User avatar
Dreadnought
Topic Author
Posts: 9832
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

Public Option Health Care - Not An Option

Thu Jul 16, 2009 11:13 pm

Remember when Obama said this?

"No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people," Obama said Monday, addressing the American Medical Association. "If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what."

He didn't let up.

"If you like what you're getting, keep it," Obama said. "Nobody is forcing you to shift."


http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...UACQa5gEv1cZ-SRxXDc3XDwRwD98TPSP80

This is what he's been saying for months - giving people the idea that you will be able to choose the public option or stay in private insurance.

Not so.

Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.

When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.

It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:

"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.

So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.

...

What wasn’t known until now is that the bill itself will kill the market for private individual coverage by not letting any new policies be written after the public option becomes law.


http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=332548165656854

So after a few years, after people have churned out of their jobs into another one, they will be forced into the public "option". As we warned, this is nothing more than an attempt to gain control over the entire health system, and to ration health care.

Oh yeah, and the idea that this is supposed to reduce the cost of health care?

Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf warned lawmakers the legislation that he has seen so far would raise costs, not lower them. Elmendorf was asked by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.S., if the bills Congress is considering would "bend the cost curve." The budget director responded: "The curve is being raised."

Subsidies to help uninsured people would raise federal health care spending, which is already growing at an unsustainable rate, Elmendorf explained at a hearing. The Medicare and Medicaid cuts that lawmakers have offered to pay for the coverage expansion aren't big enough to offset the cost trend, particularly in the long term, he said.

Congress is moving forward nonetheless.


http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...pJGn28kqCcgU-aGcYE_ZHW-ywD99FJ7IG0

So tell me, Obama voters, how many of you really wanted this?
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
TransIsland
Posts: 1826
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 9:22 pm

RE: Public Option Health Care - Not An Option

Thu Jul 16, 2009 11:48 pm

Please provide a link to the actual proposed bill, as I am not willing to take a conservative editorial's word for it.
I'm an aviation expert. I have Sky Juice for breakfast.
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Public Option Health Care - Not An Option

Thu Jul 16, 2009 11:58 pm

An article full of conjecture, nothing else.

Sorry, Charles, but that isn't convincing to anyone, as far as I'm concerned.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7878
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: Public Option Health Care - Not An Option

Fri Jul 17, 2009 12:13 am



Quote:
SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.

(a) Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage Defined- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ‘grandfathered health insurance coverage’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

5
(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text

That's the section the article is talking about. If that's what this mumble jumbo means, and I haven't read the rest of the mumble jumbo so I can't say if that's the case, it's a very Bolivarian-Hugo Chavez-like bill. And so much for civil liberties.

But, I have not read beyond the section quoted above.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
Yellowstone
Posts: 2821
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:32 am

RE: Public Option Health Care - Not An Option

Fri Jul 17, 2009 12:16 am



Quoting Dreadnought (Thread starter):
So after a few years, after people have churned out of their jobs into another one, they will be forced into the public "option". As we warned, this is nothing more than an attempt to gain control over the entire health system, and to ration health care.

You'd have done yourself a favor, Charles, to have read the text of the bill, conveniently located online at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0...health-care-bill-fu_n_234372.html. In context, the portion of text quoted by the editorial is part of a page-and-a-half definition of the term "grandfathered health insurance coverage." So all it says is the rather obvious point that only policies made before the law goes into effect are considered "grandfathered," though I don't have time to find how grandfathered policies are treated differently. I'd guess they're exempt from any of the law's new provisions.

And hey, PPVRA was nice enough to quote the text for me, even if he couldn't be bothered to figure out what it meant.
Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Public Option Health Care - Not An Option

Fri Jul 17, 2009 12:24 am

Yellowstone, Huffington isn't a legit source. Go find it on FOX and Charles will give it some thought.  Big grin
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
TransIsland
Posts: 1826
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 9:22 pm

RE: Public Option Health Care - Not An Option

Fri Jul 17, 2009 12:35 am



Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 4):
So all it says is the rather obvious point that only policies made before the law goes into effect are considered "grandfathered," though I don't have time to find how grandfathered policies are treated differently. I'd guess they're exempt from any of the law's new provisions.

Thanks, PPVRA & Yellowstone. From my reading, I understand this to mean that:

1. You are indeed allowed to keep your old insurance.

Quoting Dreadnought (Thread starter):
"If you like what you're getting, keep it," Obama said. "Nobody is forcing you to shift."

 checkmark 

2. You can still get new private plans, but these have to comply with minimum standards set down in this bill, whereas the "grandfathered" plans need not match these standards.

Arguably, there are private plans now that exceed these standards, and you can still get those, however, there are now plans that "really suck"* - and these would no longer be offered to new customers, yet existing customers may keep them, if they so decide.


* For instance, my old plan (previous job) wouldn't pay for x-rays if your bone wasn't broken. So when a doctor suspected that my son may have broken his arm and took an x-ray to find out that fortunately it wasn't broken, I was stuck with the bill. Upon asking the insurance how else the doc could've diagnosed, they didn't know an answer.  banghead 
I'm an aviation expert. I have Sky Juice for breakfast.
 
max550
Posts: 714
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:46 pm

RE: Public Option Health Care - Not An Option

Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:34 am



Quoting Dreadnought (Thread starter):

Don't you think that if the "public option" were in fact not optional at all, more media outlets would be covering it?
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Public Option Health Care - Not An Option

Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:51 am

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 4):
You'd have done yourself a favor, Charles, to have read the text of the bill, conveniently located online at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0...health-care-bill-fu_n_234372.html.

I clicked on the link but section 102 is not elaborated on.

Quoting Max550 (Reply 7):
Don't you think that if the "public option" were in fact not optional at all, more media outlets would be covering it?

It is an option. As time goes by it appears it will be increasingly the only option. I have yet to be able to get the time to read the section but it won't surprise me if that's the way it reads. There is only one way the government option can be viable and that is to crowd out the private companies. Governments never like competition.

[Edited 2009-07-16 20:16:56]
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12388
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: Public Option Health Care - Not An Option

Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:55 am

One problem I have with the Public Option, is that many employers, especially smaller businesses will ditch their offering private insurance and tell their workers to get on to the Public Option plan, saving money and not having to worry about the administration costs.

