Health Care Reform: 61% Say Congress Should Start All Over Again on Health Care

[Article 15]

Tell you what.
you make it the law that EVERYONE must purchase health insurance. healthy or not. that will bring the costs down.

I agree that would help out a lot. Tell that to The T.

the reason health insurance is so expensive is because healthy people have little incentive to buy insurance, while sick people have a lot of incentive to buy insurance.

And that little incentive is amplified by today's outrageous premiums ... such is the vicious cycle. Make insurance coverage mandatory and that all goes away.

 

[elvis]

I agree that would help out a lot. Tell that to The T.

the reason health insurance is so expensive is because healthy people have little incentive to buy insurance, while sick people have a lot of incentive to buy insurance.

And that little incentive is amplified by today's outrageous premiums ... such is the vicious cycle. Make insurance coverage mandatory and that all goes away.

exactly. they do it with auto insurance, at least here.

 

[Article 15]

the reason health insurance is so expensive is because healthy people have little incentive to buy insurance, while sick people have a lot of incentive to buy insurance.

And that little incentive is amplified by today's outrageous premiums ... such is the vicious cycle. Make insurance coverage mandatory and that all goes away.

exactly. they do it with auto insurance, at least here.

Well the thing is you can't force everyone to buy a car ..

And I wouldn't support mandatory insurance coverage without there being a public option otherwise it's just a boon to the insurance companies.

 

[elvis]

And that little incentive is amplified by today's outrageous premiums ... such is the vicious cycle. Make insurance coverage mandatory and that all goes away.

exactly. they do it with auto insurance, at least here.

Well the thing is you can't force everyone to buy a car ..

And I wouldn't support mandatory insurance coverage without there being a public option otherwise it's just a boon to the insurance companies.

if you do it without the option, everyone still wins. the prices would still go down by way of the market.

 

[Christopher]

I'm not ... but it proves that other companies can compete with the gov't in the same market.

Not really, not when the USPS has a monopoly on "non-urgent" letters. You should read this: Reference for United States Postal Service - Search.com

The right of the United States government to engage in postal services is established by Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 of the Constitution. The USPS holds a statutory monopoly on non-urgent First Class Mail, outbound U.S. international letters[3] as well the exclusive right to put mail in private mailboxes,[4] as described in the Private Express Statutes.

Does that sound like "competition" to you? With health care, perhaps they will eventually claim a monopoly on providing coverage on everything except "non-urgent" or emergency care.

in article's defense, the USPS is a business. I don't think this "option" is business.

Yes, a business with a huge monopoly. So, if the "option" is not a business, how does it really create "competition"?

 

[elvis]

Not really, not when the USPS has a monopoly on "non-urgent" letters. You should read this: Reference for United States Postal Service - Search.com



Does that sound like "competition" to you? With health care, perhaps they will eventually claim a monopoly on providing coverage on everything except "non-urgent" or emergency care.

in article's defense, the USPS is a business. I don't think this "option" is business.

Yes, a business with a huge monopoly. So, if the "option" is not a business, how does it really create "competition"?

It doesn't. It squeezes out competition, which is what Obama wants.

 

[elvis]

but the way it is now, we're not going to get any reform at all. If Hillary had won, something would be passed by now.

 

[Article 15]

exactly. they do it with auto insurance, at least here.

Well the thing is you can't force everyone to buy a car ..

And I wouldn't support mandatory insurance coverage without there being a public option otherwise it's just a boon to the insurance companies.

if you do it without the option, everyone still wins. the prices would still go down by way of the market.

I don't buy that for a second. I forsee record profits for insurance companies if such policy is put in place without a public option.

 

[elvis]

Well the thing is you can't force everyone to buy a car ..

And I wouldn't support mandatory insurance coverage without there being a public option otherwise it's just a boon to the insurance companies.

if you do it without the option, everyone still wins. the prices would still go down by way of the market.

I don't buy that for a second. I forsee record profits for insurance companies if such policy is put in place without a public option.

so it's not enough that everyone wins? the insurance companies have to lose, is that it? Why not just implement what canada has?

 

[Article 15]

if you do it without the option, everyone still wins. the prices would still go down by way of the market.

I don't buy that for a second. I forsee record profits for insurance companies if such policy is put in place without a public option.

so it's not enough that everyone wins? the insurance companies have to lose, is that it? Why not just implement what canada has?

I don't think everyone wins with such a policy and no public option. I think the insurance companies win and the poor loses in that scenario. But yes, the insurance companies have to be net losers in any reform that goes down, IMO.

Implement Canada's system?

Dude ... it's hard enough dealing with people screaming about the public option ... taking it to full blown socialism isn't going to fly here.

 

[elvis]

I don't buy that for a second. I forsee record profits for insurance companies if such policy is put in place without a public option.

so it's not enough that everyone wins? the insurance companies have to lose, is that it? Why not just implement what canada has?

I don't think everyone wins with such a policy and no public option. I think the insurance companies win and the poor loses in that scenario. But yes, the insurance companies have to be net losers in any reform that goes down, IMO.

