 | | 
06-24-2009, 03:16 PM
| | Registered User Member #17069 | | Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,639
Thanks: 3
Thanked 129 Times in 109 Posts
Rep Power: 16 | |
Quote: Originally Posted by sealybobo 
Quote: Originally Posted by toomuchtime_
Quote: Originally Posted by sealybobo
At first the public plan will get government money, and then after that it will be funded by premiums.
All the for profits have to do is lower their costs and start being competitive. There goes that company jet.
And instead of a $20 million bonus, they'll only get $1 million dollar bonus'. Boo Hoo!!
I can't remember the details, but there was this doctor in charge of a hospital or in charge of a insurance company and his pay was so outragous you wouldn't believe it. I wish I could find the story. But that is why healthcare is out of control.
I remember a few years ago people on the right tried to tell me that CEO/Executive pay was a drop in the bucket. I always knew that was a lie but never had proof. Now we know.
Just the CEO alone. If he/she makes $20 million dollars, that's 400 people making $50K a year.
And look at how much CEO pay is now compared to years ago. Funny they get cost of living raises and raises to help with inflation but we don't?
In 2005 CEO's made 300 times more than their workers. Today 431 to one. Fuck anyone who says a line worker isn't worth $35 hr.
In the old days they made 40 times more than the average worker.
Again, fuck anyone who can justify this and not want to pay a line worker $35 hr.
Both Obama and the Congressional Dems have refused to rule out subsidies to a public plan that would not be available to private plans, and it is this fear that government subsidies would allow a public plan to charge artificially lower premiums to drive private plans out of business in order to usher in a government monopoly on health insurance. Without the additional subsidies, a public plan would essentially be a non profit insurance companies, and non profit insurance companies have not fared all that well against for profit insurance companies. WRONG! Obama doesn't want to drive private plans out of business and he doesn't want to run GM.
BULLSHIT!
And subsodies are my best friend if they will drive down costs. Do you want me to cry for the insurance companies? Not gonna happen.
So tell me, why have non profits not done well against for profits? Did the big boys run them out of business? Please explain and prove that statement. You must have links.
All your arguments would have had some merit a few years ago, but we are all way to informed to be bullshitted. For profits jacked their rates up 191% since 2001. Unacceptable, whether you want to admit it or not.
Just like you guys didn't believe gas at $4 was because of deregulations/speculation and gouging. Even when they had record profits, that wasn't enough. FACT, if it was simply s&d, their profits wouldn't have gone up at all. They would have only increased the prices as much as the cost went up.
NEXT! Obama was asked about subsidies for a public plan at his press conference and refused to rule it out. If the public plan receives subsidies, it will not have to base its rates on its premium income and investment returns on its reserves, and tax dollars or deficit dollars will be paying the difference between the rate the public plan's revenues indicate it should charge and what it would actually charge. That's how the Standard Oil and other monopolies were formed: artificially lower prices to drive your competitors out of business and then raise your prices. Without subsidies, of course, the public plan would have to base its charges on its legitimate revenues, and those would be much the same as private plans.
Well run non profit insurance companies have not been run out of business, but neither have they provided much competition for for profit companies. In order for a non profit to compete, it has to hire marketing and advertising people, and to get good ones, it has to pay pretty much what for profit companies have to pay, and it has to hire portfolio managers to invest its reserves, and pay what other companies are willing to pay to get good ones. Without first rate marketing and advertising people, the plan doesn't grow, and first rate investment people, it doesn't earn enough on its reserves to keep its premiums low. There are lots of non profit insurance companies around, but they are generally small and their rates are pretty much what the rates for for profits companies are.  |
06-24-2009, 03:20 PM
| | Beavis Member #11281 | | Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Michigan
Posts: 12,475
Thanks: 1
Thanked 158 Times in 143 Posts
Rep Power: 0 | |
Quote: Originally Posted by toomuchtime_
Quote: Originally Posted by sealybobo
Quote: Originally Posted by toomuchtime_
Both Obama and the Congressional Dems have refused to rule out subsidies to a public plan that would not be available to private plans, and it is this fear that government subsidies would allow a public plan to charge artificially lower premiums to drive private plans out of business in order to usher in a government monopoly on health insurance. Without the additional subsidies, a public plan would essentially be a non profit insurance companies, and non profit insurance companies have not fared all that well against for profit insurance companies.
