[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

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.

Let me guess, you're on the dole for your healthcare...

[besson3c]

Snow: Universities are generally pretty good about providing full comprehensive coverage, and state universities also have to disclose all of their expenditures. I could direct you to the web page of my former University employer detailing their health care packages they offer employees. I **** you not, they pay $12,000 to cover each family with full insurance.

[besson3c]

Crash: how is stumblinmike stupid? If you want anything approaching comprehensive insurance, that's the kind of money you have to pay each month. Is this a surprise to you? What's stupid about it, exactly?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

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?

Humans are fundamentally greedy, yes. This is precisely why the free market works. In other words, I might really want $20/widget as a seller, but people will only pay this much if they can't get this widget elsewhere for less. If my competition is selling the same widget for $10 I have a couple of immediate choices to make. I can try to make my widget better and give you more value for your dollar, I could continue to hemorrhage customers killing my bottom line, or I can lower my prices to compete. If there are already 300 widget sellers in the country, the problem with the cost of a widget is not that we need just one more widget-seller. We need to ensure we're not distorting the market. Government regulation and worse, government intervention has distorted the market value for healthcare by essentially creating an environment of state-by-state insurance monopolies while discouraging "shopping".

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.

Again, the reason the healthcare market is distorted is already due to government intervention. We don't need a national system, we need a national market. We don't need "just one more insurer", we need to let the already existent, numerous insurers truly compete. State-imposed mandates for particular benefits, providers, and types of coverage, as well as other regulations, distort prices, increase health care costs, and reduce access. We immediately need reforms to allow the purchase and sale of health insurance across state lines. Studies suggest that this move alone would result in 11 million newly insured people immediately.
Univ of Minnesota
Keep in mind that this is 1/4th the "uninsured" in this country without spending a dime as opposed to the CBO estimate of 1/3rd for over a trillion dollars. If the concern here is truly competition and availability, why on earth would you not at least start with a national market? Particularly considering the state of our economy and the size of our national deficit.

This just doesn't make much sense to me.

Our confusion is mutual, but for two completely different reasons.

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.

I believe government regulation is necessary as an emergency provision to kick rogue players or industries run amuck back in line. Too often however, regulations have been used to engineer the free market in a blanketed fashion according to basic economic principles that hamstring it, but prove beneficial to the government entity. i.e. regulations are a good and necessary thing unless they are abused, unnecessary, and proven to cause bad things.

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?

What I'm telling you is that there are already hundreds of insurers. Adding one more to the game is not the solution to "making something available to them". Allowing the already existent, hundreds of insurers to compete is the solution and will "make health insurance more available to them".

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?

Health insurance needs to be severed from the employer. Because of a tax structure that has encouraged employers to offer plans, many corporations use their health coverage as a recruiting tool as you mentioned above. It is a form of compensation the employer can offer without a tax penalty. It remains among the single largest tax breaks of the Federal system. You can see how a poor tax structure can affect market behaviors. Because you weren't paying $12,000 (your employer was) a year for your insurance, they can get away with paying you less overall while incurring no tax penalty and you will not shop for better, cheaper coverage. This distorts not only the insurance market, but the labor market as well. You should be able to change jobs without losing health coverage. Giving individuals the same access to tax free coverage that employers get while opening up the national market through deregulation would open the market to more consumers. My complaint against this Administration has not been centered on defending the employer-based healthcare industry, but to oppose their idea of a "competitive" market for healthcare. i.e. "public" or "coop" competitors. This is unnecessary and very expensive.

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'm with ya besson, we're not worlds apart here. We agree that reform is absolutely necessary. We agree that in this day and age in the US, it is unacceptable that so many find themselves both underinsured and uninsured. We agree that tethering health insurance with your job is ineffective policy and adversely affects the labor market up to and including the use of illegal help. Additionally, it'd be nice to consider job opportunities without having to consider Jr.'s strained ankle first.

Unfortunately the nature of the issue is such that while we can start out close to agreement with the goal, we're some distance apart by the time we're into the gameplan. For example, we agree that there is a delicate balance at play here. We may differ in that when I assess this balance, I tip in favor of the wealth and job creators, the employed, and the majority with what they view as adequate coverage today. I do not want to support policy that in my opinion upsets what is going right. I believe with much less expense, and bureaucracy than is currently proposed in the various measures, we can get real results in relatively short order. I tip to the notion that consumers are never as conscientious with others' money as they are their own. It is never correct (politically or otherwise) for anyone other than you to limit your health care, but people will make these decisions on their own when they cover more of the expense. Deductibles and co-pays should be raised slightly. Before you claim this is harsh, keep in mind that this does not work unless it is in tandem with HSAs and HSA-compatible policies that meet minimum requirements. These HSAs are used just like IRAs, but the employer can contribute to the HSA. Your employer can throw a little something into the HSA as a benefit to you while incurring none of the administrative hassles. This opens the opportunity for consumers to purchase their coverage tax free while investing in a tax-sheltered account and by shopping-they'll save. They'll have insurers all from all over the country to choose from. The transition could actually be eased by also offering Business HSAs for a time. In other words you reform the employer-insurance relationship, not add another insurer.

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.

It is important to note that your cited poll was taken June 15th. You'll recall this thing really blew up when the CBO came out with their assessment of Congressional Democrats' proposal on July 16th. While I also do not want to get mired in the "my poll is better than your poll" debate, your poll is not contemporaneous enough IMO. There are calls for reform, but this does not generally relate to their own situation. Most realize that this system is not sustainable, but there's a stark difference in response when asked "do you want a public option?" and "do you want a government option?" It seems folks view the public option like a public utility when in reality the proposed public option is built and managed by government. The more details made available, the less support for a public option. This is what we see.

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.

How should I know why Republicans squandered the opportunity they had? While I feel there are differences in the measure of boldness between our ideals, anything you do for substantial reform will be bold. No matter what you choose there are any number of lobbies in opposition. I mean there were some prescription-coverage initiatives and some initiatives that enabled the creation of HSAs in 2003, but not much else that I recall. I will say they really had a window of about 3 years to get something done and while very little occurred during that time, it's not really productive to bring up at this point is it?

