Kucinich On board

[SFC Ollie]

Kucinich has been a fool for a very long time.

Yeah? Well that's just like, your opinion, man.

You are right. And so am I.

 

[hjmick]

Look for Dennis Cardoza and Jim Costa to change their vote as well in, return for the increase in water allocations in the California Central Valley region. Now, I believe they should have been getting more water for quite some time now, but I find the timing of this very suspect, especially if Cardoza and Costa now change their vote.

 

[boedicca]

Your still gonna have people who don't buy @ any price, until they crush their femur in an accident at home, with nobody to blame. Or get cancer; Unusual for a young person but not unheard of.

The HSA is more to cover that 1000 deductible than it is for the catastrophic care itself.

I've said it a thousand times; No free market solution will work unless it A.) Gets the uninsured insured, before they think they need it, or B.) Denies care, including emergency care, to non-payers.

No government solution will work. Trying to create a half fish half bird hybrid always results in something that cannot live anywhere.

 

[Cuyo]

Britain. I pay (a lot!!) towards a healthcare system that I won't use because it is crap. I have private insurance.... that I choose to pay.... because it is the best possible care I can get. The Brits love the NHS - because they've had it for 60 years and they know nothing else. But on their NHS, getting to see a doctor is a pain in the ass. The quality of care varies from area to area (they refer to it as a post code lottery - what care you get depends on where you live). They have hugely lengthy waiting lists for very basic operations and treatment. My contributions go to pay for other people's IVF treatment, gender reassignment, all kinds of non essential crap that should not be covered under a 'health' service. It is mind-bogglingly expensive. The system itself is overloaded and bankrupt. Most importantly, Britain is a small country of around 60 million people. Their NHS is the 4th biggest employer in the WORLD! Now, tell me how the hell that system is gonna work in the US. It would be a fucking nightmare.

From a personal perspective, and I understand that many will disagree with me.... what I find most offensive about their system is that my money pays for someone else's abortion. Now, I am pro-choice - in that I don't believe I have the right to stop someone having an abortion... but I am pro life in that my personal belief is that abortion is murder. I find it breathtakingly offensive that I am forced to pay for the murder of a child.

You make a valid point; You don't have to use it. You have the money and can afford private insurance, and the tradeoff is worth it to you, to get faster service or whatever motivated your decision.

IMHO? We should have Single payer, $1000.00 deductible per incident. This will not cover doctors visits, prescriptions for antibiotics, etc. Leave that aspect of it to the private industry. Just get hospitalization/major illness coverage for all. This way getting sick or injured won't ruin one's life financially, and kick the ER bill on to paying clients.

Their system is collapsing. In theory, it all sounds very good and sensible. It just doesn't work. I don't care what anyone says... I have seen both systems up close. You won't believe me, of course and that is your right, but single payer will be the worst possible thing that could happen in the US. It will bankrupt the country. In Britain, the system just sucks money... no matter how much money is thrown at it, it is broken. The Brits don't admit it but it is. Individuals may not be financially ruined - but the country will be.

But CG, so is ours, man! It's a snowball effect. Non payers raise premiums, more people can't afford = more non payers, = higher premiums. We pay more per capita by far than you guys do. You guys just pay it to the government, and us to private industry. Your system is more efficient!

Remember, you guys don't have the kind of scratch we have around here either; Nobody does per capita. If we did do single payer, one could safely assume it would be a better system than we see abroad.

 

[SFC Ollie]

We don't need Single Payer to have that option. Just open up interstate competition, reform the income tax code, and expand HSAs (and do tort reform, of course).

Your still gonna have people who don't buy @ any price, until they crush their femur in an accident at home, with nobody to blame. Or get cancer; Unusual for a young person but not unheard of.

The HSA is more to cover that 1000 deductible than it is for the catastrophic care itself.

I've said it a thousand times; No free market solution will work unless it A.) Gets the uninsured insured, before they think they need it, or B.) Denies care, including emergency care, to non-payers.

that's too bad for them. I told my son (used to think he was superman) to get insurance he had turned it down at work. Then he passed out from heat stroke. $1200 at the emergency room and $600 for an ambulance cured him of that real fast. Before I retired I was working with mostly younger people and over half of the 30 or so of them had no health insurance. Because they didn't want to spend the money on it. I don't believe they should be forced to make a good decision. Allow them to screw up one time. And yes they were well paid enough to be able to afford it. The company was pretty decent, actually almost pleaded with people to take the insurance.

