56% of Americans favor healthcare reform this year

[editec]

But even Medicare requires different supplemental plans, and seniors do pay for it. My parents are 72 and 78, and they pay around $500 per month, so it's still not 100% free, which it shouldn't be, at least to those who can afford to pay something.

No one is advocating "free healthcare." Every system has some sort of co-pay.

Every other industrialized country in the world has a national healthcare system except the United States. Why? Because taking care of the sick is the right thing to do.

And people from every other industrialized country in the world with government health care come to the United states for care.

why?

Oh yeah...whenever I go into a hospital in America is totally overrun by foreignor seeking our health care.

Are you ******* nuts?

 

[elvis]

Actually, they are overrun by people on Medicaid who are abusing the system.

 

[Skull Pilot]

No one is advocating "free healthcare." Every system has some sort of co-pay.

Every other industrialized country in the world has a national healthcare system except the United States. Why? Because taking care of the sick is the right thing to do.

And people from every other industrialized country in the world with government health care come to the United states for care.

why?

Oh yeah...whenever I go into a hospital in America is totally overrun by foreignor seeking our health care.

Are you ******* nuts?

they're called illegal immigrants

 

[Chris]

I favor reform...but I'm not sure I favor the current reform proposals

AT 1100 pages, none of which I have read, it would be hard for me to favor something I as yet do not understand.

What I think I know is this: if we do nothing it will go from very bad to very very very bad.

But that doesn't mean that we cannot reform our way into something even worse, too.

I do not understand how the propopsed Obama system will work.

We will have the choice of a government HC insurance option, or keep our own private HC insurance?

Now how on earth is that going to work to solve the problem?

I can't see any mechnanism there that will do anything about keeping prices down.

If anyone understands this proposed system well enough to really explain it to me, I'd appreciate their thoughts on the subject.

Or, if anyone knows of a website that explains it in some detail that would be good, too.

It's pretty simple really.

Obama wants to outlaw insurance companies from refusing to accept people for "pre-existing conditions." The insurance companies don't want to insure anyone who is sick. That's the great thing about for profit healthcare. It provides an incentive not to help sick people.

Obama also wants to provide a public option, so people who want to can sign up for government sponsored healthcare....a sort of Medicare for everyone. The Republicans and the Blue Dog Democrats are against this because they have received $3.4 BILLION DOLLARS in contributions from the healthcare industry, and they know who their real masters are. There are also some provisions in the bill to stop paying Medicare subsidies to insurance companies.

In the end we may end up with the worst of both worlds, with the government paying for profit insurance companies to insure people. This is what Mass. did, and it is stupid.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I favor reform...but I'm not sure I favor the current reform proposals

AT 1100 pages, none of which I have read, it would be hard for me to favor something I as yet do not understand.

What I think I know is this: if we do nothing it will go from very bad to very very very bad.

But that doesn't mean that we cannot reform our way into something even worse, too.

I do not understand how the propopsed Obama system will work.

We will have the choice of a government HC insurance option, or keep our own private HC insurance?

Now how on earth is that going to work to solve the problem?

I can't see any mechnanism there that will do anything about keeping prices down.

If anyone understands this proposed system well enough to really explain it to me, I'd appreciate their thoughts on the subject.

Or, if anyone knows of a website that explains it in some detail that would be good, too.

It's pretty simple really.

Obama wants to outlaw insurance companies from refusing to accept people for "pre-existing conditions." The insurance companies don't want to insure anyone who is sick. That's the great thing about for profit healthcare. It provides an incentive not to help sick people.

Obama also wants to provide a public option, so people who want to can sign up for government sponsored healthcare....a sort of Medicare for everyone. The Republicans and the Blue Dog Democrats are against this because they have received $3.4 BILLION DOLLARS in contributions from the healthcare industry, and they know who their real masters are. There are also some provisions in the bill to stop paying Medicare subsidies to insurance companies.

In the end we may end up with the worst of both worlds, with the government paying for profit insurance companies to insure people. This is what Mass. did, and it is stupid.

Yes it is simple.

The government wants to tell private companies what they can charge for premiums. For example, an insurance company must not charge higher premiums if you have cancer or weigh 800 pounds than they would for a healthy Olympic athlete.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi | Current Legislation

* No more co-pays or deductibles for preventive care
* No more rate increases for pre-existing conditions, gender, or occupation
* An annual cap on your out-of-pocket expenses
* Group rates of a national pool if you buy your own plan
* Guaranteed, affordable oral, hearing, and vision care for your kids

So the government wants to limit what insurance companies charge and raise what insurance companies have to pay out in benefits to an infinite amount.

