The Great Healthcare Debate

[Bfgrn]

Navy, perhaps you should look at this;


65: Percentage of voters who believe that every American should have access to quality healthcare
22: Percentage of voters who disagree
12: Percentage of voters who aren't sure
80: Percentage who oppose providing healthcare for illegal immigrants
11: Percentage who support healthcare for illegal immigrants
22: Percentage of the uninsured 46 million who live in the U.S. illegally

Poll: Americans Favor Universal Healthcare, Just Not for Illegal Immigrants - US News and World Report

Access to Quality healthcare does not equal Passing HR3200 or the Bacous Bill. It also doesn't equal a public option.

it means that a lot of americans, including myself, want everyone to be able to have good healthcare. This position of wanting all americans to be able to get quality healthcare is the EXACT reason I am agains the govt's currently proposed health care reforms, they wont do what the politicians are telling us the reforms will do.

Then maybe we should stick with the health care reform Republicans gave us for the last 12 years they were in power...NONE...oh I take that back, there was Medicare D, that f_cked the elderly, is a windfall for insurance and pharmaceutical companies and a burden on taxpayers...

PLY and the band of right wing PEA brains are totally obtuse to the fact our founding fathers created a GOVERNMENT...NOT a private corporate run entity...

The right wing pea brain "tea baggers" are so frickin' stupid they don't even know they are really advocating for the King... Insurance companies have recreated the British East India Company...

WHY don't you pea brains educate yourselves on the extremely tight government regulations our founding fathers placed on corporations and stop parroting the right wing garbage of free markets...there is NO free market in America...it is a corporate welfare state...



"The legitimate object of Government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities. But in all that people can individually do as well for themselves, Government ought not to interfere."
President Abraham Lincoln

 

[Navy1960]

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin

I would remind you that Republicans have not been in power for 12 years, I fail to see where you get than number from. In fact both parties hold some responsibilty for letting this nations economy get out of control and is not the property of one or the other. the Dems have been in power in both houses of congress for over 2 years now. Bush was President for 8 Years, prior to that you had a Democrat who was president. Further, to say that Republicans have done nothing to reform healthcare is also wrong...

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- House Republicans on Wednesday presented what they called a "sorely needed" alternative to Democrats' proposals to overhaul health care.

Republicans want to make sure all Americans have access to affordable coverage, Rep. Eric Cantor, the House minority whip, said Wednesday.

"We do so by making sure we keep down costs and incorporate the ability for folks to pool together to access lower costs, to bring private sector into the game and keep government out," Cantor said.
House GOP outlines health care reform bill - Jun. 17, 2009

The three Republican bills total almost 400 pages and have been on the table since May and June.

In May, Republicans in the House and the Senate formed a bicameral coalition to produce the130-page “Patients Choice Act of 2009.”

In June, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) introduced the “Health Care Freedom Plan,” a 41-page proposal.

And in July, the Republican Study Committee, under the leadership of Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), unveiled the “Empowering Patients First Act,” a 130-page plan.

Some of the provisions included in one or more of the bills include: investing in preventive medicine, an overhaul of Medicaid, reduction of abuse and fraud in the Medicare program, supplemental health insurance for low-income families, tax credits for health insurance, and a ban on federal funds being used for abortions.
CNSNews.com - Republicans Have Offered Three Alternative Health Care Reform Bills

1993 Jun 26, 1993 - Senate Republicans plan to introduce a health care bill that is similiar to one favored by conservative House Democrats and includes many elements of President Clinton's plan but would not include most government mandates and price controls. Although substantial differences exist among ...

1998 Jul 20, 1998 - "But we now have a health care bill, and it will be one that Charlie Norwood can support," Linder said. Norwood's imprimatur is considered essential because the congressman, a dentist and Linder's fellow Georgia Republican, has been prodding the GOP leadership for months to write a ...
From Lots Of Inertia, Little Lawmaking As Election '98 Approaches - Related web pages
www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/07/20/cq ...

Jul 16, 1999 - "This is a victory for patients, with improved access to health care for Americans," declared Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), the Senate's only physician, who helped put together the GOP plan. "It achieves a balance {for} doctors and patients . . . with a cost that does not hurt access to ...
From Senate OKs GOP Health Care Bill Amid Veto Threat; Reform: Modest … - Related web pages
pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/43214742 ...

2003 Jun 27, 2003 - The two bills are expected to be reconciled next month before being sent to President Bush for his signature. ``This is a defining moment for this Congress,'' said House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., the point man for House GOP reform efforts on Medicare, which currently enrolls ...
From Senate passes historic health care bill Action taken on insurance and … - Related web pages
docs.newsbank.com/g/GooglePM/MN/lib00172 ...

GOP healthcare bills history - Google Search


All I'm saying here is that to simply dismiss one party as offering nothing over the last several years while the other party has been offering everything is simply not true. They both share in the blame for the mess we are in. It also seems to me with this in mind both parties do have something to offer when it comes to reform and when they take the time to actually listen to one another and craft a bill that actually has the needs of both in there and especially those they represent then maybe just maybe there might be reform.

