Why we need a public option!

[Gadawg73]

WC, public option is against the 14th amendment. try again.

What is Medicare?

medicare is not forced on others and people are not forced to participate (besides paying taxes). I'll let this lady explain.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1-eBz8hyoE&feature=related[/ame]

LOL, not forced on others?
I am forced at the point of a gun to pay Medicare taxes. Accordingly, I am forced to pay the bills of Medicare recipients.
WTF?

 

[antagon]

The average person has SOMEONE else paying for their health care.
I am self employed and own 3 businesses. Health care premiums cost me over 40K a year.
I am very, very healthy with NO claims as allI purchase is 10K deductible and have a family of 5. I pay 12K a year for my family.
30 years I paid $500.00 a year, 23 years ago I paid 1.5 K a year. 16 years ago I paid 3K a year, 8 years ago I paid 6K a year and now I pau 12K a year.
Under that UNDISPUTED rise of 15% a year how does a family pay FORTY EIGHT THOUSAND DOLLARS A FRIGGIN YEAR in health care premiums in 13-14 mor years.
It doubles every 6-7 years my man for the last 30 years.
Explain how that is going to help us in a world economy.
It is time for the American public to wake up ad admit how much we pay for a system that is not even in the top 20 worldwide for HEALTH CARE. Our system is st up FOR DISEASE CARE which is tops in the world. It should be as 4% of the population receives 60% of all health care dollars spent here.

i'm in the same boat, minus the kids and the coverages for my workers. i dispute your undisputable 15%/year rise by asking if or how you maintained a family of 5 under your policy for the 30 years in your study.

i dont currently have any coverage for my employees, but this same concern will apply, which i feel the current regulation will address, should i snatch coverage up for them like myself:

it provides for a fixed outline of coverages, or at least more rigidly fixed than the status quo. most people pay a lot toward their care, but they dont pick the coverage out like self-employed and employers do. this is a frustrating process because you have to compare $1500 deductible $15/visit with free preventative care and no deductible prescriptions with $1000 deductible free visits $20 deductible prescriptions and an emergency care waiver. there are no apples to apples out there, and the proposed bill aims to draw that to a close.

doing so will require competition between providers which is currently not available, and which is my argument for why the insurance component is so expensive. the portion of the bill which mandates that people who can ostensibly afford coverage should get coverage is the part which i feel might reduce the cost of care itself, which is currently burdened with a lot of bad debt.

i say lets let it pan out. it's so popular to call shit 'crisis' and a 'collapse' nowadays, that we've become babies about things which truly should take a while to change. are we there yet? are we there yet?

National averages for ALL health care rises have been 15% a year for the last 30 years so what is there to dispute?
30 years I had no kids BUT FULL coverage with a $100 deductible.
20 years ago I had 2 kids and a 5K deductible with a limited policy.
Now I have the 10K deductible.
So it averages 15% rise over the years with severely lowering the coverage every year. If I had the SAME coverage I had 30 years ago with NO co-pay and $100 deductible the rises would be 20% ayear and that policy woul run 2k a month NOW for 24K a year.
Now tell us how a new self employed man with a family of 4 at age 30 can afford $600 a month in health care premiums with a 5K deductible? That would cost him close to 8K a year if he has claims.
Health insurance premiums go up 15% a year on average with LESS coverage.
But youfail to address the real issue:
Disease care is what we are funding with our group health care dollars 60% of the time.
Under our current structure insurance companies want to phase out as much health care as they can and focus on the disease care because that is what the doctors want.
And you did not address the 48K a year in 13 years which is what a 15% rise a year does.
Let it pan out? Respectfully, that is not a smart solution. It has been panning out for the last 30 years and what we have NOW is a train wreck.
8 of the 9 disease care costs, that consume 90% of all disease care costs, ARE PREVENTABLE DISEASES.
Fact is the current system is unsustainable. Every business study conducted anywhere states the same obvious fact. Group health insurance disease costs are blank check health care. Medical lobby loves it but it is killing us in a world economy.