 

[Cuyo]

Your still gonna have people who don't buy @ any price, until they crush their femur in an accident at home, with nobody to blame. Or get cancer; Unusual for a young person but not unheard of.

The HSA is more to cover that 1000 deductible than it is for the catastrophic care itself.

I've said it a thousand times; No free market solution will work unless it A.) Gets the uninsured insured, before they think they need it, or B.) Denies care, including emergency care, to non-payers.

No government solution will work. Trying to create a half fish half bird hybrid always results in something that cannot live anywhere.

It's the truth, Bo, I really do agree. We can't do it half-way; the way it's being done now is unsustainable. Do you agree with my analysis? Take out the words free-market; "No solution will work unless it either gets the uninsured insured, before they think they need it, or denies care, including emergency care, to non-payers."

 

[California Girl]

You make a valid point; You don't have to use it. You have the money and can afford private insurance, and the tradeoff is worth it to you, to get faster service or whatever motivated your decision.

IMHO? We should have Single payer, $1000.00 deductible per incident. This will not cover doctors visits, prescriptions for antibiotics, etc. Leave that aspect of it to the private industry. Just get hospitalization/major illness coverage for all. This way getting sick or injured won't ruin one's life financially, and kick the ER bill on to paying clients.

Their system is collapsing. In theory, it all sounds very good and sensible. It just doesn't work. I don't care what anyone says... I have seen both systems up close. You won't believe me, of course and that is your right, but single payer will be the worst possible thing that could happen in the US. It will bankrupt the country. In Britain, the system just sucks money... no matter how much money is thrown at it, it is broken. The Brits don't admit it but it is. Individuals may not be financially ruined - but the country will be.

But CG, so is ours, man! It's a snowball effect. Non payers raise premiums, more people can't afford = more non payers, = higher premiums. We pay more per capita by far than you guys do. You guys just pay it to the government, and us to private industry. Your system is more efficient!

Remember, you guys don't have the kind of scratch we have around here either; Nobody does per capita. If we did do single payer, one could safely assume it would be a better system than we see abroad.

If the British system was more efficient, I would understand why Obama et al want it. Fact is, it is not. I know this... I live with their system and I lived with ours for the best part of my life. For you it is the 'greener grass' on the other side. Well, I'm on that side. The grass is not greener. It is, in fact, dirt that has been dyed to look green. Their government works hard to hide the facts.

If you trust our government (ass or elephant) to do the right thing for the American people, if you honestly believe that we would do it better, then I feel sorry for you. You've been duped.

 

[boedicca]

It's the truth, Bo, I really do agree. We can't do it half-way; the way it's being done now is unsustainable. Do you agree with my analysis? Take out the words free-market; "No solution will work unless it either gets the uninsured insured, before they think they need it, or denies care, including emergency care, to non-payers."

Boe with an E, s'il te plait.

I do appreciate your discussing this in good faith. But, no. I most certainly do not. Free markets have their imperfections - no system is going to get to the Utopian Ideal promoted by our current Progressive minority. Despite those imperfections, it is Far and Away the Fairest system in that it lacks the heavy hand of government choosing winners and losers based upon political pull.

At least in the Free Market, an individual has a chance to work and make a better life for himself with the results. The Government solution kills that off. It is not the Government's job to save people from their own decisions or insulate them from the randomness of life in general. All attempt to provide such security end up destroying Liberty, and the temporary source of funding for that security that was provided by the productivity of the Free (ala Franklin's famous phrase).

 

[Cuyo]

It's the truth, Bo, I really do agree. We can't do it half-way; the way it's being done now is unsustainable. Do you agree with my analysis? Take out the words free-market; "No solution will work unless it either gets the uninsured insured, before they think they need it, or denies care, including emergency care, to non-payers."

Boe with an E, s'il te plait.

I do appreciate your discussing this in good faith. But, no. I most certainly do not. Free markets have their imperfections - no system is going to get to the Utopian Ideal promoted by our current Progressive minority. Despite those imperfections, it is Far and Away the Fairest system in that it lacks the heavy hand of government choosing winners and losers based upon political pull.

