nation have relinquished our nation to.  They cannot be trusted and unfortunately, the life path they have embarked upon leads to corruption.  I don't blame them for that fact, but they all fall into that path.



> IMO, life in general would be easier and more productive if we didn't have to worry about health insurance.



Read up, I said the same thing earlier.



> You've STILL not addressed the fact that we already pay for 46% of Americans through taxes.



Because, it doesn't matter to me... 46% is a long way from full control and I am not convinced of the accuracy of the chart you showed.

Immie


----------



## Care4all (Oct 19, 2009)

Ravi said:


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



Oh, I know that Ravi...I was just saying it out loud so others realize a single payer plan is not hospitals and doctors working for the government and them being on the govts payroll, as many on the right KEEP SAYING.


----------



## Care4all (Oct 19, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > yes, they can NOT afford it Immie..COBRA was never meant to be affordable for the masses....it was meant to keep ones coverage going, if they were sick or a family member was sick....the $700-1000 a month is outrageous, but it is still BETTER than the $2500 a month that it would cost you for your family if you had to buy insurance as an individual without the group rate and....
> ...



I don't see how you think this bill is a jump in to socialism...it falls WAY SHORT of anything like such....there is no take over...everything is still ALL DONE with the private sector....with their profits, with their every whim being met....we the people have lost, insurance companies have won big time....  a gvt take over and single payer plan would be welcomed by me, in a heartbeat, compared to the assholes at the insurance companies....I'd take a medicare type plan that i paid in to, any day of the week over these suckers...  I have been clear on that...I am NOT afraid of it...because it can NOT be any worse than it is now imo.

Care


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 19, 2009)

Care4all said:


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



If you would just read, you would see that it is designed to destroy the private insurance companies.  In five years they will be extinct or no more than puppet plans sponsored by the government and the government will have full control of the industry.  

You would take a medicare plan that was funded on IOU's just like Social Security because you do not think about what our great grand children will have to play with in the future.  We have already saddled them with our debt, a debt this country will never be able to dig its way out of and you want to add hundreds of billions of more dollars to it because you hate the idea of anyone making a profit.

A don't try giving my that bullshit that it will be fully funded by those who are insured, because you know as well as I do that that is bullshit.

Immie


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 19, 2009)

All the cons do is blah blah blah blah blah because they cannot talk objectively about the issue.

The health insurance industry raped the American public.  It is now being castrated.


----------



## Ravi (Oct 20, 2009)

Immie, do you think the insurance companies have a right to exist? Not that they can exist if they are successful....but do they have some sort of constitutional right to exist and not be out-competed? I don't. Nor would it be socialism any more than Social Security is socialism. They are merely social programs.


----------



## Care4all (Oct 20, 2009)

Immanuel said:


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



You know, sometimes I think you play this 'card' of yours just to see if you can get me angry at you immie...

Unless something has changed in the language of the Public Option insurance plan that was in hr3200....

there is NOTHING DESIGNED in this bill with the public insurance option to destroy the insurance companies out...stop LYING please...that is your opinion but that is FAR FROM FACT....  I realize that you do not think you are lying, but it is a LIE none the less immie....it is NOT designed to bring the insurance companies down, it IS DESIGNED in the manner to give them ALL A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD so that true competition exists.

The Public Option CAN NOT BE PAID FOR WITH TAXES...it says so in the legislation.  STOP STOP STOP NOW WITH THAT LIE...please, I have had enough of this lie, why?  BECAUSE IT IS A LIE....

The public option has NO ADVANTAGE GIVEN THEM by the government over the private sector....if the private sector fails, it fails because of what the private sector does to themselves, and I can assure you, they will NOT GO BELLY UP, WITHOUT A FIGHT.....and that fight will entail the private insurance companies becoming MORE EFFICIENT themselves....THAT is the whole idea of the public option.

This entire bill is NOT what i have come to believe is the way to go with our health care...I believe we should just go in to a single payer plan for all of us, paid for through the money we now spend on private insurance, via new taxes...yep, I have no faith in the insurance companies to bring the cost of health insurance down to an affordable level, especially WITHOUT the public insurance plan to keep them honest.