 

[Bfgrn]

Medicare Part D a boon for drug companies, House report says
By Nicole Gaouette, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer|July 25, 2008

U.S. drug manufacturers are reaping a windfall from taxpayers because Medicare's privately administered prescription drug benefit program pays more than other government programs for the same medicines, a House committee charged in a report Thursday.

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform found that taxpayers are paying up to 30% more for prescription drugs under Medicare's privatized Part D program for seniors and the disabled than under the government's Medicaid program for the poor.
Medicare Part D a boon for drug companies, House report says - Los Angeles Times

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You mentioned Democrats have been in power for 2 years...finally some reversals of Republican corporate welfare policies!

Congress Passes Key Medicare Bill

By Maggie Mahar, Health Beat. Posted July 9, 2008.

When Ted Kennedy came onto the Senate floor, his colleagues cheered.

He was there to vote on the bill that would prevent a 10.6 percent cut to physicians who treat Medicare patients.

Just before Congress broke for the July 4 holiday, the bill missed the 60 votes needed to pass by just one vote.

Today, Kennedy, who is battling a brain tumor, brought that vote to the Senate floor. "Aye," the 76-year-old Kennedy said, grinning and making a thumbs-up gesture as he registered his vote.

Meanwhile, it appeared that Republican members of the Senate had been released to vote as they wished after it became apparent that the 60-vote threshold would be met. Pressure from seniors, the AARP , and the AMA had been mounting on members who voted against the bill June 26.

Republicans resisted voting for the legislation because while it spares physicians, it would reduce the fat subsidy that Congress has been giving private insurers who offer Medicare Advantage. President Bush and Senate Republicans had been strongly against any cut in the Advantage program.

In the end, the vote was 69 to 30 in favor of the bill. President Bush had threatened to veto the bill if it passed the Senate, but 67 votes make it veto-proof. And since the House has already voted 355-59 in favor of the bill, Congress appears able to over-ride any veto.
Congress Passes Key Medicare Bill | Health and Wellness | AlterNet

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

BFGRN why would I want to do what the republicans were up to for the 6 years they controlled the presidency and the legislature?

That would be as silly as doing the current proposal or something closely similar to HR3200.


I made a thread before where I laid out a reasonable plan.

Start with ONE item at a time. For example pre-existing condition legislation.....pass a law that states you can not be denied coverage, once you are paying into a plan, for any pre-existing condition or any legitimate illness you contract (thinking your boobs are too small is not a legitimate illness, but cancer is)

Then once the congress and president get that law passed go for tort reform.

Then if tort reform will pass go for......then go for....then again....and again......take the issues and debate them one at a time on their individual merits. This way we can be sure not only are we getting good law passed, but we will have time to make sure the special interests can be locked out of the law.

 

[Political Junky]

We once lived in a nation where it was the founding ideals that a man or woman could dare to dream and through hard work and live that dream.Yes, we have had many failings, but have learned over the years to change. We held their personal freedoms dear as we held our own dear. Even in wars, while we may have disagreed some of you shouted out in protest your feelings and did so knowing that you were exercising your freedoms to do so. What have we become? We have let our fears take hold of us and forgotten the most basic principle of this nation and one that so many have spilled blood the world over to defend and that is the right to enjoy our freedoms as individuals. We now look to a Govt. to provide all things for us and our neighbors even though they wish not to have it, because some see that equality is much more precious than freedom. What they do not realize is, they will never have true equality without the ability to respect honest disagreement and allow those that do not agree with them to exercise their freedoms.

Healthcare is the great debate at the moment, but while people lose their jobs, and americans are deployed in the defense of freedom the world over some would rush to the alter of Govt. to lay down the very freedoms Americans are fighting and dying for to replace it with comfort. This healthcare debate is not about providing healthcare for the masses, it is about allowing americans the choice to make the decision on their own as to how they will live their lives. While many may not agree with this and that is their right to disagree, what needs to be said here, is that the same respect should be accorded to those that disagree. That is the basis from which this nation was founded and not forcing your beliefs upon half the population that do not agree with you. Our president has taken it upon himself to usurp these freedoms from millions of Americans and does so because he believes that this nation should "change" into one that has less personal freedom and one where you should be ashamed to raise your head high if you dare to make something of yourself by your own hard work. After spending over 20 years in the United States Navy in the defense of my country I am disappointed in the direction in which many have chosen to take it, and while I respect each and every one of your rights to express yourselves as Americans perhaps you all should take a moment and pause to perhaps advocate giving that same respect to those who do not agree with you.

You don't have a say on the subject...you HAVE government healthcare...refuse your VA care Navy and buy into our deathcare lottery...all you need to do is pay your high premium year after year; then take your chances that all your responsible behavior will be returned if you get seriously ill or injured...by insurance corporations that pay incentives to workers that find a reason to DENY your claim...