i talked about disease care in response to a different post of yours.

the newly self-employed guy is in a bind. how big is the gap between the means-tested expansion of public health benefit that's part of the bill and where this guys income is at? i can afford my coverage just fine. if i absolutely had to do so for a family, i suppose i could too, even my first year in business. some businesses might be really tight, so i could empathize with hypothetical dude, but this is the nature of being self-employed. if he has a family, like a wife or something, she should get a job which might cover the family.

nothing should paint business ownership as a smooth ride to riches. this guy needs to realize that the path he's embarked on is the bumpier road less traveled with the tall grass. it is not going to be easy nor is it responsible to drag his family into business on a wish and a prayer. count it among his many risks or count the venture out on a full-time basis until he can afford to have the anticipated lull in income which he predicts.

 

[Liberty]

cut the red herring...this is about UHC. Medicare is NOT UHC.

There is person 'A' and person 'B'. 'A' is a poverty stricken American that does not pay taxes. 'B' is a successful mechanic who owns a small business and pays taxes, and lives a very comfortable life. If 'A' is entitled to health care for simply existing (like the left wing claims), and 'B' is responsible to 'A' to provide that entitlement via paying taxes, then what did 'B' do to deserve to fall into the debt of 'A'?

Even more important; What is 'A's responsibility having received the entitlement without contributing to the system for it....to 'B' having been forced by federal government to provide it? Does 'A' owe it to 'B' to live a healthy lifestyle that is to refrain from excessive drinking, smoking, sex with hookers which can lead to STDs, obesity or anything else that a person can make that contribute to their health and wellbeing? Will the government force people to modify their behavior?

Is this not a type of economic slavery?

In conclusion, it is obvious that this kind of a system is detrimental to the concept of liberty, equality, and responsibility. Three important factors in a free society. 'A's and 'B's liberty is not looked at equally by the federal government, that is to say 'B' cannot refuse their obligation impelled by the government and refuse to pay the taxes that will be levied against them for this new entitlement through threat of incarceration and/or penalties.

 

[antagon]

havent we had enough healthcare change? why not wait until we can tell if what the government has come up with is a fit for the US? why insist on a public option or single payer or socialized medicine as if health insurance is the most important thing on people's minds?

this couldn't possibly be the average person's top policy concern.

Nope, but even you may face an abnormal and uncontrolled cell division, as many Americans learn for the first time everyday.

this is why i buy health insurance. mainly for the rugby habit, but for the C too.

 

[wyomingpatriot]

here's the fallacy in the logic of these rightwing nutjobs - "well, if people want healthcare they can just get a job that has benefits!"
explain how a 20 year old, for example, who has yet to attain a career or a trade, is expected to afford a hefty insurance policy. what sort of job is a person with only a high school diploma able to get that gives employees benefits? there aren't many. so what is the poor kid supposed to do if he gets in a car accident? or gets cancer? you know what the rightwing nutjobs say then? "well, they can just go to the free clinic."
free clinic? thats a rush limbaugh myth. a free clinic isn't going to give you dialysis, chemotherapy, or physical therapy. most of them dont even have a doctor present. you cant even get a prescription.
that is why there needs to be a public option. if we can afford to give healthcare to gary ridgeway and a million other convicts, theres no fucking excuse why we say to millions of americans without insurance to essentially either dont get sick, or if you get sick then spend the rest of your life paying tens of thousands for an ER visit.
heartless assholes.

 

[wyomingpatriot]

by the way, very few people qualify for medicaid, unless you're either disabled, retarded, or some girl that pushes out 5 kids before she's 19 because she wont do the right thing and get an abortion.

 

[The Rabbi]

Since when does lack of profit guarantee people will get all of a needed good they want?

Non-profits do not drive down costs on healthcare. Profits (even for "non profit" insitutions) fuel future growth and improvement in the organization.
The Left does not, cannot, and will not understand this and they continue to see any profit as "obscene" and evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

I never suggested profit was obscene or an example of wrongdoing. Are you suggesting an unhealthy population is good for business?