They will do this while saying the government plan with its unlimited financial resources (that's our money) will provide "competition"

To put it another way using an example of another failing government service that is costing us not the trillions that health care will but billions nonetheless, the Postal Service, the same government "competitive" model logic would work like this:

The government in its quest to provide equal access to package delivery services will mandate what Fed Ex and UPS can charge to ship something.

The price of shipping will be set at X dollars no matter if the package weighs one ounce or 100 pounds and no matter if the package is being shipped across town in 5 days or over night to Antarctica.

The Post Office will then guarantee that they can do all that and more for the same X dollars even though the math doesn't add up. the government will simply levy a tax on ALL people to pay for it. Sooner rather than later private package delivery will cease to exist and the only "option" will be the government run service.

That is the government insurance "option" in a nut shell

 

[Chris]

It works for me.

Our system sucks.

I would like to see a public option and no refusing people for pre-existing conditions.

 

[Skull Pilot]

yeah no choice no freedom

the government running your ******* life

that would work for you because you wouldn't have to work at all

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

Speaker Nancy Pelosi | Current Legislation[/url]

* No more co-pays or deductibles for preventive care
* No more rate increases for pre-existing conditions, gender, or occupation
* An annual cap on your out-of-pocket expenses
* Group rates of a national pool if you buy your own plan
* Guaranteed, affordable oral, hearing, and vision care for your kids

So the government wants to limit what insurance companies charge and raise what insurance companies have to pay out in benefits to an infinite amount.

They will do this while saying the government plan with its unlimited financial resources (that's our money) will provide "competition"

To put it another way using an example of another failing government service that is costing us not the trillions that health care will but billions nonetheless, the Postal Service, the same government "competitive" model logic would work like this:

The government in its quest to provide equal access to package delivery services will mandate what Fed Ex and UPS can charge to ship something.

The price of shipping will be set at X dollars no matter if the package weighs one ounce or 100 pounds and no matter if the package is being shipped across town in 5 days or over night to Antarctica.

The Post Office will then guarantee that they can do all that and more for the same X dollars even though the math doesn't add up. the government will simply levy a tax on ALL people to pay for it. Sooner rather than later private package delivery will cease to exist and the only "option" will be the government run service.

That is the government insurance "option" in a nut shell

You post office analogy is complete BS. The USPS receives no tax dollars and is completely self-supporting.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Speaker Nancy Pelosi | Current Legislation[/url]

* No more co-pays or deductibles for preventive care
* No more rate increases for pre-existing conditions, gender, or occupation
* An annual cap on your out-of-pocket expenses
* Group rates of a national pool if you buy your own plan
* Guaranteed, affordable oral, hearing, and vision care for your kids

So the government wants to limit what insurance companies charge and raise what insurance companies have to pay out in benefits to an infinite amount.

They will do this while saying the government plan with its unlimited financial resources (that's our money) will provide "competition"

To put it another way using an example of another failing government service that is costing us not the trillions that health care will but billions nonetheless, the Postal Service, the same government "competitive" model logic would work like this:

The government in its quest to provide equal access to package delivery services will mandate what Fed Ex and UPS can charge to ship something.

The price of shipping will be set at X dollars no matter if the package weighs one ounce or 100 pounds and no matter if the package is being shipped across town in 5 days or over night to Antarctica.

The Post Office will then guarantee that they can do all that and more for the same X dollars even though the math doesn't add up. the government will simply levy a tax on ALL people to pay for it. Sooner rather than later private package delivery will cease to exist and the only "option" will be the government run service.

That is the government insurance "option" in a nut shell

You post office analogy is complete BS. The USPS receives no tax dollars and is completely self-supporting.

and is running a 7 billion dollar deficit in 2009

now where do you think the post office will get that 7 billion?

And where do you think the postal service got the money to close the 2008 deficit of over 2 billion and the 2007 deficit of over 5 billion

can you say the federal government?

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

You post office analogy is complete BS. The USPS receives no tax dollars and is completely self-supporting.

and is running a 7 billion dollar deficit in 2009

now where do you think the post office will get that 7 billion?

And where do you think the postal service got the money to close the 2008 deficit of over 2 billion and the 2007 deficit of over 5 billion

can you say the federal government?

Why do you think the USPS has been laying off? And targeting offices for closure? And asking Congress for a 5-day work week?

