Does Anyone Really Want National Health Care?

[PoliticalChic]

So you would tell me that if you were dieing and I had the money to save your life I should be legally made to pay for saving your life?

You know it doesn't work like that

You throw your money into a pool, I throw my money into a pool and whoever needs it gets to draw on it. I would have no problem with that money being used to save your life.

Frankly, I would rather be the healthy one who does not need the help

The lines are drawn, bleeding heart liberals v. callous conservatives. If God exists, I'm betting S/He's on the side of the former.

"bleeding heart liberals v. callous conservatives"

Totally wrong.

But..I forgive you because the Left has kept you in the dark about the ramifications of the bill.

A more accurate descripton is the 'the easily manipulatied vs. the cynics who understand how the Left operates."

 

[PoliticalChic]

I do.....I DO!

Cut out the do nothing middle men who do nothing for healthcare except paperwork
Cut out exorbitant overhead and profit from do nothing insurance companies

You get sick....No Bills.....No Debt

Same.

I'm surprised at the lack of depth of understanding you show.....

not Sallow, but Shallow!

Something for nothing?

This should be your song:

And he said, "Boys, I'm not turning
I'm headed for a land that's far away
Besides the crystal fountains
So come with me, we'll go and see
The Big Rock Candy Mountains

In the Big Rock Candy Mountains,
There's a land that's fair and bright,
Where the handouts grow on bushes
And you sleep out every night.
Where the boxcars all are empty
And the sun shines every day
And the birds and the bees
And the cigarette trees
The lemonade springs
Where the bluebird sings
In the Big Rock Candy Mountains.

 

[Greenbeard]

10. A ‘public option’ will be created to compete against private health insurance: The law requires the US Office of Personnel Management to sponsor at least two health plans to compete nationally against various ‘local’ private health plans in the state-based health exchanges. These plans will be de facto ‘public options’ that were supposedly left out of the bill.

De facto public options? These are private insurance plans. OPM contracts with private insurers who want to offer multi-state plans (i.e. plans that can be sold across state lines), in virtually the same system used by the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan, which is also managed by OPM. A "public option" refers to the existence of a public payer; I suppose from the ambiguous use of the word "sponsor" in there the author wants to imply that OPM is acting as a public payer. But in reality this isn't even close.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You know it doesn't work like that

You throw your money into a pool, I throw my money into a pool and whoever needs it gets to draw on it. I would have no problem with that money being used to save your life.

Frankly, I would rather be the healthy one who does not need the help

But that isn't the same thing. In a private insurance pool I'm volunatarily agreeing to enter into a risk pool with a group of people. And I have the knowledge that a private business is probably not going to accept people that are going to pose a high risk to them and ultimately me. With government being the single payer, I don't have the choice. Government is legally requiring me to pay for regardless of their risk or behaviors that may have caused their condition.

So are you saying that anyone that is high risk should just be left to fend for themselves, and that they should not be permitted to be part of the overall pool because it will cost you a few extra bucks? What if down the road that is your kids or some other family member who has some type of condition that is costly to treat? They shouldn't be allowed into the pool either? Basically you are saying you just don't want to pay anything toward those who are sick or costly to care for; it's not your responsibility. Bottom line, only the healthy have a right to stay healthy. For those born sick or who become sick early on, or who cannot afford it on their own, to hell with them, because you only want an insurance pool that includes the healthy to begin with.

Auditor....it doesn't work.

It's a scam.

Obamacare created a new $5 billion dollar program called the "Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan to help folks who couldn't get insurance. In the spring of 2010, the Medicare program's chief actuary predicted that 375,000 people would sign up by the end of the year.

"Coverage for people living with such conditions as diabetes, asthma, cancer, and HIV/AIDS has often been priced out of the reach..."

How many did by early November? Eight thousand and eleven....
check for yourself, here State by State Enrollment in the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan, as of November 1, 2010 « Health Justice Network


It turned out to still be too expensive....

Obamacare is not the answer.

 

[Greenbeard]

It turned out to still be too expensive....