Then why do you push non profits as "cost savings" ideas all the time?
Where did you see I suggested an unhealthy population was good?

 

[The Rabbi]

Why should government tell them to do that?

Never mind that. The scenario is wrong. There is no evidence that expensive diagnostic tests decrease overall health care costs. On the contrary, they drive them up.
Wry Catcher is living in a dream world of "free" health care.

Wry Catcher never suggested "expensive diagnostic tests" were part of preventative health care. If you couldn't lie or build straw men Rabbi, what would you post?

What do you suppose "preventative health care" consists of? Blood pressure checks?

 

[Liberty]

here's the fallacy in the logic of these rightwing nutjobs - "well, if people want healthcare they can just get a job that has benefits!"
explain how a 20 year old, for example, who has yet to attain a career or a trade, is expected to afford a hefty insurance policy. what sort of job is a person with only a high school diploma able to get that gives employees benefits? there aren't many. so what is the poor kid supposed to do if he gets in a car accident? or gets cancer? you know what the rightwing nutjobs say then? "well, they can just go to the free clinic."
free clinic? thats a rush limbaugh myth. a free clinic isn't going to give you dialysis, chemotherapy, or physical therapy. most of them dont even have a doctor present. you cant even get a prescription.
that is why there needs to be a public option. if we can afford to give healthcare to gary ridgeway and a million other convicts, theres no fucking excuse why we say to millions of americans without insurance to essentially either dont get sick, or if you get sick then spend the rest of your life paying tens of thousands for an ER visit.
heartless assholes.

dismantle my argument with logic. that means no appeal to emotion please.

 

[The Rabbi]

here's the fallacy in the logic of these rightwing nutjobs - "well, if people want healthcare they can just get a job that has benefits!"
explain how a 20 year old, for example, who has yet to attain a career or a trade, is expected to afford a hefty insurance policy. what sort of job is a person with only a high school diploma able to get that gives employees benefits? there aren't many. so what is the poor kid supposed to do if he gets in a car accident? or gets cancer? you know what the rightwing nutjobs say then? "well, they can just go to the free clinic."
free clinic? thats a rush limbaugh myth. a free clinic isn't going to give you dialysis, chemotherapy, or physical therapy. most of them dont even have a doctor present. you cant even get a prescription.
that is why there needs to be a public option. if we can afford to give healthcare to gary ridgeway and a million other convicts, theres no fucking excuse why we say to millions of americans without insurance to essentially either dont get sick, or if you get sick then spend the rest of your life paying tens of thousands for an ER visit.
heartless assholes.

dismantle my argument with logic. that means no appeal to emotion please.

The U.S spends more on Abrams tanks than it would cost to give decent health coverage to everyone under age 19. How can you be so heartless to little children, who are our future???

 

[Bern80]

havent we had enough healthcare change? why not wait until we can tell if what the government has come up with is a fit for the US? why insist on a public option or single payer or socialized medicine as if health insurance is the most important thing on people's minds?

this couldn't possibly be the average person's top policy concern.

The average person has SOMEONE else paying for their health care.
I am self employed and own 3 businesses. Health care premiums cost me over 40K a year.
I am very, very healthy with NO claims as allI purchase is 10K deductible and have a family of 5. I pay 12K a year for my family.
30 years I paid $500.00 a year, 23 years ago I paid 1.5 K a year. 16 years ago I paid 3K a year, 8 years ago I paid 6K a year and now I pau 12K a year.
Under that UNDISPUTED rise of 15% a year how does a family pay FORTY EIGHT THOUSAND DOLLARS A FRIGGIN YEAR in health care premiums in 13-14 mor years.
It doubles every 6-7 years my man for the last 30 years.
Explain how that is going to help us in a world economy.
It is time for the American public to wake up ad admit how much we pay for a system that is not even in the top 20 worldwide for HEALTH CARE. Our system is st up FOR DISEASE CARE which is tops in the world. It should be as 4% of the population receives 60% of all health care dollars spent here.