Your correct, I have Tri-Care one that was earned after giving more than 20 plus year of active duty service to this nation. It is a benefit that I "earned" as a result of that service not one that is given to me. While that may be hard for some to understand, it was not free. I have every right to comment on this issue as it applies to me , want to know why? because I also pay taxes in this nation and that gives me every right to comment on issues that apply to it. Further, as I have family members that including my daughter that will be impacted by this legislation that also gives me the right to comment on it, but most of all I am a citizen of this nation, and have every right to as long as I feel that legislation will havve a negative impact on my nation to comment on it. If the fact that I happen to have Tri-Care bothers you then I suggest you advocate that military retiree's have that taken away from them, but I don't think you will get too far on that. On a side note what you should know is that I am a firm advocate for healthcare reform, however, mandating healthcare coverage for all is not the way to accomplish it nor is spending more than a Trillion Dollars that this nation does not have when we can reform healthcare without doing so.

Every citizen deserves healthcare as good as Tri-Care. Tri-Care is excellent and it's government run.

 

[Navy1960]

One of the President’s top priorities since coming into office has been to give our veterans "the care they were promised and the benefits that they have earned." That began with the largest single-year increase in VA funding in three decades, and with trying to initiating electronic medical records that would follow a member of the Armed Forces through their transition into VA care and stay with them forever.

The White House - Blog Post - Health Insurance Reform & TRICARE

Yes, Tri-Care is Govt. run, but what about earning those benefits is hard to understand? I have no issue with anyone who wishes to purchase Govt. run healthcare but they key word is they purchase and the program is self sustaining and not one dollar of tax money is used to support it nor is it made mandatory. Tri-Care is something that a man or woman earns as a result of Military service and is not given to them free of charge, and those who think for one moment this benefit was free, then take the time to talk to any career Military Officer or Enlisted person and they will tell you that benefit was "earned". It is no where near an example of a "public option" as has been implied and each citizen here has the right to petetion those who represent them to advocate for it's demise at anytime.

 

[Care4all]

Our president has taken it upon himself to usurp these freedoms from millions of Americans and does so because he believes that this nation should "change" into one that has less personal freedom and one where you should be ashamed to raise your head high if you dare to make something of yourself by your own hard work.

hmmm, just a tad bit of political editorializing for comfort on that one Navy.... how is it that you know this about obama?

Tell me Navy, when president bush pushed the Medicare Pill Bill through congress, costing nearly a trillion over 10 years, did you say this about him? "Our president has taken it upon himself to usurp these freedoms from millions of Americans and does so because he believes that this nation should "change" into one that has less personal freedom and one where you should be ashamed to raise your head high if you dare to make something of yourself by your own hard work.''?

Just Wondering...?

Care

 

[Bfgrn]

THIS is NOT socialized medicine, no death panels or government take over of health care

THIS is a sound plan that's reasonable, logical and DO-able! EVERY Congressman and Senator should endorse it...BUT, NO Republicans will support it...


If You Have Health Insurance
More Stability and Security

* Ends discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions. Over the last three years, 12 million people were denied coverage directly or indirectly through high premiums due to a pre-existing condition. Under the President’s plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny coverage for health reasons or risks.

* Limits premium discrimination based on gender and age. The President’s plan will end insurers’ practice of charging different premiums or denying coverage based on gender, and will limit premium variation based on age.

* Prevents insurance companies from dropping coverage when people are sick and need it most. The President’s plan prohibits insurance companies from rescinding coverage that has already been purchased except in cases of fraud. In most states, insurance companies can cancel a policy if any medical condition was not listed on the application – even one not related to a current illness or one the patient didn’t even know about. A recent Congressional investigation found that over five years, three large insurance companies cancelled coverage for 20,000 people, saving them from paying $300 million in medical claims - $300 million that became either an obligation for the patient’s family or bad debt for doctors and hospitals.

* Caps out-of pocket expenses so people don’t go broke when they get sick. The President’s plan will cap out-of-pocket expenses and will prohibit insurance companies from imposing annual or lifetime caps on benefit payments. A middle-class family purchasing health insurance directly from the individual insurance market today could spend up to 50 percent of household income on health care costs because there is no limit on out-of-pocket expenses.

* Eliminates extra charges for preventive care like mammograms, flu shots and diabetes tests to improve health and save money. The President’s plan ensures that all Americans have access to free preventive services under their health insurance plans. Too many Americans forgo needed preventive care, in part because of the cost of check-ups and screenings that can identify health problems early when they can be most effectively treated. For example, 24 percent of women age 40 and over have not received a mammogram in the past two years, and 38 percent of adults age 50 and over have never had a colon cancer screening.

* Protects Medicare for seniors. The President’s plan will extend new protections for Medicare beneficiaries that improve quality, coordinate care and reduce beneficiary and program costs. These protections will extend the life of the Medicare Trust Fund to pay for care for future generations.

* Eliminates the "donut-hole" gap in coverage for prescription drugs. The President’s plan begins immediately to close the Medicare "donut hole" - a current gap in its drug benefit - by providing a 50 percent discount on brand-name prescription drugs for seniors who fall into it. In 2007, over 8 million seniors hit this coverage gap in the standard Medicare drug benefit. By 2019, the President’s plan will completely close the "donut hole". The average out-of-pocket spending for such beneficiaries who lack another source of insurance is $4,080.