Implement Canada's system?

Dude ... it's hard enough dealing with people screaming about the public option ... taking it to full blown socialism isn't going to fly here.

well, we're not getting the public option anyway. so either you make everyone buy insurance or leave things the way they are. the poor can all go on medicaid. those who can afford to buy insurance at all can buy it at a lower rate.

 

[Article 15]

so it's not enough that everyone wins? the insurance companies have to lose, is that it? Why not just implement what canada has?

I don't think everyone wins with such a policy and no public option. I think the insurance companies win and the poor loses in that scenario. But yes, the insurance companies have to be net losers in any reform that goes down, IMO.

Implement Canada's system?

Dude ... it's hard enough dealing with people screaming about the public option ... taking it to full blown socialism isn't going to fly here.

well, we're not getting the public option anyway. so either you make everyone buy insurance or leave things the way they are. the poor can all go on medicaid. those who can afford to buy insurance at all can buy it at a lower rate.

Then reform is fucked.

Better luck in another 20 years.

Go Scott Brown!

 

[elvis]

I don't think everyone wins with such a policy and no public option. I think the insurance companies win and the poor loses in that scenario. But yes, the insurance companies have to be net losers in any reform that goes down, IMO.

Implement Canada's system?

Dude ... it's hard enough dealing with people screaming about the public option ... taking it to full blown socialism isn't going to fly here.

well, we're not getting the public option anyway. so either you make everyone buy insurance or leave things the way they are. the poor can all go on medicaid. those who can afford to buy insurance at all can buy it at a lower rate.

Then reform is fucked.

Better luck in another 20 years.

Go Scott Brown!

oh i know it is. if hillary had won, you would have had something.

 

[Article 15]

well, we're not getting the public option anyway. so either you make everyone buy insurance or leave things the way they are. the poor can all go on medicaid. those who can afford to buy insurance at all can buy it at a lower rate.

Then reform is fucked.

Better luck in another 20 years.

Go Scott Brown!

oh i know it is. if hillary had won, you would have had something.

Maybe ...

She certainly wouldn't have been naive enough to trust the bill's passage to Reid and Pelosi. She would have been a stronger advocate from the White House, too.

But .... the right has put Hillary on this little pedastil since she lost to Obama. What they hope we forget is that up until that point Hillary was the right's public enemy #1. We would have had the same kicking and screaming from the same players if it were Hillary in office. Any health care proposal she put forward would be "socialist" or "communist" and it would be come from "President Hitlerly"

 

[elvis]

Then reform is fucked.

Better luck in another 20 years.

Go Scott Brown!

oh i know it is. if hillary had won, you would have had something.

Maybe ...

She certainly wouldn't have been naive enough to trust the bill's passage to Reid and Pelosi. She would have been a stronger advocate from the White House, too.

But .... the right has put Hillary on this little pedastil since she lost to Obama. What they hope we forget is that up until that point Hillary was the right's public enemy #1. We would have had the same kicking and screaming from the same players if it were Hillary in office. Any health care proposal she put forward would be "socialist" or "communist" and it would be come from "President Hitlerly"

and the left would be calling her "Hilitary". I like her because she's tough. I don't agree with her, but I have a lot more respect for her than most other politicians, including her husband. She certainly wouldn't be bowing to the emperor of Japan. She'd have kicked him in the nuts before she'd bow to him.

 

[Article 15]

oh i know it is. if hillary had won, you would have had something.

Maybe ...

She certainly wouldn't have been naive enough to trust the bill's passage to Reid and Pelosi. She would have been a stronger advocate from the White House, too.

But .... the right has put Hillary on this little pedastil since she lost to Obama. What they hope we forget is that up until that point Hillary was the right's public enemy #1. We would have had the same kicking and screaming from the same players if it were Hillary in office. Any health care proposal she put forward would be "socialist" or "communist" and it would be come from "President Hitlerly"

and the left would be calling her "Hilitary". I like her because she's tough. I don't agree with her, but I have a lot more respect for her than most other politicians, including her husband. She certainly wouldn't be bowing to the emperor of Japan. She'd have kicked him in the nuts before she'd bow to him.

It's really easy for the right to say nice things about Hillary now because she's not a threat to them and by saying nice things about her they are hoping to create turmoil within the Democrats ranks. Up until Hillary lost in the primaries it was all but right wing blasphemy to say nice things about her.

And what would Hillary have done differently than Obama vis a vis the GWOT? Not much if anything at all.

And the bowing shit is just petty.

 

[elvis]

Maybe ...

She certainly wouldn't have been naive enough to trust the bill's passage to Reid and Pelosi. She would have been a stronger advocate from the White House, too.

But .... the right has put Hillary on this little pedastil since she lost to Obama. What they hope we forget is that up until that point Hillary was the right's public enemy #1. We would have had the same kicking and screaming from the same players if it were Hillary in office. Any health care proposal she put forward would be "socialist" or "communist" and it would be come from "President Hitlerly"

and the left would be calling her "Hilitary". I like her because she's tough. I don't agree with her, but I have a lot more respect for her than most other politicians, including her husband. She certainly wouldn't be bowing to the emperor of Japan. She'd have kicked him in the nuts before she'd bow to him.