Show me one piece of "bailout" legislation for the post office that's been signed into law since 2006. Just one. I dare you.

 

[Coyote]

99% of Americans want REFORM. But 99% do not want a NATIONAL TAKEOVER OF OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.

None of us are in love with private health insurance providers, we think they are ruthless, however, the government is even more ruthless than they are. It is a choice between two evils.

The health care system can be reformed, with cost control measures such as tort reform, opening up states to out of state competition, health insurance savings plans, quality of care not quantity, electronic records, etc. This can all be done with limited government involvement, just get rid of some old legislation and pass some new ones. Health care fixed 101.

Why not reform it with a mixture of public and private plans? The argument that is presented by reform's most vocal critics is that the only choices are the status quo or total government takeover which is not even a serious option.

I agree that tort reform needs to be part of the solution as well as much of what you suggest but I don't think it's enough by itself and it won't happen without limited government involvement because that is exactly what we have right now - limited government involvement and no incentive for the major players to change the status quo as there is too much money involved.

 

[mskafka]

Actually, they are overrun by people on Medicaid who are abusing the system.

Greetings, droog! You probably already know this, but the reason that so many people on medicaid go to emergency rooms, is because they either have not found (for whatever reason), or cannot find a physician who accepts medicaid. And a lot of the people in emergency rooms are the uninsured (for whatever reason) and clinics won't see them unless they can pay the entire bill up front.

And don't you dare call me a "daft ****".

 

[Coyote]

And people from every other industrialized country in the world with government health care come to the United states for care.

why?

Why indeed?

Do you have any data on how many people actually come to the US for health care? When I searched, I found an article that would seem to indicate the it isn't many and in the case of those from countries with nationalized healthcare it is for expediting elective or cosmetic surgery. In fact it seems as if people are traveling to other countries, not the US because of the cost.

Globalisation and health care: Operating profit | The Economist

Some wealthy patients have always travelled for fancy medical care. Denis Cortese, head of the Mayo Clinic, in rural Minnesota, observes that “we have been global for a hundred years.” A few years ago Britons fed up with waiting for elective surgery started heading overseas to get joints replaced or cosmetic surgery—sometimes at government expense. Recently, shorter queues in the National Health Service and restrictions on reimbursements have undermined this trend.

However, globe-trotting patients only ever occupied a niche. What is getting people excited today is the promise of a boom in mass medical tourism, as a much bigger group of middle-class Americans prepares to take the plunge. A report published last month by Deloitte, a consultancy, predicts that the number of Americans travelling abroad for treatment will soar from 750,000 last year to 6m by 2010 and reach 10m by 2012 (see chart). Its authors reckon that this exodus will be worth $21 billion a year to developing countries in four years’ time. Europe’s state-funded systems still give patients every reason to stay at home, but even there, private patients may start to travel more as it becomes cheaper and easier to get treated abroad.

 

[Toro]

No one is advocating "free healthcare." Every system has some sort of co-pay.

Every other industrialized country in the world has a national healthcare system except the United States. Why? Because taking care of the sick is the right thing to do.

Most Canadians do not have a co-pay.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You post office analogy is complete BS. The USPS receives no tax dollars and is completely self-supporting.

and is running a 7 billion dollar deficit in 2009

now where do you think the post office will get that 7 billion?

And where do you think the postal service got the money to close the 2008 deficit of over 2 billion and the 2007 deficit of over 5 billion

can you say the federal government?

Why do you think the USPS has been laying off? And targeting offices for closure? And asking Congress for a 5-day work week?

Show me one piece of "bailout" legislation for the post office that's been signed into law since 2006. Just one. I dare you.

ooooh you dare me

the post office has been dependent on loans from the FFB

Postal Service Must Enter 21st Century - washingtonpost.com

THE POST office may be the next too-big thing. If it continues on its present course, the U.S. Postal Service stands to post $6 billion to $12 billion in losses by the end of the fiscal year. By the end of the second quarter of fiscal 2009, it had racked up an operating loss of more than $2 billion, almost equal to its total losses last year. So far, the Postal Service has depended on loans from the Federal Financing Bank, a federal borrowing agency, to help make up the difference, but it is fast approaching its $15 billion credit limit. Something has to give.

And who fund this federal borrowing agency?

the tax payers.