If You Don't Have Insurance
Quality, Affordable Choices for All Americans

* Creates a new insurance marketplace – the Exchange – that allows people without insurance and small businesses to compare plans and buy insurance at competitive prices. The President’s plan allows Americans who have health insurance and like it to keep it. But for those who lose their jobs, change jobs or move, new high quality, affordable options will be available in the exchange. Beginning in 2013, the Exchange will give Americans without access to affordable insurance on the job, and small businesses one-stop shopping for insurance where they can easily compare options based on price, benefits, and quality.

* Provides new tax credits to help people buy insurance. The President’s plan will provide new tax credits on a sliding scale to individuals and families that will limit how much of their income can be spent on premiums. There will also be greater protection for cost-sharing for out-of-pocket expenses.

* Provides small businesses tax credits and affordable options for covering employees. The President’s plan will also provide small businesses with tax credits to offset costs of providing coverage for their workers. Small businesses who for too long have faced higher prices than larger businesses, will now be eligible to enter the exchange so that they have lower costs and more choices for covering their workers.

* Offers a public health insurance option to provide the uninsured and those who can’t find affordable coverage with a real choice. The President believes this option will promote competition, hold insurance companies accountable and assure affordable choices. It is completely voluntary. The President believes the public option must operate like any private insurance company – it must be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects.

* Immediately offers new, low-cost coverage through a national "high risk" pool to protect people with preexisting conditions from financial ruin until the new Exchange is created. For those Americans who cannot get insurance coverage today because of a pre-existing condition, the President’s plan will immediately make available coverage without a mark-up due to their health condition. This policy will offer protection against financial ruin until a wider array of choices become available in the new exchange in 2013.

For All Americans
Reins In the Cost of Health Care for Our Families, Our Businesses, and Our Government

* Won’t add a dime to the deficit and is paid for upfront. The President’s plan will not add one dime to the deficit today or in the future and is paid for in a fiscally responsible way. It begins the process of reforming the health care system so that we can further curb health care cost growth over the long term, and invests in quality improvements, consumer protections, prevention, and premium assistance. The plan fully pays for this investment through health system savings and new revenue including a fee on insurance companies that sell very expensive plans.

* Requires additional cuts if savings are not realized. Under the plan, if the savings promised at the time of enactment don’t materialize, the President will be required to put forth additional savings to ensure that the plan does not add to the deficit.

* Implements a number of delivery system reforms that begin to rein in health care costs and align incentives for hospitals, physicians, and others to improve quality. The President’s plan includes proposals that will improve the way care is delivered to emphasize quality over quantity, including: incentives for hospitals to prevent avoidable readmissions, pilots for new "bundled" payments in Medicare, and support for new models of delivering care through medical homes and accountable care organizations that focus on a coordinated approach to care and outcomes.

* Creates an independent commission of doctors and medical experts to identify waste, fraud and abuse in the health care system. The President’s plan will create an independent Commission, made up of doctors and medical experts, to make recommendations to Congress each year on how to promote greater efficiency and higher quality in Medicare. The Commission will not be authorized to propose or implement Medicare changes that ration care or affect benefits, eligibility or beneficiary access to care. It will ensure that your tax dollars go directly to caring for seniors.

* Orders immediate medical malpractice reform projects that could help doctors focus on putting their patients first, not on practicing defensive medicine. The President’s plan instructs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to move forward on awarding medical malpractice demonstration grants to states funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality as soon as possible.

* Requires large employers to cover their employees and individuals who can afford it to buy insurance so everyone shares in the responsibility of reform. Under the President’s plan, large businesses – those with more than 50 workers – will be required to offer their workers coverage or pay a fee to help cover the cost of making coverage affordable in the exchange. This will ensure that workers in firms not offering coverage will have affordable coverage options for themselves and their families. Individuals who can afford it will have a responsibility to purchase coverage – but there will be a "hardship exemption" for those who cannot.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/health_care/plan/


Affordable health care for all is NOT the GOP's agenda...THIS IS!!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHV4nDS501Y]YouTube - Sen. Jim DeMint calls defeating Obama like Waterloo[/ame]

 

[Navy1960]

Our president has taken it upon himself to usurp these freedoms from millions of Americans and does so because he believes that this nation should "change" into one that has less personal freedom and one where you should be ashamed to raise your head high if you dare to make something of yourself by your own hard work.

hmmm, just a tad bit of political editorializing for comfort on that one Navy.... how is it that you know this about obama?

Tell me Navy, when president bush pushed the Medicare Pill Bill through congress, costing nearly a trillion over 10 years, did you say this about him? "Our president has taken it upon himself to usurp these freedoms from millions of Americans and does so because he believes that this nation should "change" into one that has less personal freedom and one where you should be ashamed to raise your head high if you dare to make something of yourself by your own hard work.''?

Just Wondering...?