The Public Option is set up that IT CAN NOT BECOME a SINGLE PAYER PLAN....

Because the Plan holders all pay their own premium, the government does NOT PAY IT through taxes on them....

So again, even if unintentional, what you keep saying about this Public Insurance Option as being DESIGNED to bring the insurance companies down, it's a lie....it is specifically designed to be COMPETITION, with no favors.

Will it lead people to be happy with it and make them think that a single payer plan might be ok, somewhere down the road, someday?  THAT may be the case...BUT if the public ever chose to go the route of a single payer insurer, IT WILL NOT BE THIS PUBLIC INSURANCE OPTION, IT CAN'T BE, according to the LEGISLATION because it was NOT DESIGNED TO BE..

Care


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 20, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Bfgrn,
> 
> I think I wrote that two years ago.  I have been saying that for years.  I fully understand that we are in dire need of a reform of our health insurance.  However, I am in disagreement with you in regards to letting the government take control of another social program.  They have proven with every program they have undertaken to be unsuccessful.
> 
> ...



Here's something to really, REALLY think about Immie...WHAT do YOU want America to be, a representative republic or a privatized corporatocracy? The Republicans tell us our only problem in America is government. WHAT do they offer to replace it?? It seem perfectly CLEAR to me that their solution is to turn America over to corporations. We've seen Bills passed by Congress that were written BY corporate lawyers, lobbyists and special interest groups...we have draconian laws that severely punish the average breadwinner when he or she tangles with corporations (like credit card interest rate hikes that even the Mafia consider dishonest) 

I understand and support sensible and healthy skepticism of government. Our founding fathers promoted THAT type of skepticism. But what you are saying in essence Immie is that our founding fathers FAILED... the form of governing they created needs to be scrapped...But let me ask you; WHAT representation do you have with corporations??? If you are not a board member of a controlling stock holder, you have NONE...

Ironically, the health insurance corporations of today are a PERFECT replica of the unfair and punitive corporate policies of the British East India Company...the REAL tea party was over corporations that were TOO powerful...

Here is a segment of an EXCELLENT speech by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. IMO, he hits it right on the head...

September 10, 2005

There is nothing wrong with corporations. Corporations are a good thing. They encourage us to take risks. They maximize wealth. They create jobs. I own a corporation. They're a great thing, but they should not be running our government. The reason for that is they don't have the same aspirations for America that you and I do. A corporation does not want democracy. It does not want free markets, it wants profits, and the best way for it to get profits is to use our campaign-finance system -- which is just a system of legalized bribery -- to get their stakes, their hooks into a public official and then use that public official to dismantle the marketplace to give them a competitive advantage and then to privatize the commons, to steal the commonwealth, to liquidate public assets for cash, to plunder, to steal from the rest of us.

And that doesn't mean corporations are a bad thing. It just means they're amoral, and we have to recognize that and not let them into the political process. Let them do their thing, but they should not be participating in our political process, because a corporation cannot do something genuinely philanthropic. It's against the law in this country, because their shareholders can sue them for wasting corporate resources. They cannot legally do anything that will not increase their profit margins. That's the way the law works, and we have to recognize that and understand that they are toxic for the political process, and they have to be fenced off and kept out of the political process. This is why throughout our history our most visionary political leaders -- Republican and Democrat -- have been warning the American public against domination by corporate power.

This White House has done a great job of persuading a gullible press and the American public that the big threat to American democracy is big government. Well, yeah, big government is a threat ultimately, but it is dwarfed by the threat of excessive corporate power and the corrosive impact that has on our democracy. And you know, as I said, you look at all the great political leaders in this country and the central theme is that we have to be cautious about, we have to avoid, the domination of our government by corporate power.

Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, said that America would never be destroyed by a foreign power but he warned that our political institutions, our democratic institutions, would be subverted by malefactors of great wealth, who would erode them from within. Dwight Eisenhower, another Republican, in his most famous speech, warned America against domination by the military industrial complex.