No one is disputing your numbers and no one is saying we shouldnt' figure out how to solve the problem. The only thing being disputed is the liberal way of solving this problem and that is, as with most liberal solution, injecting more government.

If your rise in premiums really irks you, then let's have an open discussion with all options on the table for solving that problem.

 

[Wry Catcher]

WC, public option is against the 14th amendment. try again.

What is Medicare?

medicare is not forced on others and people are not forced to participate (besides paying taxes). I'll let this lady explain.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1-eBz8hyoE&feature=related[/ame]

This is an absurd argument.

Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution, "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises to pay for debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; and, the 16th Amendment which provides, "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumertion."
What the government decides to spend its revenue from taxation on is up to the Congress, in particular the House of Representatives. If the House decides in it's collective wisdom that providing healthcare to its citizens is an appropriate decision it may do so. To suggest using constitutionally legal revenue in this manner amounts to slavery is as stupid an argument as I have read - and plenty of stupidity is posted on the MB.

 

[Liberty]

What is Medicare?

medicare is not forced on others and people are not forced to participate (besides paying taxes). I'll let this lady explain.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1-eBz8hyoE&feature=related[/ame]

This is an absurd argument.

Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution, "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises to pay for debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; and, the 16th Amendment which provides, "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumertion."
What the government decides to spend its revenue from taxation on is up to the Congress, in particular the House of Representatives. If the House decides in it's collective wisdom that providing healthcare to its citizens is an appropriate decision it may do so. To suggest using constitutionally legal revenue in this manner amounts to slavery is as stupid an argument as I have read - and plenty of stupidity is posted on the MB.

I assume you mean the part that says "provide for...the general welfare of the united states". Just fyi, according to federalist 41, madison says that is (paraphrasing) only within the limitations that are provided IN the enumerated powers, not an indefinite power. For if that were the case, then there would be no need to outline enumerated powers whatsoever.

“Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.” -Madison Federalist 41.

the full context:

"It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms “to raise money for the general welfare.” But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter."

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


Must suck having your fantasy world destroyed by reality.

 

[antagon]

the passage of a congressional legislation supersedes the federalist papers.

 

[Liberty]

the passage of a congressional legislation supersedes the federalist papers.

are you saying that judges do not look to the federalist papers for guidance on what the wording of the constitution means and instead are and should be ignored completely when discussing the purpose of certain phrases written in the constitution?

 

[Bern80]

What is Medicare?

medicare is not forced on others and people are not forced to participate (besides paying taxes). I'll let this lady explain.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1-eBz8hyoE&feature=related[/ame]

This is an absurd argument.

Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution, "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises to pay for debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; and, the 16th Amendment which provides, "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumertion."
What the government decides to spend its revenue from taxation on is up to the Congress, in particular the House of Representatives. If the House decides in it's collective wisdom that providing healthcare to its citizens is an appropriate decision it may do so. To suggest using constitutionally legal revenue in this manner amounts to slavery is as stupid an argument as I have read - and plenty of stupidity is posted on the MB.

The 16th ammendment give congress the power to tax income. Article 1 section 8 says what they can spend it on. And depending on the interpretation of certain authors of the document, what they can spend it on may be extremely limited (as limited only to the enumerated powers that follow the clause).

 

[Wry Catcher]

medicare is not forced on others and people are not forced to participate (besides paying taxes). I'll let this lady explain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1-eBz8hyoE&feature=related

This is an absurd argument.

Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution, "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises to pay for debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; and, the 16th Amendment which provides, "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumertion."
What the government decides to spend its revenue from taxation on is up to the Congress, in particular the House of Representatives. If the House decides in it's collective wisdom that providing healthcare to its citizens is an appropriate decision it may do so. To suggest using constitutionally legal revenue in this manner amounts to slavery is as stupid an argument as I have read - and plenty of stupidity is posted on the MB.

