[besson3c]

What bothers me about how this is playing out is how Republicans are going apeshit about the public care aspect of this such that it is dominating the debate, but the other parts of what is being proposed are being overlooked, namely efforts to reform the existing Medicare and subsidies to insurance companies in the name of reducing costs, prevent health insurance companies from denying people with preexisting conditions or dropping their coverage and other such consumer protections, etc.

There is so much more that could be discussed here, I hope we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

What kills me is that we've let these issues fester for so long, we should have been working on this stuff years ago - particularly the areas of common ground such as addressing increasing costs to Medicare/Medicaid. The only discussion I recall there being since I've been following politics is the Bush prescription drug thing, and I don't remember there being such intense discussion about how that was to be paid for.

[besson3c]

stumblinmike: why say stuff like that? How could you possibly being to substantiate a crusade for Christianity?

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

stumblinmike: why say stuff like that? How could you possibly being to substantiate a crusade for Christianity?

What are YOU trying to say????

[besson3c]

I'm trying to say that it is counterproductive, and frankly dumb to counter overblown rhetoric with your own.

If you were to ask many Republicans in here what the moderate left actually thinks about many of the issues we discuss, they wouldn't be able to represent these ideas accurately, in part because they feel defensive about the inflammatory rhetoric they hear which riles them up and never bother to learn more about any other perspective other than their own. This happens both ways, and makes a reasonable discussion pretty much impossible when neither side even understands the other perspective.

Go ahead, characterize the Republican point of view on health care as accurately as you can without an editorial. Can you?

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

YouTube - Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine

Can't attack the message, so attack the messenger.

i see all these other countries wanting to have the american's health care system... pay more...no security... let's insurance companies make billions

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I lost my father in January of 2008 to Alzheimer's. I watched it render an otherwise brilliant man someone who knew little more than his own name.

Just wanted to let you know that you've hit rock-bottom. There's nowhere to go from here, but up.

yes buddy i targeted you with that post... be real man... everything is not about you... grow up

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

Watching c-span right now, repeat of Tuesdays Commission on Wartime Contracting. It's all about waste, fraud and abuse. I would rather we waste money on healthcare, potentially helping PEOPLE, rather than throwing it at well connected defense contractors, who would like to start another crusade for Christianity.

Why wouldn't we just not waste anything at all?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

yes buddy i targeted you with that post... be real man... everything is not about you... grow up

Grow up?

It was your 4th grade playground humor that illicited that response. Maybe own up and apologize for offending someone close to the issue you were mocking?

No, that wouldn't be grown up enough for you would it?

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Why wouldn't we just not waste anything at all?

Indeed. I hate to be the one to break it to you Snow-i, there will be waste in all Govt. programs. It's the nature of the beast. However, I think we should waste it on healthcare, rather than the defense dept, because quite frankly, the defense dept failed us on 9/11. They didn't defend anything. It was all over before they even knew what was going on! That's not defense, that's incompetence! At a zillion dollars a year! Let's try to overhaul healthcare for a pittance of that.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

Indeed. I hate to be the one to break it to you Snow-i, there will be waste in all Govt. programs.

exactly why we don't need another one.

It's the nature of the beast. However, I think we should waste it on healthcare, rather than the defense dept, because quite frankly, the defense dept failed us on 9/11. They didn't defend anything. It was all over before they even knew what was going on! That's not defense, that's incompetence! At a zillion dollars a year! Let's try to overhaul healthcare for a pittance of that.

So because we weren't prepared on 9/11...you want to cut that budget...and waste money on something else to make you feel warm and fuzzy inside?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

yes buddy i targeted you with that post... be real man... everything is not about you... grow up

Truth be told, I'm not offended this easily and wouldn't post here if I were. I didn't bring my own father into the equation to make this about me, but to put a real face to your sophomoric "humor". A face other than a polarizing political figure.

It's about the 70,000 Alzheimer's deaths per year and the possibility that it affects a great many here. If you missed it, I was telling you to grow up.

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

exactly why we don't need another one.



So because we weren't prepared on 9/11...you want to cut that budget...and waste money on something else to make you feel warm and fuzzy inside?

Well, why did you ask? You and buddy are a pair that beats a full house...

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

Well, why did you ask? You and buddy are a pair that beats a full house...

Well, when you take some of my cards to make that "full house" I should be heard when I'm considering your bluff. The gov't still hasn't shown us their hand...only told us what its supposed to be...not until we call their bluff would we see what cards they are really holding.

I say fold...this isn't a profitable play.

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Well, when you take some of my cards to make that "full house" I should be heard when I'm considering your bluff. The gov't still hasn't shown us their hand...only told us what its supposed to be...not until we call their bluff would we see what cards they are really holding.

I say fold...this isn't a profitable play.

Well, fold if you must, but you can't win if you don't play. C'mon, stay in the game, it will be fun...

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What bothers me about how this is playing out is how Republicans are going apeshit about the public care aspect of this such that it is dominating the debate, but the other parts of what is being proposed are being overlooked, namely efforts to reform the existing Medicare and subsidies to insurance companies in the name of reducing costs, prevent health insurance companies from denying people with preexisting conditions or dropping their coverage and other such consumer protections, etc.

Why the obligatory dig on Republicans besson? See, this is one of the reasons why I think the healthcare debate has gotten so far out of hand. There are a great many Democrats having difficulty with these bills and a great many independents in opposition to some very fundamental aspects of the proposals. We're in agreement that the private insurance relationship in this country has been mishandled, but we're likely in disagreement as to what that relationship should look like. You're going to get a whole bunch of people apeshit about policies that are overtly hostile to the private sector. Imposing a massive increase in burden on private insurers while positioning yourself to compete with it is simply not agreeable. You have to get that prospect off the table to have productive discourse for most. I think the current Administration saw a low public opinion of insurance companies and miscalculated the collective sentiment of the US on this one. Just as there has been a lot of misunderstanding around the current healthcare proposals, there is a lot of ignorance around how insurance companies function.

There is so much more that could be discussed here, I hope we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I agree. I hope we can bring the discussion of opening interstate commerce for insurers back to the table and cut much of the regulatory legislation that leads to extremely unhealthy, unsustainable market behaviors by players like PhRMA, Medicare, and Medicaid. I hope through this we can pool the self-employed and a huge chunk of the uninsured by facilitating free market principles of robust competition instead of discouraging it. The good news is you could get started immediately without subsidizing a dime of it at this point.

What kills me is that we've let these issues fester for so long, we should have been working on this stuff years ago - particularly the areas of common ground such as addressing increasing costs to Medicare/Medicaid. The only discussion I recall there being since I've been following politics is the Bush prescription drug thing, and I don't remember there being such intense discussion about how that was to be paid for.