WRONG! Obama doesn't want to drive private plans out of business and he doesn't want to run GM.
BULLSHIT!
And subsodies are my best friend if they will drive down costs. Do you want me to cry for the insurance companies? Not gonna happen.
So tell me, why have non profits not done well against for profits? Did the big boys run them out of business? Please explain and prove that statement. You must have links.
All your arguments would have had some merit a few years ago, but we are all way to informed to be bullshitted. For profits jacked their rates up 191% since 2001. Unacceptable, whether you want to admit it or not.
Just like you guys didn't believe gas at $4 was because of deregulations/speculation and gouging. Even when they had record profits, that wasn't enough. FACT, if it was simply s&d, their profits wouldn't have gone up at all. They would have only increased the prices as much as the cost went up.
NEXT! Obama was asked about subsidies for a public plan at his press conference and refused to rule it out. If the public plan receives subsidies, it will not have to base its rates on its premium income and investment returns on its reserves, and tax dollars or deficit dollars will be paying the difference between the rate the public plan's revenues indicate it should charge and what it would actually charge. That's how the Standard Oil and other monopolies were formed: artificially lower prices to drive your competitors out of business and then raise your prices. Without subsidies, of course, the public plan would have to base its charges on its legitimate revenues, and those would be much the same as private plans.
Well run non profit insurance companies have not been run out of business, but neither have they provided much competition for for profit companies. In order for a non profit to compete, it has to hire marketing and advertising people, and to get good ones, it has to pay pretty much what for profit companies have to pay, and it has to hire portfolio managers to invest its reserves, and pay what other companies are willing to pay to get good ones. Without first rate marketing and advertising people, the plan doesn't grow, and first rate investment people, it doesn't earn enough on its reserves to keep its premiums low. There are lots of non profit insurance companies around, but they are generally small and their rates are pretty much what the rates for for profits companies are. I'll have to read and reply tomorrow, but I know exactly what Obama said about subsodies.
If that stops the FOR PROFITS from gouging us for as much as they possibly can, I'm all for it.
In 10 years, you won't be able to afford healthcare if we continue on this route. Want to wait for that before we do something? |
06-24-2009, 03:25 PM
| | Registered User Member #17069 | | Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,639
Thanks: 3
Thanked 129 Times in 109 Posts
Rep Power: 16 | |
Quote: Originally Posted by sealybobo
Quote: Originally Posted by toomuchtime_
Quote: Originally Posted by sealybobo
WRONG! Obama doesn't want to drive private plans out of business and he doesn't want to run GM.
BULLSHIT!
And subsidies are my best friend if they will drive down costs. Do you want me to cry for the insurance companies? Not gonna happen.
So tell me, why have non profits not done well against for profits? Did the big boys run them out of business? Please explain and prove that statement. You must have links.
All your arguments would have had some merit a few years ago, but we are all way to informed to be bullshitted. For profits jacked their rates up 191% since 2001. Unacceptable, whether you want to admit it or not.
Just like you guys didn't believe gas at $4 was because of deregulations/speculation and gouging. Even when they had record profits, that wasn't enough. FACT, if it was simply s&d, their profits wouldn't have gone up at all. They would have only increased the prices as much as the cost went up.
NEXT!
Obama was asked about subsidies for a public plan at his press conference and refused to rule it out. If the public plan receives subsidies, it will not have to base its rates on its premium income and investment returns on its reserves, and tax dollars or deficit dollars will be paying the difference between the rate the public plan's revenues indicate it should charge and what it would actually charge. That's how the Standard Oil and other monopolies were formed: artificially lower prices to drive your competitors out of business and then raise your prices. Without subsidies, of course, the public plan would have to base its charges on its legitimate revenues, and those would be much the same as private plans.