Obamacare is not the answer.

The conclusion you seem to have led yourself to is that high-risk pools are not a long-term answer. And you'd undoubtedly be correct.

 

[PoliticalChic]

10. A ‘public option’ will be created to compete against private health insurance: The law requires the US Office of Personnel Management to sponsor at least two health plans to compete nationally against various ‘local’ private health plans in the state-based health exchanges. These plans will be de facto ‘public options’ that were supposedly left out of the bill.

De facto public options? These are private insurance plans. OPM contracts with private insurers who want to offer multi-state plans (i.e. plans that can be sold across state lines), in virtually the same system used by the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan, which is also managed by OPM. A "public option" refers to the existence of a public payer; I suppose from the ambiguous use of the word "sponsor" in there the author wants to imply that OPM is acting as a public payer. But in reality this isn't even close.

Certainly glad to see that you agree with every single one of the first nine....

but having the need to find some problem, you got up to numer ten and latched on to the fact that the actual term 'public option' is absent?

Is that what happened?

I see you have no disagreement with "The law requires the US Office of Personnel Management to sponsor at least two health plans ..."

The logical assumption is that if private plans are crushed by Obamacare's regulations or simply turn into government contractors, then the government plans would dominate the market.

You do know that upon reading the onerous regulations, several insurance companies have already thrown in the towel, don't you?

Just wondering, do you support Cuyo's absurd premise that Obamacare is not national healthcare?

 

[Greenbeard]

Certainly glad to see that you agree with every single one of the first nine....

I wouldn't take that as an endorsement; states aren't required under the ACA to build and operate exchanges, for example. You need to check your facts a bit better when you come across lists like that.

The sheer absurdity of describing the multi-state plans as "public options" compelled me to comment on that one in particular.

I see you have no disagreement with "The law requires the US Office of Personnel Management to sponsor at least two health plans ..."

The logical assumption is that if private plans are crushed by Obamacare's regulations or simply turn into government contractors, then the government plans would dominate the market.

To reiterate, there are no "government plans." The multi-state plans are private plans subject to the same regulations as all exchange-participating plans. And, as I indicated above, I do take issue with that statement as the word "sponsored" conveys absolutely no meaning and is clearly written to imply that OPM itself is offering those plans directly and thus they're somehow functioning as public options. That, however, is false.

Just wondering, do you support Cuyo's absurd premise that Obamacare is not national healthcare?

If by that you mean nationalized health care in which health care providers are no longer private, obviously the ACA is nowhere near that. If by "national health care" you mean something akin to universal health care, in which (nearly) everyone is covered, it's fairly close to meeting that definition.

 

[Harry Dresden]

i can't speak for anyone else but (i really hate conservatives and you can quote me on that) I am strongly opposed to this health care plan

I (really really hate conservatives) oppose ALL mandatory health care plans

i, in fact, oppose ALL MANDATORY INSURANCE

im sure Conservatives cant stand your ass too Ricky....

 

[rightwinger]

Assuming first that the insurance company allows a high risk individual in, ideally how it would work is that person would pay a higher premium. If it more likely that one person will use a service than me, to me it doesn't seem unfair that said person should have to pay more for the same coverage.

That being said, most insurance companies would probably include me the high risk category. The reason they do that is because I had cance when I was little. Today as an adult I don't feel I'm any less healthy than any othe avg. person or at greater risk than anyone else, but it's like being penalized for having for having a DUI or something from 20 years ago when you haven't a had a run in since. So in my mind to have a system that is fair in terms people not haveing to assume the high risk of others and keep costs down for me my ideal, ideal would be for services to cost less such that I can pay providers directly instead of an insurance company and thus other people in the pool having to deal with me. That is the problem I see with single payer. In the broadest economic sense it's just another way of subsidizing costs, which actually makes things cost more. That being the case i think they should only be used when they absoutely have to be. I may be inclined to agree with your notion (I think it was you anyway) that we work toward a system where people pay for everyday things and either insurance or maybe even some single payer system be used for catastrophic issues.