Care

Ahh, Care if you assume that I am somehow an advocate for Medicare Part D, you would assume wrong. First of all the Medicare Part D is a debacle and in a lot of cases for the very same reason this reform bill will be and that is it fails to address the causes of high costs in an effort to deliver service. One more thing while I'm on the subject of the Bush Administration, this retro-active look back to the Bush Administration as a means to justify more spending simply because the Bush Administration was unable to keep his house in order is not a very good justification. Take for example TARP which like many of the current forms of bailouts and spending are no different than the current Presidents and actually my statement stands then as it does now and about the only difference is the 1 letter in the spelling of the two names Bush and Obama .. *smiles*

 

[Care4all]

One of the President’s top priorities since coming into office has been to give our veterans "the care they were promised and the benefits that they have earned." That began with the largest single-year increase in VA funding in three decades, and with trying to initiating electronic medical records that would follow a member of the Armed Forces through their transition into VA care and stay with them forever.

The White House - Blog Post - Health Insurance Reform & TRICARE

Yes, Tri-Care is Govt. run, but what about earning those benefits is hard to understand? I have no issue with anyone who wishes to purchase Govt. run healthcare but they key word is they purchase and the program is self sustaining and not one dollar of tax money is used to support it nor is it made mandatory. Tri-Care is something that a man or woman earns as a result of Military service and is not given to them free of charge, and those who think for one moment this benefit was free, then take the time to talk to any career Military Officer or Enlisted person and they will tell you that benefit was "earned". It is no where near an example of a "public option" as has been implied and each citizen here has the right to petetion those who represent them to advocate for it's demise at anytime.

Do all people who work 20 years for a company earn it as well? If they do not, why have you and my dad earned it from your employer and someone else has not earned for for 20 years of dedicated bust ass work from their employer?

Why do government jobs give better benefits than most free market jobs? I thought they gave the benefits to be competitive with the private sector but NOT TO OUT DO THEM overall?

The private sector has been LOSING employee benefits...should the gvt be keeping par with it and drop some benefit costs as well?

These are valid questions that no one wants to discuss?

My mother in law got tricare from her marriage at 75 to an ex military man, also 75, whose first wife was dead, then after 4 years of marriage he died and my mother in law continued with his tricare until she was 87, when she passed on....thank God she had it with all of her medical problems at the end of her life....but it is our tax dollars paying for these things...thinking about it...my mother in law was so poor though, she probably would have qualified for Medicaid on top of her medicare and still gotten good care, I suppose.

My parents are fairly wealthy, my mother never worked, my dad spent 22 years in the Air Force and my mom and him have had their medical care covered for almost 40 years now since he retired from the AF, and God willing another 20 years on top of that...even though they have some money saved, own their home and three cars, and an RV and vacation property out right...and even they, could not afford to pay, without great damage to their retirement nest egg and old age security, for their health care costs...Dad has had 3 different cancers now...colon, prostate and skin cancer...though he has caught all and beat all of them but the skin cancer, which keeps showing up and he has to have it removed... and mom has had some major accidents where bones were shattered and pins and screws and lots of surgeries to put humpty dumpty back together...but she is doing well now...

Basically, because my parents have had very good health insurance over the decades as a retirement benefit from the AF, he and my mother were given the opportunity to become wealthy and stay wealthy instead of lose everything they worked hard for...

Even in the private sector...employees after 20 years working for them do not get health care insurance when they leave...especially if they are only 40 yrs old like my dad was when he left the service....some corporation used to offer health insurance as part of our retirement packages when we were 62...until medicare kicked in, at 65...but since 40 years old? maybe the unions offered this, but you all have pretty much busted the unions starting with Reagan and those kind of benefits are not given now by them so again, why should the government? And I am not specifically talking the military because the military does risk their lives for us if called up to war, but all the other government jobs?

care

 

[Navy1960]

Tell you what, If any of my democrat friends can convince me or for that matter, show me where this "public option" can be self sustaining, and there is no mandatory clause as well as converage for people who are here in an illegal manner then you will have my support. While I see that Bf was kind enough to post the statement that it must be self sustaining and I find that encouraging, you will forgive my being a little skeptical as the Govt. does not have a good track record on these sorts of things be they Republicans or Democrats. The other thing here is this, it would seem to me that if the quest to provide this option is one that many think will cure everything, then take out the mandatory part(s) for individuals as well as providers and employers.

 

[Care4all]

Tell you what, If any of my democrat friends can convince me or for that matter, show me where this "public option" can be self sustaining, and there is no mandatory clause as well as converage for people who are here in an illegal manner then you will have my support. While I see that Bf was kind enough to post the statement that it must be self sustaining and I find that encouraging, you will forgive my being a little skeptical as the Govt. does not have a good track record on these sorts of things be they Republicans or Democrats. The other thing here is this, it would seem to me that if the quest to provide this option is one that many think will cure everything, then take out the mandatory part(s) for individuals as well as providers and employers.

It is in the hr3200 bill...i have posted it here...the part in the bill....gees, let me see if i can hunt it down again in the stupid 1100 pages of that bill....

brb

 

[Navy1960]

One of the President’s top priorities since coming into office has been to give our veterans "the care they were promised and the benefits that they have earned." That began with the largest single-year increase in VA funding in three decades, and with trying to initiating electronic medical records that would follow a member of the Armed Forces through their transition into VA care and stay with them forever.