Well run non profit insurance companies have not been run out of business, but neither have they provided much competition for for profit companies. In order for a non profit to compete, it has to hire marketing and advertising people, and to get good ones, it has to pay pretty much what for profit companies have to pay, and it has to hire portfolio managers to invest its reserves, and pay what other companies are willing to pay to get good ones. Without first rate marketing and advertising people, the plan doesn't grow, and first rate investment people, it doesn't earn enough on its reserves to keep its premiums low. There are lots of non profit insurance companies around, but they are generally small and their rates are pretty much what the rates for for profits companies are. I'll have to read and reply tomorrow, but I know exactly what Obama said about subsodies.
If that stops the FOR PROFITS from gouging us for as much as they possibly can, I'm all for it.
In 10 years, you won't be able to afford healthcare if we continue on this route. Want to wait for that before we do something? If a public plan could actually cut costs enough to provide insurance at a lower rate than private companies, there would be no need for subsidies, so if Obama wants subsidies for the public plan, it's because, contrary to what he has said, he believes that a public plan would not be able to cut costs significantly and it would need, in effect, taxpayer bailouts to compete. |
06-24-2009, 03:42 PM
|  | Registered User Member #1636 | | Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,624
Thanks: 0
Thanked 80 Times in 62 Posts
Rep Power: 44 | |
Quote: Originally Posted by sealybobo
Quote: Originally Posted by ScreamingEagle
Quote: Originally Posted by sealybobo
Yea, we've heard this already from you fear mongerers.
And I hope you lose your job and get a pre existing condition and it ruins the rest of your fucking life you asshole. Fuck you!!!
Touchy, aren't we? I guess one gets that way when one considers what will actually happen down the line with socialized health care....as one can easily see happening in other countries that tried/are trying it...
and I totally agree that depending on your employer (another middleman) for your insurance is just plain stupid....and also hampers one's freedom.....I think every citizen should get their own individual major medical insurance policy plan that they pay for directly to the insurance company....not through one's employer....it shouldn't cost any more than what you pay for auto insurance....somehow people still manage to drive insured cars when they lose their jobs....and I am all for medical savings accounts like what Bush proposed.... No, actually we're finding out that you fearmongers are exxagerating. AND, the pre existing condition thing is happening here in America, no exxageration.
Talk about rationing healthcare.
So $2000 a year roughly for medical insurance? Now thats reasonable. How will it work? The for profits will take a huge hit. Explain how we will get it so cheap? But it sounds ok to me so far. First, we get the lawyers out of the health business....huge malpractice suits drive up costs...
Next, we limit insurance companies to major medical only....this will get them out of the health management business....and back into the risk management business where they should be...perhaps this is where we could require all to participate (like with autos)...and forego pre-conditions...
We stop employers from providing health insurance so people buy direct...thus there is no dependence on keeping a particular job to keep your insurance...you just pay your premium for the major medical of your choice...or pay directly in cash to your clinic...
Also, we promote tax-exempt health savings plans which will help people save to pay for ongoing regular health care costs that people will pay DIRECTLY in cash to their health care clinics/doctors when they go for services...
NO government....NO insurance companies (except MM)....NO employer-controlled insurance....NO lawyers....NO busy-body politicians...
Costs will plummet as people will do what they can to prevent excessive visits to the doctor when they have to pay cash each time they go...people will get more into healthy living for prevention (this is healthy rationing)...and competitition between clinics will lower costs as well...
Simple, yet effective...the big FOR PROFITS insurers that you hate can go take a hike...along with big daddy government...and leave us free people in control of our own heath care...
__________________
"You can take from A and give to B if B pays more taxes?"
~Justice Antonin Scalia on Kelo v. New London
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: The stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission – which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." ~Ayn Rand
“Medicine is the keystone in the arch of socialism”~Lenin
Last edited by ScreamingEagle; 06-24-2009 at 03:52 PM.
| | The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ScreamingEagle For This Useful Post: | |
06-24-2009, 04:38 PM
|  | Supporting Member Member #12997  | | Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Toledo, OH
Posts: 2,433
Thanks: 30
Thanked 249 Times in 180 Posts
Rep Power: 31 | |
Quote: Originally Posted by ScreamingEagle
Quote: Originally Posted by sealybobo
Quote: Originally Posted by ScreamingEagle
Touchy, aren't we? I guess one gets that way when one considers what will actually happen down the line with socialized health care....as one can easily see happening in other countries that tried/are trying it...
and I totally agree that depending on your employer (another middleman) for your insurance is just plain stupid....and also hampers one's freedom.....I think every citizen should get their own individual major medical insurance policy plan that they pay for directly to the insurance company....not through one's employer....it shouldn't cost any more than what you pay for auto insurance....somehow people still manage to drive insured cars when they lose their jobs....and I am all for medical savings accounts like what Bush proposed....