Interestingly, it was the proposals of the Bush Administration that actually authored the "death panels" some are up in arms about and like you, I don't recall hearing much of it at all at that time. While I find aspects of the end-of-life, "order" process distasteful, this is far and away the least of my own concerns on the proposals bantered right now. What we did learn from Bush however is that you could scare PhRMA into compliance by threatening to negotiate with (or impose regulations on) individual pharmaceutical manufacturers. I don't think there was as big a stink at the time because the measure was not a comprehensive package of multiple blows to the private sector. At the end of the day, most are happy with their own care and the way this Administration has handled this has been dishonest IMO.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Why the obligatory dig on Republicans besson?

My frustration and emotion. Not obligatory, but voluntary this time. Let's just say that I would very much prefer that if people are to express such passion about an issue that we establish a basic factual baseline. I'm reading a lot of wild jumps and such dense, dense rhetoric that sometimes I just need a vacation from politics. Ever feel that way yourself?

When I refer to a "factual baseline", I'm not referring to my opinions, but what is actually indisputably factual. You have no idea how many people have asked me if I could have chosen my own doctor in Canada, for instance.

See, this is one of the reasons why I think the healthcare debate has gotten so far out of hand. There are a great many Democrats having difficulty with these bills and a great many independents in opposition to some very fundamental aspects of the proposals. We're in agreement that the private insurance relationship in this country has been mishandled, but we're likely in disagreement as to what that relationship should look like.

I thought that you really don't believe that we're in a health care crisis right now? Is this semantics, or do you disagree with the dangers of a continuing insolvent Medicare?

You're going to get a whole bunch of people apeshit about policies that are overtly hostile to the private sector. Imposing a massive increase in burden on private insurers while positioning yourself to compete with it is simply not agreeable. You have to get that prospect off the table to have productive discourse for most.

I agree, but what I see more so right now is complete lack of willingness to even begin to compromise on these issues. I hear that the government should not have any involvement in health care whatsoever, and that's that. *That* I think is a more fundamental disagreement with the proposals (which, of course, is focusing on a part of the overall plans). What confuses me is how these arguments seem to be characterized. We've been running Medicare for many years for better or worse without the same people crying bloody murder (and I'm not saying that this is a good thing or a bad thing, but it is a thing, isn't it?)

I think the current Administration saw a low public opinion of insurance companies and miscalculated the collective sentiment of the US on this one. Just as there has been a lot of misunderstanding around the current healthcare proposals, there is a lot of ignorance around how insurance companies function.

That is true. I think you could say that there is a "lot of ignorance" and stop your sentence right there, and I don't exclude myself. However, you have to admit that asking Joe Sixpack to understand how the insurance companies work is asking a whole lot.

Forget about your negative feelings about the government running health care for a moment if you can, and try to understand my experience growing up in Canada. My family has had a very hard time understanding my explaining them the health care system here and its intricacies, I certainly don't understand them all myself. Contrast this to getting sick in Canada. You don't have to worry about who is in network, whether your insurance will cover your sickness, how much, whether you can afford the deductible, etc. you just... go to the doctor.

I fully realize that this alone is not enough to convince anybody of squat, I'm not trying to convince you of anything but am merely pointing out that the insurance system here is damn complicated. It's not surprising that the debate is all over the place, and I think the complexity of the system is certainly partially to blame.

I agree. I hope we can bring the discussion of opening interstate commerce for insurers back to the table and cut much of the regulatory legislation that leads to extremely unhealthy, unsustainable market behaviors by players like PhRMA, Medicare, and Medicaid. I hope through this we can pool the self-employed and a huge chunk of the uninsured by facilitating free market principles of robust competition instead of discouraging it. The good news is you could get started immediately without subsidizing a dime of it at this point.

Ultimately, I just want more coverage for less. I don't really care how it gets done so long as the results are there. I don't understand why so many people seem to have a problem with the means regardless of the end.

At the end of the day, most are happy with their own care and the way this Administration has handled this has been dishonest IMO.

What is your basis for saying that most people are happy with their own care? Are you referring to the medical care itself, or the entire system? I would definitely disagree with the latter and would suggest that there is plenty of room for improvement in the former. If people knew that their elite paramedics are not being paid anywhere close to elite dollars, for instance, I think many would conclude that whatever quality they enjoy with these sorts of emergency services is due to pure luck (not to mention the fact that our ER rooms are not used exclusively for actual emergencies).

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

My frustration and emotion. Not obligatory, but voluntary this time. Let's just say that I would very much prefer that if people are to express such passion about an issue that we establish a basic factual baseline. I'm reading a lot of wild jumps and such dense, dense rhetoric that sometimes I just need a vacation from politics. Ever feel that way yourself?

Meh. It's just part of the territory. I don't mind ignorance, it's the combination of ignorance and belligerence that sets me off.

When I refer to a "factual baseline", I'm not referring to my opinions, but what is actually indisputably factual. You have no idea how many people have asked me if I could have chosen my own doctor in Canada, for instance.

The "45 million uninsured" is one such misunderstanding people have of the US system. Comparisons of infant mortality and life-expectancy are also dishonest measures of quality of healthcare. I agree, getting to the factual baseline through the noise is not as easy as it should be.

I thought that you really don't believe that we're in a health care crisis right now? Is this semantics, or do you disagree with the dangers of a continuing insolvent Medicare?

Of course I appreciate the dangers of an insolvent institution managing health care in the US, but this is no different than the dangers of an insolvent Canadian health care system. Any program with increasing needs, dependent on tax revenue will risk instability. It is unfortunate, but true.

I agree, but what I see more so right now is complete lack of willingness to even begin to compromise on these issues.

I agree and the lack of willingness for compromise seems to be the inability to entertain the notion of opening up interstate commerce between insurers allowing them to truly compete for business for one example. This is killing availability.

I hear that the government should not have any involvement in health care whatsoever, and that's that.

The arguments are actually much deeper than that. No one is saying "no involvement". What people are saying generally is "less involvement" and "their current level of involvement proves unsustainable." It is understandably difficult to move from this stance to; "let's move the remaining 54% onto a similar program."

*That* I think is a more fundamental disagreement with the proposals (which, of course, is focusing on a part of the overall plans). What confuses me is how these arguments seem to be characterized. We've been running Medicare for many years for better or worse without the same people crying bloody murder (and I'm not saying that this is a good thing or a bad thing, but it is a thing, isn't it?)

Complaints of Medicare mismanagement have abounded just about every election year I can remember in the US. It always has and always will be a political football.

That is true. I think you could say that there is a "lot of ignorance" and stop your sentence right there, and I don't exclude myself. However, you have to admit that asking Joe Sixpack to understand how the insurance companies work is asking a whole lot.

I'd agree with the exception that Joe Sixpack's experiences are what we're supposed to be measuring here. Believe it or not, Joe Sixpack is not as beholden to politics as politicians and often have a more subtle air of common sense at their disposal. They often understand more than you think.

Forget about your negative feelings about the government running health care for a moment if you can, and try to understand my experience growing up in Canada. My family has had a very hard time understanding my explaining them the health care system here and its intricacies, I certainly don't understand them all myself. Contrast this to getting sick in Canada. You don't have to worry about who is in network, whether your insurance will cover your sickness, how much, whether you can afford the deductible, etc. you just... go to the doctor.