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.

Hence, our disagreement. I don't think greed is exclusive to the free market. I see an awful lot of greed, waste, and slop in the Federal government. Lest you forget that these are all human institutions. Occam's Razor: power corrupts. We have well-documented historical precedent from which to make this judgment. We have insolvent systems abroad to show us these principles in action today. Politicians are in it for themselves and the special interests that pay for their greed. They are in power for nothing more than power itself. IMO, you shouldn't rely on arguments that are equally useful to your opposition.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

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.

Huh? No. You're entitled to keep your existing health care plan; the new plan does not force you or your employer to use the federal plan.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

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.

If your employer is paying $1000 less per year per employee, that means they can pay you more or eliminate your copay all-together.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Huh? No. You're entitled to keep your existing health care plan; the new plan does not force you or your employer to use the federal plan.

Ah...so again, i'm paying for two.

If your employer is paying $1000 less per year per employee, that means they can pay you more or eliminate your copay all-together.

So i'm paying more taxes and they're paying less into my plan? Sweet! sign me up.

[besson3c]

ebuddy: I'm starting to warm to what you are saying, especially the part about how what we have now is state by state monopolies, and that if each state were competitive that things would be much different now. I can see that. Only, what do we do now? Do we go about breaking up these monopolies? My town is completely owned by Anthem/Blue Cross/Blue Shield/AT&T/Ma Bell/Viacom/who the hell knows who else. How exactly can a new company compete against Anthem? There are a few other companies, and I was actually just in the market for health insurance, but I called around and nobody could tell me for certain that these companies were considered in-network. It sounded like some hadn't even heard of these companies.

What do we do about that, and how likely is this to happen? Has the horse already left the barn?

[besson3c]

Also, could you say that being a health insurance monopoly gives you more leverage to bargain with health care providers?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

So i'm paying more taxes and they're paying less into my plan? Sweet! sign me up.

No. Read again what I typed.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Crash: how is stumblinmike stupid?

Heh. Now there's a loaded question. I'll assume you mean just regarding this issue. it's beyond dumb to be paying that kind of money for a single person, I'd assume young (certainly mentally not older than 15, but I'll assume in his 20's) he claims healthy, with no dependents, no spouse that's covered also. A health insurance company obviously saw him coming. This is EXACTLY the source of the entire problem- who in the world ever convinced people to pay into such a ridiculous protection racket scheme? The Mafia would be proud. "Pay us $600 a month for protection against..." against freakin' what? Colds? Hangnails? Tummyache?

Geesh man, either get a decent job with benefits, get a clue about a cheaper more reasonable plan and stop 'insuring' yourself against being a freakin' hypochondriac or something, or STFU.

Here's an idea- what if every individual being ripped off that badly all of a sudden grew a collective brainstem and refused to pay for such a scam? Gee, I WONDER WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THE PRICE?

You, and stumblin are the SOURCE of all that you're whining about, because you've obviously been willing to be taken.

Too many people have become convinced -nay, obsessed- with the idea that they need to pay someone to be "covered!!!" against the routine, and then end up forking over a fortune for routine care that in a free market would cost a fraction of what they're willing to pay into a goofy protection racket. It's the reason we have this problem in the first place.

I'll say it again- food and clothing are more dire needs than healthcare. Let's have food and clothing insurance!

Rather than markets full of affordable food, I'll just charge you $500 a month and hand you some bread, mayo, and baloney. After all, you're only one paycheck away from starvation!!! With my comprehensive food insurance plan... you're covered! Now enjoy that $500 baloney sandwich! I've eliminated that dire problem of you having to go into a free market and shop around with your own money for what you need. No worries! YOU'RE COVERED!! Bon apetite!

(And before someone like stumblin' says "Ohh goody, where can I sign up?" It's a joke. To illustrate that you're doing something equally DUMB with how you're allowing health care to be marketed to you.

It just amazes me the scam you people have fallen for- not just you and stumblin', but most of the country collectively. Simply astonishing. Whoever first dreamed up the scam, props to them, because it's a doozy.

[besson3c]

Crash: wow! I take it you don't know anybody that has had crippling health expenses? I guess those that do should just "suck it up" or get a cheaper plan or something? Are the people that are going into bankruptcies that are due to health problems going into bankruptcy because they paid too much for their health insurance, or because they didn't have insurance at all? Has it occurred to you that some of the millions without health insurance don't buy those $150/month insurance plans with $6000 deductibles (the sort of plan they can best justify paying for) because they are willing to gamble that they won't have some freak accident - the sort of accidents that these plans are best designed to handle (because they do very little otherwise)? What happens when that gamble fails?

Why must this be such a high stakes gamble, and why do you blame somebody that is not interested in gambling? Sure there are some years where he pays more for his insurance than he uses in health care, but who can predict how often they'll need health care?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Crash: wow! I take it you don't know anybody that has had crippling health expenses?

What crippling health expenses does Stumblin' have? (Other than a SELF-IMPOSED crippling expense of paying way too much for being "covered"?

Are the people that are going into bankruptcies that are due to health problems going into bankruptcy because they paid too much for their health insurance, or because they didn't have insurance at all?

So now you're inventing stumblin' going into bankruptcy over health problems? He said he was healthy. Exactly what health problems are these that require paying through the nose for? If he's just around the corner from bankruptcy, then why pay $600 a month for the privilege?

Has it occurred to you that some of the millions without health insurance don't buy those $150/month insurance plans with $6000 deductibles (the sort of plan they can best justify paying for) because they are willing to gamble that they won't have some freak accident - the sort of accidents that these plans are best designed to handle (because they do very little otherwise)? What happens when that gamble fails?