No, actually we're finding out that you fearmongers are exxagerating. AND, the pre existing condition thing is happening here in America, no exxageration.
Talk about rationing healthcare.
So $2000 a year roughly for medical insurance? Now thats reasonable. How will it work? The for profits will take a huge hit. Explain how we will get it so cheap? But it sounds ok to me so far. First, we get the lawyers out of the health business....huge malpractice suits drive up costs...
Next, we limit insurance companies to major medical only....this will get them out of the health management business....and back into the risk management business where they should be...perhaps this is where we could require all to participate (like with autos)...and forego pre-conditions...
We stop employers from providing health insurance so people buy direct...thus there is no dependence on keeping a particular job to keep your insurance...you just pay your premium for the major medical of your choice...or pay directly in cash to your clinic...
Also, we promote tax-exempt health savings plans which will help people save to pay for ongoing regular health care costs that people will pay DIRECTLY in cash to their health care clinics/doctors when they go for services...
NO government....NO insurance companies (except MM)....NO employer-controlled insurance....NO lawyers....NO busy-body politicians...
Costs will plummet as people will do what they can to prevent excessive visits to the doctor when they have to pay cash each time they go...people will get more into healthy living for prevention (this is healthy rationing)...and competitition between clinics will lower costs as well...
Simple, yet effective...the big FOR PROFITS insurers that you hate can go take a hike...along with big daddy government...and leave us free people in control of our own heath care... That is a plan I could live with. Of course, you'll still have Medicare, but that could be somewhat revamped also. The biggest issue for me is making catastrophic insurance available to everyone at a fair price. I'd be more than willing to pay my own way on the normal costs, even though mine are much higher than most. |
06-24-2009, 06:34 PM
| | Banned Member #18448 | | Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,026
Thanks: 1
Thanked 43 Times in 41 Posts
Rep Power: 0 | | | The USA claims to be the richest nation on earth and Americans actually believe it. How naive they are. They can't afford health insurance; get sick and die; even your arch enemy CUBA have it better than you.. |
06-24-2009, 09:21 PM
| | Supporting Member Member #12997 | | Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Toledo, OH
Posts: 2,433
Thanks: 30
Thanked 249 Times in 180 Posts
Rep Power: 31 | |
Quote: Originally Posted by Yukon The USA claims to be the richest nation on earth and Americans actually believe it. How naive they are. They can't afford health insurance; get sick and die; even your arch enemy CUBA have it better than you.. I wouldn't get so carried away there Dumbo. The fact is that Americans have the best healthcare available in the world. The problem is that it's not available for everyone, and we are paying more than we should be for what we are receiving.
As for our wealth, it would help if we didn't subsidize most of the world by paying more than a fair price for prescription drugs along with subsidizing most countries' military. |
06-25-2009, 12:30 AM
| | Registered User Member #19507 | | Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,050
Thanks: 96
Thanked 161 Times in 123 Posts
Rep Power: 11 | |
Quote: Originally Posted by sealybobo
Quote: Originally Posted by toomuchtime_
Quote: Originally Posted by Immanuel
Let's see the actual plan first before we jump to the conclusion whether or not the government will put private insurers out of business.
As I said earlier, the plan as proposed by President Obama would put them out of business. However, that is not a final plan nor is it actually in the works. Also, I was concerned that medical professionals and those who desire to enter the field would be discouraged from practicing the trade at reduced wages. I didn't hear the President's speech yesterday. I'm willing to wait and see.
I'm against anything that will eliminate competition. But, I'd rather hear the plan and debate from there.