I would likewise ask that you abandon distaste for private insurance to understand that I was one of 5 in my family and we all "just went to the doctor", "just went to the dentist", "just went to the optometrist", "just got immense treatments for my mother's lung cancer", etc... We didn't have to worry about "who was in network", whether insurance will cover the sickness, etc... Of course we have to worry about how much it'll cost just as we worry how much we're spending on things we don't need in this country like 2500 sq ft of living space, 600 channels of cable, two video game systems, two car payments, $6,000 spent annually on eating out and entertainment. These are all aspects of running a family budget. We have a "prosperity problem" in this country as much as a "health care crisis". I know these are annoying arguments for many, but we absolutely have to address our own priorities in this. Of course we want more for less, but giving the surplus to government for the management of our care is simply unnecessary evidenced by the apparent surplus most Americans have.

I fully realize that this alone is not enough to convince anybody of squat, I'm not trying to convince you of anything but am merely pointing out that the insurance system here is damn complicated. It's not surprising that the debate is all over the place, and I think the complexity of the system is certainly partially to blame.

I can't disagree here. I think tort reform would go a long way toward mitigating the bureaucratic nightmare of our system. I think minimizing the role of government will almost always simplify the bureaucracy inherent in government operation in the US. (Canada may be more effective on this front, but you can bet if it's ridiculously complicated in this country-the government is involved. Just look at our 17,000 page tax structure)

Ultimately, I just want more coverage for less. I don't really care how it gets done so long as the results are there. I don't understand why so many people seem to have a problem with the means regardless of the end.

I certainly can't disagree here. I think there are a great many things for which we want more and pay less. I don't know that this desire in and of itself is grounds for proposing some of the legislation we're looking at with the various options being presented through numerous versions of health care reform.

What is your basis for saying that most people are happy with their own care? Are you referring to the medical care itself, or the entire system? I would definitely disagree with the latter and would suggest that there is plenty of room for improvement in the former.

I would say both. Over 82% claim they are "happy with their own coverage and care." To me, this says they are happy with both the system and level of care they receive in this country.

If people knew that their elite paramedics are not being paid anywhere close to elite dollars, for instance, I think many would conclude that whatever quality they enjoy with these sorts of emergency services is due to pure luck (not to mention the fact that our ER rooms are not used exclusively for actual emergencies).

There have and always will be complaints regarding any number of emergency services and availability. This is no different in systems we're attempting to move towards while they move away from.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Truth be told, I'm not offended this easily and wouldn't post here if I were. I didn't bring my own father into the equation to make this about me, but to put a real face to your sophomoric "humor". A face other than a polarizing political figure.

It's about the 70,000 Alzheimer's deaths per year and the possibility that it affects a great many here. If you missed it, I was telling you to grow up.

you rascal you!

i was making fun of reagan... you made it that i was making fun of all altzheimer's patients including your father...

don't put words in my mouth

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

you rascal you! i was making fun of reagan...

... for a disease. Grow up.

[olePigeon]

My mom couldn't get health insurance because she had cancer. Ironic. She found out she had breast cancer just before she moved to find a new job (she was on contract, so she couldn't stay employed while waiting for the other job.) The second she was diagnosed with cancer, she couldn't get any insurance what-so-ever.

Because she had seven months before her new job started, she had to mortgaged her home to pay for chemo. After she got her job she was able to get insurance through her union. She then got to go back for addition treatment, though she had to have both her breasts removed.

Thankfully the chemo did the trick. It's been 15 years and there's been no sign of cancer anywhere. Despite being 15 years, she can not get insurance unless it's through a union.

Obama's plan might not be the best plan, but for millions of people in the same situation as my mom it is quite literally better than nothing.

Reagan gets insurance because he's rich. My mom's a primary school teacher, she's lucky if she can afford her mortgage when insurance companies aren't kicking her to the curb because she had cancer.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

... for a disease. Grow up.

no for his lack of intelligence. grow up

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

no for his lack of intelligence. grow up

thats funny. To an educated person... it appears, quite clearly, that you are making fun of his alzheimers.

Originally Posted by Ironknee

wonder what he thought about it when he had alzheimer's... what? who am i?

You even spelled it out for us and used the word alzheimers!!

The inconvenient part of a written conversation is that your words are still quite clearly there for review, and your immaturity continues to be quite clearly apparent.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

no for his lack of intelligence. grow up

Having had someone close me growing up pass on from this ailment, let me reiterate how poor your taste is. I'll echo ebuddy's high road and deny taking offense from your childish "joke." But let me also state that the person I lost, even most of the way through this disease, showed more class and intelligence than I've seen from you.

"Grow up" and admit your poor choice for interjection.

[besson3c]

Well, I'm legally retarded yet you guys make fun of me all the time. What's up with that?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

My mom couldn't get health insurance because she had cancer. Ironic. She found out she had breast cancer just before she moved to find a new job (she was on contract, so she couldn't stay employed while waiting for the other job.) The second she was diagnosed with cancer, she couldn't get any insurance what-so-ever.

Because she had seven months before her new job started, she had to mortgaged her home to pay for chemo. After she got her job she was able to get insurance through her union. She then got to go back for addition treatment, though she had to have both her breasts removed.

Thankfully the chemo did the trick. It's been 15 years and there's been no sign of cancer anywhere. Despite being 15 years, she can not get insurance unless it's through a union.

Obama's plan might not be the best plan, but for millions of people in the same situation as my mom it is quite literally better than nothing.

Reagan gets insurance because he's rich. My mom's a primary school teacher, she's lucky if she can afford her mortgage when insurance companies aren't kicking her to the curb because she had cancer.

I'm sorry to hear about your mom's ailment, and let me say that I am happy to hear of the positive outcome...

I think most of the fears stem from the fact that this "plan" will ultimately lead to a worse situation, where the government is unable to provide basic, much less quality, care for such disease due to fiscal disaster. There will be no recourse, unions, other companies, etc. That will be it...law...final...forget it. Thats what we're trying to prevent.

----

My significant other is slowly dying from a disease thats currently eating away at her. The treatment for her disease is far worse than the disease itself is to her right now. Doctors have advised against treating because it has a significant (over 50%) chance or A) not doing anything against the virus, B) killing her outright, or C) not doing anything and further complicating her medical condition. Interferon is not a a treatment that anybody should look forward to.

She grew up in Eastern Europe and got the disease because of the poor health conditions during the communist times...it is arguable she contracted it because her family didn't have the money/resources to pay off the doctor enough to provide quality care (e.g. use a clean needle to give vaccinations). That care was provided by the government, by a public doctor who had no incentive to provide care unless you made it worth his while...e.g. a bribe.

Her family since moved to America, where her father found success. They are now what Obama defines as "rich" many times over (truly the American dream). She knows that with a public option she could never get the level of care she is getting now. Ever. Luckily thus far her virus has been far less than it was predicted it would be and her daily life is minimally affected. Enduring fatigue and well as intermittent pain in her abdomen are the only symptoms right now.

