Oops: CBO Says GOP Health Care ‘Alternative’ Leaves 52 Million Uninsured By 2019

[Mr. Peepers]

Yes, actually, it does. If you lose your spouse, you can still work. If you get cancer, or have a heart attack or stroke with no insurance, then lose your job and house due to unpaid (or unpayable) medical bills, it makes things a wee bit harder. How many people lose their "breadwinner" - (aren't all people required to win bread at this point?), compared to those being ruined by a $500,000 medical bill. Come on! Open your partisan eyes. If there were a true low cost option with teeth, there wouldn't be an issue, but there ISN'T.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

Yes, actually, it does. If you lose your spouse, you can still work. If you get cancer, or have a heart attack or stroke with no insurance, then lose your job and house due to unpaid (or unpayable) medical bills, it makes things a wee bit harder. How many people lose their "breadwinner" - (aren't all people required to win bread at this point?), compared to those being ruined by a $500,000 medical bill. Come on! Open your partisan eyes. If there were a true low cost option with teeth, there wouldn't be an issue, but there ISN'T.

Liberal lala land. If only we could enact (insert social program) life would be a wonderland of daisies amidst fields of green, where unicorns would prance and faeries flitter....

 

[DiamondDave]

Yes, actually, it does. If you lose your spouse, you can still work. If you get cancer, or have a heart attack or stroke with no insurance, then lose your job and house due to unpaid (or unpayable) medical bills, it makes things a wee bit harder. How many people lose their "breadwinner" - (aren't all people required to win bread at this point?), compared to those being ruined by a $500,000 medical bill. Come on! Open your partisan eyes. If there were a true low cost option with teeth, there wouldn't be an issue, but there ISN'T.

Liberal lala land. If only we could enact (insert social program) life would be a wonderland of daisies amidst fields of green, where unicorns would prance and faeries flitter....

And the guy only means low cost for SOME....

Because... that way others that they deem 'evil' can pay more to make up for it.... because only selective equality matters... not equal treatment under the law.. forced equal results for their pet project group

Or if not that, they can deem how much a Dr. makes is 'enough'.. or how much profit for an office or a hospital or a drug company or whatever else is 'enough'... expanding that power of government to control what you can get for your talent and services...

With the freedom to succeed comes the freedom to fail... and that makes them FEEL bad.. so they selectively try and safety net to 'protect' from failure, by infringing on the freedom of others

 

[ThePickledPunk]

Bingo.

 

[Polk]

[/B]
Please explain that...because it really doesn't make any sense

It makes perfect sense. The number of people buying insurance as individuals is smaller than the number who are uninsured.

I am sure you have some factual basis to support this

16% > 5%

 

[Polk]

It makes perfect sense. The number of people buying insurance as individuals is smaller than the number who are uninsured.

I am sure you have some factual basis to support this

"The percentages of people covered by private health insurance and by employment-based health insurance both decreased slightly in 2007, the Census numbers showed, although the number of those covered by employment-based insurance, 177.4 million, was not statistically different from 2006."

Census: Fewer Americans Lack Health Insurance - 8/26/2008 - insurancenewsnet.com

Just Polk talking out his ass again.

At no point does that article state that more people are covered by individual insurance purchase than are uninsured.

 

[DiamondDave]

Ever consider getting 2 $10 an hour jobs??

Well considering it's next to impossible to get ONE $10 an hour job, sure. It's not like she's turning them down. And skybox tickets won't bankrupt you, ruin your credit or make you lose your house if you don't get them. Tickets are a want, not a need. Health insurance is a need if you are not wealthy. You need to be healthy and able to work. You need to work to make money. If you don't make enough money, you can't afford health insurance. If you don't have health insurance and get really sick, you can lose your job. If you can't work, you can't make money. See the cycle dumb neocons?

My wife and I receive healthcare. We live on 70k a year.....in San Diego. Not exactly rich. And over 200 million people in this country have health insurance. Of those that dont, only about ten million truly cannot afford it. You are hysterical.

If I lost my job tomorrow, there is no way I could afford health insurance. I can barely afford what I'm paying now with my company insurance. 70K a year is a lot of money, no matter where you are. You don't see anything wrong with this picture? It's okay to be one job loss and one major sickness away from complete financial and credit ruin because I don't make enough to significantly "save for an emergency"? Yeah, I could get another 2 or 3 jobs if I never slept.

First off idiot, try and understand that there is a difference between a neo-con, a conservative, and a republican... before you make yourself look even more ignorant

Second.. Healthcare or health insurance is not a NEED.. try understanding Maslovs hierarchy of needs, you twit.... health insurance is a want, a luxury... .water is a need, food is a need, shelter is a need.... and you are not OWED them by anyone either

 

[HUGGY]

Ever consider getting 2 $10 an hour jobs??