At least in the Free Market, an individual has a chance to work and make a better life for himself with the results. The Government solution kills that off. It is not the Government's job to save people from their own decisions or insulate them from the randomness of life in general. All attempt to provide such security end up destroying Liberty, and the temporary source of funding for that security that was provided by the productivity of the Free (ala Franklin's famous phrase).

Well I appreciate your response, but if you can't agree with that statement there will be no consensus between us. That's fine, I'll still sleep OK.

I think you're more propped up by your ideals, trumpeting what you think should be true, more so than identifying with the reality of the situation. You've not shown me how we can continue to saddle the paying with the bills of the non-paying, and result in an equitable, fair, and reduced cost.

You made a good point with your bird-fish hybrid, but are unwilling to take it to the next level. Simple question: Right now, law says doctor can't say no. Even if he KNOWS you'll never pay. Do you think he should be able to say no? Yes, or no?

 

[boedicca]

You made a good point with your bird-fish hybrid, but are unwilling to take it to the next level. Simple question: Right now, law says doctor can't say no. Even if he KNOWS you'll never pay. Do you think he should be able to say know? Yes, or no?

I don't believe that anyone should be forced to do work on my behalf against his or her will. And doctors do turn away patients all of the time. Many now refuse to see Medicare patients because they can't afford to lose the money they do treating them.

It's not a coincidence that the big increases in the cost structure of health care have happened in tandem with the increase in the ratio provided by the government. Government pays for nearly 50% of health care already. More of the same is not a solution.

 

[JimH52]

Ok, so it's a big first step for single payer and socialized medicine fans. Single payer would hardly do anything to cut down the cost of health insurance because it does nothing to address the reasons why health care is expensive. In fact, it would only end up costing more for those who can afford it unless the government expects to borrow another few trillion dollars.

But if anyone cares to discuss how the Senate bill would lead to the destruction of the health insurance industry, then i guess i'd be up for it again.

Okay, so explain to me why many of the world's single payer health care systems have drastically less increase in HC expenses. The per capita cost of health care in those countrys that do have subsidized systems are mostly below the per capita cost in the US.

I am not being defensive about the proposed bill, just asking a question.

 

[Bern80]

Socialized medicine definition - Medical Dictionary definitions of popular medical terms easily defined on MedTerms

Nobody significant has ever proposed it. The current bill is anything but. Add public option and it's still not even close. Even single payer is not "Socialized medicine."

How is single payer not socialized? That single payer would be the government. Isn't socialism when government is the provider of a good or service? When you walk into a hospital and want to make sure your insurance company is going to pay for it don't you have to make sure they are a PROVIDER of your brand of health insurance?

 

[Bern80]

Nobody significant has ever proposed it. The current bill is anything but. Add public option and it's still not even close. Even single payer is not "Socialized medicine."

The reason why the left are so desperate for this bill to pass is that it is a 'transition' towards a single payer system.... a single payer system is what they have in the UK.... that is socialized medicine. Why does Obama pretend it is not a transitional step to single payer and that single payer is what the left want? I know why.

That's only partially true, CG. Progressives like Kucinich, yes, absolutely. Not all of them though. If that were the case, single payer would have been on the table from the get-go and they would have had no problems passing it.

Myself? Yes, absolutely. I don't know why everyone's so scared of single payer. It's the most efficient system. We are going to have it in this country; It is inevitable. Maybe they can stall for another 10 years, maybe 20, but we'll have it. Watch. And no, it's not "Socialized medicine." "Socialized medicine" is where the doctors work for the government directly. Single payer is just Medicare for all basically; The doctors remain private and bill the government instead of your insurance company.

Could you describe these efficiencies in greater detail? Efficient for whom exactly? Why is it more efficient than making insurance companies actually compete? Why is it more efficient than say....YOU taking a more active role in your health care dollars?

 

[Cuyo]

The reason why the left are so desperate for this bill to pass is that it is a 'transition' towards a single payer system.... a single payer system is what they have in the UK.... that is socialized medicine. Why does Obama pretend it is not a transitional step to single payer and that single payer is what the left want? I know why.

That's only partially true, CG. Progressives like Kucinich, yes, absolutely. Not all of them though. If that were the case, single payer would have been on the table from the get-go and they would have had no problems passing it.