Abraham Lincoln, the greatest Republican in our history, said during the height of the Civil War "I have the South in front of me and I have the bankers behind me. And for my country, I fear the bankers more." Franklin Roosevelt said during World War II that the domination of government by corporate power is "the essence of fascism" and Benito Mussolini -- who had an insider's view of that process -- said the same thing. Essentially, he complained that fascism should not be called fascism. It should be called corporatism because it was the merger of state and corporate power. And what we have to understand as Americans is that the domination of business by government is called communism. The domination of government by business is called fascism. And our job is to walk that narrow trail in between, which is free-market capitalism and democracy. And keep big government at bay with our right hand and corporate power at bay with our left.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Speech, 9/10/05 > Press Room > Sierra Club


----------



## Intense (Oct 20, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> All the cons do is blah blah blah blah blah because they cannot talk objectively about the issue.
> 
> The health insurance industry raped the American public.  It is now being castrated.



Where we differ is that probably see Government as an innocent Bystander,where I view Government as the Silent Partner, or Conspirator.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 20, 2009)

Care4all said:


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



I'm not even going to read all that BS care.  The first sentence of the third paragraph was enough.  Of course, the language does not specifically state that the intention of the plan is to eliminate private insurance.  You used to analyze the market for selling shoes.  Why don't you put your little brain to work and think about what exactly the language in hr3200 would do.

Is Congress going to come out and say, "it is our express goal to eliminate completely one large segment of the American Economy and put hundreds of thousands of individuals out of work"?  Hell no they are not.  But if you even tried to read the language, you would see that is what will happen.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 20, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn,
> ...



Bfgrn,

I would not say that they have failed.  There is a quote, I think it was by Winston Churchill, but I cannot swear to it and I don't have time to google it, that says in essense that all Democracy will eventually fail when citizens realize how to work the system.  I love my country.  But, I hate to say it, that I am afraid our Democratic Republic may be in its dying throes.

Washington DC has become rotten with corruption and there is nothing in the world that we as citizens can do to change that.  That is the nature of power.  I'm not blaming Republicans or Democrats, it is simply the way things are and eventually, just like every other civilization, this one is going to collapse.  What emerges from the ashes only time will tell.

I would rather not see it in my lifetime, but I think it is inevitable.

Did the founding fathers fail?  No, they didn't.  Democracy has its life span.  Our "Democracy" is no different than any other.  But, it is not a failure by any stretch of the imagination.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 20, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Immie, do you think the insurance companies have a right to exist? Not that they can exist if they are successful....but do they have some sort of constitutional right to exist and not be out-competed? I don't. Nor would it be socialism any more than Social Security is socialism. They are merely social programs.



I believe in the idea of Capitalism although I realize there needs to be regulation.  I believe that the shareholders of any corporation has the right to put up their capital in order to produce a profit.  Is it expressed in the Constituntion?  No, but neither is abortion.

Social Security is a product of socialistic thinking.  That DOES NOT mean it is evil.  It means that it is a product of socialistic thinking.  

Immie


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 20, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Here is some interesting reading...

Unequal Protection by Thom Hartmann


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


    The first thing to understand is the difference between the natural person and the fictitious person called a corporation. They differ in the purpose for which they are created, in the strength which they possess, and in the restraints under which they act.

    Man is the handiwork of God and was placed upon earth to carry out a Divine purpose; the corporation is the handiwork of man and created to carry out a money-making policy.

    There is comparatively little difference in the strength of men; a corporation may be one hundred, one thousand, or even one million times stronger than the average man. Man acts under the restraints of conscience, and is influenced also by a belief in a future life. A corporation has no soul and cares nothing about the hereafter. 

    A corporation has no rights except those given it by law. It can exercise no power except that conferred upon it by the people through legislation, and the people should be as free to withhold as to give, public interest and not private advantage being the end in view.

    -- William Jennings Bryan
    address to the Ohio 1912 Constitutional Convention


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Oct 20, 2009)




----------



## judyd (Oct 20, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Immie, do you think the insurance companies have a right to exist? Not that they can exist if they are successful....but do they have some sort of constitutional right to exist and not be out-competed? I don't. Nor would it be socialism any more than Social Security is socialism. They are merely social programs.
> ...



