Single payer in Cali?

[Meister]

Those poor Californians. I can't imagine living under such an oppressive government.

i can walk around my neighborhood at night,matter of fact 97% of the cities in OC......can you do that in Philly?......or just certain parts?......

Have you tried that walk in Inglewood, or Baldwin Park?

 

[Skynet]

Those poor Californians. I can't imagine living under such an oppressive government.

i can walk around my neighborhood at night,matter of fact 97% of the cities in OC......can you do that in Philly?......or just certain parts?......

Have you tried that walk in Inglewood, or Baldwin Park?

Inglewood and Baldwin Park arent exactly the same. Inglewood is closer to South Central or Watts, and Baldwin Park is closer to West Covina / Covina.

Most of California is pretty safe, but just like any state it has its bad parts.

 

[daveman]

if you dont live in Cali why do you even care about this?

Because it's going to fail, and fail huge, and then CA will come begging and crying to Congress, and then the rest of us will have to pay for CA's liberal failure.

Are we talking about the same California that has been giving more to the Feds than it gets back? That California?

Yes. Taken a look at their books lately? Awful lot of red ink.

So tell me -- how will spending more of what they don't have benefit anyone?

 

[daveman]

The only argument offered by the naysayers (in the link provided by TM's), is Leno's bill is socialism. Currently our medical system is based on capitalism, which means profit is the first order of business, not the patient.

I don't understand. How will a system which is not focused on profit, as is the medical care system in America today, more costly than one which is non profit?
Please explain, Two Thumbs, with some detail how you have concluded the plan in Leno's bill will increase spending?

What are they going to pay for it with?

Do you have no concept of what single payer is?

Yes. What are they going to pay for it with? Because they're not going to collect enough from the citizens, because a lot of the citizens aren't going to pay anything.

 

[Skynet]

What are they going to pay for it with?

Do you have no concept of what single payer is?

Yes. What are they going to pay for it with? Because they're not going to collect enough from the citizens, because a lot of the citizens aren't going to pay anything.

its mandated through taxes, just like every other tax. i.e. state income tax, medicaid. you can then make up for an shortfalls when people file their state taxes. will some people fall through the crack... probably. but it is the only sure fire way to insure people actually pay.

 

[Provocateur]

Most people that I know have had their employers require that the employee contribute a greater amount toward medical benefits. My spouse and I both saw less on our paychecks starting last summer. There is much talk about "kissing $5 co-pays good-bye". At the grocery store last week I heard the two men behind the meat counter discussing new hires not even being offered benefits, but that the people already employed would be keeping theirs, thankfully.



I challenge those of you that think this is great to explain how this bill is helping the middle class working person.


Is it because a 27 year old grown person (that should be on their own and independent) can remain on their parents insurance, at a cost to other taxpayers? Is that really it?


And to add, there were simpler approaches to the problems that did/do exist.

If the government wanted to deal with those people specifically excluded from getting insurance because of pre-existing conditions (whatever that means) then they should have only addressed that issue.



They should have dealt with tort reform, interstate competition, etc.


Obamacare was just a power grab, as is the proposal by the Democrat in CA. Or it is possible is that the person in CA is just an idiot liberal ideologue that thinks that utopia is a real place.

 

[Skynet]

Most people that I know have had their employers require that the employee contribute a greater amount toward medical benefits. My spouse and I both saw less on our paychecks starting last summer. There is much talk about "kissing $5 co-pays good-bye". At the grocery store last week I heard the two men behind the meat counter discussing new hires not even being offered benefits, but that the people already employed would be keeping theirs, thankfully.



I challenge those of you that think this is great to explain how this bill is helping the middle class working person.


Is it because a 27 year old grown person (that should be on their own and independent) can remain on their parents insurance, at a cost to other taxpayers? Is that really it?


And to add, there were simpler approaches to the problems that did/do exist.

If the government wanted to deal with those people specifically excluded from getting insurance because of pre-existing conditions (whatever that means) then they should have only addressed that issue.



They should have dealt with tort reform, interstate competition, etc.


Obamacare was just a power grab, as is the proposal by the Democrat in CA. Or it is possible is that the person in CA is just an idiot liberal ideologue that thinks that utopia is a real place.

by your argument you are advocating that the status quo is ok, and those who can not get benefits are S.O.L.

your argument has several flaw.