People should not have to live in fear if they get sick.........PERIOD

Do you understand that is the same thing as saying people should not have to pay for health care?

No it's not........

 

[Bern80]

People should not have to live in fear if they get sick.........PERIOD

Do you understand that is the same thing as saying people should not have to pay for health care?

No it's not........

It most definately is. When you said people should not fear getting sick, you are referring to a fear of what getting sick will cost them. That will be different for everyone dependent on what happens to them in their income. And due to the current cost of some illnesses only the richest of the rich are going to not fear getting ill. So yes when you say people shouldn't have to worry about getting sick you ARE saying they shouldn't have to worry about the cost of getting sick, thus you ARE saying that the vast majority of people shouldn't have to pay for health care.

 

[JohnA]

clearly, only those who can afford health care deserve it!

It's hilarious that you can talk out of both sides of your mouth by complaining about waiting lists for medical care while totally disregarding care entirely for those who cannot afford it.

Its not a matter of only those who can afford it gets it its a matter of i cannot afford the increase in premiums required to pay for someone else who *cant afford it *.
where does it stop ???
its getting your priorities right .
some of those who * cant *afford health care dont have any problems buying a pack or 2 of cigarettes daily and stuffing there months with macdonalds every night .

while i have to sacrifice those niceities to just pay for the exhorbitant amount of money the insurance companies are raising the premiums for just so these folks can be covered
health insurance is NOT a right
my right to enjoy and spend my hard earned money the way i choose is
life liberty and the pursuit of happiness etc
.....

The real issue is not about providing adequate medical care to everyone. The real issue is cutting costs so that we can. The reason even you can't afford adequate medical any longer is that the costs have become too high. We need to address the problems within the system that have forced these costs so high so that we all can afford adequate healthcare.

I don't care what you say about healthcare when comparing other non-third world countries to the US, we are paying nearly double what everyone else does, and there is something inherently wrong about that. We are doing something drastically wrong. Does that mean we should emulate their systems exactly? Absolutely not, but we do need to figure out why we are paying so much to begin with, and then determine if we are getting an equitable return on our investment.

i might agree with you on that but obama care did'nt address that did it??
totally useless piece of legislation that only made the problem worse
and democrats are still supporting it

 

[JohnA]

Because the alternative is death

With you it could have been cancer, my wife it could have been her heart. Our health system is built on healthy Americans footing the bill for sick Americans. Is it fair?

Which group would you rather be in?

So you would tell me that if you were dieing and I had the money to save your life I should be legally made to pay for saving your life?

You know it doesn't work like that

You throw your money into a pool, I throw my money into a pool and whoever needs it gets to draw on it. I would have no problem with that money being used to save your life.

Frankly, I would rather be the healthy one who does not need the help

these ideas seem fine in theory practice is a differant matter
problem there is the pool isnt big enough and so many draw on it it soon becomes empty
we only have so much . you throw some into the education pool, some more into the security of the country pool , more into the social welfare pool .
to throw more into the *health care pool* which one of the pools do you throw in less ??? .

 

[auditor0007]

But that isn't the same thing. In a private insurance pool I'm volunatarily agreeing to enter into a risk pool with a group of people. And I have the knowledge that a private business is probably not going to accept people that are going to pose a high risk to them and ultimately me. With government being the single payer, I don't have the choice. Government is legally requiring me to pay for regardless of their risk or behaviors that may have caused their condition.

So are you saying that anyone that is high risk should just be left to fend for themselves, and that they should not be permitted to be part of the overall pool because it will cost you a few extra bucks? What if down the road that is your kids or some other family member who has some type of condition that is costly to treat? They shouldn't be allowed into the pool either? Basically you are saying you just don't want to pay anything toward those who are sick or costly to care for; it's not your responsibility. Bottom line, only the healthy have a right to stay healthy. For those born sick or who become sick early on, or who cannot afford it on their own, to hell with them, because you only want an insurance pool that includes the healthy to begin with.