Immie
The key issue is whether or not a public plan would receive government subsidies not available to private plans so that it could charge artificially low rates and drive private insurers out of business. If the law were written so that the public plan could not receive such subsidies, there would be little opposition to it, and fact that Obama, Dodd, Pelosi, etc. have consistently refused to give that assurance tells us that they do not believe a public plan could provide healthcare more efficiently or less expensively than private plans now do, and when they talk about introducing competition into the market, they are lying. At first the public plan will get government money, and then after that it will be funded by premiums.
All the for profits have to do is lower their costs and start being competitive. There goes that company jet.
And instead of a $20 million bonus, they'll only get $1 million dollar bonus'. Boo Hoo!!
I can't remember the details, but there was this doctor in charge of a hospital or in charge of a insurance company and his pay was so outragous you wouldn't believe it. I wish I could find the story. But that is why healthcare is out of control.
I remember a few years ago people on the right tried to tell me that CEO/Executive pay was a drop in the bucket. I always knew that was a lie but never had proof. Now we know.
Just the CEO alone. If he/she makes $20 million dollars, that's 400 people making $50K a year.
And look at how much CEO pay is now compared to years ago. Funny they get cost of living raises and raises to help with inflation but we don't?
In 2005 CEO's made 300 times more than their workers. Today 431 to one. Fuck anyone who says a line worker isn't worth $35 hr.
In the old days they made 40 times more than the average worker.
Again, fuck anyone who can justify this and not want to pay a line worker $35 hr. I know the story you're thinking of ... the executive took home $1.7billion in one year. I've searched for it too. |
06-25-2009, 06:53 AM
| | Registered User Member #1636 | | Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,624
Thanks: 0
Thanked 80 Times in 62 Posts
Rep Power: 44 | |
Quote: Originally Posted by auditor0007
Quote: Originally Posted by ScreamingEagle
Quote: Originally Posted by sealybobo
No, actually we're finding out that you fearmongers are exxagerating. AND, the pre existing condition thing is happening here in America, no exxageration.
Talk about rationing healthcare.
So $2000 a year roughly for medical insurance? Now thats reasonable. How will it work? The for profits will take a huge hit. Explain how we will get it so cheap? But it sounds ok to me so far.
First, we get the lawyers out of the health business....huge malpractice suits drive up costs...
Next, we limit insurance companies to major medical only....this will get them out of the health management business....and back into the risk management business where they should be...perhaps this is where we could require all to participate (like with autos)...and forego pre-conditions...
We stop employers from providing health insurance so people buy direct...thus there is no dependence on keeping a particular job to keep your insurance...you just pay your premium for the major medical of your choice...or pay directly in cash to your clinic...
Also, we promote tax-exempt health savings plans which will help people save to pay for ongoing regular health care costs that people will pay DIRECTLY in cash to their health care clinics/doctors when they go for services...
NO government....NO insurance companies (except MM)....NO employer-controlled insurance....NO lawyers....NO busy-body politicians...
Costs will plummet as people will do what they can to prevent excessive visits to the doctor when they have to pay cash each time they go...people will get more into healthy living for prevention (this is healthy rationing)...and competitition between clinics will lower costs as well...
Simple, yet effective...the big FOR PROFITS insurers that you hate can go take a hike...along with big daddy government...and leave us free people in control of our own heath care... That is a plan I could live with. Of course, you'll still have Medicare, but that could be somewhat revamped also. The biggest issue for me is making catastrophic insurance available to everyone at a fair price. I'd be more than willing to pay my own way on the normal costs, even though mine are much higher than most. Yeah, Medicare (another failed government program) could be phased out over time as medical savings accounts grow. Catastrophic (aka major medical) insurance could be reasonably priced if people bought it young in life and if the pool is large...for that reason it might be good to require its purchase...much like auto insurance is required. Old age brings more problems and more medical costs but people can deal with that if we plan ahead with enough medical savings and enough major medical (catastrophic) insurance....and if costs are kept at a reasonable level....which can only happen if we have a free market. I would also want major medical insurance to be totally portable no matter where I chose to live.
__________________
"You can take from A and give to B if B pays more taxes?"