Waiting for a promising treatment to come out is an incredibly painful process. The years drag on and the window gets smaller. Her and millions of others infected with Hep C are terrified of a public option, that would undoubtedly hinder the process of new treatments coming to market as quickly as safely possible, and as well limit her options for care in the future. There simply would be no incentive other than the good will of people with the resources. That is not as strong a motive as many would hope and/or idealize.. Free market competition, however, is quite persuasive...and provides hope to those waiting on better treatments in the future to cure their chronic illnesses.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I'm sorry to hear about your mom's ailment, and let me say that I am happy to hear of the positive outcome...

I think most of the fears stem from the fact that this "plan" will ultimately lead to a worse situation, where the government is unable to provide basic, much less quality, care for such disease due to fiscal disaster. There will be no recourse, unions, other companies, etc. That will be it...law...final...forget it. Thats what we're trying to prevent.

And where are these fears coming from? In the future, if you aren't happy with the quality, don't use public insurance. Why haven't we been hearing about Medicare being in a quality crisis for all these years? The biggest issue with it is its solvency, and this is a legitimate concern. However, I'm not quite feeling these doomsday scenarios. We are potentially adding a new option, we aren't forcing you to use it, and we aren't forcing you to give up your private health insurance. If it will suck so badly, you have nothing to worry about if you are happy with your private insurance, this will be no threat to it (if you pay attention to things in Canada, you will reading about how public health insurance is threatened by private health insurance, not the reverse). In addition, we are creating new consumers of health care. We are making preventative care a little more likely to be sought after rather than waiting until you have no choice but to drag yourself into an ER room.

The fear is a fear of change, but it's not a fear that seems terribly well thought out by most. The fear I have is with dollars and cents, but I really don't think that the changes will lead to us putting dead pig heads on sticks.

Waiting for a promising treatment to come out is an incredibly painful process. The years drag on and the window gets smaller. Her and millions of others infected with Hep C are terrified of a public option, that would undoubtedly hinder the process of new treatments coming to market as quickly as safely possible, and as well limit her options for care in the future. There simply would be no incentive other than the good will of people with the resources. That is not as strong a motive as many would hope and/or idealize.. Free market competition, however, is quite persuasive...and provides hope to those waiting on better treatments in the future to cure their chronic illnesses.

I'm very sorry to hear about this, but if it's any comfort to you, wise old besson3c thinks that your fears are not warranted. There will still be plenty of opportunity and motive to sell wonder cures and treatments at whatever price the inventor/creator(s) set both to this market and the international market. In Canada, as I understand it, these sorts of bleeding edge procedures are rationed, not made freely available to everybody for a nickel. Access to this treatment might be rationed under a public system, but she'll still be able to get it privately if her insurance company is not rationing it themselves. Rationing is going to occur to some extent under any system, and surely happens now under Medicare.

This is about adding options targeted to people that never had insurance before who are a great expense and strain on our current system, this is not about a government takeover of health care. Perhaps I'm just a little more relaxed about this being Canadian, but really, I think some of you are just a wee bit paranoid about this stuff.

[besson3c]

Also, I'm playing devil's advocate for what is being *said* about the five plans being discussed now and relating things to my own experience and understanding having lived in Canada. How things end up I'm not going to vouch for since I haven't read the bills nor will I likely get around to it, but I'm excited about the prospects of trying something new, because I'm sick of what we have now.

I'm sure there will be problems, I'm sure there will be warts, possibly even big ones. Then again, what we have now sucks balls anyway.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Having had someone close me growing up pass on from this ailment, let me reiterate how poor your taste is. I'll echo ebuddy's high road and deny taking offense from your childish "joke."

not talking to you

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

But let me also state that the person I lost, even most of the way through this disease, showed more class and intelligence than I've seen from you.

how?

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

"Grow up" and admit your poor choice for interjection.

reagan was an idiot

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

not talking to you

Doesn't matter. This is a public forum. A public thread. Your comments are talking to me. If you want a private conversation then use the "PM" function on the forums.

how?

He didn't make offensive and childish comments against those with terrible diseases. And though at the end he could put sentences together at a 1st grade level, people respected those words far more than is worthy of yours.

reagan was an idiot

You're intellect continues to astound me. Your communications skills even more.

I don't think i need say much more. The audience can see for themselves your credibility and what you define yourself around here with. Considering the path you've taken this thread, I'm done here. Perhaps another place will actually get something productive going, without your interference.

[besson3c]

Snow: welcome to the PWL, where nothing is ever productive

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

And where are these fears coming from? In the future, if you aren't happy with the quality, don't use public insurance. Why haven't we been hearing about Medicare being in a quality crisis for all these years? The biggest issue with it is its solvency, and this is a legitimate concern. However, I'm not quite feeling these doomsday scenarios. We are potentially adding a new option, we aren't forcing you to use it, and we aren't forcing you to give up your private health insurance. If it will suck so badly, you have nothing to worry about if you are happy with your private insurance, this will be no threat to it (if you pay attention to things in Canada, you will reading about how public health insurance is threatened by private health insurance, not the reverse). In addition, we are creating new consumers of health care. We are making preventative care a little more likely to be sought after rather than waiting until you have no choice but to drag yourself into an ER room.

Whether or not I use it...I will be paying for it. The federal government's track record with ideologies such as this is absolutely terrible. I am not willing to take another huge chunk out of my paycheck for another huge gov't failure. You simply don't promote someone who does shoddy work.

There are far better ways to stimulate "new consumers" into the health care industry. What about illegal immigrants...am I paying for their checkups too?

The fear is a fear of change, but it's not a fear that seems terribly well thought out by most. The fear I have is with dollars and cents, but I really don't think that the changes will lead to us putting dead pig heads on sticks.

I have no fears of change. I support it when its necessary and will have obvious benefits. The fact that this change doesn't seem terribly well thought out is exactly what is causing my fears with this "plan."

I'm very sorry to hear about this, but if it's any comfort to you, wise old besson3c thinks that your fears are not warranted. There will still be plenty of opportunity and motive to sell wonder cures and treatments at whatever price the inventor/creator(s) set both to this market and the incentive international market.

Opportunity perhaps...motive and incentive? Not so much.

In Canada, as I understand it, these sorts of bleeding edge procedures are rationed, not made freely available to everybody for a nickel. Access to this treatment might be rationed under a public system, but she'll still be able to get it privately if her insurance company is not rationing it themselves. Rationing is going to occur to some extent under any system, and surely happens now under Medicare.

I just don't buy it. It isn't a fear of change...its empty assurances founded on nothing but theoretical idealism that fuels your argument.

This is about adding options targeted to people that never had insurance before who are a great expense and strain on our current system.

So this is adding options at who's expense? Mine, yours, everyones.

, this is not about a government takeover of health care. Perhaps I'm just a little more relaxed about this being Canadian, but really, I think some of you are just a wee bit paranoid about this stuff.