Auditor....it doesn't work.

It's a scam.

Obamacare created a new $5 billion dollar program called the "Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan to help folks who couldn't get insurance. In the spring of 2010, the Medicare program's chief actuary predicted that 375,000 people would sign up by the end of the year.

"Coverage for people living with such conditions as diabetes, asthma, cancer, and HIV/AIDS has often been priced out of the reach..."

How many did by early November? Eight thousand and eleven....
check for yourself, here State by State Enrollment in the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan, as of November 1, 2010 « Health Justice Network


It turned out to still be too expensive....

Obamacare is not the answer.

Actually, we really do not know if the Healthcare plan will work or not. Currently, those with pre-existing conditions can purchase a policy through the high risk pool. BTW, enrollment has doubled to over 20,000 as of January. But as you pointed out, that is well below the numbers expected. Part of the problem is that many who have pre-existing conditions also have trouble earning enough money to pay for insurance whether it's available or not. If you are sick and can only work part-time, you may well earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, but you don't make enough to afford the premiums for the high risk pools. And even if someone can squeeze out the payments, they still must meet their deductible before the plan kicks in.

I am one of those who has purchased insurance through the high risk pool. I'm 47 and my premiums are $392 per month with a $2500 deductible. Unless I become seriously ill, I'll never meet my deductible, so most of my medical care is paid for out of pocket on top of the $392 per month. In my case, Medical Mutual, the company that is handling the high risk pool in Ohio, is making a killing off of me. They get a higher premium than from most and the only thing they pay out on is part of my two doctor visits per year. That does not mean that they make a killing off of every person in the high risk pool. I'm certain with some they are losing money. However, it is likely they are making something or at least they thought they could, or they would just have let the federal government run it.

But we cannot completely judge the plan based on the high risk pool alone. In 2014, the high risk pools will end, and people such as myself will be able to purchase our insurance like everyone else, with the same rates as everyone else. On top of that, for those who cannot afford it, there will be financial help from the government.

Now I understand that means somebody will be subsidizing those plans. But to me that is better than where we were one year ago. The key though, is that everyone must be on board paying into the system.

Here is my bottom line, and I don't care if we use private insurance or a single payer system run by the government for this example. If everyone is paying into the system, then cost is truly pooled between everyone, not just the healthy. Yes, costs may increase for certain individuals, but in the long run, it should bring costs down. The key is having everyone in the system from the beginning. As it stands now, many people who become sick and don't have coverage never had coverage to begin with. If you become sick when you're 50 and have never paid for health insurance, it skews everything. However, if that individual was paying into the system all along and then becomes sick, it's not such a big deal, and it makes spreading the cost throughout the pool much more palatable and fair.

BTW, the reason I am in the high risk pool is that when I moved out of state, I lost my health insurance. I was with Anthem of Colorado. When I moved to Ohio, they told me they would not cover me. Not even Anthem of Ohio who is owned by Wellpointe, the same company that owns Anthem of Colorado. I was a risk, so they saw a way out, and since I was a risk, they chose to turn me away, even though I had been with them for many years. There is a lot of blame to go around there. Had they written the HIPAA rules to include private policies and not just group policies through employers, then they could not have turned me away.

But that gets to another point. The insurance companies will not do anything to help make things better without laws forcing them to do so. Why do you think we have the HIPAA laws? So anyone that tries to scare me off with government death panels is barking up the wrong tree. I know the insurance companies will screw anyone they can if they become a risk. The government might put limitations on certain things if they are in charge, due to cost, but they are not nearly as likely to tell me that they don't want me because I might cost them too much.

Anyway, I find myself going back and forth on this. I do support more government involvement, although I'm not certain having them run the whole show is in our best interest, at least from a cost standpoint. However, leaving things as they are is not an option from a cost standpoint either.