Has it occurred to you that many of the millions without health insurance are HEALTHY people who've figured out that it's BEYOND STUPID to give up large percentages of their income just to label themselves "covered" when most of their health needs are routine? 'Freak accident' coverage would actually make sense- that's the ONLY sort of thing needing to be insured against. But clearly,. the health insurance industry, and now the government, has figured out that people will pay exorbitant amounts to be "insured" against.. the common cold! The tummyache! The boo-boo. The turn your head and cough.

When's the last time you were in a hospital? When's the last time you had a doctor treat you for anything that far out of the ordinary? How many years have you been paying some ridiculous insurance premium vs. the few times you've actually needed anything beyond the ordinary? Come clean. I'm sick and tired of this nation of hypochondriacs that pretends they're sick all the time and in constant dire need of urgent healthcare. BULLCRAP. Wake up and realize that if insurance was only for actual emergencies, you'd probably only need to reach for an insurance card once or twice in your entire lifetime.

If you and stumblin want to give up such silly amounts of money to 'cover' yourself against the soft of stuff MOST people visit their doctor for MOST often (routine care that should never have been included in insurance coverage in the first place) then do so. Leave me and anyone else with any sense out of it.

Why must this be such a high stakes gamble, and why do you blame somebody that is not interested in gambling?

Not interested in gambling? WAKE UP. That's exactly what you've been doing. Gambling (quite stupidly if you ask me) that as a relatively young person you actually NEED to spend $72,000+ each decade as 'protection' against whatever it is you're so constantly afraid of happening. Like I said, the Mafia would be proud.

Wake up and realize that YOU (and everyone else with the same 'coverage!!!!" obsession, are the SOURCE of the problem, and SOURCE of insurance being what it is. YOU are willing to pay exorbitant amounts for some sense of "coverage!!!" against the bogeyman getting you, and therefore the insurance companies (and eventually the government) are taking you for EXORBITANT AMOUNTS. You're part of your own self-fulfilling prophecy.

Why not pay a fraction of that just to cover the very SLIGHT chance of something truly terrible happening to you? Then why not pay a reasonable price for routine healthcare- which is a product like any other- in a market that's run like any other?

Oh wait, someone convinced you it'd be 'free', or that someone else will pay for you.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

No. Read again what I typed.

I did. Its simply not rational, nor logical as I have pointed out.

You still haven't explain how I'll be paying for two plans and somehow spending less on healthcare (especially one run buy an entity that's bottom line is not attached to its performance). If you're going to argue that it will create competition, see ebuddy's arguments and buy a book outlining the history of governmental social programs and their relative success compared to expense.

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

What crippling health expenses does Stumblin' have? (Other than a SELF-IMPOSED crippling expense of paying way too much for being "covered"?


So now you're inventing stumblin' going into bankruptcy over health problems? He said he was healthy. Exactly what health problems are these that require paying through the nose for? If he's just around the corner from bankruptcy, then why pay $600 a month for the privilege?


Has it occurred to you that many of the millions without health insurance are HEALTHY people who've figured out that it's BEYOND STUPID to give up large percentages of their income just to label themselves "covered" when most of their health needs are routine? 'Freak accident' coverage would actually make sense- that's the ONLY sort of thing needing to be insured against. But clearly,. the health insurance industry, and now the government, has figured out that people will pay exorbitant amounts to be "insured" against.. the common cold! The tummyache! The boo-boo. The turn your head and cough.

When's the last time you were in a hospital? When's the last time you had a doctor treat you for anything that far out of the ordinary? How many years have you been paying some ridiculous insurance premium vs. the few times you've actually needed anything beyond the ordinary? Come clean. I'm sick and tired of this nation of hypochondriacs that pretends they're sick all the time and in constant dire need of urgent healthcare. BULLCRAP. Wake up and realize that if insurance was only for actual emergencies, you'd probably only need to reach for an insurance card once or twice in your entire lifetime.

If you and stumblin want to give up such silly amounts of money to 'cover' yourself against the soft of stuff MOST people visit their doctor for MOST often (routine care that should never have been included in insurance coverage in the first place) then do so. Leave me and anyone else with any sense out of it.


Not interested in gambling? WAKE UP. That's exactly what you've been doing. Gambling (quite stupidly if you ask me) that as a relatively young person you actually NEED to spend $72,000+ each decade as 'protection' against whatever it is you're so constantly afraid of happening. Like I said, the Mafia would be proud.

Wake up and realize that YOU (and everyone else with the same 'coverage!!!!" obsession, are the SOURCE of the problem, and SOURCE of insurance being what it is. YOU are willing to pay exorbitant amounts for some sense of "coverage!!!" against the bogeyman getting you, and therefore the insurance companies (and eventually the government) are taking you for EXORBITANT AMOUNTS. You're part of your own self-fulfilling prophecy.

Why not pay a fraction of that just to cover the very SLIGHT chance of something truly terrible happening to you? Then why not pay a reasonable price for routine healthcare- which is a product like any other- in a market that's run like any other?

Oh wait, someone convinced you it'd be 'free', or that someone else will pay for you.

Crash, welcome to the real world of people paying for their healthcare. You obviously are on the dole, because you don't have a clue as to what the market charges. Ignorance is bliss!
As someone who has an income from employment, and hopefully a future paycheck, it is important to have health coverage. You've heard of garnished wages, liens, etc? A one day stay in the hospital can cost MANY thousands of dollars. As a contributing member of society, I am doing the responsible thing, and paying for my ( and your) healthcare. You should be thanking me, not calling me names! But I get it, you just don't know better...

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I did. Its simply not rational, nor logical as I have pointed out.

You still haven't explain how I'll be paying for two plans and somehow spending less on healthcare (especially one run buy an entity that's bottom line is not attached to its performance).

I'm not holding your hand. I already explained it. Go back and read it.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I'm not holding your hand. I already explained it. Go back and read it.

I did. Its simply preposterous.

You've shown me nothing to say it would work as you claim other than some idealism. I, on the other hand, can show you example upon example of failed government programs and even a good bit of common sense to show you that what you're suggesting is simply not going to have the results you've been told it will.