To me what seems to be developing is something I believe Australia has had for decades, that you can go choose a Public Option plan or have private insurance coverage.
 
Ken777
Posts: 9046
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Public Option Health Care - Not An Option

Fri Jul 17, 2009 3:26 am



Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 9):
To me what seems to be developing is something I believe Australia has had for decades, that you can go choose a Public Option plan or have private insurance coverage.

There are some very good parts to the Aussie system. I lived there when Labour started their Medicare and it was about 2% Medicare Tax and $4 prescriptions. There are a couple of things I disagreed with. The first was the Labour Government banning gap insurance policies at the start.

Then your taxes didn't pay any part of private care. You could go to the local doctor without a problem and generally get a reasonably priced prescription. If you needed to go to the hospital your family doc would send you and you would then get another doctor, a specialist or a "hospitalist".

The "hospitalist" term is one I borrowed from my wife's doctor's group. They found that it is cheaper to have doctors stay in hospitals and the office docs to stay in the office. And this is an expensive US medical group - not some foreign game being played.

Private insurance at that time was a fraction of the cost it was here - simply because it wasn't jacked up in price to cover those without insurance.

As far as the comments on grandfathering, I really wouldn't worry too much. I can see some give on policies that have pre-existing conditions limitations - for a while at lest.

I can also see insurance companies doing very well, thank you, by providing gap policies like they do with Medicare already. There are some very good profits to be made there and only fools will pass it up.
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Public Option Health Care - Not An Option

Fri Jul 17, 2009 3:31 pm



Quoting PPVRA (Reply 3):
But, I have not read beyond the section quoted above

No offense, but that site darn near crushed my computer twice. Here's another link to the bill for anyone else having similar problems.

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf

Starting on page 16 the bill says:



1 SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT
2 COVERAGE.
3 (a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COV
4 ERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of
5 this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable cov
6 erage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health
7 insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance
8 coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the
9 first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
10 (1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—
11 (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in
12 this paragraph, the individual health insurance
13 issuer offering such coverage does not enroll
14 any individual in such coverage if the first ef
15 fective date of coverage is on or after the first
16 day of Y1.
17 (B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PER
18 MITTED.—Subparagraph (A) shall not affect
19 the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an
20 individual who is covered as of such first day.
21 (2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR
22 CONDITIONS.—Subject to paragraph (3) and except
23 as required by law, the issuer does not change any
24 of its terms or conditions, including benefits and
25 cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day be
26 fore the first day of Y1.

VerDate Nov 24 2008 12:51 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:TEMPAAHCA0~1.XML HOLCPC
July 14, 2009 (12:51 p.m.)
F:P11NHI
17


1 (3) RESTRICTIONS ON PREMIUM INCREASES.—
2 The issuer cannot vary the percentage increase in
3 the premium for a risk group of enrollees in specific
4 grandfathered health insurance coverage without
5 changing the premium for all enrollees in the same
6 risk group at the same rate, as specified by the
7 Commissioner.
8 (b) GRACE PERIOD FOR CURRENT EMPLOYMENT
9 BASED HEALTH PLANS.—
10 (1) GRACE PERIOD.—
11 (A) IN GENERAL.—The Commissioner
12 shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan
13 years beginning after the end of the 5-year pe
14 riod beginning with Y1, an employment-based
15 health plan in operation as of the day before
16 the first day of Y1 must meet the same require
17 ments as apply to a qualified health benefits
18 plan under section 101, including the essential
19 benefit package requirement under section 121.
20 (B) EXCEPTION FOR LIMITED BENEFITS
21 PLANS.—Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to
22 an employment-based health plan in which the
23 coverage consists only of one or more of the fol
24 lowing:


VerDate Nov 24 2008 12:51 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:TEMPAAHCA0~1.XML HOLCPC
July 14, 2009 (12:51 p.m.)
F:P11NHITRICOMM


18
1 (i) Any coverage described in section
2 3001(a)(1)(B)(ii)(IV) of division B of the
3 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
4 of 2009 (PL 111–5).
5 (ii) Excepted benefits (as defined in
6 section 733(c) of the Employee Retirement
7 Income Security Act of 1974), including
8 coverage under a specified disease or ill
9 ness policy described in paragraph (3)(A)
10 of such section.
11 (iii) Such other limited benefits as the
12 Commissioner may specify.
13 In no case shall an employment-based health
14 plan in which the coverage consists only of one
15 or more of the coverage or benefits described in
16 clauses (i) through (iii) be treated as acceptable
17 coverage under this division
18 (2) TRANSITIONAL TREATMENT AS ACCEPT
19 ABLE COVERAGE.—During the grace period specified
20 in paragraph (1)(A), an employment-based health
21 plan that is described in such paragraph shall be
22 treated as acceptable coverage under this division.
23 (c) LIMITATION ON INDIVIDUAL HEALTH INSURANCE
24 COVERAGE.—


VerDate Nov 24 2008 12:51 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO


(1) IN GENERAL.—Individual health insurance
2 coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance
3 coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered
4 on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-par
5 ticipating health benefits plan.
6 (2) SEPARATE, EXCEPTED COVERAGE PER
7 MITTED.—Excepted benefits (as defined in section
8 2791(c) of the Public Health Service Act) are not
9 included within the definition of health insurance
10 coverage. Nothing in paragraph (1) shall prevent the
11 offering, other than through the Health Insurance
12 Exchange, of excepted benefits so long as it is of
13 fered and priced separately from health insurance
14 coverage.




The whole section is a restricition on private coverage. Your plan is grandfathered but the insurance company is restricted from, enrolling new persons under that plan, cannot change coverage, raise premiums without a "commissioners" (read kommissar) approval, and after 5 years any grandfathered employment plan must start to mirror the essential benefit package under section 121, most likely whatever that may be at that time. Several references are made to "whatever the commissioner may decide" which means that there is no rule.

It also says that certain coverages shall not be considered coverage at all and will not be grandfathered.

This is the section where you see your coverage, the coverage that you may like and want, going up in smoke. It's the section that will be used to batter private insurance into submission and most likely near extinction.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
max550
Posts: 714
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:46 pm

RE: Public Option Health Care - Not An Option

Fri Jul 17, 2009 4:19 pm



Quoting DXing (Reply 11):
This is the section where you see your coverage, the coverage that you may like and want, going up in smoke. It's the section that will be used to batter private insurance into submission and most likely near extinction.