The White House - Blog Post - Health Insurance Reform & TRICARE

Yes, Tri-Care is Govt. run, but what about earning those benefits is hard to understand? I have no issue with anyone who wishes to purchase Govt. run healthcare but they key word is they purchase and the program is self sustaining and not one dollar of tax money is used to support it nor is it made mandatory. Tri-Care is something that a man or woman earns as a result of Military service and is not given to them free of charge, and those who think for one moment this benefit was free, then take the time to talk to any career Military Officer or Enlisted person and they will tell you that benefit was "earned". It is no where near an example of a "public option" as has been implied and each citizen here has the right to petetion those who represent them to advocate for it's demise at anytime.

Do all people who work 20 years for a company earn it as well? If they do not, why have you and my dad earned it from your employer and someone else has not earned for for 20 years of dedicated bust ass work from their employer?

Why do government jobs give better benefits than most free market jobs? I thought they gave the benefits to be competitive with the private sector but NOT TO OUT DO THEM overall?

The private sector has been LOSING employee benefits...should the gvt be keeping par with it and drop some benefit costs as well?

These are valid questions that no one wants to discuss?

My mother in law got tricare from her marriage at 75 to an ex military man, also 75, whose first wife was dead, then after 4 years of marriage he died and my mother in law continued with his tricare until she was 87, when she passed on....thank God she had it with all of her medical problems at the end of her life....but it is our tax dollars paying for these things...thinking about it...my mother in law was so poor though, she probably would have qualified for Medicaid on top of her medicare and still gotten good care, I suppose.

My parents are fairly wealthy, my mother never worked, my dad spent 22 years in the Air Force and my mom and him have had their medical care covered for almost 40 years now since he retired from the AF, and God willing another 20 years on top of that...even though they have some money saved, own their home and three cars, and an RV and vacation property out right...and even they, could not afford to pay, without great damage to their retirement nest egg and old age security, for their health care costs...Dad has had 3 different cancers now...colon, prostate and skin cancer...though he has caught all and beat all of them but the skin cancer, which keeps showing up and he has to have it removed... and mom has had some major accidents where bones were shattered and pins and screws and lots of surgeries to put humpty dumpty back together...but she is doing well now...

Basically, because my parents have had very good health insurance over the decades as a retirement benefit from the AF, he and my mother were given the opportunity to become wealthy and stay wealthy instead of lose everything they worked hard for...

Even in the private sector...employees after 20 years working for them do not get health care insurance when they leave...especially if they are only 40 yrs old like my dad was when he left the service....some corporation used to offer health insurance as part of our retirement packages when we were 62...until medicare kicked in, at 65...but since 40 years old? maybe the unions offered this, but you all have pretty much busted the unions starting with Reagan and those kind of benefits are not given now by them so again, why should the government? And I am not specifically talking the military because the military does risk their lives for us if called up to war, but all the other government jobs?

care

You know what Care, I have said it many times and will say it once more, I don't think any rational person at least I hope so, would deny that healthcare costs are out of control. It is one reason I have said and continue to say offering health insurance to low income people can be easily fixed with the simple application of insurance reforms that congress has the power to do under the constitution. However, rather than reform these insurance companies congress aims to create another Govt. Dept. who's sole purpose is to provide an option to those who cannot afford private insurance. So if your a doctor, and you have a choice in patients guess who goes to to the back of the line? See my point here, one costs money no matter how you slice it because you have to create salaries, infrastructrue to support it, budgets, and eventually tax dollars to fund it . While the other which is a long term fix is a reform in the health insurance industry itself that congress regulates. Give you and example, congress could easily pass laws that require inter-state helath insurance companies to provide health insurance at low cost to low income people and do so across the nation. Those individuals who need and want it can also purchase it through the very same tax incentives that are in the current healthcare legislation now. This is just one little part of actually fixing healthcare costs among many, rather than not addressing the issue and attempting to pay for things without fixing them. Oh and I am sure you know this we as a nation honestly do not have the money for this.

 

[Bfgrn]

Senator says public health plan should operate like private insurance

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) says any new insurance program run by the government as part of sweeping reforms in Washington, D.C., should follow the same rules and standards as current insurance.

Schumer’s proposal came May 4 after Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont) asked his colleague for a solution in the growing debate over a private versus public health insurance program, according to the New York Times.

The goal, according to Schumer, the third-ranking member of the Senate Democratic leadership, is “a level playing field for competition” between public and private insurers, the report states.

In his proposal to the Baucus’ Senate Finance Committee, Schumer outlined several principals, the Times said:

* A public plan must be self-sustaining; it should pay claims with money generated by premiums and co-payments, not receive tax revenue or government appropriations;

* A public plan should pay more than what Medicare pays to doctors and hospitals;

* The government should not compel doctors and hospitals to join the public plan just because they currently participate in Medicare; and

* The officials who manage a public plan should be different from those regulating the insurance market, to prevent the government from being both “player and umpire.”

Schumer also said the public plan should be required to establish a reserve fund, similar to how private insurers maintain reserves for the payment of anticipated claims, the report said. The public plan should also be required to provide the same minimum benefits as private insurers.

