Republican’s VS. Democrat’s Health Care Plan

[auditor0007]

I can see them advertising already. "Heart transplants only $599,999. Liver transplants only $349,999. We have the best rates. Got cancer? We have the best chemo treatment starting at $39,999."

What would be wrong with that??

We have the least expensive food, clothing, and most for-the-dollar valuable housing in the world using just such a model.

The point of insurance is to pool the risk, so that nobody ends up paying so much if they need such a procedure, because the fact is that very very few could afford it.

 

[MaggieMae]

I like Canada. I lived there for a time. The government has not declared war on its oil industry as it has in the US.

But the taxes are much higher there.

They can keep their country.

Ohhhh, good analogy, Frau!! It was undoubtedly fine and dandy that the U.S. government SUBSIDIZED oil companies even in their most profitable years in history, but that same government shouldn't subsidize health care?

I see...

 

[Oddball]

The point of insurance is to pool the risk, so that nobody ends up paying so much if they need such a procedure, because the fact is that very very few could afford it.

Very few people can afford to pay for a house out-of-pocket, too....What do you think the housing market would look like if we had "shelter insurance", using the same model??

What do you suppose the availability and costs of N.Y. strips would be if we had mandated "food insurance"??

 

[MaggieMae]

People who think the government will give them good healthcare are being lied to. People who think government will control the cost of healthcare without rationing are being lied to.

What did I do to incur the debt of paying for your healthcare?

Just because YOU parrot the "bottomfeeder" Limbaugh-Fox bullshit doesn't make it so. For one thing, government sponsored health care will continue to be an exremely contentious issue in the halls of Congress, no matter which party is in the majority, so it's highly doubtful that your prediction of doom will EVER come to pass. Quit your bitching. The time has come to put some controls on runaway health costs in this country.

Can you clownshoes debate anything by sticking to the issue and without demonizing Limbaugh or Fox News ? .........

No. It's where all the talking points du jour come from, and when someone parrots the exact same lingo, it's obvious that that person's scope of knowledge on a subject is limited.

 

[MaggieMae]

Psst. It's Obama's war in Iraq, now.

And Afghanistan.

And Pakistan.

achtung, frau blucher, someone has to clean up the mess. i wish we didn't still have to, but your boy made sure we'll be paying for his mistakes for a very long time.

i hope you're really proud.

now again... try to stick to the subject. cause i've yet to see you prove anyone wrong or even raise a relevant point. you do have a lot of righteous indignation, though.

Yeah, she keeps trying to veer off onto the financial crisis which, again, she strongly believes is the fault of liberals. Got a lot to learn, that one. Maybe she'll start a new thread. I'm ready for a showdown on that too.

 

[MaggieMae]

When you turn 65, you won't be paying for all of your healthcare any longer, or didn't you realize that. If everyone over 65 had to pay for their own healthcare, maybe 10% would be able to afford it. Everyone else would go without, and that would very likely include you unless you have a few million in the bank.

Actually, although you qualify for Social Security benefits at 65, Medicare doesn't kick in for two years after that.

You have that backwards. SS is not 67, although you can take reduced benefits as early as age 62. Medicare kicks in at 65.

At 62 or 65, Medicare does not kick in until two years thereafter. There's a waiting period, which a lot of people are unaware of, although Medicaid would probably be an interim option if someone is relying only on the SS benefits which in most cases would meet the income eligibility formula.

 

[Meister]

The Arizona Republican, who is a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, notes that a CNN poll released in March found that nearly 3 out of 4 Americans are satisfied with their healthcare coverage.

For those Americans who are uninsured, Shadegg has introduced a bill that would allow those without health coverage to obtain it more cheaply, using tax credits. Individuals with existing health problems would obtain insurance through high-risk state plans



Ultimately, that so-called public plan, or government plan, will run the private sector out of business, because the guys that are operating the public plan are setting the rules for the guys running the private plan,” Shadegg says

As evidence that the Democrats want to drive health insurance companies out of business, Shadegg cites a comment by Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., chief deputy whip for the Democrats. In a talk to Democrats on YouTube, she said insurance companies are right when they say a public plan would put the health insurance industry out of business.

“I know many of you here today are single-payer advocates, and so am I,” Schakowsky told her audience. Those of us “who are pushing for a public health insurance option don’t disagree with this goal. This is not a principled fight. This is a fight about strategy for getting there, and I believe we will.”
Newsmax.com - Rep. Shadegg: Obama Wants Public Healthcare System

There are some concerns that won't be answered until it's too late. There are alternatives to where there is more than just the governments fingerprint on the healthcare. I repeat, and always will, our government cannot run the healthcare system with success.

 

[jillian]

That it a lot like the plan advanced by John McCain. It was shown that plan would result in a reduction, if not a complete termination of employer based health care.

It was also shown that the "tax credits" do not cover the cost of insurance...not by a long shot.

 

[Oddball]

Who says the best system is one by which a third party covers any or all of the costs???

 

[auditor0007]

The point of insurance is to pool the risk, so that nobody ends up paying so much if they need such a procedure, because the fact is that very very few could afford it.

Very few people can afford to pay for a house out-of-pocket, too....What do you think the housing market would look like if we had "shelter insurance", using the same model??

What do you suppose the availability and costs of N.Y. strips would be if we had mandated "food insurance"??

You can finance a house because it is an asset that will keep its value. Now tell me what bank would be willing to finance your heart transplant. What a stupid analogy.

 

[Oddball]

You can finance a house because it is an asset that will keep its value. Now tell me what bank would be willing to finance your heart transplant. What a stupid analogy.

Common misconception....A debt is not an asset. As long as there is a mortgage on your house, it's a liability not an asset.