~Justice Antonin Scalia on Kelo v. New London
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: The stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission – which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." ~Ayn Rand
“Medicine is the keystone in the arch of socialism”~Lenin |
06-25-2009, 07:07 AM
| | Registered User Member #1636 | | Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,624
Thanks: 0
Thanked 80 Times in 62 Posts
Rep Power: 44 | |
Quote: Originally Posted by Yukon The USA claims to be the richest nation on earth and Americans actually believe it. How naive they are. They can't afford health insurance; get sick and die; even your arch enemy CUBA have it better than you.. So...farthead....which nation is richer than US? (and btw where are YOU from?)
We can afford health insurance.....in fact, only about 15 million can't....that's only like about 5% of 300 million Americans....and those 15 million are probably mostly illegals who sneaked into our country...the 45 million figure is a farce and is being bandied about by fear-mongering liberals seeking to establish socialism in our country...
Cuba has it better?....hahahaha....not unless you like dirty bedsheets and non-existent medicines....you're an idiot....and a liberal koolaid drinker.....
__________________
"You can take from A and give to B if B pays more taxes?"
~Justice Antonin Scalia on Kelo v. New London
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: The stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission – which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." ~Ayn Rand
“Medicine is the keystone in the arch of socialism”~Lenin |
06-25-2009, 08:49 AM
|  | Dems=FU Voters Member #401 | | Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 44,482
Thanks: 482
Thanked 587 Times in 460 Posts
Rep Power: 398 | | We may be stupid, but we can get this: Hot Air » Blog Archive » Obama’s Michael Dukakis moment
Links at site: Quote: Obama’s Michael Dukakis moment
POSTED AT 9:28 AM ON JUNE 25, 2009 BY ED MORRISSEY
Barack Obama got ABC to move their news division into the White House in order to make the big pitch for his egalitarian, everyone-gets-treated-equally ObamaCare push. Instead, Obama fumbled into a Michael Dukakis moment that exposed him as a hypocrite. ABC itself leads with Obama’s response that he wouldn’t stay within his own plan for his family:
President Obama struggled to explain today whether his health care reform proposals would force normal Americans to make sacrifices that wealthier, more powerful people — like the president himself — wouldn’t face.
The probing questions came from two skeptical neurologists during ABC News’ special on health care reform, “Questions for the President: Prescription for America,” anchored from the White House by Diane Sawyer and Charles Gibson.
Dr. Orrin Devinsky, a neurologist and researcher at the New York University Langone Medical Center, said that elites often propose health care solutions that limit options for the general public, secure in the knowledge that if they or their loves ones get sick, they will be able to afford the best care available, even if it’s not provided by insurance.
Devinsky asked the president pointedly if he would be willing to promise that he wouldn’t seek such extraordinary help for his wife or daughters if they became sick and the public plan he’s proposing limited the tests or treatment they can get.
The president refused to make such a pledge, though he allowed that if “it’s my family member, if it’s my wife, if it’s my children, if it’s my grandmother, I always want them to get the very best care.["]
Oopsie! So ObamaCare for thee, but not for me? Hope and change, baby!
In 1988, Michael Dukakis blew a question about the death penalty when asked about whether he’d want it if his wife Kitty had been raped and murdered. Dukakis said no, but addressed it clinical legalese rather than absorbing the opportunity to address the emotional impact of violent crime, and his candidacy cratered. In this case, Obama did a reverse Dukakis. He went with the emotional argument, and effectively rebutted his own proposal and its egalitarian purpose. It’s a moment of sheer hypocrisy, caught in the modern amber of video. If ObamaCare isn’t good enough for Sasha, Malia, or Michelle, then it’s not good enough for America. Instead of fighting that impulse, Obama should be working to boost the private sector to encourage more care providers, less red tape and expense, and better care for everyone.
Update: RCP has the video of the exchange.