It is indeed a government takeover. It is a stated objective of the current leader of the "free" world, and this is the first step towards it.

Why even start down the path that will surely replicate failure that has been demonstrated time and again?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Snow: welcome to the PWL, where nothing is ever productive

Oh, and by done...I meant ironknee is the first, and most likely last, to ever make my ignore list. Even stumblinmike who is the polar opposite of my views has garnered a unique respect that at least adds something to the discussion, whether I agree with it or not.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Whether or not I use it...I will be paying for it. The federal government's track record with ideologies such as this is absolutely terrible. I am not willing to take another huge chunk out of my paycheck for another huge gov't failure. You simply don't promote someone who does shoddy work.

There are far better ways to stimulate "new consumers" into the health care industry. What about illegal immigrants...am I paying for their checkups too?

You are obfuscating the argument by bringing new variables into the picture here, I think. Your argument was about the quality of care, and I addressed that as best as I could. Bringing the issue of whether or not we should all be paying for public health care with our tax dollars (keeping in mind that we already do with Medicare), and the whole immigrant angle is a whole other discussion. My point remains, I don't think you have much to worry about as far as quality suffering...

I have no fears of change. I support it when its necessary and will have obvious benefits. The fact that this change doesn't seem terribly well thought out is exactly what is causing my fears with this "plan."

Well, for starters, there are five plans, and we know very little about any of them because we are knee deep in rhetoric and talking heads talking past each other on cable news. I think we all ought to try to get past this and try to learn as much as we can with an open mind before making up our minds once the details of the bill that ends up being voted on are available. I'm taking a wait and see approach for right now, although I'm not really optimistic about anything coming to fruition, to be honest.

Opportunity perhaps...motive and incentive? Not so much.

Why not? The makers of the next amazing drug have ample motivation to sell their drugs to all American consumers carrying private or public insurance, as well as to the entire world. In Canada prescription drugs are not covered under Canadian Medicare. I haven't cross referenced any of the five plans being proposed, but what if the one that passes doesn't cover prescription drugs either? This would result in literally no net change, right? I think it is likely that there is a severe limitation on coverage of prescription drugs under anything that we put forth too, except perhaps for seniors and certain drugs.

If the lack of prescription drug coverage in a country like Canada comes as a surprise to anybody reading this, perhaps you ought to learn more? I don't mean this in a confrontational way, but there is a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding about this stuff, not that I claim to understand it myself.

I just don't buy it. It isn't a fear of change...its empty assurances founded on nothing but theoretical idealism that fuels your argument.

Couldn't I say that your personal feelings fuel your predictions of the future too? My feelings are based largely on what I know about coverage in Canada. I don't know if what will be proposed will be anything like it, nor am I trying to claim that what Canada has is without flaw, but...

So this is adding options at who's expense? Mine, yours, everyones.

Again, you are conflating arguments. That is a whole other argument.

It is indeed a government takeover. It is a stated objective of the current leader of the "free" world, and this is the first step towards it.

No, a government takeover would be government micromanaging every aspect of health care. I have no reason to believe that this is where we're headed, and no, the government doesn't micromanage health care in Canada either. Furthermore, for now there is no bill that proposes eliminating private health insurance. I'm sorry to be edgy, but if you really believe that private health insurance is going anywhere, I have a bridge to sell you. How can you guys go on about how sucky this public insurance will be, yet be so threatened by private insurance companies being unable to compete? Again, you should seriously jump in on this debate in Canada where there is a mix of public and private.

The reality is that there is a whole vast menu of health related services, a whole vast menu of different patient needs, circumstances, histories, and special cases. There will be areas for both public and private options to exist, and likely things that will not be covered under the public system which makes the private system it by default. It makes no logical sense for us to jump in with a complete takeover of our entire medical system with public insurance and a complete disbanding of private insurance, especially in this climate. We will start off with a modest step and go from there. If you are really so certain of public health insurance being an epic failure, you need not worry about it growing beyond our first steps.

Why even start down the path that will surely replicate failure that has been demonstrated time and again?

It depends on how you measure it, doesn't it? How many Canadians die because they don't have access to health care? How many face bankruptcy because they don't have access to it? Is it clear that Canadian average life expectancies are lower? Who is paying more for their health care as a percentage of their GDP? Shouldn't there be no measurement which makes Canada look a little better if we are paying this much more for a system that hasn't demonstrated failure time and time again?

It all depends on how you look at it.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

no for his lack of intelligence. grow up

You said Alzheimer's, but the good news is while you might be trying to BS yourself; it's apparent from your backpedaling that at least you're aware of what a moronic statement it was.

You're free to have the last word, even if it's pppbbblllllttttt.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

My mom couldn't get health insurance because she had cancer. Ironic. She found out she had breast cancer just before she moved to find a new job (she was on contract, so she couldn't stay employed while waiting for the other job.) The second she was diagnosed with cancer, she couldn't get any insurance what-so-ever.

Because she had seven months before her new job started, she had to mortgaged her home to pay for chemo. After she got her job she was able to get insurance through her union. She then got to go back for addition treatment, though she had to have both her breasts removed.

Thankfully the chemo did the trick. It's been 15 years and there's been no sign of cancer anywhere. Despite being 15 years, she can not get insurance unless it's through a union.

Obama's plan might not be the best plan, but for millions of people in the same situation as my mom it is quite literally better than nothing.

Reagan gets insurance because he's rich. My mom's a primary school teacher, she's lucky if she can afford her mortgage when insurance companies aren't kicking her to the curb because she had cancer.

As one with a mother who eventually relented to a rare form of lung cancer, let me offer my solidarity olePigeon. If we agree on little else, I'm certain it would be what a horrible disease cancer is.

The problem you cite with your mother is statistically 1 in 10 in the US. i.e. while a good example of necessary reform, thankfully your mother's scenario is not the norm. Typically, you may have to pay a higher premium, but you are not denied coverage. Survival rates for cancer victims in the US are exponentially greater than all systems with the exception of Cuba who's data has been deemed bad. U.S. fared better in 13 of the 16 cancers studied in a direct comparison between American and European care with Canada for example, showing a 16% higher cancer death rate.
5-year cancer survival rates

All in all as difficult as it was, your mother likely fared better in the US than she would've elsewhere. Take Kennedy's brain cancer for example; a drug called Termodal is being used with striking success. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in Britain ruled in 2001 that Temodal wasn't effective enough for the money as a first-line treatment. In 2007, they finally acknowledged the merit of the drug and enabled its use for those who wanted to pay out-of-pocket. The problem here is a recent ruling by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in which a patient opts out of a singular type of care, they opt out of all publicly funded care. In fact, A Clinical Oncology study of British lung cancer treatment found in the year 2000, that "20% of potentially curable patients became incurable on the waiting list."
manhattan_institute

One of the major portions of this discussion that has gotten all, but lost in this debate is medical research, discovery, and advancement in this country. We hear the horrors of bad record keeping (which is resolved without sweeping reform), we hear about the horrors of a somewhat free market-based employer-provided private insurance market, but we don't talk enough about what our system does right and how it leads the world in advancement. There's a reason for this and it begins and ends with a competitive environment. There are policies our government can enact right now to bolster this same degree of competitive spirit in the private insurance market. It must act with courage and begin to eliminate the State-by-State regulations that are hamstringing competition. It can do this for free and it should start immediately with any talk of "reform".