Only if you like and want less than the minimum coverage.
Your health plan will only be "grandfathered" if it doesn't meet the new standards of care. Most people who are happy with their health insurance have insurance that exceeds the new minimums so there is no need for them to be "grandfathered" in.
Basically it sets a minimum standard for health insurance in the future, just like most states do with car insurance. If you're happy with your health insurance now you can keep that as long as it meets the minimum standards.

I don't really see what the problem here is unless there really are a lot of people that want to keep coverage that doesn't meet the minimum standards.
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Topic Author
Posts: 9832
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Public Option Health Care - Not An Option

Fri Jul 17, 2009 5:39 pm



Quoting Max550 (Reply 12):
Only if you like and want less than the minimum coverage.

That's the problem. It's not minimum coverage, but a mandate for Deluxe Gold-Plated Coverage, which will be damned more expensive than many people will be willing to pay. Read the bill. These are the required coverages:

(1) Hospitalization.
(2) Outpatient hospital and outpatient clinic
services, including emergency department services.
(3) Professional services of physicians and other
health professionals.
(4) Such services, equipment, and supplies inci4
dent to the services of a physician’s or a health pro
fessional’s delivery of care in institutional settings,
physician offices, patients’ homes or place of resi
dence, or other settings, as appropriate.
(5) Prescription drugs.
(6) Rehabilitative and habilitative services.
(7) Mental health and substance use disorder
services.
(8) Preventive services, including those services
recommended with a grade of A or B by the Task
Force on Clinical Preventive Services and those
vaccines recommended for use by the Director of the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
(9) Maternity care.
(10) Well baby and well child care and oral
health, vision, and hearing services, equipment, and
supplies at least for children under 21 years of age.

This is too much. If I were to design a minimum coverage package, I would keep it down to:
(1) Hospitalization.
(2) Outpatient hospital and outpatient clinic
services, including emergency department services.
(3) Professional services of physicians and other
health professionals.
(4) Such services, equipment, and supplies inci4
dent to the services of a physician’s or a health pro
fessional’s delivery of care in institutional settings,
physician offices, patients’ homes or place of resi
dence, or other settings, as appropriate.

(5) Prescription drugs.
(6) Rehabilitative and habilitative services. Accident only
(7) Mental health and substance use disorder
services.

(8) Preventive services, including those services
recommended with a grade of A or B by the Task
Force on Clinical Preventive Services and those
vaccines recommended for use by the Director of the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
(9) Maternity care.
(10) Well baby and well child care and oral
health, vision, and hearing services, equipment, and
supplies at least for children under 21 years of age.


And tack on a $5,000 minimum - i.e. you have to spend the first $5,000 before the insurance pays a dime. That should keep the price down to $100 per month or so, because it would be designed to only kick in for serious illnesses and hospitalization, and not for every runny nose. Most people faced with a $5K bill will be able to arrange some sort of payment schedule. Maternity is voluntary. Substance abuse is voluntary. Mental Health - get a hanky and stop blubbering - we are talking about essential health coverage, not helping you deal with the death of your dog when you were a child.

But this excessive coverage is not surprising. It's supposed to be expensive so that more people will bail out of it and become dependant on the government program.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
D L X
Posts: 11655
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Public Option Health Care - Not An Option

Fri Jul 17, 2009 5:45 pm



Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 9):
One problem I have with the Public Option, is that many employers, especially smaller businesses will ditch their offering private insurance and tell their workers to get on to the Public Option plan, saving money and not having to worry about the administration costs.

If that is the case (and I believe you to be correct), then the Public Option is pro-business, is it not? This is one of the primary reasons I'm for it.
 
max550
Posts: 714
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:46 pm

RE: Public Option Health Care - Not An Option

Fri Jul 17, 2009 5:55 pm



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 13):

I would love to have a debate on health care. I think that's exactly what we need more of. People should be sharing their ideas for reform.
However, I will not debate it in this thread, because this thread is not about ideas for health care, but rather a provision in the bill which is falsely claimed to not allow private insurance to be sold.
Start a new topic and I'll be more than happy to debate what we should and should require insurance companies to cover.
 
N867DA
Posts: 928
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 12:53 am

RE: Public Option Health Care - Not An Option

Fri Jul 17, 2009 5:57 pm



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 13):
(7) Mental health and substance use disorder
services.

I am always amazed that mental health is not covered under most insurance plans.
A nation turns its lonely eyes to you
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Topic Author
Posts: 9832
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Public Option Health Care - Not An Option

Fri Jul 17, 2009 5:57 pm



Quoting D L X (Reply 14):
If that is the case (and I believe you to be correct), then the Public Option is pro-business, is it not? This is one of the primary reasons I'm for it.

Not when small business owners are going to get hit with an additional 6% or so in income tax, which is in the bill. Corporate income tax is also headed north (not sure how much.

I'm all for eliminating the link between people's health insurance and their employers. That was something companies came up with in WWII to attract talent while there were salary freezes in place during the war. Not it has grown into a monster.

I've had a number of discussions with my CEO and the board, and if this goes through we will probably dump our employee health plan, simply to save some money short term. But I hate the idea - we have a fantastic plan, and it's not very expensive. In the end, we'll have to pay the bill through taxes anyway, and it will end up being more expensive.

Can anyone name me one single thing that got cheaper because the government got involved?
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Topic Author
Posts: 9832
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Public Option Health Care - Not An Option

Fri Jul 17, 2009 6:10 pm



Quoting Max550 (Reply 15):
I would love to have a debate on health care. I think that's exactly what we need more of. People should be sharing their ideas for reform.

Tell Nancy Pelosi and the other hard-lefties in Congress. When they were finalizing the bill the other day, even blue-dogs (moderate Democrats, for foreigners here) were not allowed in the room, let alone Republicans. They don't want productive ideas - they have an agenda to kill private insurance and control health care for all of us - everything else is incidental to them, it appears, including the plan's effectiveness in treating people's illnesses or controling costs. I honestly think they don't care a rat's ass about those two issues.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: Public Option Health Care - Not An Option

Fri Jul 17, 2009 6:13 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 18):
ontrol health care for all of us



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 18):
cluding the plan's effectiveness in treating people's illnesses or controling costs. I

How does that differ from your run of the mill HMO?