[besson3c]

Snow: you would be paying for two health care plans if you didn't use the public option, but how is this different than the many things you pay for now that you don't use? For instance, what if you don't have kids in school? What *you* gain by paying for something you aren't using is your costs across the board potentially being lower, and access to cheaper and less burdened emergency care. You pay for people without insurance to use the ER, and since the hospital cannot collect payment on everybody that uses their services they pass their expense on to you. It's not like there has been an announcement of your tax rates going up either.

Like I said before, "failed government programs" depends on how you measure these things, right? I provided several examples of how health care in Canada has succeeded where ours has failed.

Look, the conclusion I hope you come to eventually is that there are simply a different set of balances here, and there is no absolutist argument that can be made that does not have a counter argument. There are tradeoffs no matter which way you look at it.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Snow: you would be paying for two health care plans if you didn't use the public option, but how is this different than the many things you pay for now that you don't use? For instance, what if you don't have kids in school?

I think those benefits speak for themselves.

What *you* gain by paying for something you aren't using is your costs across the board potentially being lower, and access to cheaper and less burdened emergency care. You pay for people without insurance to use the ER, and since the hospital cannot collect payment on everybody that uses their services they pass their expense on to you. It's not like there has been an announcement of your tax rates going up either.

They aren't stupid. They'll raise the taxes after they pass this disaster. I don't think anyone here can really dispute that.

Why not open up the competition for insurance companies? I think that argument has been covered in detail here.

Like I said before, "failed government programs" depends on how you measure these things, right? I provided several examples of how health care in Canada has succeeded where ours has failed.

If i wanted a canadian health care system, i would move to canada. I measure these programs by their sustainability and overall effect on our society....and when measured in those terms (as well as just about any other) the programs are certifiable disasters. Just look at social security, which is the biggest deduction from my check. Now you want to add health care to that racket? Are you ****ing crazy?

Look, the conclusion I hope you come to eventually is that there are simply a different set of balances here, and there is no absolutist argument that can be made that does not have a counter argument. There are tradeoffs no matter which way you look at it.

I have already come to that conclusion, and have decided which tradeoffs I support and which ones are just not practical and/or sustainable.

[besson3c]

Crash: first of all, stop being an obnoxious jackass and focus yourself. Before you rant against what I pay for, maybe you should stop to ask what I pay for? Before you rant against what stumblinmike pays for perhaps you should ask him whether he asked for your opinion first of all, or at least learn more about his situation before sharing your judgment of him? How do you know that he isn't close to somebody that has or has had cancer, AIDS, or some other sort of thing that requires regular medical attention? There are people who are in and out of the hospital all of the time.

Do you judge people the same way who eat a lot of fast food, smoke, or partake in dangerous activities on a regular basis? We all gamble with some things: the amount of car/life/home owners insurance to carry, high risk investments, etc. in a way, getting only basic health insurance is a similar sort of gamble. These decisions are personal to each of us, would you like our opinions thrust upon you of the kinds of bad decisions you make?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

They aren't stupid. They'll raise the taxes after they pass this disaster. I don't think anyone here can really dispute that.

Your predictions don't make for great debate material (neither do mine). You don't know that this will happen.

Why not open up the competition for insurance companies? I think that argument has been covered in detail here.

That's the conversation I'm having with ebuddy right now. How do we do this, exactly? As ebuddy pointed out, we have state by state monopolies. How am I to compete against a company like Anthem as a new insurance company? What if you aren't fortunate enough to live in a large enough area where there even are these sorts of options?

If i wanted a canadian health care system, i would move to canada. I measure these programs by their sustainability and overall effect on our society....and when measured in those terms (as well as just about any other) the programs are certifiable disasters. Just look at social security, which is the biggest deduction from my check. Now you want to add health care to that racket? Are you ****ing crazy?

Overall effect: much fewer health care related bankruptcies, much greater access to health care, no evidence of lower life spans (some evidence of the contrary), more efficient medical care facilities that aren't burdened with massive administrative overheads in billing and trying to collect payment, less burdened ER, etc. The biggest deduction from my check was my $12k/year health insurance from my old job (which, BTW, wasn't optional).

Again, you can't say that a program is a "certifiable disaster" without telling us how you measure this, and then accepting that others are going to measure it a different way. It's a mixed bag. It almost always is.

I have already come to that conclusion, and have decided which tradeoffs I support and which ones are just not practical and/or sustainable.

Conclusion you have, but thus far you seem unwilling to acknowledge any other point of view other than your own which demonstrates that you either aren't willing to listen to it, or you for some reason refuse the acknowledge the legitimacy of it and believe in some sort of absolutist good vs. evil point of view. You don't have to agree with it, but you could at least acknowledge its legitimacy and recognize our difference of opinion for what it really is rather than trying to convince us of your self righteousness, our delusions, and in the process getting lost in all of the rhetoric. As ebuddy and I have concluded we really aren't worlds apart.

[besson3c]

ebuddy: if we have state by state health insurance monopolies, how do we break them up if not with regulation? Microsoft's biggest threat right now (aside from the future) is not Apple, not open source, but the government. At what point do you break up a monopoly, and how? You wrote:

I believe government regulation is necessary as an emergency provision to kick rogue players or industries run amuck back in line.

Are there any health insurance companies that are rogue right now? Who are these hundreds of health insurance companies anyway, and what percentage of the US do they provide a viable alternative to the monopoly, where applicable? A viable alternative meaning not just that they exist, but local hospitals and care facilities consider them in network? I don't mean this as a leading question, I don't have a strong sense as to how often these sorts of options exist outside of my town, but certainly here it is a one health insurance company show.

[besson3c]

Let's look at administrative overhead some more, cause that's an angle that we haven't yet discussed a whole lot.