[ebuddy]

*To add- I'm hearing a lot of arguments that begin; "if the public option is going to suck so bad, why are you concerned that it will beat-out private insurance?!?"

The answer is really quite simple, a playing field that is tilted substantially away from private insurers.
- increasing mandates for minimum care
- imposing fees on private insurers
- Independant research has concluded that a public option would have a premium 30% less than the private market which will see 32 million move from private to public. In some proposed plans like those proposed by Clinton and Edwards, as many as 119 million would leave their private insurer. An employer is not going to pay a penalty and require their employees to pay higher premiums over ideological differences. Any healthcare expert or economist you can think of knows this. The CBO knows this and has weighed in. The only ones denying it are the ones who want a public option so badly they will outright lie to get it. I'm sorry, there's just no other way to frame it. It is fact.
- A public market is not beholden to the same regulations, property taxes, and State-by-state licensing requirements.
- Those citing how private insurers are threatening public options abroad are not acknowledging how the relationship has developed over the past few decades. The use of the private options in other countries is a silent protest against a system that is failing them. Over time a government has no choice, but to acknowledge the pitfalls of their bureaucratic monstrosities.

In fact, the proposals share some basic problems such as increasing taxes on those who earn $250k (those who employ people) or more, threaten small business through coverage requirements, penalties, and fees, tax insurance policies, threaten medical advancement in general, and threaten private insurers with a tilted playing field. Most ironically, these bad ideas are evidenced by the number of countries who used to embrace the public options now moving away from them. Yet they're somehow used as an argument for how harmless a public option would be?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

*To add- I'm hearing a lot of arguments that begin; "if the public option is going to suck so bad, why are you concerned that it will beat-out private insurance?!?"

The answer is really quite simple, a playing field that is tilted substantially away from private insurers.
- increasing mandates for minimum care
- imposing fees on private insurers
- Independant research has concluded that a public option would have a premium 30% less than the private market which will see 32 million move from private to public. In some proposed plans like those proposed by Clinton and Edwards, as many as 119 million would leave their private insurer. An employer is not going to pay a penalty and require their employees to pay higher premiums over ideological differences. Any healthcare expert or economist you can think of knows this. The CBO knows this and has weighed in. The only ones denying it are the ones who want a public option so badly they will outright lie to get it. I'm sorry, there's just no other way to frame it. It is fact.
- A public market is not beholden to the same regulations, property taxes, and State-by-state licensing requirements.
- Those citing how private insurers are threatening public options abroad are not acknowledging how the relationship has developed over the past few decades. The use of the private options in other countries is a silent protest against a system that is failing them. Over time a government has no choice, but to acknowledge the pitfalls of their bureaucratic monstrosities.

In fact, the proposals share some basic problems such as increasing taxes on those who earn $250k (those who employ people) or more, threaten small business through coverage requirements, penalties, and fees, tax insurance policies, threaten medical advancement in general, and threaten private insurers with a tilted playing field. Most ironically, these bad ideas are evidenced by the number of countries who used to embrace the public options now moving away from them. Yet they're somehow used as an argument for how harmless a public option would be?

There are a lot of what ifs here... If the premiums are 30% lower in a public option and private insurers are unable to match the volume of the public option after all is said and done, what then? You can have a business model that works on more than just sheer volume, there is always room for competition in an area this vast with so many niches to fill. As long as there is demand and somebody willing to pay for your services, the laws of supply and demand will always work in your favor.

If employees are unhappy with the service they are getting, employers have incentives to switch to something else. There is pressure today for employers today to provide a particular kind of health insurance that offers the most in-network coverage in the particular area, and comprehensive rather than basic coverage. If public insurance will suck as bad as you think it will, it won't be long before employers return to offering what will make them competitive and what their employees demand. Again, this is supply and demand.

The idea of private options being "silent protests" in other countries is one rather spun way of looking at things. For starters, in many cases private options exist because there is no public equivalent at all. In others, they are filling a specific niche. In others, they are competing directly against the public system for those that want an alternative to a system that is never going to be perfect, just as private insurance will never be perfect either. Is Medicare a silent protest to private insurance? Is having no insurance a silent protest (for some, it might be)?

Since when have options not been a good thing? Are we supposed to sit around and wait for private insurance to fix itself and be everything to everybody?

What are you guys really afraid of?

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You said Alzheimer's, but the good news is while you might be trying to BS yourself; it's apparent from your backpedaling that at least you're aware of what a moronic statement it was.

You're free to have the last word, even if it's pppbbblllllttttt.

reagan lost his mind before he lost his mind

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

There are a lot of what ifs here... If the premiums are 30% lower in a public option and private insurers are unable to match the volume of the public option after all is said and done, what then? You can have a business model that works on more than just sheer volume, there is always room for competition in an area this vast with so many niches to fill. As long as there is demand and somebody willing to pay for your services, the laws of supply and demand will always work in your favor.

You're missing some fundamental aspects of this issue besson. By mandating basic coverages they are taking from their bottom line. By proposing premium paybacks to the insured, they are taking more from the bottom line. By offering a government plan be it a "co-op" or the more popular "public option", they are not beholden to property taxes, state regulation, or profitability to name a few differences. This is not competition. Competition would be to allow the numerous insurers to compete against one another. This wouldn't require imposing fees on small businesses, taxes on those that employ people, and the wealth of other measures necessary to help fund this monstrosity. Employers faced with the prospect of paying a penalty and remaining on their own insurance while watching the premiums of their employees increase along with their taxes, they are not going to remain with their current coverage over ideological differences. They will move to the public plan. Again, your arguments would have a lot more merit if the CBO hadn't already weighed in with the caveats here. These are all well-documented problems besson, not "what-ifs".

If employees are unhappy with the service they are getting, employers have incentives to switch to something else.

One of the incentives is to avoid a fee. This is not the level playing field this Administration would have you believe. Increases in taxes, penalties on insurance policies, and penalties on employers are all issues that will directly affect us not only as insureds, but as consumers of goods that will simply have to increase to cover expenses. I don't want any proposal of government welfare for businesses when an overwhelming majority are already happy with their healthcare and the country by any definition you'd like use; broke.

There is pressure today for employers today to provide a particular kind of health insurance that offers the most in-network coverage in the particular area, and comprehensive rather than basic coverage. If public insurance will suck as bad as you think it will, it won't be long before employers return to offering what will make them competitive and what their employees demand. Again, this is supply and demand.