Federal Financing Bank

The Federal Financing Bank (FFB) is a government corporation, created by Congress in 1973 under the general supervision of the Secretary of the Treasury. The FFB was established to centralize and reduce the cost of federal borrowing, as well as federally-assisted borrowing from the public. The FFB was also established to deal with federal budget management issues which occurred when off-budget financing flooded the government securities market with offers of a variety of government-backed securities that were competing with Treasury securities. Today the FFB has statutory authority to purchase any obligation issued, sold, or guaranteed by a federal agency to ensure that fully guaranteed obligations are financed efficiently.

So I dare you to tell me that the post office operates with absolutely no tax payer expense when we fund the very congressional program that the post office has been using to fund its shortfalls

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

and is running a 7 billion dollar deficit in 2009

now where do you think the post office will get that 7 billion?

And where do you think the postal service got the money to close the 2008 deficit of over 2 billion and the 2007 deficit of over 5 billion

can you say the federal government?

Why do you think the USPS has been laying off? And targeting offices for closure? And asking Congress for a 5-day work week?

Show me one piece of "bailout" legislation for the post office that's been signed into law since 2006. Just one. I dare you.

ooooh you dare me

the post office has been dependent on loans from the FFB

Postal Service Must Enter 21st Century - washingtonpost.com

THE POST office may be the next too-big thing. If it continues on its present course, the U.S. Postal Service stands to post $6 billion to $12 billion in losses by the end of the fiscal year. By the end of the second quarter of fiscal 2009, it had racked up an operating loss of more than $2 billion, almost equal to its total losses last year. So far, the Postal Service has depended on loans from the Federal Financing Bank, a federal borrowing agency, to help make up the difference, but it is fast approaching its $15 billion credit limit. Something has to give.

And who fund this federal borrowing agency?

the tax payers.

Federal Financing Bank

The Federal Financing Bank (FFB) is a government corporation, created by Congress in 1973 under the general supervision of the Secretary of the Treasury. The FFB was established to centralize and reduce the cost of federal borrowing, as well as federally-assisted borrowing from the public. The FFB was also established to deal with federal budget management issues which occurred when off-budget financing flooded the government securities market with offers of a variety of government-backed securities that were competing with Treasury securities. Today the FFB has statutory authority to purchase any obligation issued, sold, or guaranteed by a federal agency to ensure that fully guaranteed obligations are financed efficiently.

So I dare you to tell me that the post office operates with absolutely no tax payer expense when we fund the very congressional program that the post office has been using to fund its shortfalls

Nice try, but apparently you didn't read your own links. Nothing comes out of taxpayers' pockets unless (or until) the USPS defaults on its loans.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

A new USA Today/Gallup poll just out of the field has some interesting data about Americans' opinions on health care reform, as the Congressional debate continues:

The poll of 3,026 adults, surveyed Friday through Sunday, has a margin of error of +/—2 percentage points. Some questions, asked of half the sample, have an error margin of +/—3 points.

By 56%-33%, those surveyed endorse the idea of enacting major health care changes this year. Just one in four say it's not important to them.

USA Today/Gallup Poll: Americans want health care reform | Fired Up! Missouri

You made this thread like 6 weeks ago and said it was 72% http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...ricans-support-government-run-healthcare.html

you are a funny guy.

You do realize many of us want the system reformed but very few of us support the House Resolution 3200 that the President is pushing right now, dont you?

not that you will actually answer a legitimate challenge to your ideology

 

[Dreamy]

One simple question to supporters of more intervention into our personal health care? Do you like the way the government runs other health plans? Medicare? Have you ever looked to see how the costs have gone crazy since that program's inception?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

One simple question to supporters of more intervention into our personal health care? Do you like the way the government runs other health plans? Medicare? Have you ever looked to see how the costs have gone crazy since that program's inception?

Medicare overshot its projected cost by a multiple of over 10. If that happens with this proposal it will need over 10trillion in funding.

Look to the Treaties with Native Americans where the govt promised to provide health care then look at the quality of care they actually recieve.

Look to social security.

Look to the underfunding of cash for clunkers


Shall i continue or is that enough for the intellectually honest in here?

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

One simple question to supporters of more intervention into our personal health care? Do you like the way the government runs other health plans? Medicare? Have you ever looked to see how the costs have gone crazy since that program's inception?

Medicare overshot its projected cost by a multiple of over 10. If that happens with this proposal it will need over 10trillion in funding.

Look to the Treaties with Native Americans where the govt promised to provide health care then look at the quality of care they actually recieve.

Look to social security.

Look to the underfunding of cash for clunkers


Shall i continue or is that enough for the intellectually honest in here?

What confounds me no end is why anyone would think that a for-profit based system is somehow better for them.