Well considering it's next to impossible to get ONE $10 an hour job, sure. It's not like she's turning them down. And skybox tickets won't bankrupt you, ruin your credit or make you lose your house if you don't get them. Tickets are a want, not a need. Health insurance is a need if you are not wealthy. You need to be healthy and able to work. You need to work to make money. If you don't make enough money, you can't afford health insurance. If you don't have health insurance and get really sick, you can lose your job. If you can't work, you can't make money. See the cycle dumb neocons?

My wife and I receive healthcare. We live on 70k a year.....in San Diego. Not exactly rich. And over 200 million people in this country have health insurance. Of those that dont, only about ten million truly cannot afford it. You are hysterical.

If I lost my job tomorrow, there is no way I could afford health insurance. I can barely afford what I'm paying now with my company insurance. 70K a year is a lot of money, no matter where you are. You don't see anything wrong with this picture? It's okay to be one job loss and one major sickness away from complete financial and credit ruin because I don't make enough to significantly "save for an emergency"? Yeah, I could get another 2 or 3 jobs if I never slept.

First off idiot, try and understand that there is a difference between a neo-con, a conservative, and a republican... before you make yourself look even more ignorant

Second.. Healthcare or health insurance is not a NEED.. try understanding Maslovs hierarchy of needs, you twit.... health insurance is a want, a luxury... .water is a need, food is a need, shelter is a need.... and you are not OWED them by anyone either

You're a real peach davey. Its obvious that no americans were worthy of your service.

 

[Care4all]

STOP the tax write -off to businesses on their taxes for their help in paying your health care....

see how long your company pays the coverage of it....

if we do not get health care costs in line, our businesses will not be able to compete globally, with all other country's businesses that do not pay for health care, but have a national health care plan paying for it through taxes.

we do need to discuss this aspect of health care.

more and more businesses are dropping their health care benefit, because they simply can not make a profit and keep their businesses alive, with it.

Also, why do we, the tax payer, have to pay 80% of the cost of all government civil service employee health care insurance....while we the tax payer, do not get the same privilege of our gvt paying for 80% of our health care when we are working as well? what makes the man behind the counter at Unemployment or Welfare just handing out checks to people, or someone at baggage claim keeping the luggage on the moving ramp.... worthy of my tax dollars to pay for his health insurance?

IF we REALLY want government OUT OF HEALTH CARE and REALLY want the ''free market'' to work, then it should be OUT OF THE HEALTH CARE BUSINESS for EVERYONE....including those mentioned above and ALL those private businesses getting a tax break from us taxpayers, for it....

picking one area to be government free of help, WHILE enjoying your own government involvement and help through business tax write offs, or us tax payers paying it for you as a ''benefit'' to federal employees etc....

that's only logical, no?

 

[saveliberty]

I am sure you have some factual basis to support this

"The percentages of people covered by private health insurance and by employment-based health insurance both decreased slightly in 2007, the Census numbers showed, although the number of those covered by employment-based insurance, 177.4 million, was not statistically different from 2006."

Census: Fewer Americans Lack Health Insurance - 8/26/2008 - insurancenewsnet.com

Just Polk talking out his ass again.

At no point does that article state that more people are covered by individual insurance purchase than are uninsured.

No Polk it just tells you 177.4 million are covered by employment-based insurance. You are supposed to know that Obama and the Dems use a number of about 47 million as uninsured. Was that your best reply? Lame ass Polk. Go home.

 

[Polk]

"The percentages of people covered by private health insurance and by employment-based health insurance both decreased slightly in 2007, the Census numbers showed, although the number of those covered by employment-based insurance, 177.4 million, was not statistically different from 2006."

Census: Fewer Americans Lack Health Insurance - 8/26/2008 - insurancenewsnet.com

Just Polk talking out his ass again.

At no point does that article state that more people are covered by individual insurance purchase than are uninsured.

No Polk it just tells you 177.4 million are covered by employment-based insurance. You are supposed to know that Obama and the Dems use a number of about 47 million as uninsured. Was that your best reply? Lame ass Polk. Go home.

Notice I never said employment-based insurance. I specifically referred to policies purchased on the individual market. Learn to read.

 

[Oddball]

STOP the tax write -off to businesses on their taxes for their help in paying your health care....


...that's only logical, no?

No...Go the other way with that one.

Make all medical expenses and insurance fully tax deductible for all who purchase them on their own.

It's not commonly known that the self-employed don't enjoy the same full tax deduction for their insurance that larger companies do.