I believe in capitalism too.  I don't believe that healthcare--necessary for life itself--should have ever become a profit/loss business.   This is the only country in which corporations try to profit from the health (or lack of) of its citizens.  

People aren't buying cars here--they're trying to obtain life-sustaining care or treatment.  And this should be doled out by profiteers?  When did we enter this bizarro world???


----------



## Tech_Esq (Oct 20, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Look here is the thing........You have THREE options for health care. Get it through your employer. Get it by buying it YOURSELF from an ins company(not possible for most people since it cost's over $1,000 dollars(more than a house payment for many) or go without and hope like HELL you or a family member NEVER gets sick. Now here's the REALLY bad thing. Let's say you get REALLY sick and lose your job because you can't work......Guess what.......Your ins is GONE when you need it MOST. I guess you could get COBRA for a few months but there is NO WAY you could afford it cause hey you are OUT OF A JOB!



I've had my own insurance for over a year and half. You really should stop spreading lies, like it will cost over $1,000. It costs no where near that. I pay under $500 per month for a family plan with Dental insurance. (from Blue Cross)

Really, people we need to stop lying about the current state of affairs. Anyone with a decent paying job can afford health insurance privately purchased. I just went to eheathinsurance.com. If you don't believe me, go there and see what a plan would cost for you. I have no affiliation, just proving a point.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Oct 20, 2009)

judyd said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Right, so people who build houses, (shelter, necessary for life) should not make profits.

Grocery stores and farmers sell and produce food (definitely need for sustaining life) no profits for them either. Probably no restaurants either -- by extension.

Is the point getting through? That's a silly argument.


----------



## judyd (Oct 20, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> judyd said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



No it isn't.  Grocery stores are hardly big profit makers.  Same for most builders.  Why should the health insurance companies be making profits of 428$??  Find me a builder (which many in my family have been in for generations) who make that sort of profit.  

Aside from that though, medical care is not handled like this in any other country.  I don't think people should be able to profit because they condemned a person to death because of a "pre-existing" condition, that they won't pay for--although the person has been paying them hundreds of dollars each month for coverage.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 20, 2009)

Intense said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > All the cons do is blah blah blah blah blah because they cannot talk objectively about the issue.
> ...



Because We Joe and Jane Citizen permitted the health insurance industry to buy off the government.

That ended with the election of 2008.  Health insurance reform is here for good.


----------



## judyd (Oct 20, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > Look here is the thing........You have THREE options for health care. Get it through your employer. Get it by buying it YOURSELF from an ins company(not possible for most people since it cost's over $1,000 dollars(more than a house payment for many) or go without and hope like HELL you or a family member NEVER gets sick. Now here's the REALLY bad thing. Let's say you get REALLY sick and lose your job because you can't work......Guess what.......Your ins is GONE when you need it MOST. I guess you could get COBRA for a few months but there is NO WAY you could afford it cause hey you are OUT OF A JOB!
> ...



You apparently are very young with no problems.  At the last company where I worked, one of the guys went out of our company plan, in which he was paying over $1,000 a month for family coverage, for a cheaper plan he obtained through the internet.  

Everything was fine until he came down with multiple sclerosis--no previous history or family history, but they soon cancelled his coverage.  They had no intention of taking care of someone who had so many medical needs.  

Sure, buy internet insurance or any of those other plans--just don't get sick!


----------



## Tech_Esq (Oct 20, 2009)

judyd said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > judyd said:
> ...



Yes, IT IS, REALLY. 

Grocery stores are not big business? You really want to go down that road? Check the profits on Kroger, Safeway, Wegman's, Balducci's etc.

Builders don't make profits like "that" whatever "that" is. My suspicion is you don't know what "that" is either, you've just decided that you don't like this particular "hated industry du jour" to make any money no matter what it is. So, check the profits on companies like Beazer, Centex, D.R. Horton, Lennar etc. and tell me they make no money (well, when the housing market isn't in collapse, that is).