My wife used to work in emergency services. We've toured the 911 call center in Toronto and the one in our area, and even though the one in Toronto covered much more people, it was astonishing the differences in the administrative parts of these buildings. Even if competition among private insurance companies was more vibrant, some administrative overhead is still going to be necessary for the care facilities to work out issues and figure out stuff with the insurance companies, but what will the benefits be of getting to possibly reduce this?

I'm not saying that public insurance is the only way to reduce this overhead, I'm simply saying this is another fairly significant problem with what we have now.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

Crash, welcome to the real world of people paying for their healthcare. You obviously are on the dole, because you don't have a clue as to what the market charges. Ignorance is bliss!
As someone who has an income from employment, and hopefully a future paycheck, it is important to have health coverage. You've heard of garnished wages, liens, etc? A one day stay in the hospital can cost MANY thousands of dollars. As a contributing member of society, I am doing the responsible thing, and paying for my ( and your) healthcare. You should be thanking me, not calling me names! But I get it, you just don't know better...

Riiight, and yet you're the one whining for a government dole so you can pretend healthcare is 'free' while someone else pays for you.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Crash: first of all, stop being an obnoxious jackass and focus yourself. Before you rant against what I pay for, maybe you should stop to ask what I pay for? Before you rant against what stumblinmike pays for perhaps you should ask him whether he asked for your opinion first of all, or at least learn more about his situation before sharing your judgment of him? How do you know that he isn't close to somebody that has or has had cancer, AIDS, or some other sort of thing that requires regular medical attention? There are people who are in and out of the hospital all of the time.

If so, there's nothing that's been proposed by any politician that would help him.In fact, these bozos in D.C. are clearly just making up this crap as they go along. Thankfully, a lot of other Americans aren't buying into it, and seem to be slowly regaining their memories: "The Government, oh yeah, those guys. The ones that are BEYOND BROKE and have us in debt to China and everyone else for the duration. Yeah, those guys, that already have an unsustainable social security boondoggle, a healthcare boondoggle, and a welfare state boondoggle. Probably not the people to rely on for anything other than... more boondoggles! "

Do you judge people the same way who eat a lot of fast food, smoke, or partake in dangerous activities on a regular basis?

Why shouldn't people who engage in risky lifestyles pay for their own healthcare? I'd ask you: if you're a person who takes care of yourself and your own responsibilities for your health, why should you subsidize those who don't? If you volunteer to, that's one thing. But by government mandate?

We all gamble with some things: the amount of car/life/home owners insurance to carry, high risk investments, etc. in a way, getting only basic health insurance is a similar sort of gamble. These decisions are personal to each of us, would you like our opinions thrust upon you of the kinds of bad decisions you make?

He and you are free to buy whatever insurance you feel you need in order to satisfy your obsessions with being 'covered'. Personally, I don't really care. Pay as much as you feel you need to for protection. It's just your general attitude of wanting to force everyone else to pay into some rotten government-hatched scheme with you. Many of us simply AREN'T interested, and know full well that the government is the absolute worst place to look for any actual solutions to any of these problems, and beyond that, the fact that it will inevitably create a whole host of new problems and wretched unintended consequences on top of the existing problems.

Why don't you ever demand the government first FIX what it already runs that's broken, before it takes on more? To start with, how about BUDGET reform? Why not push for comprehensive Medicare reform? Complete reform of the VA system? Total reform of the Indian Health Service (which by most accounts is absolutely abysmal.) If government is so good at reforming anything, why not demand they demonstrate it by doing some actual REFORM of what they're already charged with? Starting RIGHT NOW. THIS INSTANT. No excuses, no rhetoric, no run-arounds, no bait and switch, just get busy reforming their own programs.

I noticed you couldn't answer my question about how often you've actually used your health coverage to pay for more than just the routine. I wasn't asking for personal specifics- just I suspect that like most people, the real answer is: not that often, if at all. I would ask you then if that is the case, what the hell really are you paying for, except a protection racket?

I'm all for reasonable reform that would actually make healthcare more affordable- start with making all healthcare expenses tax deductible. (That would slash about 30% off the top right off the bat) That's EVERYTHING, every healthcare related expense, for EVERYONE across the board. Make all healthcare plans portable. Let's have much needed tort reform. Let's make it easier for qualified people to become healthcare professionals. Let's have the free market/competition/fee-for-service based pricing with no insurance boondoggle behind it go to work every possible place it can in the healthcare industry, and get all of the routine stuff out of the way of those with real emergency needs.

But I don't see the idiot politicians doing any of that. Most of it could be done virtually overnight. All Obama et al have offered up are the usual hollow platitudes, but no detail, no substance. Exactly why thankfully, more and more people are starting to wake up and realize the government (as usual) has no real answers for any of this except to create another bottomless pit.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Do we go about breaking up these monopolies? My town is completely owned by Anthem/Blue Cross/Blue Shield/AT&T/Ma Bell/Viacom/who the hell knows who else. How exactly can a new company compete against Anthem? There are a few other companies, and I was actually just in the market for health insurance, but I called around and nobody could tell me for certain that these companies were considered in-network. It sounded like some hadn't even heard of these companies.

What do we do about that, and how likely is this to happen? Has the horse already left the barn?

All excellent questions besson. We know from looking at costs from state to state that we've got some real areas of opportunity. For example, per a study conducted by AHIP Center for Policy and Research; the average cost of a family health insurance plan in Massachusetts is $16,897, but in Wisconsin it is $3,087. Antitrust can be measured and enforced. IMO we have to start by enforcing our current antitrust laws. This will send a powerful message to approximately 65% of the insurance companies on the market that are on very shaky ground with regard to antitrust violation.