Myself? Yes, absolutely. I don't know why everyone's so scared of single payer. It's the most efficient system. We are going to have it in this country; It is inevitable. Maybe they can stall for another 10 years, maybe 20, but we'll have it. Watch. And no, it's not "Socialized medicine." "Socialized medicine" is where the doctors work for the government directly. Single payer is just Medicare for all basically; The doctors remain private and bill the government instead of your insurance company.

Could you describe these efficiencies in greater detail? Efficient for whom exactly? Why is it more efficient than making insurance companies actually compete? Why is it more efficient than say....YOU taking a more active role in your health care dollars?

Because insurance companies are operated on a for-profit basis. The salaries for top executives range in the tens of Millions. Do you know what we pay the president? $400k.

The public plans are operated non-profit. Nobody making your health decisions has a vested interest in your death. On the contrary, when you become "Too expensive" in the private market, a small group of people stand to make far more money if you die.

That should be enough. Like a good neighbor my ass, eh?

 

[oreo]

I figured it wasn't socialistic enough for him. Kucinich is simply a politician in the wrong country all together.

Who in the heck actually voted for this guy? He got a ride in Air Force 1--supposedly talked to his wife--whom I've heard is dumber than a 2 x 4--so now he is voting for it.

He also voted against the invasion of Afganistan directly after 9/11. He voted against going after Osama Bin Laden--

This guy is on the WRONG side of everything--he needs to GO.

 

[Cuyo]

Ok, so it's a big first step for single payer and socialized medicine fans. Single payer would hardly do anything to cut down the cost of health insurance because it does nothing to address the reasons why health care is expensive. In fact, it would only end up costing more for those who can afford it unless the government expects to borrow another few trillion dollars.

But if anyone cares to discuss how the Senate bill would lead to the destruction of the health insurance industry, then i guess i'd be up for it again.

Okay, so explain to me why many of the world's single payer health care systems have drastically less increase in HC expenses. The per capita cost of health care in those countrys that do have subsidized systems are mostly below the per capita cost in the US.

I am not being defensive about the proposed bill, just asking a question.

It's a no brainer, friend. Politics influenced by very powerful men in the HC industry are the only thing slowing us down.

The bars are life expectancy; The staggered line, spending per capita.

 

[oreo]

That's only partially true, CG. Progressives like Kucinich, yes, absolutely. Not all of them though. If that were the case, single payer would have been on the table from the get-go and they would have had no problems passing it.

Myself? Yes, absolutely. I don't know why everyone's so scared of single payer. It's the most efficient system. We are going to have it in this country; It is inevitable. Maybe they can stall for another 10 years, maybe 20, but we'll have it. Watch. And no, it's not "Socialized medicine." "Socialized medicine" is where the doctors work for the government directly. Single payer is just Medicare for all basically; The doctors remain private and bill the government instead of your insurance company.

Could you describe these efficiencies in greater detail? Efficient for whom exactly? Why is it more efficient than making insurance companies actually compete? Why is it more efficient than say....YOU taking a more active role in your health care dollars?

Because insurance companies are operated on a for-profit basis. The salaries for top executives range in the tens of Millions. Do you know what we pay the president? $400k.

The public plans are operated non-profit. Nobody making your health decisions has a vested interest in your death. On the contrary, when you become "Too expensive" in the private market, a small group of people stand to make far more money if you die.

That should be enough. Like a good neighbor my ass, eh?

And it's going to cost TRILLIONS of dollars--of which we don't have. Let alone another 157 new GOVERNMENT agencies to operate this plan.

Now, I don't know how you think--but the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has proven to us time & time again--that they do not operate efficiently. In fact, they can't even keep the senate cafeteria out of red ink.

How are we expected to TRUST them with 1/6 of this economy--without bankrupting this country in the process?

To add--they have used all kinds of political tricks, & under the table dealings to even get this bill as far as it is. That tells me--that this bill is NO GOOD--when senators & congressmen have to have their votes BOUGHT--by federal taxpayer dollars.

They're nothing but a bunch of CROOKS.





Now up to 12.4 trillion & without health care.

 

[Cuyo]

Could you describe these efficiencies in greater detail? Efficient for whom exactly? Why is it more efficient than making insurance companies actually compete? Why is it more efficient than say....YOU taking a more active role in your health care dollars?