 

[auditor0007]

Its not a matter of only those who can afford it gets it its a matter of i cannot afford the increase in premiums required to pay for someone else who *cant afford it *.
where does it stop ???
its getting your priorities right .
some of those who * cant *afford health care dont have any problems buying a pack or 2 of cigarettes daily and stuffing there months with macdonalds every night .

while i have to sacrifice those niceities to just pay for the exhorbitant amount of money the insurance companies are raising the premiums for just so these folks can be covered
health insurance is NOT a right
my right to enjoy and spend my hard earned money the way i choose is
life liberty and the pursuit of happiness etc
.....

The real issue is not about providing adequate medical care to everyone. The real issue is cutting costs so that we can. The reason even you can't afford adequate medical any longer is that the costs have become too high. We need to address the problems within the system that have forced these costs so high so that we all can afford adequate healthcare.

I don't care what you say about healthcare when comparing other non-third world countries to the US, we are paying nearly double what everyone else does, and there is something inherently wrong about that. We are doing something drastically wrong. Does that mean we should emulate their systems exactly? Absolutely not, but we do need to figure out why we are paying so much to begin with, and then determine if we are getting an equitable return on our investment.

i might agree with you on that but obama care did'nt address that did it??
totally useless piece of legislation that only made the problem worse
and democrats are still supporting it

I really don't think we will know what effect the healthcare legislation will have on cost until well after 2014. Then we have the issue with mandatory insurance. If it is ruled un-Constitutional, then we have a problem, because requiring insurance companies to be the sole providers of a healthcare plan and forcing them to take on those with pre-existing conditions will truly add to the cost, if everyone isn't paying for health insurance. People who don't feel that they can afford it, or those who truly cannot afford it will just wait until they get sick to buy insurance. Of course, they might not even be able to afford it then, and then we are back to square one.

 

[rightwinger]

Do you understand that is the same thing as saying people should not have to pay for health care?

No it's not........

It most definately is. When you said people should not fear getting sick, you are referring to a fear of what getting sick will cost them. That will be different for everyone dependent on what happens to them in their income. And due to the current cost of some illnesses only the richest of the rich are going to not fear getting ill. So yes when you say people shouldn't have to worry about getting sick you ARE saying they shouldn't have to worry about the cost of getting sick, thus you ARE saying that the vast majority of people shouldn't have to pay for health care.

Typical right wing "Libruls want everything for FREE"
If you can afford to pay...you pay
Either directly or through your taxes
If you can't afford to pay, you receive assistance so that you do not have to do without care if you become sick

Great societies take care of their people

 

[rightwinger]

So you would tell me that if you were dieing and I had the money to save your life I should be legally made to pay for saving your life?

You know it doesn't work like that

You throw your money into a pool, I throw my money into a pool and whoever needs it gets to draw on it. I would have no problem with that money being used to save your life.

Frankly, I would rather be the healthy one who does not need the help

these ideas seem fine in theory practice is a differant matter
problem there is the pool isnt big enough and so many draw on it it soon becomes empty
we only have so much . you throw some into the education pool, some more into the security of the country pool , more into the social welfare pool .
to throw more into the *health care pool* which one of the pools do you throw in less ??? .

What are your alternatives?

Some live....some die....Tough

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.....basic human rights

 

[PoliticalChic]

i can't speak for anyone else but (i really hate conservatives and you can quote me on that) I am strongly opposed to this health care plan

I (really really hate conservatives) oppose ALL mandatory health care plans

i, in fact, oppose ALL MANDATORY INSURANCE

im sure Conservatives cant stand your ass too Ricky....

Harry, I'm one conservative who doesn't hate Rik...and, no matter the quote, I know he doesn't hate me.

Rik's heart is in the right place, ...we simply need to educate him.

 

[Bern80]

No it's not........

It most definately is. When you said people should not fear getting sick, you are referring to a fear of what getting sick will cost them. That will be different for everyone dependent on what happens to them in their income. And due to the current cost of some illnesses only the richest of the rich are going to not fear getting ill. So yes when you say people shouldn't have to worry about getting sick you ARE saying they shouldn't have to worry about the cost of getting sick, thus you ARE saying that the vast majority of people shouldn't have to pay for health care.