On Wednesday (May 5), the Senate Finance Committee held its second of three roundtable discussions on the topic of “expanding health care coverage.” Among those testifying before the committee were Karen Ignagni, president and CEO of America’s Health Insurance Plans, and Scott Serota, president and CEO for Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association.

Senator says public health plan should operate like private insurance | IFAwebnews.com

 

[Care4all]

Tell you what, If any of my democrat friends can convince me or for that matter, show me where this "public option" can be self sustaining, and there is no mandatory clause as well as converage for people who are here in an illegal manner then you will have my support. While I see that Bf was kind enough to post the statement that it must be self sustaining and I find that encouraging, you will forgive my being a little skeptical as the Govt. does not have a good track record on these sorts of things be they Republicans or Democrats. The other thing here is this, it would seem to me that if the quest to provide this option is one that many think will cure everything, then take out the mandatory part(s) for individuals as well as providers and employers.

ok, on the pdf document of hr3200, it starts on page 116.....it is part of TITLE 2 SUBCHAPTER B


this shows they gotta follow all rules and regs as the private plans on the exchange...

(b) OFFERING AS AN EXCHANGE-PARTICIPATING
19 HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN.—
20 (1) EXCLUSIVE TO THE EXCHANGE.—The pub
21lic health insurance option shall only be made avail22
able through the Health Insurance Exchange.
23 (2) ENSURING A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD.—Con24
sistent with this subtitle, the public health insurance
25 option shall comply with requirements that are ap-
plicable under this title to an Exchange-participating
2 health benefits plan, including requirements related
3 to benefits, benefit levels, provider networks, notices,
4 consumer protections, and cost sharing.
5 (3) PROVISION OF BENEFIT LEVELS.—The pub6
lic health insurance option—
7 (A) shall offer basic, enhanced, and pre8
mium plans; and
9 (B) may offer premium-plus plans.

and this covering all costs of the plan through premiums, with a padded margin in case something goes wrong...all from people buying the policies...

23 SEC. 222. PREMIUMS AND FINANCING.
24 (a) ESTABLISHMENT OF PREMIUMS.—
VerDate Nov 24 2008 23:22 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
119
•HR 3200 IH
1 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish
2 geographically-adjusted premium rates for the public
3 health insurance option in a manner—
4 (A) that complies with the premium rules
5 established by the Commissioner under section
6 113 for Exchange-participating health benefit
7 plans; and
8 (B) at a level sufficient to fully finance the
9 costs of—
10 (i) health benefits provided by the
11 public health insurance option; and
12 (ii) administrative costs related to op13
erating the public health insurance option.
14 (2) CONTINGENCY MARGIN.—In establishing
15 premium rates under paragraph (1), the Secretary
16 shall include an appropriate amount for a contin17
gency margin.

 

[veritas]

I appreciate military service, I really do.....but in order to have a military in which to serve, some of us have to stay here and have jobs and pay taxes so we can pay to have that military. The way our system is set up, not everybody can serve in the military. I don't think one function is more honorable or worthy than the other. So saying you earned it isn't washing with me, we all earn it. We make things and grow food and operate the the country and have children. That being said, I wouldn't have invaded Iraq or Afghanistan. I think our soldiers are far too valuable to be wasted on those fool's errands. I don't see why being a soldier is any more valuable than another occupation, or more deserving.

 

[Political Junky]

I appreciate military service, I really do.....but in order to have a military in which to serve, some of us have to stay here and have jobs and pay taxes so we can pay to have that military. The way our system is set up, not everybody can serve in the military. I don't think one function is more honorable or worthy than the other. So saying you earned it isn't washing with me, we all earn it. We make things and grow food and operate the the country and have children. That being said, I wouldn't have invaded Iraq or Afghanistan. I think our soldiers are far too valuable to be wasted on those fool's errands. I don't see why being a soldier is any more valuable than another occupation, or more deserving.

 

[Annie]

Thank you for your service. I served on active duty more than a decade, and I think you are simply making right wing talking points. The great majority of Americans rightly believe that they were betrayed by the last administration's foreign adventurism, cultural irresponsibility, and corporatist leniency.

Assuming this is true...

The majority of Americans acted in the best of American interests -- they threw the sonsofguns out.

This result would make total sense, which it does.

If this administration demonstrates that it cannot turn the ship of state around, then it will be thrown out of office.

and that is what seems to be happening.

But we are not going back to 2001 to 2006 anytime soon. Too many Americans were too badly burned by those folks and their policies.

problem is, it's happening faster than you thought possible.

 

[Navy1960]

Tell you what, If any of my democrat friends can convince me or for that matter, show me where this "public option" can be self sustaining, and there is no mandatory clause as well as converage for people who are here in an illegal manner then you will have my support. While I see that Bf was kind enough to post the statement that it must be self sustaining and I find that encouraging, you will forgive my being a little skeptical as the Govt. does not have a good track record on these sorts of things be they Republicans or Democrats. The other thing here is this, it would seem to me that if the quest to provide this option is one that many think will cure everything, then take out the mandatory part(s) for individuals as well as providers and employers.

ok, on the pdf document of hr3200, it starts on page 116.....it is part of TITLE 2 SUBCHAPTER B


this shows they gotta follow all rules and regs as the private plans on the exchange...