1) the new federal law says kids would be able to stay on their parent insurance until age 26. it used to be 23 while they are in school. should people by age 26 be more independent, probably, but should they be punished for not being able to afford health care due to the slow job market and stagnant wages? is that really their fault?

2) if you do not know how the pre-existing condition clause works you really need to educate yourself. you can be rated and insurable based on stupid things like having previously had gall bladder surgery, or being born with a disease, or even hurting you knee. and they did address this issue in the new health care bill.

3) the new health care law is not a power grab. if we had gone to single payer i could see your argument. but since the new law works within the private health care field, the majority of the power still rests in the hands of the private industry.

the only thing i agree with that you said is tort reform, that needs to be addressed.


can you point to specific sections of the new health care bill you are against? and then give reasons why?

(FYI id like to see the actual section of the law, not just well i heard or an opinion)

 

[Anachronism]

by your argument you are advocating that the status quo is ok, and those who can not get benefits are S.O.L.

That is a position that I would readily agree with.

1) the new federal law says kids would be able to stay on their parent insurance until age 26. it used to be 23 while they are in school. should people by age 26 be more independent, probably, but should they be punished for not being able to afford health care due to the slow job market and stagnant wages? is that really their fault?

They should most definitely be punished for choosing career tracks that do not have any sort of short term viability. I have a friend whose son will be a Senior in High School next year. The son wants to go to college to major in medieval history and archeology. Both great fields, but neither one of them has much potential to make him a productive member of society right out of school. His parents are pushing for him to do more of a Secondary Education with a minor in medieval history type of track because teaching is actually a practical profession.

2) if you do not know how the pre-existing condition clause works you really need to educate yourself. you can be rated and insurable based on stupid things like having previously had gall bladder surgery, or being born with a disease, or even hurting you knee. and they did address this issue in the new health care bill.

I've got a list of pre-existing conditions that would stretch down your arm. I've NEVER had an insurance company balk or complain about it. Not even when I changed insurance companies while in the midst of after-care for a surgery related to one of those conditions.

can you point to specific sections of the new health care bill you are against? and then give reasons why?

ALL OF IT?? It's unConstitutional, Immoral, Disgusting, and just plain Wrong?

 

[Harry Dresden]

Those poor Californians. I can't imagine living under such an oppressive government.

i can walk around my neighborhood at night,matter of fact 97% of the cities in OC......can you do that in Philly?......or just certain parts?......

Have you tried that walk in Inglewood, or Baldwin Park?

thats not in OC and ....ahem.....i think you know that...........

 

[Skynet]

can you point to specific sections of the new health care bill you are against? and then give reasons why?

ALL OF IT?? It's unConstitutional, Immoral, Disgusting, and just plain Wrong?

thanks for pointing out all those "specific" section and clarifying exactly what is wrong with them

 

[Harry Dresden]

I've got a list of pre-existing conditions that would stretch down your arm. I've NEVER had an insurance company balk or complain about it. Not even when I changed insurance companies while in the midst of after-care for a surgery related to one of those conditions.

thats because your on a group plan at work right?......if you were not and changed Ins....you would be singing a different tune.......

 

[daveman]

Do you have no concept of what single payer is?

Yes. What are they going to pay for it with? Because they're not going to collect enough from the citizens, because a lot of the citizens aren't going to pay anything.

its mandated through taxes, just like every other tax. i.e. state income tax, medicaid. you can then make up for an shortfalls when people file their state taxes. will some people fall through the crack... probably. but it is the only sure fire way to insure people actually pay.

"Raise taxes". Good job. Drive MORE businesses and individuals out of the state.

 

[Anachronism]

thanks for pointing out all those "specific" section and clarifying exactly what is wrong with them

The entire CONCEPT is unconstitutional, Skynet. Please show me anywhere in the listed powers of Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitutiom there is ANY reference made to any form of medical care, hospitalization, or anything even vaguely of the sort.

As for the immorality of it.... Taking money from MY pocket in the form of additional taxes to pay to provide medical care to people I feel should not receive any is quite immoral and inappropriate so far as I'm concerned.

 

[Zander]

I think this proposal is faulty and has a snowballs chance in hell of ever passing. But I have no problem with individual States enacting various Health Care schemes. I can move to another state if I don't like it.