When has HMOs been the "Horn of Plenty"?

[Edited 2009-07-17 11:18:01]
Step into my office, baby
 
D L X
Posts: 11655
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Public Option Health Care - Not An Option

Fri Jul 17, 2009 6:19 pm



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 17):
Not when small business owners are going to get hit with an additional 6% or so in income tax, which is in the bill.

And you think these businesses are paying less than 6% for their employees' health care right now?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 17):
Can anyone name me one single thing that got cheaper because the government got involved?

Roads. BIG example that you use every day.

And what does "cheaper" have to do with it? The issue is not so much about cost as it is about access. You do realize that there is a vast amount of people who do not have access to insurance at all right now, right?
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Topic Author
Posts: 9832
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Public Option Health Care - Not An Option

Fri Jul 17, 2009 6:24 pm



Quoting Mt99 (Reply 19):
How does that differ from your run of the mill HMO?

Personally I have never had any experience with an HMO, so I can't really say. But I would remind you that HMOs were another brilliant idea of the federal government back in the 70s. More precisely, HMOs existed before then, but the market saw that they didn't work very well and they had all but disappeared until the government decided that they would force companies and insurances to offer them in the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Topic Author
Posts: 9832
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Public Option Health Care - Not An Option

Fri Jul 17, 2009 6:32 pm



Quoting D L X (Reply 20):
And you think these businesses are paying less than 6% for their employees' health care right now?

They will have to pay (as I recall) 8% for not offering their own health insurance PLUS 6% additional income tax. Sorry, I should have been more precise.

Quoting D L X (Reply 20):
Roads. BIG example that you use every day.

I bet if I, personally, wanted to build 1 mile of road, I could do it better and more efficiently than if the government did it. But then we can't really know because the government is really the only entity that builds roads. There are basically 2 things that ONLY government can do better than private industry - the military and roads/Infrastructure (simply because private individuals would not build them).

Quoting D L X (Reply 20):
And what does "cheaper" have to do with it? The issue is not so much about cost as it is about access.

Hasn't Obama always said that he wanted to reduce the cost of health care? Or are you saying "only for some of us"?

Quoting D L X (Reply 20):
You do realize that there is a vast amount of people who do not have access to insurance at all right now, right?

And as I've said, there are other ways to fix that without resorting to government-managed health care. Government-regulated, ok, government-managed and paid for, no way.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
max550
Posts: 714
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:46 pm

RE: Public Option Health Care - Not An Option

Fri Jul 17, 2009 6:53 pm



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 18):
Tell Nancy Pelosi and the other hard-lefties in Congress. When they were finalizing the bill the other day, even blue-dogs (moderate Democrats, for foreigners here) were not allowed in the room, let alone Republicans.

Unfortunately I lack the connections to tell her that. The blue-dogs are the ones who should tell her that though, since the Democrats only have 203 members without their votes. If they vote with the Republicans the bill will fail.
 
Ken777
Posts: 9046
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Public Option Health Care - Not An Option

Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:18 pm



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 13):
(4) Such services, equipment, and supplies inci4
dent to the services of a physician’s or a health pro
fessional’s delivery of care in institutional settings,
physician offices, patients’ homes or place of resi
dence, or other settings, as appropriate.
(5) Prescription drugs.
(6) Rehabilitative and habilitative services. Accident only
(7) Mental health and substance use disorder
services.
(8) Preventive services, including those services
recommended with a grade of A or B by the Task
Force on Clinical Preventive Services and those
vaccines recommended for use by the Director of the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
(9) Maternity care.
(10) Well baby and well child care and oral
health, vision, and hearing services, equipment, and
supplies at least for children under 21 years of age.

Equipment used in the home? Oxygen? How many people do you want to deny that before the shit hits the fan?

Rehab from accidents only? My wife was a physical therapist and treated a lot of stroke patients. Guess they don't get help. Or those having hip/knee replacements?

Mental/addictive hep denied? Our representative to DC just had help for his booze problem. But he's a conservative so I guess he is covered.

Or would it be useful to determine what is cheaper - taking care of addiction or just let it continue?

As for maternity and babies - even conservative politicians kiss babies.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 13):
And tack on a $5,000 minimum - i.e. you have to spend the first $5,000 before the insurance pays a dime. That should keep the price down to $100 per month or so,

Maybe make the deductible something like 3-5% of the family's adjusted gross income - that way people will get the care they need without bankruptcy.

As for a $100 per month premium, forget it unless you're looking at Medicare. I dropped about $1,200 a month on health insurance before medicare and we basically got jackshit for coverage. But then I didn't have a sugar daddy employer taking care of me.

Quoting D L X (Reply 14):
If that is the case (and I believe you to be correct), then the Public Option is pro-business, is it not? This is one of the primary reasons I'm for it.

A pro-business version could be developed, but conservatives would fight it tooth and nail. No way for that for some years,.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 17):
But I hate the idea - we have a fantastic plan, and it's not very expensive.

For you or your employer? Shit happens and things change so you should look for long term safety. Like coverage if you become unemployed or disabled and face a lot of medical care.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 17):
Can anyone name me one single thing that got cheaper because the government got involved?

Old folks medical care. It's called Medicare and it sure works for me.  Smile

I even have private gap insurance and am amazed at how well private insurance companies work with Medicare. I guess they don't want you to know how well it works.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 22):
I bet if I, personally, wanted to build 1 mile of road, I could do it better and more efficiently than if the government did it. But then we can't really know because the government is really the only entity that builds roads. There are basically 2 things that ONLY government can do better than private industry - the military and roads/Infrastructure (simply because private individuals would not build them).

There are some private freeways in Houston. All you need to travel on them is the electronic sticker that takes your money every time you travel. No free lunch there.
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7878
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: Public Option Health Care - Not An Option

Sat Jul 18, 2009 2:15 am

Quoting DXing (Reply 11):
No offense, but that site darn near crushed my computer twice.

None taken. It was probably the sheer size of the bill that caused problems.