I noticed you were smart enough not to mention farmers because you didn't want to talk about ADM and ConAgra. Nevertheless, all of those items are far more important to life than medical care or insurance. You need them daily to live. I haven't "needed" a doctor in decades. I've "wanted" one more recently, but "needed?" Not since Jimmy Carter was President.

Your second argument is a complete fallacy. You are arguing against the status quo and nobody supports the status quo including the insurance companies.

There are definite improvements that need to be made to the way health care coverage is provided in this country. Insurance companies cannot continue to not cover pre-existing conditions. Insurance needs to be less expensive. Markets for individuals, small businesses and other companies need to be opened across state lines allowing for expanded risk pools, increasing competitions and lowered prices. There is a role for government in creating a market framework where all health insurers can participate if they agree to basic rules about pre-existing conditions etc. Tort reform needs to be included to reduce unnecessary procedures and reduce medical costs (the English rule of torts needs to be implemented, loser pays).

So nobody is saying keep it like it is. But the solution is not replace it with a system we know will fail because it has failed everywhere it has been tried.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Oct 20, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Once people (Democrats) found out they could ignore the Constitution and get away with it, the dye was cast. It's just taken this long for it to get to a crisis level.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Oct 20, 2009)

judyd said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > Cold Fusion38 said:
> ...



Wrong again! Do you ever tire of being wrong?

I'm well over 40. As I noted in my previous post, not particularly sickly. We do have pre-existing conditions in my family that is covered. That caused the price to be more expensive than it would otherwise.

So, you are saying that because I bought insurance through the mechanism of the Internet, that Blue Cross and Blue Shield purchased through that mechanism is different than Blue Cross purchased another way?

Wrong again. I had the policy reviewed by my mother, who owned an insurance brokerage for 30 years and she pronounced it a good policy. But, I'm sure your take on it is far superior, right?


----------



## judyd (Oct 20, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> judyd said:
> 
> 
> > Tech_Esq said:
> ...




I'm not wrong.  But I don't expect the son of an insurance broker to acknowledge that the insurance companies have been fleecing the citizens of the US for decades.   So your mother got you a good price?  Most people aren't that fortunate.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Oct 20, 2009)

I know you can get LIFE ins anywhere over state lines but I question getting HEALTH ins that way.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Oct 20, 2009)

Say I was ABLE to get a Health Ins plan from Washington state.....I would be outta network where ever I go in Idaho. I think we have basically TWO choices Blue Shield and the other I can't remember but TWO choices isn't very much competition don't you think?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 20, 2009)

judyd said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > judyd said:
> ...



This wasn't even a good try at a dodge.  "Oh, you're just biased, so I can assume anything you say that I don't like is a lie, without any proof that it is."  Not hardly.  Also, he didn't say his mother got him a good price, which is so painfully obvious in his post that the only way you could have said this is if YOU are a shamelessly baldfaced liar.  You should be ashamed of this post, but if you had that much integrity, you wouldn't have posted it in the first place.  I'm back to wishing I had an emoticon that would let me spit in disgust.


----------



## judyd (Oct 20, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> judyd said:
> 
> 
> > Tech_Esq said:
> ...



Really?  So?  Did you notice that my comment about his mother was a question--not a statement?  

I still stand by my opinion though.  If he was brought up by someone who made her living through the health insurance industry, I don't expect him to have an unbiased opinion of a public option.


----------



## Dante (Oct 20, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Democrats have been saying that they are all for the elimination of private health insurance.  Don't believe me, watch the videos in this thread:
> 
> 
> Immie



I not only believe you, I agree with them.


----------



## hvacjones (Oct 20, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Democrats have been saying that they are all for the elimination of private health insurance.  Don't believe me, watch the videos in this thread:
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...lead-to-single-payer-government-run-care.html
> 
> ...



They will probobly go work for the government health isurance departmen, who will most likely insure them as part of their employment package.


----------



## Immanuel (Oct 20, 2009)

DevNell said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Democrats have been saying that they are all for the elimination of private health insurance.  Don't believe me, watch the videos in this thread:
> ...



Well, knowing you, that is no surprise.



hvacjones said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Democrats have been saying that they are all for the elimination of private health insurance.  Don't believe me, watch the videos in this thread:
> ...