Please know that I don't suggest this is easy, but I don't think any real solutions can be. Let me explain; I'm not familiar with Anthem as an insurer, but an anti trust investigation was recently conducted and closed. (2004) The judgment?
"The facts did not support a conclusion that this merger will give a combined Anthem/WellPoint market or monopsony power in any market in which they compete. WellPoint's share in the markets in which they overlap is very small, and these companies are not particularly close competitors. Although this particular transaction should not threaten to harm competition or consumers, we will continue to be vigilant in our enforcement of the antitrust laws in this area."
Dept of Justice

There's a couple of problems here. You asked how others could compete and the fact of the matter is that the start-ups barely get off the ground before they're gobbled up by the larger ones. This is a willing sale, don't get me wrong. Over time however, this can lead to very lopsided industries. Too often questionable antitrust moves are unaccounted for. Again, I'm not familiar with Anthem so I can only go by the DOJ conclusion. I can say that influential lobbies prevail in many states alienating other insurers from operating. A smaller insurer for example may want to compete, but cannot due to peculiar state coverage requirements including alcoholism/substance abuse treatment, breast reconstruction, Hair prosthesis, midwife, oriental medicine, pastoral counseling, birthmark removal, residential crisis services, etc... Smaller insurers simply can't bear these mandates. While these mandates vary from state to state and the risks of each vary from state to state, there are basic health care needs we all have in common no matter where we are. This will have to be broken at the Federal level. By reducing these bizarre requirements, facilitating tort reform, reforming policy to allow and encourage a national market with reasonable expectations for minimum coverages, higher deductibles, and slightly higher co-pays through HSAs; you will have gone a long way to pooling risk nationally across virtually all needs and making affordable health care coverage available to a great number of the uninsured.

Again, if we agree on little it seems we could at least agree to start with the above. The problem is that these issues aren't even on the radar in this debate. We are obligated to look out for one another which IMO means we shouldn't risk upsetting 86% of us for 14% of us. (crudely) It's just not necessary right now. We should be good stewards of the positive traits of our system. There are things we can do now that are nowhere near as committal or contentious, but would have a profound impact on the 14% in short order.

[Big Mac]

As a result of reading Daring Fireball, I came across this thought provoking article from the New Yorker:

The Cost Conundrum

The main thrust of the article is that the question of who pays for health care is secondary to how health care is delivered; if doctors pool their resources in a non-profit fashion they'll deliver better, cheaper care than those who go it alone and consequently have to search for extra profit sources. I'm skeptical about some of the claims and conclusions presented in the article, but a lot of the analysis appears to be very sensible and hard to argue against. (By the way, this article was linked to by another journalist who pointed to it as addressing some core aspects of journalism that many typical articles neglect.)

[finboy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Also, could you say that being a health insurance monopoly gives you more leverage to bargain with health care providers?

Howz that working out for Medicare? Costs are still rising, just not quite as fast. Plus, they decide what's "medically necessary" and what's not. Everyone say "death panels!"

How does Medicare decide what to cover and what not to cover? A panel of admins and doctors at the national level looks at cost/benefit ratios and subjective quality of life issues and decides who gets what coverage (on average). Sounds like a "death panel" to me.

People will keep voting for wealth transfers until there is no wealth left. Maybe that wealth is medical coverage that one has worked to obtain for one's family. But regardless of how you measure & distribute wealth, there will never be equality of outcomes. Ever. Some people will always be "more equal" than others. In Medicare, it's whoever yells the loudest or has the best lawyers or who has the most time to deal with red tape. In Medicaid, it's whoever yells the loudest or has the lowest opportunity cost to deal with the red tape. What will it be under ObamaCare? Who knows? I guarantee that many folks will have less so that everyone can be covered, if that's where we end up.

Personally, I'm not in favor of taking away from my children for the (marginal, questionable) benefit of everyone else's. I'm not sure what kind of life experience one would have to have to be able to honestly reason through the morality of such a tradeoff, but I'm guessing that if you could justify THAT, you could probably find justification for euthanasia and all kinds of other things.

After all, we belong to The State -- shouldn't The State provide health care for us?

[besson3c]

finboy: are health insurance companies that make the same decisions about what and how much they are willing to cover death panels as well? Face it, no matter what fancy name you come up with and what rhetoric is used rationing will exist no matter what.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

finboy: are health insurance companies that make the same decisions about what and how much they are willing to cover death panels as well? Face it, no matter what fancy name you come up with and what rhetoric is used rationing will exist no matter what.

Exactly why it cannot be left in the hands of our politicians who have proven time and again to be incompetent.

With business, this is directly tied to their bottom line. If they don't cover, people vote with their dollars, and the business fails.

With the government, you have no such check and balance....aside from revolution. The current two party system will continue to corrupt itself with the power it obtains. Say whatever it takes to get into office and then you're golden for your term. Take the "Not a single tax raised" bullshit we were fed by Obama shortly before he took office.

[besson3c]

That is a whole other argument, Snow. I think you know my viewpoints well enough now to know that I would never represent public health care as being infallable. My big thing right now is trying to cut through the FUD. There are all sorts of reasons to support or not support these health care bills, I just wish that the debates were a little more inline with reality and were more honest and rational.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

finboy: are health insurance companies that make the same decisions about what and how much they are willing to cover death panels as well? Face it, no matter what fancy name you come up with and what rhetoric is used rationing will exist no matter what.

I'm not sure how this is helping to cut the FUD.

People need to understand how "well" Medicare works, and how "well" other single-payer systems work, because that is what the current proposals (and all future ones) will amount to. The private sector cannot compete with a government plan that provides coverage to everyone. Employers will not bear the cost (or pass it through) of covering other than their own employees, they will drop coverage immediately (which, as a shareholder, you should WANT them to do) and in some cases pay penalties (taxes) and save money in the short term.

I agree -- let's cut out the FUD. But we can't do that by having our head in the clouds. Or in the sand for that matter.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by finboy 

I'm not sure how this is helping to cut the FUD.

People need to understand how "well" Medicare works, and how "well" other single-payer systems work, because that is what the current proposals (and all future ones) will amount to. The private sector cannot compete with a government plan that provides coverage to everyone. Employers will not bear the cost (or pass it through) of covering other than their own employees, they will drop coverage immediately (which, as a shareholder, you should WANT them to do) and in some cases pay penalties (taxes) and save money in the short term.