But yes, they want to regulate the hell out of us and tell you what you have to buy. Not really an option, right? And you'd think you wouldn't need all the regulations if there's a public option available anyways.

[Edited 2009-07-17 19:33:04]
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Public Option Health Care - Not An Option

Sat Jul 18, 2009 2:06 pm



Quoting D L X (Reply 20):
Roads. BIG example that you use every day.

Name a private company that has the right of eminent domain? To build the interstate system whole neighborhoods, in relatively good shape, in cities around the country were declared to be blighted so they could be taken with most likely less than fair market value.

Quoting D L X (Reply 20):
You do realize that there is a vast amount of people who do not have access to insurance at all right now, right?

There is an insurance policy for everyone. As stated, changes need to be made in the laws regarding insurance, namely opening up State markets, addressing excessive pre-existing conditions requirement, but not a whole new government bureaucracy and a huge tax increase. No matter how you slice it that section effectively spells the death knell for private health insurance and your availability of choice by use of the law.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
melpax
Posts: 1728
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 12:13 am

RE: Public Option Health Care - Not An Option

Sat Jul 18, 2009 3:02 pm

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 10):

The Medicare Levy is now 1.5% of your taxable income. However if your income is over $70K a year for singles or around $140K a year for families and if you don't have private health cover, then your Medicare levy is increased to 2.5% of your income. If you do take out private cover, the government will give you a 30% rebate on the cost of your policy, this is usually taken as a reduction in your premium.

http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/co...004/002&mnu=44879&mfp=001&st=&cy=1

http://www.medibank.com.au/Health-Co...nce/Federal-Government-Rebate.aspx

I can't beleive the astonomical amounts that you Americans have to pay for Health insurance. I pay around $80 a month, that includes the usual hospital & dental benefits and also things like Physiotherapy, Chiropractors & remedial massage. Though to be fair the insurance won't cover all of a visit to a Chiro or Physio, normally around 30 bucks a visit, depending on your cover. It's rare for employers here to offer health insurance to their employees, the only cases I've heard are some local subsidaries of US companies & it might be included in the renumeration packages for some senior execs in large corporates.

[Edited 2009-07-18 08:06:10]
Essendon - Whatever it takes......
 
Flighty
Posts: 7677
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Public Option Health Care - Not An Option

Sat Jul 18, 2009 3:43 pm



Quoting Melpax (Reply 27):
I pay around $80 a month,

Here that would be $600-$1500 per month for something like that. The larger figure would be for a family.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Public Option Health Care - Not An Option

Sat Jul 18, 2009 3:47 pm



Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 4):
You'd have done yourself a favor, Charles, to have read the text of the bill,

Which is something most Congressmen and Senators have not, and will not do. Not even their staffs will read this bill.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 2):
An article full of conjecture, nothing else.

Sorry, Charles, but that isn't convincing to anyone, as far as I'm concerned.

You do know that while Congress and the President will jam this down our throats, their own gold plated health care insurance will not change, and we cannot join that system.

Quoting Max550 (Reply 7):
Don't you think that if the "public option" were in fact not optional at all, more media outlets would be covering it?

No

Quoting DXing (Reply 8):
It is an option. As time goes by it appears it will be increasingly the only option.

Correct.


Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 9):
One problem I have with the Public Option, is that many employers, especially smaller businesses will ditch their offering private insurance and tell their workers to get on to the Public Option plan, saving money and not having to worry about the administration costs.



Quoting D L X (Reply 14):
If that is the case (and I believe you to be correct), then the Public Option is pro-business, is it not? This is one of the primary reasons I'm for it.



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 17):
Not when small business owners are going to get hit with an additional 6% or so in income tax, which is in the bill. Corporate income tax is also headed north (not sure how much.

No, this is not a "pro-business" bill. All businesses that do not offer health care to their employees, that meet the standards of this bill, and a gross annual payroll of $500,000 or more, will be taxed at 8% of their gross payroll. That is in addition to the 5.4% proposed surtax on anyone making more than $300,000 per year.

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSWEN055320090714

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a4.kYDWV9erc

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07162009/photos/news_graph.jpg

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07162009...h_rx_a_poion_pill_in_ny_179525.htm

BTW, it seems the the closest thing to national heath care in the US, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts system is failing to make some payments owed to hospitals in Boston, and probibly elsewhere within the state.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/16/us/16hospital.html?_r=1

If Massachusetts cannot afford it, how can the entire US?
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Topic Author
Posts: 9832
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Public Option Health Care - Not An Option

Sat Jul 18, 2009 3:50 pm



Quoting Flighty (Reply 28):
Here that would be $600-$1500 per month for something like that. The larger figure would be for a family.

Don't exagurate. It varies from state to state. Here in Kentucky we pay around $250 for a single and $700 for a full family, for a fully loaded policy with a small company (we're only about 25 people).
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
D L X
Posts: 11655
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Public Option Health Care - Not An Option

Sat Jul 18, 2009 3:58 pm



Quoting DXing (Reply 26):
Name a private company that has the right of eminent domain?

You don't need eminent domain to build roads. All of the historical roads were toll roads built by private industry, including good chunks of our current interstate system in the northeast and midatlantic.

Quoting DXing (Reply 26):
To build the interstate system whole neighborhoods, in relatively good shape, in cities around the country were declared to be blighted so they could be taken with most likely less than fair market value.

Didn't you just prove me right that government involvement made it cheaper?

Quoting DXing (Reply 26):
Quoting D L X (Reply 20):
You do realize that there is a vast amount of people who do not have access to insurance at all right now, right?

There is an insurance policy for everyone.

Are you sure about that? Why are 40 million uninsured then?
If you're unemployed, your options for insurance are abysmal.

Quoting DXing (Reply 26):
No matter how you slice it that section effectively spells the death knell for private health insurance and your availability of choice by use of the law.

I think that's FOD - another slippery slope argument. Is it that you simply do not believe the administration when they say if you like what you have you will not be made to change?
 
Flighty
Posts: 7677
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Public Option Health Care - Not An Option

Sat Jul 18, 2009 4:08 pm



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 30):
Here in Kentucky we pay around $250 for a single and $700 for a full family, for a fully loaded policy with a small company (we're only about 25 people).