Because insurance companies are operated on a for-profit basis. The salaries for top executives range in the tens of Millions. Do you know what we pay the president? $400k.

The public plans are operated non-profit. Nobody making your health decisions has a vested interest in your death. On the contrary, when you become "Too expensive" in the private market, a small group of people stand to make far more money if you die.

That should be enough. Like a good neighbor my ass, eh?

And it's going to cost TRILLIONS of dollars--of which we don't have. Let alone another 157 new GOVERNMENT agencies to operate this plan.

Now, I don't know how you think--but the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has proven to us time & time again--that they do not operate efficiently. In fact, they can't even keep the senate cafeteria out of red ink.

How are we expected to TRUST them with 1/6 of this economy--without bankrupting this country in the process?

To add--they have used all kinds of political tricks, & under the table dealings to even get this bill as far as it is. That tells me--that this bill is NO GOOD--when senators & congressmen have to have their votes BOUGHT--by federal taxpayer dollars.

They're nothing but a bunch of CROOKS.

View attachment 9755



Now up to 12.4 trillion & without health care.

The plan reduces the deficit. It reduces the deficit by raising certain taxes. This is how government gets their revenue, by taxing.

Hypothetically, if your taxes go up $500 per year but your premiums go down by $2,000, do you win or lose? I'm not saying this would or will happen, let's just suppose for the moment that it will. So, if you know for a fact that you'll save $2000 per year, but you'll have to send $500 more to uncle Sam, would you approve then?

Some just don't want the government involved whether it's in their best financial interests or not. But the suggestion that the plan increases the deficit is false.

P.S. Your image at the bottom of your post is outdated. It was Bush that crossed the $5trillion threshold; and the 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10Trillion thresholds.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Because insurance companies are operated on a for-profit basis. The salaries for top executives range in the tens of Millions. Do you know what we pay the president? $400k.

The public plans are operated non-profit. Nobody making your health decisions has a vested interest in your death. On the contrary, when you become "Too expensive" in the private market, a small group of people stand to make far more money if you die.

That should be enough. Like a good neighbor my ass, eh?

And it's going to cost TRILLIONS of dollars--of which we don't have. Let alone another 157 new GOVERNMENT agencies to operate this plan.

Now, I don't know how you think--but the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has proven to us time & time again--that they do not operate efficiently. In fact, they can't even keep the senate cafeteria out of red ink.

How are we expected to TRUST them with 1/6 of this economy--without bankrupting this country in the process?

To add--they have used all kinds of political tricks, & under the table dealings to even get this bill as far as it is. That tells me--that this bill is NO GOOD--when senators & congressmen have to have their votes BOUGHT--by federal taxpayer dollars.

They're nothing but a bunch of CROOKS.

View attachment 9755



Now up to 12.4 trillion & without health care.

The plan reduces the deficit. It reduces the deficit by raising certain taxes. This is how government gets their revenue, by taxing.

Hypothetically, if your taxes go up $500 per year but your premiums go down by $2,000, do you win or lose? I'm not saying this would or will happen, let's just suppose for the moment that it will. So, if you know for a fact that you'll save $2000 per year, but you'll have to send $500 more to uncle Sam, would you approve then?

Some just don't want the government involved whether it's in their best financial interests or not. But the suggestion that the plan increases the deficit is false.

P.S. Your image at the bottom of your post is outdated. It was Bush that crossed the $5trillion threshold; and the 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10Trillion thresholds.

No way in hell are you going to convince me that paying 10 years for service for 6 years is a good thing. No way are you going to convince me that these backroom deals are good for average Americans. This entire thing stinks so bad that they can smell it at the North pole.

 

[Cuyo]

3 more Reps have publicly announced their switch to "YES" from "NO", meaning we now need just 20 out of 36 "Publicly undecided," All dems! Here's the link again, check her out!

Democrats to Watch on the Health Care Vote - Interactive Graphic - NYTimes.com

Pelosi has also stated publicly that THE BILL WILL PASS. Vote is scheduled for Sunday, 12:00 Noon. I'm sure you'll all be glued to CSPAN!

http://www.kansascity.com/2010/03/18/1822421/house-plans-historic-health-care.html