I assume you mean the part that says "provide for...the general welfare of the united states". Just fyi, according to federalist 41, madison says that is (paraphrasing) only within the limitations that are provided IN the enumerated powers, not an indefinite power. For if that were the case, then there would be no need to outline enumerated powers whatsoever.

I'm not assuming that; and having read #41, the argument is sound but does not have the force of law. I suggest reading Hamilton's take in #78 and letting the USSC rule on the Constitutional question. If they too find that universal healthcare is a usurption of power by the Federal Government then the effort might best be settled in the several states, or, an amendment to our Constitution be put forth allowing a national referandum on the issue.
I have argued that defending our citizenry from a virus or a terrorist is little different, and that the latter might create harm in a localized community but the former might effect the whole of our nation.

 

[Liberty]

This is an absurd argument.

Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution, "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises to pay for debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; and, the 16th Amendment which provides, "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumertion."
What the government decides to spend its revenue from taxation on is up to the Congress, in particular the House of Representatives. If the House decides in it's collective wisdom that providing healthcare to its citizens is an appropriate decision it may do so. To suggest using constitutionally legal revenue in this manner amounts to slavery is as stupid an argument as I have read - and plenty of stupidity is posted on the MB.

I assume you mean the part that says "provide for...the general welfare of the united states". Just fyi, according to federalist 41, madison says that is (paraphrasing) only within the limitations that are provided IN the enumerated powers, not an indefinite power. For if that were the case, then there would be no need to outline enumerated powers whatsoever.

I'm not assuming that; and having read #41, the argument is sound but does not have the force of law. I suggest reading Hamilton's take in #78 and letting the USSC rule on the Constitutional question. If they too find that universal healthcare is a usurption of power by the Federal Government then the effort might best be settled in the several states, or, an amendment to our Constitution be put forth allowing a national referandum on the issue.
I have argued that defending our citizenry from a virus or a terrorist is little different, and that the latter might create harm in a localized community but the former might effect the whole of our nation.

ok, and thats perfectly reasonable as long as during your quest for UHC and public option that you understand the other view and do not rely on appeal to emotion like 99% of the pro-UHC people do. This is a serious issue, and I do support the amendment process 100%, no matter what the amendment is, I believe that if following the legal guidelines that any amendment is legitimate. So, good luck.

 

[Oddball]

the passage of a congressional legislation supersedes the federalist papers.

are you saying that judges do not look to the federalist papers for guidance on what the wording of the constitution means and instead are and should be ignored completely when discussing the purpose of certain phrases written in the constitution?

There's really no point to the Constitution anymore, with the committed authoritarian goon.

War is Peace

Freedom is Slavery

Ignorance is Strength

 

[Wry Catcher]

I assume you mean the part that says "provide for...the general welfare of the united states". Just fyi, according to federalist 41, madison says that is (paraphrasing) only within the limitations that are provided IN the enumerated powers, not an indefinite power. For if that were the case, then there would be no need to outline enumerated powers whatsoever.

I'm not assuming that; and having read #41, the argument is sound but does not have the force of law. I suggest reading Hamilton's take in #78 and letting the USSC rule on the Constitutional question. If they too find that universal healthcare is a usurption of power by the Federal Government then the effort might best be settled in the several states, or, an amendment to our Constitution be put forth allowing a national referandum on the issue.
I have argued that defending our citizenry from a virus or a terrorist is little different, and that the latter might create harm in a localized community but the former might effect the whole of our nation.

ok, and thats perfectly reasonable as long as during your quest for UHC and public option that you understand the other view and do not rely on appeal to emotion like 99% of the pro-UHC people do. This is a serious issue, and I do support the amendment process 100%, no matter what the amendment is, I believe that if following the legal guidelines that any amendment is legitimate. So, good luck.

Universal PREVENTATIVE healthcare makes sense and cents. That is my position.