 

[daveman]

I think this proposal is faulty and has a snowballs chance in hell of ever passing. But I have no problem with individual States enacting various Health Care schemes. I can move to another state if I don't like it.

Yup. If Cali wants to paddle faster as they circle the drain, let 'em.

But you know they're going to come knocking on our doors with their hands out eventually.

 

[Greenbeard]

I've got a list of pre-existing conditions that would stretch down your arm. I've NEVER had an insurance company balk or complain about it. Not even when I changed insurance companies while in the midst of after-care for a surgery related to one of those conditions.

Did you happen to be on a HIPAA-protected plan at the time?

 

[Provocateur]

Most people that I know have had their employers require that the employee contribute a greater amount toward medical benefits. My spouse and I both saw less on our paychecks starting last summer. There is much talk about "kissing $5 co-pays good-bye". At the grocery store last week I heard the two men behind the meat counter discussing new hires not even being offered benefits, but that the people already employed would be keeping theirs, thankfully.



I challenge those of you that think this is great to explain how this bill is helping the middle class working person.


Is it because a 27 year old grown person (that should be on their own and independent) can remain on their parents insurance, at a cost to other taxpayers? Is that really it?


And to add, there were simpler approaches to the problems that did/do exist.

If the government wanted to deal with those people specifically excluded from getting insurance because of pre-existing conditions (whatever that means) then they should have only addressed that issue.



They should have dealt with tort reform, interstate competition, etc.


Obamacare was just a power grab, as is the proposal by the Democrat in CA. Or it is possible is that the person in CA is just an idiot liberal ideologue that thinks that utopia is a real place.

by your argument you are advocating that the status quo is ok, and those who can not get benefits are S.O.L.

your argument has several flaw.

1) the new federal law says kids would be able to stay on their parent insurance until age 26. it used to be 23 while they are in school. should people by age 26 be more independent, probably, but should they be punished for not being able to afford health care due to the slow job market and stagnant wages? is that really their fault?

2) if you do not know how the pre-existing condition clause works you really need to educate yourself. you can be rated and insurable based on stupid things like having previously had gall bladder surgery, or being born with a disease, or even hurting you knee. and they did address this issue in the new health care bill.

3) the new health care law is not a power grab. if we had gone to single payer i could see your argument. but since the new law works within the private health care field, the majority of the power still rests in the hands of the private industry.

the only thing i agree with that you said is tort reform, that needs to be addressed.


can you point to specific sections of the new health care bill you are against? and then give reasons why?

(FYI id like to see the actual section of the law, not just well i heard or an opinion)

by your argument you are advocating that the status quo is ok, and those who can not get benefits are S.O.L.

What part of my sentence "there were simpler approaches to the problems that did/do exist." makes you think that I suggest that? Are we going to have a partisan bickerfest? If so, I'm not interested.

1) the new federal law says kids would be able to stay on their parent insurance until age 26. it used to be 23 while they are in school. should people by age 26 be more independent, probably, but should they be punished for not being able to afford health care due to the slow job market and stagnant wages? is that really their fault?

26, 27. Same difference in my eyes. Regardless, are you suggesting that I should be punished for them not affording health care? What about their parents taking care of the children they brought into the world? And we can go back to the beginning of the argument, which is the irony. Small businesses will scale back and/or not hire about a certain number of employees to stay under the dreaded numbers where Obamacare becomes unaffordable. Perhaps places like McDonalds, which at this time have benefit plans, will drop them and pay the penalties. So, with Obamacare, the 26 year old which may have found a job now can't because people aren't hiring, or if they are, will not provide him benefits. But luckily (for whom I don't know) he can stay on his parents plan. Now, at this time, if I have the same plan as negligent parent A, then my premiums will go up so as to cover him, since his parents won't, and the businesses can't.

2) if you do not know how the pre-existing condition clause works you really need to educate yourself. you can be rated and insurable based on stupid things like having previously had gall bladder surgery, or being born with a disease, or even hurting you knee. and they did address this issue in the new health care bill.