It's really easy for the right to say nice things about Hillary now because she's not a threat to them and by saying nice things about her they are hoping to create turmoil within the Democrats ranks. Up until Hillary lost in the primaries it was all but right wing blasphemy to say nice things about her.

And what would Hillary have done differently than Obama vis a vis the GWOT? Not much if anything at all.

And the bowing shit is just petty.

It's not why I say nice things about her.

 

[Vega]

I'm a democrat but I think Congress should start all over again. There are good parts to the current bills, but there is a lot missing and there are some problems with the current bill. My fear is that the Republicans don't care and will just keep voting no. We, Americans, need something. Hopefully Congress will act.

 

[KissMy]

If you want to fix health care it would help if you knew what is causing the problems

Antitrust exemption for the insurance industry was established in the 1945 McCarran-Ferguson Act. The insurance industry has a special statutory exemption from the antitrust laws. Insurers should be subject to the same antitrust laws as everyone else.” Congress needs to pass S.1681 - Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2009 This Act repeals the insurance industry exemption for the most egregious forms of antitrust violations - price fixing, bid rigging, and market allocations. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMN2AXyBsp0&feature=related"]Repeal Antitrust Exemption[/ame]

Want to know why there are too few general practitioners & soaring medical cost?

They told me I was too smart to go into primary care "Everyone told me it was the wrong thing to do," recalls Dr. Jennifer Weyler, explaining her decision two years ago as a medical student to become a family doctor. "My teachers discouraged me; administrators discouraged me. They told me I was too smart to go into primary care or that the job wouldn't be enough of a challenge." And sure enough, Weyler, now a resident in family medicine at the University of Massachusetts, is frustrated - but not by her job, which she loves. "It frustrates me," she explains, "to have to continually explain to people what a primary care practitioner is."

It was only 50 years ago, after all, that no one had to be told what a family doctor was, mainly because that's about all there was. Eighty-seven percent of all doctors in the thirties were general practitioner - namely internists, pediatricians, and family doctors. Today that figure has dropped to 30 percent.

A New England Medical Center's Health Institute study in 1992 found that specialists order more tests, perform more procedures, and hospitalize patients more often than primary care doctors treating similar symptoms. Family practitioners are less likely to hospitalize patients than specialists treating patients who had similar levels of illness, according to a recent Journal of the American Medical Association report. A 1990 study estimated that a 50-50 mix of primary care doctors to specialists would produce a 39 percent reduction in total expenditures for physician services. "Primary care protects people from unwanted procedures," explains Fitzhugh Mullan, an assistant U.S. surgeon general "General practitioners look at risks and benefits, both in terms of care and costs."

The American Medical Association is a trade union that limits the number of people who can enter medical school. Control over admission to medical school and later licensure enables the profession to limit entry in two ways. The obvious one is simply by turning down many applicants. The less obvious, but probably far more important one, is by establishing standards for admission and licensure that make entry so difficult as to discourage young people from ever trying to get admission.

Like the AMA, SEIU is largely a medical trade union who wrote Obamacare H.R.3200. Obama is the SEIU union boss negotiating their pay contract with the US citizens. These unions will pay lower premiums & get more benefits than the average citizen under Obamacare. "SEIU's Agenda is My Agenda!!!" said Obama "Together we had fought to raise wages for home care workers in Illinois." SEIU Employees are getting a Big Raise with Obamacare. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ1NJaCtIkM"]Obama - SEIU's Agenda is My Agenda[/ame] [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5alq_p7RaA&feature=related"]Takeover & Deception[/ame]

Do you really want more rationing & higher medical cost? Adding a 2,000 page bureaucracy congress did not read forcing everyone into that system will make prices even higher & care worse for us that pay for it. Unlike the H.R.3200 health care bill passed by the house that does away with private health care & forces me to pay more for less, there is no public option, only mandated government healthcare! Start reading at page 16 of H.R.3200

10 (1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—
11 (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in
12 this paragraph, the individual health insurance
13 issuer offering such coverage does not enroll
14 any individual in such coverage if the first
15 effective date of coverage is on or after the first
16 day of Y1.

This will cause private insurance pools to shrink until that company goes out of business forcing everyone onto the option-less government plan. I would at least like the option to provide my own health care. A 10 page health care bill would be enough. [ame="httphttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcBaSP31Be8&feature=player_embedded"]Whats in H.R.3200[/ame] Republicans are NOT the party of NO!

 

[California Girl]

It's an option.

There will still be a demand for premium insurance.

If private health insurance providers can't keep up or find a way to adjust to the market with gov't having a non-profit option for Americans then they can fail.

Yeah because every health insurance company can compete with someone who is allowed to operate in the red.
That option turns into government-run health-care.

It's just the ossiah's way of tricking everyone into social medicine.

Kind of hard to compete with a company who can just print more money if and when it starts failing...

And can act in ways that would get the public thrown in jail for fraud.