(b) OFFERING AS AN EXCHANGE-PARTICIPATING
19 HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN.—
20 (1) EXCLUSIVE TO THE EXCHANGE.—The pub
21lic health insurance option shall only be made avail22
able through the Health Insurance Exchange.
23 (2) ENSURING A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD.—Con24
sistent with this subtitle, the public health insurance
25 option shall comply with requirements that are ap-
plicable under this title to an Exchange-participating
2 health benefits plan, including requirements related
3 to benefits, benefit levels, provider networks, notices,
4 consumer protections, and cost sharing.
5 (3) PROVISION OF BENEFIT LEVELS.—The pub6
lic health insurance option—
7 (A) shall offer basic, enhanced, and pre8
mium plans; and
9 (B) may offer premium-plus plans.

and this covering all costs of the plan through premiums, with a padded margin in case something goes wrong...all from people buying the policies...

23 SEC. 222. PREMIUMS AND FINANCING.
24 (a) ESTABLISHMENT OF PREMIUMS.—
VerDate Nov 24 2008 23:22 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
119
•HR 3200 IH
1 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish
2 geographically-adjusted premium rates for the public
3 health insurance option in a manner—
4 (A) that complies with the premium rules
5 established by the Commissioner under section
6 113 for Exchange-participating health benefit
7 plans; and
8 (B) at a level sufficient to fully finance the
9 costs of—
10 (i) health benefits provided by the
11 public health insurance option; and
12 (ii) administrative costs related to op13
erating the public health insurance option.
14 (2) CONTINGENCY MARGIN.—In establishing
15 premium rates under paragraph (1), the Secretary
16 shall include an appropriate amount for a contin17
gency margin.

While I understand where your going with that Care as part of it bein self-sustaining, where does this department get it's budget from? Where does it pay all the much needed employee's to provide the administration for it and all the infrastructure that will be needed to support it? (taxes) or perhaps reducing Medicare payments to Doctors? Further, then you have this section,

Sec. 401. Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.

‘‘(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual
21 who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at
22 any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed
23 a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—

Therefore making it mandatory that you have healthcare coverage or pay a penalty for not having it. As I had said in an earlier post, if the true aim were to provide low cost healthcare coverage to those that need it and want it, then fine, create the Govt. department that democrats want so badly, make it self sustaining completely and do not back door fund it by adding a penalty to those that choose not to have. You do realize that all congress needs to do is lower the age limit for Medicare eligibility right? Then go about the business of actually fixing Medicare, see what I mean? Govt. has many tools in it's box to reform healthcare without having to create a massive new Govt. department and do so in a time when this nation cannot afford it. If the true aim is to create a "single payer" healthcare system then come out and say so, don't beat around the bush lay your cards on the table , I for one can respect someone taking a stand even though I may disagree with it at least that makes much more sense than this muddy spending free for all that doesnt solve a thing. You know I respect you a great deal Care and would love to see healthcare reformed, and have great respect for the goal here, but it's how we get there that seems to seperate us. I truley believe that congress has and always has had the power to regulate the insurance industry to such a degree, that the issue of low cost insurance to low income people and those with pre-conditions should not be an issue.

 

[Navy1960]

I appreciate military service, I really do.....but in order to have a military in which to serve, some of us have to stay here and have jobs and pay taxes so we can pay to have that military. The way our system is set up, not everybody can serve in the military. I don't think one function is more honorable or worthy than the other. So saying you earned it isn't washing with me, we all earn it. We make things and grow food and operate the the country and have children. That being said, I wouldn't have invaded Iraq or Afghanistan. I think our soldiers are far too valuable to be wasted on those fool's errands. I don't see why being a soldier is any more valuable than another occupation, or more deserving.

Let's see where to begin here, first of all if by reading what I had posted you assumed that I had somehow placed civilians below that of military people when it comes to "earning" what they work for then you assume incorrectly. Then again, the average civilian worker does not have to be away from his or her family for extended periods of time and while doing so place themselves in harms way, and then return on occasion to see their son's and daughters who they barely know grow only in pic's, letter's and e-mails. What I had posted was to give someone an idea that when a man or woman signs up for the US military knowing that they also know that by meeting to goals set down to them they will eventually "earn" things such as Tri-Care in this case. So yes on average after a 20 year career of what I have posted above of several duty stations, many cruises, several places the world over where you have personally put your behind in harms way and have been away from your family and loved ones for long periods of time, getting a benefit such as Tri-Care is actually a small token for the sacrifice that those men and women have made for their nation. Do I think that civilians are less deserving of low cost healthcare? No I do not, however the methods by which a person in civilian life "earns" those benefits are varied and can range from outright having to pay for them, or have them given to them as part of let's say working for a company,city,etc for an extended period of time. That does not make them any less deserving than the military person that earns his or her's, however to make a blanket statment that military personal are somehow given this "free Govt. healthcare" is a completely false notion and they pay for that benefit not more or less than the civilian does and in some case a whole lot more.

As for where the US Military is deployed, respectfully you are entitled of course to your opinion but perhaps that is best debated in a different thread.