No sir because the life's blood of business is growth and profit. Moving back to the more expensive option will not help your bottom line. Particularly when your employees are already paying taxes into the system and you'll face additional penalties by doing so. Competition could be bolstered yesterday and it wouldn't cost anyone a dime. Period.

The idea of private options being "silent protests" in other countries is one rather spun way of looking at things. For starters, in many cases private options exist because there is no public equivalent at all. In others, they are filling a specific niche. In others, they are competing directly against the public system for those that want an alternative to a system that is never going to be perfect, just as private insurance will never be perfect either. Is Medicare a silent protest to private insurance? Is having no insurance a silent protest (for some, it might be)?

Medicare was the cry of a people that lacked coverage because of failed regulations hindering competition between insurers. The government broke the relationship then hired an expensive, but incompetent counselor to patch it up. The bottom line besson is that the healthcare systems being propped up as models for the US are broken. If I told you that you and I would have a gentlemanly competition of poker and I got to look at your cards, is this competition? Of course not. The deck is firmly stacked against the private sector. If they wanted competition, they wouldn't have to compile a massive government entity to do it.

Since when have options not been a good thing?

Options are a great thing. That's what I've been trying to tell you.

Are we supposed to sit around and wait for private insurance to fix itself and be everything to everybody?

You're trying to cure a virus by addressing symptoms. Insurance is not broken, government policy is. It is about to propose more broken government policy to ease the symptoms. Evidence shows the virus will grow in spite.

What are you guys really afraid of?

A government more bent on agendas than solutions and a populace too ignorant (or bent by the same ideology) to oppose it.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You're missing some fundamental aspects of this issue besson. By mandating basic coverages they are taking from their bottom line. By proposing premium paybacks to the insured, they are taking more from the bottom line. By offering a government plan be it a "co-op" or the more popular "public option", they are not beholden to property taxes, state regulation, or profitability to name a few differences.

I think you are missing some fundamental aspects too. For starters, you have this seemingly unwavering belief that all one has to do is remove all regulation and everything will work out great in the end? You could possibly argue this by looking at the collapse of the banks, but even more fundamental than that, how is it logical to believe that an entity that is already making a ton of money is interested in imposing restraint on themselves for the greater good? Human beings are fundamentally greedy, do you agree on this point?

You can say that it is every American's right to be greedy and make as much money as they want legally, and I agree with that most of the time, but not this time. When the cost of insurance company greed is people not being able to receive coverage and us tax payers having to foot the bills of these patients who visit the ER, this affects me. I would rather my tax dollars go towards something that I can benefit from directly, like improving our schools, roads, whatever. These sorts of benefits (to list a few) far outweigh the benefits of increasing jobs and profit to private insurance companies. Private insurance companies are in it to make a profit no matter what business model is utilized to get them there. If this means selling high (rather than in volume), if this works for them they will keep at it. This is not health to our economy - what we need are cheap and comprehensive options designed to scale across larger volumes, sort of the Walmart of health services. Not everybody is going to want these cheap options, but to many they are better than none. What makes you think that increasing the profitability of companies will want them to change their fundamental business model? Why would any private insurer want to gamble with very low margin products with great potential to become a liability to them? The target audience for these very products also represent greater potential liabilities.

This just doesn't make much sense to me.

So, what solution is there in the form of consumer protection and maximizing my tax payer dollars? One is regulation. Do you agree with regulation of utility companies? Regulation of monopolies? Is there any form of regulation that you agree with? Let's start with this fundamental issue? Unless I'm misunderstanding you and picking up the wrong signals from the frequency of your bringing up removal of regulations, I should start by understanding exactly where you stand on regulation in general.

Employers faced with the prospect of paying a penalty and remaining on their own insurance while watching the premiums of their employees increase along with their taxes, they are not going to remain with their current coverage over ideological differences. They will move to the public plan. Again, your arguments would have a lot more merit if the CBO hadn't already weighed in with the caveats here. These are all well-documented problems besson, not "what-ifs".

Okay, I think I understand what you are saying here. My supply and demand take on this with regards to employees demanding their employers to pick up the tab on a more ideal insurance plan applied to occupations with elite workforces with this sort of leverage. However, if you want to talk about your Walmarts and McDonalds and companies like that that pay some of their workers very little, what have they been offering in the way of health insurance now? Wouldn't making something available to these countless numbers of employees be a net gain given the alternative of nothing (as far as it stands now)? Don't you have to look at the flip side here? How would getting these people out of the ER as their only means of obtaining care benefit our economy?

Since we're being all fundamental here, do you think that health insurance should be tethered to an employer? If so, why? How are small business and freelancers supposed to fare? Have you ever looked into how much some companies pay for their employers health insurance plans? Have I ever quoted you my $12,000/year or whatever it was for insurance at my last job? If I'm a start up, am I supposed to be able to compete with companies like this that can offer their employees $12,000/year health plans?

Much to look at here, let's just put all of the cards on the table so that we are coming at this genuinely and with an open mind from both directions. I don't expect this to change any of your thinking, but do you acknowledge that this is all a balance, and that there is a sense of legitimacy to my point of view even if you disagree with it? I will say here and now that there is a great sense of legitimacy to yours, and I mean that sincerely. We simply have different ideas how all of these variables should be balanced out and weighed. We should never let all off the rhetoric that is out there make us lose sight of this.

I don't want any proposal of government welfare for businesses when an overwhelming majority are already happy with their healthcare and the country by any definition you'd like use; broke.

This just depends on what you read, what you believe, and what source you think is the bestest. I don't want to get into an irrelevant "my article/poll/study is superior to yours", but I will point out a poll that counters what you are saying here: http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/...th-care-option . Again, I don't want to dissect this site or its legitimacy or whatever, I don't give a **** really, I can't and will not vouch for its accuracy, but my point is there are different ways of measuring these sorts of things and applying your own spin to get wildly different numbers.

No sir because the life's blood of business is growth and profit. Moving back to the more expensive option will not help your bottom line. Particularly when your employees are already paying taxes into the system and you'll face additional penalties by doing so. Competition could be bolstered yesterday and it wouldn't cost anyone a dime. Period.

I've already addressed the companies that don't offer any health insurance and the companies with elite workforces where one can demand more from their employers, so we don't need to rehash that again, but I will ask out loud why the Republicans have squandered the great opportunity they've had over the past several years to put more weight behind these theories by getting the insurance companies to do exactly this? I don't mean this in a partisan point scoring sort of way, but a genuine question: what has stopped anybody from working on this? Health care has been an issue that has been seemingly sitting in idle probably ever since Hillary Clinton or something? I'll take increased competition over what we have now, but I also happen to think that a public option is one such way to create competition. Fair competition or not, I see the benefits to the general public far outweighing the benefits to these private insurance companies. I don't mean this morally, but economically too.

You're trying to cure a virus by addressing symptoms. Insurance is not broken, government policy is. It is about to propose more broken government policy to ease the symptoms. Evidence shows the virus will grow in spite.