Also, the inflated numbers you've been using for the costs of these procedures is under the current 3rd payer model, not one involving a truly free market and the competitive forces that come with it.

 

[auditor0007]

Actually, although you qualify for Social Security benefits at 65, Medicare doesn't kick in for two years after that.

You have that backwards. SS is not 67, although you can take reduced benefits as early as age 62. Medicare kicks in at 65.

At 62 or 65, Medicare does not kick in until two years thereafter. There's a waiting period, which a lot of people are unaware of, although Medicaid would probably be an interim option if someone is relying only on the SS benefits which in most cases would meet the income eligibility formula.

Could you please provide a link. The only information I have found on a waiting period is a two year waiting period for those who seek Medicare early due to disability.

 

[auditor0007]

You can finance a house because it is an asset that will keep its value. Now tell me what bank would be willing to finance your heart transplant. What a stupid analogy.

Common misconception....A debt is not an asset. As long as there is a mortgage on your house, it's a liability not an asset.

Also, the inflated numbers you've been using for the costs of these procedures is under the current 3rd payer model, not one involving a truly free market and the competitive forces that come with it.

So reduce those costs by the 16% cost of administration brought on by the 3rd party payer. You're still talking more than the average yogi bear will ever be able to afford.

As for a debt not being an asset, the debt is a debt to the borrower; the house, in this case, is an asset to the lien holder. In other words, there is collateral on the loan. What collateral is there on a heart transplant. If the patient dies, does the bank get his heart?

 

[Oddball]

[

So reduce those costs by the 16% cost of administration brought on by the 3rd party payer. You're still talking more than the average yogi bear will ever be able to afford.

As for a debt not being an asset, the debt is a debt to the borrower; the house, in this case, is an asset to the lien holder. In other words, there is collateral on the loan. What collateral is there on a heart transplant. If the patient dies, does the bank get his heart?

Administrative costs aren't the only ones involved in delivering a service....That overused stat is a total red herring. Moreover, I defy you to name the gubmint bureaucracy or program whose projected budgets and/or rates of expansion have come in below estimates.

A house is only an asset if the house borrower continues making the payments. If the lender defaults, the property becomes "non-performing" and a liability. Also, there's no guarantee that the purchaser of the house will continue with the upkeep, let alone improve it, under any circumstance, let alone a foreclosure situation.

 

[auditor0007]

[

So reduce those costs by the 16% cost of administration brought on by the 3rd party payer. You're still talking more than the average yogi bear will ever be able to afford.

As for a debt not being an asset, the debt is a debt to the borrower; the house, in this case, is an asset to the lien holder. In other words, there is collateral on the loan. What collateral is there on a heart transplant. If the patient dies, does the bank get his heart?

Administrative costs aren't the only ones involved in delivering a service....That overused stat is a total red herring. Moreover, I defy you to name the gubmint bureaucracy or program whose projected budgets and/or rates of expansion have come in below estimates.

A house is only an asset if the house borrower continues making the payments. If the lender defaults, the property becomes "non-performing" and a liability. Also, there's no guarantee that the purchaser of the house will continue with the upkeep, let alone improve it, under any circumstance, let alone a foreclosure situation.

So you're suggesting a bank make a loan against someone's heart transplant?

 

[DiveCon]

Nobody has a plan that works, folks...nobody.

Not even me...and that's unusual because I'm normally grandiose enough to think I can find a fairly reasonable solution to every social problem.

Fully socialized medicine will bring with it all the problems normally associated with any socialized solution.

Continuing this semi-capitalistic solution will insure that inevitably most people will have too expenswive health care insurance that won't really cover anybody's health care problems.

As to rationing health care?

That's ALREADY being done now by the private insurers.

wrong, they are only covering those things they agreed to cover when they sold the policy
thats not rationing

 

[Oddball]

So you're suggesting a bank make a loan against someone's heart transplant?

Or patients could pay out-of-pocket.....Or the doctor or clinic performing the given procedures could have in-house financing.

There are lots of ways to pay for things in installments that don't involve banks.

 

[DiveCon]

Democrat plan: Do much much, more of what already has failed to deliver the goods and spend much, much more money doing so.

Republican plan: Try to polish democrat turds.

I disagree; the Republican plan stimulates competition by making a considerable part of the money spent by the insured their own money. People look out for their own money with a lot more diligence than they do someone elses money. No?

Except that, as usual, Republicans don't consider that the measily amount to be provided in offsetting tax credits doesn't come close to matching the actual cost of a personal health insurance policy.

The Republicans Weigh In with a Health-Care Plan - TIME

But I am pleased that the Republicans have come up with SOMETHING other than the same ol' same ol' proposition that each person establish his/her own tax exempt "medical fund" to draw from.

That said, anything that gets passed will surely be better than what exists now.

not hardly
what the dems want will be a ******* mess

 

[DiveCon]

We live in a republic, not a democracy, pudinhead.

And we're not the ones pining for the benevolent socialist patronage of the places that our ancestors left.....You are.

So, rather than trying to make everyone else go along with your program, it behooves you to GTFO, since the grass is so green over there.

Well I hope whoever's got your medical expenses covered pays for anger management. And btw, we live in a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC.

no we dont, moron, we have a representitive republic
sheeesh, figures a ******* moron like you wouldnt understand that

 

[DiveCon]

How do you know? All you have are promises from a street organizer that has accomplished nothing.

The thread is about BOTH parties' proposals. I don't have time to address your stupid spin on the subject.

It's not spin. Get your head out fo the sand Yu should make time, because that's all the Democrats can do. Promise.

her head isn't in "sand"
that would be much less of a smelly place than where it is firmly ensconced