__________________
"We are fighting today for our life, for our liberty, for our all, we cannot go on being led as we are. Somehow or other, we must get into the Government men who can match our enemies in fighting spirit, in daring, in resolution and in thirst for victory."~Leo Amery 1940, while staring at Chamberlain |
06-25-2009, 08:56 AM
| | Beavis Member #11281 | | Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Michigan
Posts: 12,475
Thanks: 1
Thanked 158 Times in 143 Posts
Rep Power: 0 | |
Quote: Originally Posted by ScreamingEagle
Quote: Originally Posted by sealybobo
Quote: Originally Posted by ScreamingEagle
Touchy, aren't we? I guess one gets that way when one considers what will actually happen down the line with socialized health care....as one can easily see happening in other countries that tried/are trying it...
and I totally agree that depending on your employer (another middleman) for your insurance is just plain stupid....and also hampers one's freedom.....I think every citizen should get their own individual major medical insurance policy plan that they pay for directly to the insurance company....not through one's employer....it shouldn't cost any more than what you pay for auto insurance....somehow people still manage to drive insured cars when they lose their jobs....and I am all for medical savings accounts like what Bush proposed....
No, actually we're finding out that you fearmongers are exxagerating. AND, the pre existing condition thing is happening here in America, no exxageration.
Talk about rationing healthcare.
So $2000 a year roughly for medical insurance? Now thats reasonable. How will it work? The for profits will take a huge hit. Explain how we will get it so cheap? But it sounds ok to me so far. First, we get the lawyers out of the health business....huge malpractice suits drive up costs... How much is your kids life or your mothers life worth if a doctor's neglegence causes their death?
No, do not take lawyers out of healthcare. Are you insane?
Secondly, medical malpractice accounts for 1/2 of 1% of the total costs. Just another distraction/bullshit argument from the people who don't want healthcare reform. |
06-28-2009, 12:39 AM
|  | Registered User Member #8708 | | Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,333
Thanks: 71
Thanked 84 Times in 74 Posts
Rep Power: 91 | |
Quote: Originally Posted by sealybobo
Quote: Originally Posted by ScreamingEagle
Quote: Originally Posted by sealybobo
No, actually we're finding out that you fearmongers are exxagerating. AND, the pre existing condition thing is happening here in America, no exxageration.
Talk about rationing healthcare.
So $2000 a year roughly for medical insurance? Now thats reasonable. How will it work? The for profits will take a huge hit. Explain how we will get it so cheap? But it sounds ok to me so far.
First, we get the lawyers out of the health business....huge malpractice suits drive up costs... How much is your kids life or your mothers life worth if a doctor's neglegence causes their death?
No, do not take lawyers out of healthcare. Are you insane?
Secondly, medical malpractice accounts for 1/2 of 1% of the total costs. Just another distraction/bullshit argument from the people who don't want healthcare reform. Yes and creating a national emergency for universal health care due to the number of uninsured people that is based on non americans, people who are entitled to public health care coverage and people who have already denied health coverage is ok by your book... 
__________________
Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for.
Will Rogers
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel or envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
Winston Churchill
And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.
JFK
No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session. -- Mark Twain |
06-28-2009, 09:05 PM
| | Registered User Member #14666 | | Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 486
Thanks: 1
Thanked 39 Times in 29 Posts
Rep Power: 6 | |
Quote: Originally Posted by auditor0007 Here is the biggest problem. If we don't make health insurance mandatory, nothing will keep costs from rising, and there is no other way to insure everyone. Either you have a one payer system that is, for the most part, paid for by taxes, and everyone is covered, or you have a mostly private system where insurance is mandatory and no one can be denied. Rates are based on the over overall risk pool
This is one thing the Hillary was 100% correct about. You cannot have universal healthcare unless everyone pays something into the system. "Everyone" does not pay into any of the Systems now. Why should we expect that to change? I think the main reason the majority polled like the idea is that they think they will get it for free. Some of them may be right, but someone will have to pay what they don't. |
06-28-2009, 09:30 PM
| | Registered User Member #18743 | | Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,303
Thanks: 93
Thanked 381 Times in 301 Posts
Rep Power: 28 | | | Avg Joe I am still rotflmao
"SSA is the most efficiently run insurance program ever conceived. That's why the health insurance industry is lobbying so hard to keep their gravy train to themselves - they would fold under the competition."
You are kiddin, aren't you? You want the government to compete with private enterprize, ain't gonna work bubba. | | |
Lower Navigation
| | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
| | |
|
| » Site Navigation | | | | » Apple iPad Forum | | | |