Sorry, I just don't buy that regulation is the main source of blame for our current failing health care system. At best this seems more like a pie in the sky theory that doesn't jive with Occam's Razor: people are greedy, private companies are in the business to maximize their profits and nothing else, employers are an unnecessary middle man to a realistic shot at comprehensive insurance, etc.

[olePigeon]

I don't understand the problem. If you don't like what the government is offering you (i.e. it's substandard, you're in big waiting lists, etc.) then don't use them. Go through a private insurance company. Maybe that's exactly what the private companies should be advertising to get people to sign up with them.

The government offers college grants, but you can get way bigger and way better grants through private organizations. They aren't a be all, end all solution.

However, because the government will offer insurance regardless of previous conditions, it's a solution for people like my mom and like Snow-I's significant other. It's an alternative, and one that'll insure people who can't otherwise get insurance. This does not cut into private insurer's bottom line because they don't insure people who had/have cancer, HIV & AIDS, etc. anyway.

When poor people and illegal immigrants are no longer going through private insurers, overall premiums will go down because insurers no longer have to pick up the tab. They will be competitive, if not cheaper.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I don't understand the problem. If you don't like what the government is offering you (i.e. it's substandard, you're in big waiting lists, etc.) then don't use them. Go through a private insurance company. Maybe that's exactly what the private companies should be advertising to get people to sign up with them.

It isn't as simple as "don't use them." You'd be paying for the gov't one either way. I for one am opposed to paying for a system that I am not going to use, and that will hurt my ability to shop around.

If you're going to say "then don't use it" you should also argue for "don't pay taxes for it."

When poor people and illegal immigrants are no longer going through private insurers, overall premiums will go down because insurers no longer have to pick up the tab. They will be competitive, if not cheaper.

Then who does pick up the tab? It doesn't magically wisp away you know. And under this system...I'm paying for the illegals' health care, when I'm not even using it for myself!

[Chongo]

It looks like this aren't going well in Vancouver. Canadian members: Is this just BC or are the other health authorities having similar fiscal issues?
Thousands of surgeries may be cut in Metro Vancouver due to government underfunding, leaked paper

By Darah Hansen, Vancouver Sun August 18, 2009

VANCOUVER — Vancouver patients needing neurosurgery, treatment for vascular diseases and other medically necessary procedures can expect to wait longer for care, NDP health critic Adrian Dix said Monday.

Dix said a Vancouver Coastal Health Authority document shows it is considering chopping more than 6,000 surgeries in an effort to make up for a dramatic budgetary shortfall that could reach $200 million.

“This hasn’t been announced by the health authority … but these cuts are coming,” Dix said, citing figures gleaned from a leaked executive summary of “proposed VCH surgical reductions.”

The health authority confirmed the document is genuine, but said it represents ideas only.

“It is a planning document. It has not been approved or implemented,” said spokeswoman Anna Marie D’Angelo.

This makes sense.

Further reductions in surgeries are scheduled during the Olympics, when the health authority plans to close approximately a third of its operating rooms.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

If you're going to say "then don't use it" you should also argue for "don't pay taxes for it."

The amount of money you save on lower premiums will outway any taxes you're paying into the system.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Then who does pick up the tab? It doesn't magically wisp away you know. And under this system...I'm paying for the illegals' health care, when I'm not even using it for myself!

You're already paying for the illegals and the poor, that's why health insurance is so expensive. If you pay a small tax into the government system to pick up the tab of the poor and illegals, your premiums for private insurance will drop more than you're paying into the federal system. Overall you save money.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

The amount of money you save on lower premiums will outway any taxes you're paying into the system.

Doubtful. I pay 30 bucks a month for full care right now. My employer picks up the rest. You really think they'll lower the rates when they're paying more for the gov't system and my healthcare?

No. They'll drop me and tell me they're paying into the govt program, which I will then be forced to use...unless I pick up 3rd party healthcare of which I will pay for out of my own pocket in its entirety. I will end up paying more taxes and bear my own healthcare costs in their entirety should I want to stick with private insurers.

Plus, 5 years down the road when this program is vastly over budget and they raise my taxes yet again to compensate for it...I'll be pretty screwed and be forced to use this government program which I am fully opposed to.

You're already paying for the illegals and the poor, that's why health insurance is so expensive. If you pay a small tax into the government system to pick up the tab of the poor and illegals, your premiums for private insurance will drop more than you're paying into the federal system. Overall you save money.

So you're argument is I'm already paying for them so paying a little more will make me pay less for something that is already covered for me by my employer? This is nonsensical. The number of illegals coming in would skyrocket. Free healthcare for them would skyrocket my expenses to cover illegal immigrants to the US.

I'd rather pay a tax surcharge to ship them home, and rid of the problem from the root and not some government entitlement band aid that will surely go the way of all of the other government programs....way over costs, way under performance standards of today, and the inability for our country to back out of such a disaster.

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Doubtful. I pay 30 bucks a month for full care right now. My employer picks up the rest.

No wonder you are happy with the status quo... you are EXTREMELY fortunate. I pay $620 a month. And I am healthy (physically)! I am not happy with the status quo, nor are the majority of Americans that pay an awful lot more than $30 dollars a month. Look outside your privileged world, Snow-i. There are a lot of people less fortunate than you! We demand change!!!

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Doubtful. I pay 30 bucks a month for full care right now. My employer picks up the rest. You really think they'll lower the rates when they're paying more for the gov't system and my healthcare?

and what if--god forbid--you lose your job? are you still going to have the same coverage?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

I pay $620 a month.And I am healthy (physically)!

Yeah, but you're stupid.

You'd pay someone $500 a month for food insurance if you were told you had to have it, for $100 worth of food.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

No wonder you are happy with the status quo... you are EXTREMELY fortunate. I pay $620 a month. And I am healthy (physically)! I am not happy with the status quo, nor are the majority of Americans that pay an awful lot more than $30 dollars a month. Look outside your privileged world, Snow-i. There are a lot of people less fortunate than you! We demand change!!!

Priveledged? I work at a position that pays 12 bucks an hour, because I was laid off from my previous position for Apple. My income right now is roughly 25k a year. Most of the people here don't even have college degrees, and many of them aren't even high school educated.

My checks are 1/3rd what they once were, and my health benefits are more expensive now than they were worked for Apple.

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Priveledged? I work at a position that pays 12 bucks an hour, because I was laid off from my previous position for Apple. My income right now is roughly 25k a year. Most of the people here don't even have college degrees, and many of them aren't even high school educated.

My checks are 1/3rd what they once were, and my health benefits are more expensive now than they were worked for Apple.

Your health IS your wealth. Sounds trite, but I work in homecare in a very affluent area. Some people live in mansions! Not McMansions, mansions!!! Servants, the whole 9 yards..If you can't get out of bed, it doesn't matter how much money you have! It astounds me how, even at your previous income level, you align yourself with the upper 1%'s political views...your not an insurance executive, you're a poor schlep like me...now act like one! Demand change! And $30 a month for full coverage is PRIVILEGED!