Wow. That is pretty good. But, it's much cheaper than my last corporate insurance in another low-cost state. I thought around double that would be baseline for actual Cadillac coverage. I was paying double that.
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Public Option Health Care - Not An Option

Sat Jul 18, 2009 4:54 pm



Quoting D L X (Reply 31):
You don't need eminent domain to build roads. All of the historical roads were toll roads built by private industry, including good chunks of our current interstate system in the northeast and midatlantic.

Not a single piece of interstate in my home state of Ohio was built with private funds. If you mean built by private industry as in the land being leveled and the concrete being laid yes private industry, after bidding the project from the state, did that work. The road itself was paid for via public bonds and taxes. Yes you do need eminent domain and it was used extensively in my hometown to buy the property necessary to build the interstate.

Quoting D L X (Reply 31):
Didn't you just prove me right that government involvement made it cheaper?

No, I just proved that in order for government to get things done they have to use something that is not available to private enterprise, force of law.

Quoting D L X (Reply 31):
Are you sure about that? Why are 40 million uninsured then?

Because of the people included in that number. Illegal immigrants, some people that are already eligible for medicare and medicaid that don't realize they are, students, as well as young adults that don't feel the need for health insurance. That certainly does not cover all of that number but it certainly covers a big chunk.

Quoting D L X (Reply 31):
If you're unemployed, your options for insurance are abysmal.

Medicaid.

Quoting D L X (Reply 31):
I think that's FOD - another slippery slope argument.

And you are welcome to your opinion, however wrong and misguided it may be.

Quoting D L X (Reply 31):
Is it that you simply do not believe the administration when they say if you like what you have you will not be made to change?

All you have to do is read that section to see that the ultimate goal, as has been stated by the President numerous times, is a single payer government run system. That is the goal of Pelosi, Reed, Durbin, and Kennedy. A reading of the extracted section in reply 11 gives the blue print for how they plan to accomplish this.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
Yellowstone
Posts: 2821
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:32 am

RE: Public Option Health Care - Not An Option

Sat Jul 18, 2009 9:09 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 29):
Not even their staffs will read this bill.

Now you're just making crap up. You have absolutely no evidence to support that claim.
Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Public Option Health Care - Not An Option

Sun Jul 19, 2009 2:27 pm



Quoting Flighty (Reply 28):
Quoting Melpax (Reply 27):
I pay around $80 a month,

Here that would be $600-$1500 per month for something like that. The larger figure would be for a family.



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 30):
Don't exagurate. It varies from state to state. Here in Kentucky we pay around $250 for a single and $700 for a full family, for a fully loaded policy with a small company (we're only about 25 people).

In addition to that, everyone in the US is eligable to buy into COBRA, those costs are fixed by the federal government,at $450 for single, and $650 for families, per month.

Quoting D L X (Reply 31):
Why are 40 million uninsured then?

8 million are eligible for MEDICARE, but have not taken it yet. Another 8-10 million choose not to have any health insurance at all, even though that group makes more than $45K per year. Another 12 million are illegal aliens not eligible for any health care, but still get free treatment at county hospitals arond the country. Some 6.5 million are currently unemployed and have not taken COBRA. The rest are eligibal for state run MEDICAID, but again, have not signed up for it.

Even if you look at Massachusetts, the only state in the US to have manditory health care, some 2.9%-3% of the state population have not signed up for anything.


Even though there are free health care programs available, some people still choose not to sign up at all.

Quoting D L X (Reply 31):
You don't need eminent domain to build roads. All of the historical roads were toll roads built by private industry, including good chunks of our current interstate system in the northeast and midatlantic.

Ah, yes you do. The entire 48,000 miles of Interstate highways was built by public funds

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System

The US Highway system of some 160,000 miles was also built with public funds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_highway_system

There is nothing that enoys me more than having to pay a toll to use a road I already paid for. This is true "highway robbery" of the state or local government, just to collect more money to spend on something they may or may not need.

Quoting DXing (Reply 33):
Quoting D L X (Reply 31):
If you're unemployed, your options for insurance are abysmal.

Medicaid.

COBRA

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 34):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 29):
Not even their staffs will read this bill.

Now you're just making crap up. You have absolutely no evidence to support that claim.

It has been widely reported on CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC, the NY Times, the Washington Times, etc. (right and left leaning media) how Congressmen and Senators either do not read the bills they vote on, or are not allowed to read them by Pelosi. These bills included the $787B "stimulus bill", "cap and tax", "Obamacare", and many other very expensive bills.

“I think if most of the people in this House had read this bill and then given a chance to read the additional third that was added at three am or so this morning, then, I don’t think it would have passed,” said Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX).

http://congress.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/07/02/thriller-night/

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) predicted on Thursday that none of his Senate colleagues would "have the chance" to read the entire final version of the $790-billion stimulus bill before the bill comes up for a final vote in Congress.

“No, I don’t think anyone will have the chance to [read the entire bill],” Lautenberg told CNSNews.com."

http://cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43478

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGx--ZmP-0c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEfICUoWKBw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1_Li8lzB0g&feature=channel
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: Public Option Health Care - Not An Option

Sun Jul 19, 2009 2:46 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
into COBRA



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
COBRA

COBRA runs out after a period .. no?
Step into my office, baby
 
D L X
Posts: 11655
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Public Option Health Care - Not An Option

Sun Jul 19, 2009 3:50 pm



Quoting DXing (Reply 33):
Not a single piece of interstate in my home state of Ohio was built with private funds. If you mean built by private industry as in the land being leveled and the concrete being laid yes private industry, after bidding the project from the state, did that work. The road itself was paid for via public bonds and taxes. Yes you do need eminent domain and it was used extensively in my hometown to buy the property necessary to build the interstate.

That doesn't mean that nowhere in the country was a road that eventually became part of the Interstate system not privately owned, operated, and constructed at some point in its history. I'm not talking about roads built by private industry on behalf of a governmental body, I'm talking about roads that were designed, funded and built by private industry. While not an Interstate (yet), The Virginia freeway VA-267 (west of Dulles Airport) is an example of a current road that was built by a private company that acquired its land and built a road on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dulles_Greenway#Dulles_Greenway
No eminent domain, but as I said before, the government's ability to employ eminent domain absolutely makes it cheaper for the government to do it than private industry could in most cases.