I agree -- let's cut out the FUD. But we can't do that by having our head in the clouds. Or in the sand for that matter.

You're right, people need to understand how well other single-payer systems work, so perhaps we should follow these very debates in other countries? Would you like me to point you to some articles from the Canadian media that get into how private insurance threatens public health options in some instances?

It isn't this definitive. It is logical that competing with public health in some areas, particularly low risk type procedures would not be a terribly smart business model, but there are also a gazillion niche markets and a number of ways to serve 300 million people. A successful business doesn't need to be staggeringly large, but have healthy profit margins. There will be *plenty* of opportunity for private business to continue to exist (particularly in high risk procedures and specializations), and assuming that a public plan doesn't cover the cost of all prescription drugs, plenty of opportunity to make the same sort of profits selling drugs too.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Would you like me to point you to some articles from the Canadian media that get into how private insurance threatens public health options in some instances?

Point me to the articles explaining why. Those will be the points I use against a public option in my next post.

It isn't this definitive. It is logical that competing with public health in some areas, particularly low risk type procedures would not be a terribly smart business model, but there are also a gazillion niche markets and a number of ways to serve 300 million people. A successful business doesn't need to be staggeringly large, but have healthy profit margins. There will be *plenty* of opportunity for private business to continue to exist (particularly in high risk procedures and specializations), and assuming that a public plan doesn't cover the cost of all prescription drugs, plenty of opportunity to make the same sort of profits selling drugs too.

Not without likewise distorting the prescription market more than is already apparent. There's simply no reason to add another insurer. Let the market that already exists compete. You'll begin to cut into the uninsured for a lot less capital and contention. Yes, I truly believe this.

[BadKosh]

Who is paying the Union Thugs who are harassing the Whole Foods customers?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by finboy 

I agree -- let's cut out the FUD. But we can't do that by having our head in the clouds. Or in the sand for that matter.

Stories like this from the UK certainly don't help.
Sentenced to death on the NHS - Telegraph

In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, a group of experts who care for the terminally ill claim that some patients are being wrongly judged as close to death.

Under NHS guidance introduced across England to help doctors and medical staff deal with dying patients, they can then have fluid and drugs withdrawn and many are put on continuous sedation until they pass away.

Further on

The scheme, called the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP), was designed to reduce patient suffering in their final hours.

Developed by Marie Curie, the cancer charity, in a Liverpool hospice it was initially developed for cancer patients but now includes other life threatening conditions.

It was recommended as a model by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice), the Government’s health scrutiny body, in 2004.

It has been gradually adopted nationwide and more than 300 hospitals, 130 hospices and 560 care homes in England currently use the system.

Under the guidelines the decision to diagnose that a patient is close to death is made by the entire medical team treating them, including a senior doctor.

They look for signs that a patient is approaching their final hours, which can include if patients have lost consciousness or whether they are having difficulty swallowing medication.

However, doctors warn that these signs can point to other medical problems.

Patients can become semi-conscious and confused as a side effect of pain-killing drugs such as morphine if they are also dehydrated, for instance.

[Big Mac]

One of President Obama's talking points from this week was that if we don't pass the health reform he wants, Medicare will go broke. That's not me, Big Mac, hater of Entitlements saying that - that's President Barack Hussein Obama's own declaration.

So why should we trust a government take over of the rest of health care when Socialized medicine for seniors is going broke, and why doesn't the government concentrate on fixing Medicare before it attempts to take over and bankrupt the system for the rest of the citizenry?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

One of President Obama's talking points from this week was that if we don't pass the health reform he wants, Medicare will go broke. That's not me, Big Mac, hater of Entitlements saying that - that's President Barack Hussein Obama's own declaration.

So why should we trust a government take over of the rest of health care when Socialized medicine for seniors is going broke, and why doesn't the government concentrate on fixing Medicare before it attempts to take over and bankrupt the system for the rest of the citizenry?

Notice how crickets chirp when you ask that question? What? Fix what they're already in charge of? "Reform" all that's already on their plate before allowing them to "reform" anything else? That's crazy talk!

Imagine the private sector equivalent to this bunch of clowns.

You hire a service to paint ONE ROOM of a large office tower with 80 floors and over two thousand offices. You find out the service has extensive experience with hiring people to sit on their ass and push papers around, but has ZERO knowledge and experience with painting. But they sure can talk a good game, and they spend a lot of time demonizing anyone that actually does have painting experience.

Plus they've drafted a 1000+ page "THE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY TO PAINT" bible that doesn't once mention a brush or roller, but mentions a lot to do with forming committees to decide what color you'll get. They also give a great spiel on how much better the paint jobs are in the rest of the world, "Cuba has excellent paint!" and aren't you ashamed of having the worst paint in the world?

They fail miserably at the task of painting just that one room. They quickly go insanely over budget. Then with their one room half finished, they declare their service will go bankrupt unless you turn over to them the responsibility of painting every other office in the entire skyscraper, AND the authority to dictate laws, rules and regulations governing all other painting firms that you might ever want to hire for the same job. They snicker and say you can still hire them if you want- but you'll still pay us if you hire us or not.

You tell them to screw themselves and finish what they're already responsible for, and have taken LOTS of your money for. They respond by calling you a nazi, demonize you in the media, and insist that you want to kill children and puppies since you won't just willingly hand them the entire office tower and the authority to regulate their competition.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Let's look at administrative overhead some more, cause that's an angle that we haven't yet discussed a whole lot.

What percentage of administrative overhead is spent on anti-fraud by major private insurers, Medicare, and the Canadian single payer system?

[ort888]

All I have to say is F*** insurance companies.

How much should having a baby cost me? Why do I get all of these stories about people having babies for nothing? It sure as **** isn't going to cost us nothing. We're looking at thousands of dollars worth of costs incurred because every year our employers screw us a little more on our health care plans because their costs keep going up and up. And everything is always confusing as hell. It's all designed to keep you in the dark as to what your policy really is. Maybe it's my fault for not paying close enough attention to the fine print, but I honestly wasn't expecting this.