Some will... but most won't, but the Democrats will blame the unemployment lines that remind us old folks of the gas lines of the late 70's on Republicans and Bush.

Immie


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 20, 2009)

judyd said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > judyd said:
> ...



And it's supposed to mean what that you put a question mark at the end?  That you weren't really trying to make a point of him only getting a good price because of his mom, or that you were too stupid to figure out what he was saying, which wasn't anything of the sort?  Either way, you don't come out looking very good.

I'm sure you stand by your opinion.  I'm equally sure that your opinion would be the same, ie. "I don't have to pay any attention to anything I don't want to hear", no matter who said it.  I don't expect an idealogue hack like you to have an unbiased opinion of a public option, so I guess we're even on that.

For the record, should you ever muster the intellectual honesty to actually investigate what people tell you instead of kneejerk deciding that they're just lying because they don't agree with you (I won't be holding my breath for it), you might try visiting the Blue Cross/Blue Shield website and finding out what sort of coverage they're offering.  You might be surprised . . . of course, you might also sprain something from your first experience with independent thought, too.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 20, 2009)

Judyd did not dodge, and Cecilie1200 is absolutely wrong to think that "mom" is not a biased source, or that the child of an insurance agent is going to be objective about the insurance industry.

Whatever Cecilie1200 has to say better be taken with a pound of salt.


----------



## listenner (Oct 21, 2009)

A market driven economy is a good thing. Your position on "Public Option" as a "Job Loss" medium is incorrect.

The concept: Public Option is competitive to the established "stand alone" benefit providers, thus a driver toward better cost structures and less restrictive enrollments.

Public Option is THAT, an *OPTION* Single Payer (i.e. Medicare look-a-like) is somewhere down the line.  It is not the bill under play

When more people participate, more people are needed to service benefits flow. Thus, it follows, more people are employed....


----------



## logical4u (Oct 22, 2009)

Public option: slaves (citizens) standing in long lines waiting for health care if they are strong enough to stand (otherwise, they are passed by the healtier citizens that want their "free" healthcare).  Doctors that are forced into servitude by accepting gov grants for their schooling.  Nurses that have their salaries capped by the gov to keep costs down.  Health care facilities staffed by people that do not care if you live or die, they are there because the gov has blackmailed them with threats of denying health care to their families or because all the other jobs in the USA have gone away due to high taxes and businesses that have been regulated out of business.
People that believe the gov can take care of health care by taking a bigger chunk from those that make more than them are plain blind and unwilling to open their eyes and look at other nations that have "free" health care.  It is not free, it is not great, and it is harder to get "life saving" medical care (unless you are part of the ruling elite).
If you want "free" health care, just sell yourself on Craig's list; you will be just a piece of property when this is passed, the rest of us prefer freedom over a "caretaker/boss".


----------



## Intense (Oct 22, 2009)

logical4u said:


> Public option: slaves (citizens) standing in long lines waiting for health care if they are strong enough to stand (otherwise, they are passed by the healtier citizens that want their "free" healthcare).  Doctors that are forced into servitude by accepting gov grants for their schooling.  Nurses that have their salaries capped by the gov to keep costs down.  Health care facilities staffed by people that do not care if you live or die, they are there because the gov has blackmailed them with threats of denying health care to their families or because all the other jobs in the USA have gone away due to high taxes and businesses that have been regulated out of business.
> People that believe the gov can take care of health care by taking a bigger chunk from those that make more than them are plain blind and unwilling to open their eyes and look at other nations that have "free" health care.  It is not free, it is not great, and it is harder to get "life saving" medical care (unless you are part of the ruling elite).
> If you want "free" health care, just sell yourself on Craig's list; you will be just a piece of property when this is passed, the rest of us prefer freedom over a "caretaker/boss".



I had an Interesting conversation with a French Woman today, She teaches at the UN School. After lecturing Me about how screwed up our Health Care System is here, compared to France, she did note that another primary difference between our systems is the little paperwork done in France. Doctors are not so blessed with impressive Staffs, they are much more on Their own. Too much Paper work here, and unnecessary Bullshit.


----------