Quoting DXing (Reply 33):
Because of the people included in that number. Illegal immigrants, some people that are already eligible for medicare and medicaid that don't realize they are, students, as well as young adults that don't feel the need for health insurance. That certainly does not cover all of that number but it certainly covers a big chunk.

and

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
Another 12 million are illegal aliens not eligible for any health care

Can I get a source for that? It seems quite odd that someone could countably know that there are 12 million illegal aliens in order to include that in a total count of 40 million.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
The entire 48,000 miles of Interstate highways was built by public funds

No, and your link does not support your position. Here's what I'm saying: public funds have and are used to upgrade and maintain these roads today, but many of them originally were not public works projects, but were rather private enterprise projects. Large chunks of the Interstate system were upgrades of US Routes. (Example, US-48 became I-68). And many of the federal routes annexed or confiscated privately owned roads. I'm talking about the roads from the 1700s and 1800s, that were later absorbed by the US Federal Route system and the Interstate system. Check out this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_highways_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toll_roads_in_the_United_States

These were privately built roads that did not take advantage of eminent domain.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
COBRA

How are you going to pay for COBRA (which is EXPENSIVE!!!!) when you don't have a job?

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 36):
COBRA runs out after a period .. no?

Yes.
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Public Option Health Care - Not An Option

Sun Jul 19, 2009 5:10 pm



Quoting D L X (Reply 37):
That doesn't mean that nowhere in the country was a road that eventually became part of the Interstate system not privately owned, operated, and constructed at some point in its history.

Nor did I make such a claim. I spoke to the roads I know of. However, I would be willing to wager, prior to doing any research at all, that the vast majority of roads that make up the interstate highway system were built with taxpayer dollars.

Quoting D L X (Reply 37):
No eminent domain, but as I said before, the government's ability to employ eminent domain absolutely makes it cheaper for the government to do it than private industry could in most cases.

At the expense of those whose property was declared blighted so as to allow eminent domain to take place since the property value is correspondingly lowered below market value. That in a nutshell is part of the problem with Medicare and Medicaid. By disallowing some costs, and paying 60-70 cents on the dollar in others, government, while well intentioned, creates an enviroment of inflation and fraud that gets passed on to consumers of private insurance thus increasing their cost. Then politicians, who are really just after more power, claim that private insurance costs are increasing at an unusustainable rate even though, in part, the government has a hand in that increase. So is government really cheaper? Sure, by using just what I said, force of law, to make it happen. Private insurance companies don't have that luxury. Unfortunately government doesn't operate in a vacum and so the costs the government refuses to acknowledge are passed on to other consumers. That is certainly not the entire problem, just a piece.

Quoting D L X (Reply 37):
Can I get a source for that? It seems quite odd that someone could countably know that there are 12 million illegal aliens in order to include that in a total count of 40 million.



Quoting D L X (Reply 31):
Are you sure about that? Why are 40 million uninsured then?

If you want to question how many illegals are included in the count then the figure of 40 million that you cite, without source I might add, also comes into question. Are there uninsured in this country? Sure. Are there people who have no insurance who are currently eligible for some sort of program but just don't know it? Sure. Are there people who, for whatever reason, choose not to have health insurance despite the fact they are eligible for coverage thru their employer? Sure. Does anyone have an accurate count? Not really but for sure, whatever the amount, illegals are included in that estimate.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
D L X
Posts: 11655
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Public Option Health Care - Not An Option

Sun Jul 19, 2009 7:25 pm



Quoting DXing (Reply 38):
However, I would be willing to wager, prior to doing any research at all, that the vast majority of roads that make up the interstate highway system were built with taxpayer dollars.

I wouldn't disagree with you, but that would only strength my point. Government does roads better (more efficiently) than private industry, in most cases. Dreadnought asked me to name one thing that Government did that made things less costly. That's the biggest example of them all: when government does it, it's done cheaper, and in most cases, without tolls. When private industry does it, it will be more expensive, and it will have tolls.

Quoting DXing (Reply 38):
That in a nutshell is part of the problem with Medicare and Medicaid. By disallowing some costs, and paying 60-70 cents on the dollar in others, government, while well intentioned, creates an enviroment of inflation and fraud that gets passed on to consumers of private insurance thus increasing their cost.

ALL insurance causes the price of the services to go up.

Quoting DXing (Reply 38):
So is government really cheaper? Sure, by using just what I said, force of law, to make it happen.

So?

Quoting DXing (Reply 38):
Does anyone have an accurate count? Not really but for sure, whatever the amount, illegals are included in that estimate.

No doubt, but I have a hard time believing that illegals account for 33% of the uninsured in this country.
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Public Option Health Care - Not An Option

Sun Jul 19, 2009 10:17 pm



Quoting D L X (Reply 39):
That's the biggest example of them all: when government does it, it's done cheaper, and in most cases, without tolls. When private industry does it, it will be more expensive, and it will have tolls.

What is a fuel tax if not a hidden toll?

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactchec...overnment_really_make_more_in.html

One thing that fact check does not show since it is not part of that question is what percentage does the fuel tax get passed on in everything you buy by the delivery company? There are a tremendous amount of hidden taxes in this country.

I'm not disputing your contention that government can get roads built cheaper, I'm disputing how you are computing "cheaper" since government has on its side something that private enterprise does not which is force of law. If the government did not have the right of eminent domain do you still think they could get those roads built cheaper than a private company?

Now translate that into health care. Unless the goverment can artificially surpress prices, via force of law, do you think a public option would stand a chance of being anymore less costly than private insurance? If so how? My contention has always been that if government paid dollar for dollar and did not disallow, governments costs would go up some and private insurance rates would come down since the lost profit on government healthcare would not be passed on to private insurance. Lets see a bill that includes financing like that for a public option. Then we can see some actual costs. Right now what we are seeing are artificial costs since as private insurance goes away, government costs must surely rise or services become increasingly difficult to obtain in a timely fashion.

Quoting D L X (Reply 39):
ALL insurance causes the price of the services to go up.

Theoretically it is supposed to work the other way. Not everyone insured by a company is going to get sick all at once just as not every home is going to have a fire or other calamity. I would suggest that Medicare and Medicaid, and the way they are administrated as described above cause more increase than any single insurance company.