Typical right wing "Libruls want everything for FREE"
If you can afford to pay...you pay
Either directly or through your taxes
If you can't afford to pay, you receive assistance so that you do not have to do without care if you become sick

Great societies take care of their people

I have no problem with that. But that's far different than your broad sweeping statement 'no one should have to fear getting sick'. I fear spending money period. When I spend money I have less money, which make me less free because really, freedom is money if you think about it. On a basic level I think that's something everyone fears.

I have no problem with social programs that help people who can't help themselves. What libs need to acknowledge is that there are not only people that can't help themselves there are also peope who can, but won't. And there's a lot of them. And you can not enact policy that encourages those who can, but won't to continue to do nothing.

So then it's how do you keep costs reasonable for those that can afford to pay. Yes, you could do a single payer where everyone pays more taxes, government gets billed and they pay them. But in America it's just not going to work. Most every country's health care system that has a form of single payer is running huge deficits and they have a couple of major factors in their favor already. 1)They have generally healthier populations not just in general health but healthy behavior and 2) there physicians make a lot less than ours. I know we want to make this cost less for people but we simply can not do it by going into even more debt.

 

[Immanuel]

i can't speak for anyone else but (i really hate conservatives and you can quote me on that) I am strongly opposed to this health care plan

I (really really hate conservatives) oppose ALL mandatory health care plans

i, in fact, oppose ALL MANDATORY INSURANCE

im sure Conservatives cant stand your ass too Ricky....

Harry, I'm one conservative who doesn't hate Rik...and, no matter the quote, I know he doesn't hate me.

Rik's heart is in the right place, ...we simply need to educate him.

I'm another one. I skipped many of his (I think he is a he) posts early on because they were laced with partisan hate, but I have found that he is both mellowing in his old age and becoming someone that at the very least can get a chuckle out of me and sometimes even makes a decent point or two.

Immie

 

[rightwinger]

It most definately is. When you said people should not fear getting sick, you are referring to a fear of what getting sick will cost them. That will be different for everyone dependent on what happens to them in their income. And due to the current cost of some illnesses only the richest of the rich are going to not fear getting ill. So yes when you say people shouldn't have to worry about getting sick you ARE saying they shouldn't have to worry about the cost of getting sick, thus you ARE saying that the vast majority of people shouldn't have to pay for health care.

Typical right wing "Libruls want everything for FREE"
If you can afford to pay...you pay
Either directly or through your taxes
If you can't afford to pay, you receive assistance so that you do not have to do without care if you become sick

Great societies take care of their people

I have no problem with that. But that's far different than your broad sweeping statement 'no one should have to fear getting sick'. I fear spending money period. When I spend money I have less money, which make me less free because really, freedom is money if you think about it. On a basic level I think that's something everyone fears.

I have no problem with social programs that help people who can't help themselves. What libs need to acknowledge is that there are not only people that can't help themselves there are also peope who can, but won't. And there's a lot of them. And you can not enact policy that encourages those who can, but won't to continue to do nothing.

So then it's how do you keep costs reasonable for those that can afford to pay. Yes, you could do a single payer where everyone pays more taxes, government gets billed and they pay them. But in America it's just not going to work. Most every country's health care system that has a form of single payer is running huge deficits and they have a couple of major factors in their favor already. 1)They have generally healthier populations not just in general health but healthy behavior and 2) there physicians make a lot less than ours. I know we want to make this cost less for people but we simply can not do it by going into even more debt.

In any society you are going to have some people who are highly motivated and hard chargers. You willl also have people who are lazy, feeble minded or just plain assholes who do not work.

What do you do with them?

Hard liners say ....Let them starve and die if they get sick
Liberals will say....We have to take care of everyone no matter how undeserving they are

I think our society needs a basic safety net. Three hots and a cot plus basic medical care to keep you alive. No matter how undeserving a person you are, I don't want people begging door to door, living out of dumpsters or dying in the streets because they lack medical care