I don't think that you should force an industry to do anything. That is my opinion. Why? Because what is going to happen? People will not buy insurance until they get sick. Why do you think that insurance companies are obligated for someone to walk in, plunk down a monthly payment of $400 and say, by the way, I need a kidney transplant. Get right on that. How long will industry last? (I know the answer, by the way, and so does Obama. Here is a link in which he says directly that the goal is single payer, and that this is all nonsense as we transition toward that goal. He wants/needs the private industry out of the way to move toward single-payer.)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk]YouTube - ‪SHOCK UNCOVERED: Obama IN HIS OWN WORDS saying His Health Care Plan will ELIMINATE private insurance‬‏[/ame]

In my post, I made the suggestion that the government directly look at this population of individuals. Do they have a problem? Absolutely, and it needs to be addressed. However, forcing companies to take them is toxic. The only way for the company to stay afloat is to force the healthy people to pay monstrous premiums to cover the "uninsurable". Revisit my post early in the thread regarding Maine. That scenario absolutely sunk their program, and their premiums were many times greater than the neighboring states. How many healthy people (at least the smart ones) will drop their insurance until they get sick? Why wouldn't they? Do you hate insurance companies? Do you think that the government does anything well and efficiently?

3) the new health care law is not a power grab. if we had gone to single payer i could see your argument. but since the new law works within the private health care field, the majority of the power still rests in the hands of the private industry.

Rewatch the video. The goal is single payer. Wake up before it is too late.

can you point to specific sections of the new health care bill you are against? and then give reasons why?

I'm not going to revisit the bill right now. Just not in the mood, quite frankly. Also parts are being addressed and removed, such as the 1099 Provision, thanks to the action of the Republican-controlled house. The bill is over 2500+ long. I am not going line by line with you.

(FYI id like to see the actual section of the law, not just well i heard or an opinion)

I do a lot of reading, and base my opinions off of that. I am not sure what else you want me to present to you.


My energies are not going to the bill at this time, just getting conservatives elected/reelected as necessary as my hope is that Obama will be voted out next year and subsequently the bill will be repealed. If not, I would like to see the SCOTUS deem the bill unConstitutional because of the mandate.


You seem like you are willing to discuss the issue, which I appreciate. And I do understand that liberals are very idealistic. Nothing innately wrong with that, but the devil is in the details. This is not a 'let's help everyone', this is a 'let's control 1/6 of the economy'.

By the way, because liberals are always told that conservatives have no ideas by those in the media, here are the items on the GOP plate. Link here:

Repeal and Replace the Job-Destroying Health Care Law - A Pledge to America - GOP.gov

 

[Seawytch]

Because it's going to fail, and fail huge, and then CA will come begging and crying to Congress, and then the rest of us will have to pay for CA's liberal failure.

Are we talking about the same California that has been giving more to the Feds than it gets back? That California?

Yes. Taken a look at their books lately? Awful lot of red ink.

So tell me -- how will spending more of what they don't have benefit anyone?

And still California gives back to the Feds more than they take in. Just can't spin that can ya?

Everybody paying is how. All those uninsured that use emergency rooms, the most expensive health care imaginable, will be paying for their health care. They will be able to get preventative care which also lowers the cost.

 

[Seawytch]

Yes. What are they going to pay for it with? Because they're not going to collect enough from the citizens, because a lot of the citizens aren't going to pay anything.

its mandated through taxes, just like every other tax. i.e. state income tax, medicaid. you can then make up for an shortfalls when people file their state taxes. will some people fall through the crack... probably. but it is the only sure fire way to insure people actually pay.

"Raise taxes". Good job. Drive MORE businesses and individuals out of the state.

Quite the opposite. Businesses will not have to provide health care to their employees. They will save considerable money in a state with a single payer health plan.

 

[daveman]

Are we talking about the same California that has been giving more to the Feds than it gets back? That California?

Yes. Taken a look at their books lately? Awful lot of red ink.

So tell me -- how will spending more of what they don't have benefit anyone?

And still California gives back to the Feds more than they take in. Just can't spin that can ya?

You make the mistake of thinking that means CA's economy is in good shape. It's not. They're $26 billion in the hole.

They don't need to spend more money. That's insane.

Everybody paying is how. All those uninsured that use emergency rooms, the most expensive health care imaginable, will be paying for their health care. They will be able to get preventative care which also lowers the cost.

No, they won't. Their premiums will be subsidized by people who make more money. You know, exactly the way Obamacare will do.

Do you really think bleeding-heart Californians will insist somebody making minimum wage buy his own insurance? Never happen. Damn the budget, full steam ahead!