Quoting D L X (Reply 39):
So?

So since the government can use force of law to essentially "fix" the price, that price is usually not represenative as "cheaper" since the companies doing business with the government will pass on the cost to other consumers.

Quoting D L X (Reply 39):
No doubt, but I have a hard time believing that illegals account for 33% of the uninsured in this country.

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/...nt_expand_failed_immigration_.html

Yet deporting 12 million immigrants is a practical impossibility and will not happen.

http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?pag...59&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1007

FAIR estimates that in 2007 the illegal immigrant population is above 13 million persons. Government and academic estimates indicate that as of 2006 there were 11 to 12 million illegal immigrants living in the United States. The Center for Immigration Studies estimated the illegal immigrant population at 10 million as of November 2004.

It is difficult to have an exact figure because the illegal nature of their presence prevents any enumeration, but the U.S. Census Bureau estimated 8.7 million illegal immigrants were here in 2000, and immigration officials estimate that the illegal immigrant population grows by as many as 500,000 every year.


I think the trend is downard now with the economy being what it is but I think it is safe to say that the number is somewhere between 10-12 million.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
Blackbird
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: Public Option Health Care - Not An Option

Sun Jul 19, 2009 10:32 pm

Is it actually true that Obama's Healthcare program actually in one way or another condones euthanasia?

That can be badly abused...
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Public Option Health Care - Not An Option

Sun Jul 19, 2009 10:45 pm



Quoting D L X (Reply 37):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
Another 12 million are illegal aliens not eligible for any health care

Can I get a source for that? It seems quite odd that someone could countably know that there are 12 million illegal aliens in order to include that in a total count of 40 million.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal...nt_population_of_the_United_States

Additionally, that is the estimate used by the US Congress, DHS, and the states of Texas, New mexico, Arizona, and California.

Quoting D L X (Reply 37):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
COBRA

How are you going to pay for COBRA (which is EXPENSIVE!!!!) when you don't have a job?

Some people collect very genorus unemployment checks. For those who cannot afford COBRA (yes, it is expensive, I put the costs in reply #35), can apply for state run MEDICAID, at little or no costs.

The health care "crisis" is a made up only for political reasons.
 
texan
Posts: 4059
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 2:23 am

RE: Public Option Health Care - Not An Option

Tue Jul 21, 2009 4:16 pm

Interesting article about the ethics of the debate: http://ethicist.blogs.nytimes.com/20...how-not-to-talk-about-health-care/

Texan
"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Public Option Health Care - Not An Option

Tue Jul 21, 2009 4:59 pm

This is a very good artical. I am finally impressed with a story in the NY Times.
 
Yellowstone
Posts: 2821
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:32 am

RE: Public Option Health Care - Not An Option

Tue Jul 21, 2009 5:02 pm



Quoting DXing (Reply 40):
Theoretically it is supposed to work the other way. Not everyone insured by a company is going to get sick all at once just as not every home is going to have a fire or other calamity.

Which is why it lowers costs for those who find themselves needing more health care. On the other hand, there are also people who use less health care than they pay for in premiums. If you look at the total amount spent on health care, the insurance company needs to take in premiums equal to the total amount of claims paid out plus a profit margin. That profit margin means that the total amount customers spend on health care is higher than it would be if they all paid directly.
Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Public Option Health Care - Not An Option

Tue Jul 21, 2009 5:43 pm



Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 45):
That profit margin means that the total amount customers spend on health care is higher than it would be if they all paid directly.

So, a not for profit health care system run by the US Government will work better? I don't think so, look at what they have done with Medicare and Medical.

Are you still fortunate enough to still have living parents and grandparents? I hope you are that fortunate. But, under each proposed plan (as they are now in the House and in the Senate) there will be rationed health care for anyone over 50 years old. So, if your parents, grandparents, or other loved ones over 50 have a heart attack, stroke, cancer, or some other high cost health problem, the government will decide their worth to socity and if it is worth the money to spend to help cure tham. In other words, anyone over 50 will have a socity cost benefit anaylis done before any care can be given. The government now decides how long someone shall live.

There is an unspoken benefit to the government and Congress for evaluating the costs of elderly health care. What is that? If several people over 50 die because it is to expensive to treat them, the government then doesn't have to pay them a social security benefit at age 62, 65, 66, or 67. The government doesn't have the money to pay these benefits, even though it is money the government holds for your retirement (they already spent the money).
 
max550
Posts: 714
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:46 pm

RE: Public Option Health Care - Not An Option

Tue Jul 21, 2009 5:51 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 46):
But, under each proposed plan (as they are now in the House and in the Senate) there will be rationed health care for anyone over 50 years old. So, if your parents, grandparents, or other loved ones over 50 have a heart attack, stroke, cancer, or some other high cost health problem, the government will decide their worth to socity and if it is worth the money to spend to help cure tham. In other words, anyone over 50 will have a socity cost benefit anaylis done before any care can be given. The government now decides how long someone shall live.

Where does it say that in the bill?
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Topic Author
Posts: 9832
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Public Option Health Care - Not An Option

Tue Jul 21, 2009 6:19 pm



Quoting Max550 (Reply 47):
Where does it say that in the bill?

It's a natural consequence of such a system, when controlling costs becomes the priority of the bureaucrats in charge rather than pleasing a paying customer. We've seen this happen in places like the UK and Canada where they have government health care. For all their faults (and there are many) with private insurance companies, they are businesses who don't want to piss off customers so badly that word gets out on how rotten they are.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
D L X
Posts: 11655
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: Public Option Health Care - Not An Option

Tue Jul 21, 2009 6:23 pm



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 48):
It's a natural consequence of such a system, when controlling costs becomes the priority of the bureaucrats in charge rather than pleasing a paying customer.

Sooo.... then it's the natural consequence of all insurance then, correct? ESPECIALLY private insurance that is beholden to shareholders and fiduciary duties, right?

Methinks not. Methinks you need a better answer to that question. In fact, it is one of the most bogus FOD claims perpetuated by the mouthpieces on the right that the government will stand between you and your doctor in any way different than private insurance currently does, because private insurance actually has a much greater incentive to block treatments it feels too costly.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Google [Bot], NoTime, PacificBeach88, salttee and 18 guests