 

[Meister]

At no point does that article state that more people are covered by individual insurance purchase than are uninsured.

No Polk it just tells you 177.4 million are covered by employment-based insurance. You are supposed to know that Obama and the Dems use a number of about 47 million as uninsured. Was that your best reply? Lame ass Polk. Go home.

Notice I never said employment-based insurance. I specifically referred to policies purchased on the individual market. Learn to read.

And that is why I was confused with what you said, on such a stupid comparison. Your looking at a small portion of the picture...try looking at the whole picture....like the 177 million.....plus the individual insurance...it dwarfs what your trying to spin. A fail on your part

 

[Polk]

No Polk it just tells you 177.4 million are covered by employment-based insurance. You are supposed to know that Obama and the Dems use a number of about 47 million as uninsured. Was that your best reply? Lame ass Polk. Go home.

Notice I never said employment-based insurance. I specifically referred to policies purchased on the individual market. Learn to read.

And that is why I was confused with what you said, on such a stupid comparison. Your looking at a small portion of the picture...try looking at the whole picture....like the 177 million.....plus the individual insurance...it dwarfs what your trying to spin. A fail on your part

The entire market isn't relevant to the discussion of provisions used by insurance companies to deny policies in the individual market.

 

[Meister]

Notice I never said employment-based insurance. I specifically referred to policies purchased on the individual market. Learn to read.

And that is why I was confused with what you said, on such a stupid comparison. Your looking at a small portion of the picture...try looking at the whole picture....like the 177 million.....plus the individual insurance...it dwarfs what your trying to spin. A fail on your part

The entire market isn't relevant to the discussion of provisions used by insurance companies to deny policies in the individual market.

oh brother...

 

[Care4all]

STOP the tax write -off to businesses on their taxes for their help in paying your health care....


...that's only logical, no?

No...Go the other way with that one.

Make all medical expenses and insurance fully tax deductible for all who purchase them on their own.

It's not commonly known that the self-employed don't enjoy the same full tax deduction for their insurance that larger companies do.

But isn;t THAT STILL government manipulation or government "help" or Government being involved in your health care?

(Though I happen to agree with you, we should get the SAME deduction as businesses do on our health care expenses)

I'm just trying to play devil's advocate so to say and understand these one liners that are continually said, like: "I want government OUT OF HEALTH CARE" or "I don;t want government involved in Health Care" etc....

And IF THE FREE MARKET were to be relied on to "Take care of this problem" if the government stayed out of it.....

Then this means OUT OF IT, including the funding of medical degrees to funding medical schools, to funding hospital emergency rooms, to funding the R and D for pharmaceuticals and other medical research, to giving tax breaks to companies for it, to not offering it to all federal emplyees, to MEDICAID and MEDICARE....

ONLY THEN, can we actually say, that the free market, was given a chance to work, and solve this "problem" of ours where prices are too high...imo.

And anything SHORT of THAT is just making excuses for ones own government help that they are benefiting from, while disregarding the need for others to get gvt help in another manner or means, again, imo.

care

 

[Oddball]

Fair enough.....Given my druthers, there'd be no direct tax on incomes and production at all.

As for the rest of it, I'm all on board for that too, up to and including the abolition of the FDA and returning of the screening/approval process to a market-based operation (i.e. Underwriter's Laboratories).

 

[Polk]

Fair enough.....Given my druthers, there'd be no direct tax on incomes and production at all.

As for the rest of it, I'm all on board for that too, up to and including the abolition of the FDA and returning of the screening/approval process to a market-based operation (i.e. Underwriter's Laboratories).

Because, you know, that worked so well.

 

[saveliberty]

Notice I never said employment-based insurance. I specifically referred to policies purchased on the individual market. Learn to read.

And that is why I was confused with what you said, on such a stupid comparison. Your looking at a small portion of the picture...try looking at the whole picture....like the 177 million.....plus the individual insurance...it dwarfs what your trying to spin. A fail on your part

The entire market isn't relevant to the discussion of provisions used by insurance companies to deny policies in the individual market.

Yes, I figured that was going to be your spin from many posts back. Congress isn't trying to fix the problem in just the individual market are they? They want to change the entire landscape of the industry. That is why it is relevant. If it was just the individual market, government could just allow across state line competition and reduce or eliminate pre-existing conditions. Good luck getting out of the corner you painted yourself into.

 

[Oddball]

Fair enough.....Given my druthers, there'd be no direct tax on incomes and production at all.

As for the rest of it, I'm all on board for that too, up to and including the abolition of the FDA and returning of the screening/approval process to a market-based operation (i.e. Underwriter's Laboratories).

Because, you know, that worked so well.

What the hell are you talking about?