**** this. Why do I even have health insurance? I honestly believe that if having us liquified and turned into meat paste would add 25 cents to their bottom line they would do it.

It's hard enough trying to survive on one income, all while paying for all of the ridiculous crap you need for a new baby... the last thing I need is for some faceless insurance company to shove a financial pineapple up my ass. Thanks for nothing ****ers. Why have I been paying you hundreds of dollars each and every month for my entire adult life? You've got my ****ing money... and as soon as it's your turn to do what you are supposed to do you completely screw me. Thanks.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ort888 

How much should having a baby cost me? Why do I get all of these stories about people having babies for nothing? It sure as **** isn't going to cost us nothing.

Depends on where you have a baby. My nephew was born at home with the help of a registered midwife. If you have a baby at a hospital, it costs a lot more (but there is the peace of mind that there are lots of doctors around if something wrong happens.)

[ort888]

Every year for the last 5 years both my company and my wife's have a meeting. This meeting is always the same.

Hey guys, we have good news and bad news. The good news is that you still have health insurance, and that's becoming more and more rare. The other good news is that our coverage is still better then most, so you should be happy for that. The bad news is that we are changing it for the worse. Here's how we are screwing you...

Seriously. Every year. It's almost a farce at this point.

I just did some very rough calculations and I think I've paid roughly $40,000 to various health insurance companies in my adult life, and in that time I've probably used about $500 worth of their services. Seriously.

[besson3c]

ort: it is extremely frustrating. Being self employed I can only justify being able to afford extremely basic coverage. I justify it to myself by thinking of that hypothetical accident that results in a hospital bill worth 5 digits.

My old employer paid over $10,000/family a year for insurance. I always thought it was a shame that I couldn't just pocket this money and not take their insurance, then go out and buy something far more basic. The sad part is, jump on the Wikipedia and look at the tax payer costs for Medicare in Canada. What Canadians pay in a year wouldn't cover more than a few months here. We can argue at length over the quality of care between the two systems and all of that, but it is clear and factual to say that costs here are beyond insane.

Not to mention, having insurance doesn't guarantee that you will not be denied for a pre-existing condition or that you'll avoid health care related bankruptcy or virtual bankruptcy. What good is insurance that doesn't actually spread risk?

[ort888]

It would cost me almost $800 a month to cover myself, my wife and my infant child.

$800 A MONTH

Seriously.

It's insanity. We briefly discussed letting her be a standalone mom, and while we both want it... we quickly realized it was nearly impossible because of the added health insurance costs.

The only thing standing between her being a stay-at-home mom and working is health insurance costs. That's seriously sad.

[besson3c]

I think it would have cost me $900/month to continue with my employer's insurance, so you're not alone!

Another reason why I think we need much more than a bandaid on our current system. It's a complete mess.

We also should have started working on reform years ago, at least during the Bush administration, if not the Clinton admin.

[Big Mac]

You guys rooting for Obamacare and simultaneously complaining about the cost of your premiums right now are in for a rude awakening. If you're young, you're going to be paying even more for coverage.

And besson, health care reform was tried by Hillary in Bill's first term, and it almost sunk his presidency.

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You guys rooting for Obamacare and simultaneously complaining about the cost of your premiums right now are in for a rude awakening. If you're young, you're going to be paying even more for coverage.

And besson, health care reform was tried by Hillary in Bill's first term, and it almost sunk his presidency.

Pathetic. The insurance "industry" is spending a million bucks a day to kill reform. If we back off now, MAYBE they won't gouge us because we scared the bejeebus out of them? LOL!!!

[ort888]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You guys rooting for Obamacare and simultaneously complaining about the cost of your premiums right now are in for a rude awakening. If you're young, you're going to be paying even more for coverage.

And besson, health care reform was tried by Hillary in Bill's first term, and it almost sunk his presidency.

Well you just have it all figured out. Fantastic.

I'm not rooting for Obamacare. I'm rooting for anyone to fix this. Hannah Montana can fix it for all I care. JUST FIX IT.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Well you just have it all figured out. Fantastic.

I'm not rooting for Obamacare. I'm rooting for anyone to fix this. Hannah Montana can fix it for all I care. JUST FIX IT.

And precisely how do you propose to JUST FIX IT? By passing a new trillion dollar entitlement when we can't fund the Entitlement State we currently have? Tinkerbell isn't going to be able to sprinkle fairy dust on many trillions of debt and make it disappear. What will disappear first is the value of the dollars we have in our bank, investment and retirement accounts, just like the Weimar Republic experienced.

I can't debate a person who completely fails to think critically.

But you know ort, on the bright side, you come off just as well reasoned as many of our Democratic Congressmen. Have you thought about a career in politics?

[BadKosh]

until the press and the various players start telling the facts we really have no idea what needs to be done to 'fix' health care. The Dems want to over regulate and foolishly throw our money at what they think is wrong, the insurance companies are screaming about the stupid regulations forced on them by ignorant political hacks and their equally inept staffs' and the media which has no clue as to history, or background in reporting, so they repeat false info and spin it or make up crap. The bill is sausage made from rancid meat. Produced behind closed doors to hide from the people these people falsely made an oath to. The politicians aren't listening.

The press has a history of being wrong and of being to lazy inept or corrupt to do their job of reporting news. They sure don't have the citizens in their best interest. Political hacks from the tax-n-spend-spend-spend left are even more sleazy and self serving. They will be telling us whats in the new 1500 page pile of BS they haven't read, and the White House will be making up crap as usual.

The spending the libs are doing will make everything cost more down the road, in a ruined economy they caused so most will still not be able to afford health care within a few years. And don't whine to me about Bush deficit when the Dems have spent 5 times as much as Bush did in 8 years in just a few months. Obviously, Dems are unable to learn from the past.

[olePigeon]

How can you complain about the media when not even you can get the facts straight?