But if I can afford my knee replacement now, I also have to pay for yours, fella. Maybe I am rich or maybe I had a good day at the track. It makes no difference to a socialist: take Diablo's money!
Socialism is theft, and yes, that is a parody of the Marxist "property is theft" mantra.
You steal, it's okay. I earn, it's a crime.

"Socialism is theft"

Does that include the police dept, fire dept, roads, and public school systems, or were you referring to something else?

"You steal, it's okay. I earn, it's a crime."

But enough about the Bush tax codes....

Diablo is an idiot. I'll wait 8 weeks because it is better than waiting forever which people do wait in this country.

But Jackass and Danforth, you were just yelling at each other on the other thread! LOLOLOLOL!

But if I can afford my knee replacement now, I also have to pay for yours, fella.

It's a brand new socialist concept.

It's going to be called "insurance".

But if I can afford my knee replacement now, I also have to pay for yours, fella.

If you already have health insurance, you are paying for someone else's knee replacement.

Or is the concept of insurance unfamiliar to you? It is the concept of spreading the cost of benefits among a group of individuals called the insured. When one insured person needs benefits, all premium payers pay for the benefits.

The truth is the right fears the public option because it will provide the same if not better coverage and cost less since there would no profit motive that has to be built into private insurance premiums.

If I don't TAKE the public option, does that mean my taxes won't go to pay for it?

If all the government is doing is creating a new insurance company, then go ahead. But I have a feeling that the Obamites aren't going to do it that way. Just last week they were proposing big fines for people who refuse coverage, and the week before that they were going to tax health care benefits from the private sector to pay for it.

Libtards lying, again.

Good luck with this thing, hope you get a more comprehensive system.

Nice article by Cesca, I don't get the point of the article other than to (as usual) slam the right. How could anyone not want a public option when Cesca paints a picture that no one has to pay anything and a magic wand can be waived over any illness and it will go away. Koolaid is piped directly into the Huff.

Only an idiot thinks its worse to wait inline for a free service than being denied care until you die. That's the US system. You never know whether they'll actually pay your claim unless you get sick. In many cases they are legally obligated to pay but refuse and fight it out in Court, hoping you'll die first. They can drag out their case for five or ten years even if they're completely in the wrong. But you can be denied payment just for being a day late on filing a claim or responding to their false denial.

Its one groovey set of rules for the Corporations, and a maze of once in each lifetime set of Catch-22 rules for the human beings paying the premiums. The rules are written through political bribery.
Its all bullshit and its bad for you.

Rockefeller stole ALL the public's oil as fast as he could to get as rich as possible which his family now keeps. The reason we have next to no oil today is because Rockefeller pumped it all out during a period when we extracted very inefficiently. But its not economical to redevelop those resources using present day technology. Any politician that got in Rockefeller's way was destroyed as was every other gas station in the country. We need a Government that plans and operates with reasonable standards. The only agencies that do this are the Pentagon and CIA. But Europe, Japan and China do it, because they are socialists.

Capitalism is really about efficient exploitation and destruction. The US Health Insurance Industry fits this model perfectly.

All great wealth is derived from pulbic property. Even DOS was just a bastardized version of CPM, written by Gary Kildall pHD of Digital Research with Government research funds. It cost millions to develop, but Gates bought it for $20,000 and munched it.

Most of the concerns people have about universal health care are already problems in the current for-profit system.

Don't want your health decisions to be made by bureaucrats? They're already being made by insurance and HMO bureaucrats.

Don't want your health care to be rationed? Every major procedure -- the kind of things you need insurance for -- is already being rationed. Insurance companies do everything they can to delay or avoid paying for expensive treatments.

Don't want to pay for others' health care? You're already doing it because uninsured people go to the ER, where the costs are higher and their problems are worse because they never sought preventative care.

Our health care system doesn't work any more. We need a public option so that those of us who recognize this can fund it with the money we're currently paying for crappy private insurance that's getting worse all the time.

Even DOS was just a bastardized version of CPM, written by Gary Kildall pHD of Digital Research with Government research funds. It cost millions to develop, but Gates bought it for $20,000 and munched it.

I didn't use CPM much, but it's funny to think that it cost millions to develop. Linux and the GNU tools on which it built were developed by hackers in their spare time, and it's an operating system a thousand times as powerful as CPM, if not more.

Whatever did the world do before HMO's?

But if I can afford my knee replacement now, I also have to pay for yours, fella.

#1 | Posted by Diablo

Hate to break it to y'a, if you have an insurance plan, you and/or your employer are already paying for that knee replacement through the premiums.

That is what you need to grok. Whether or not you pay health insurance premiums directly from your bank account, as a deduction from your paycheck for employer-provided health care, or a "fee" (such as the Medicare/Medicaid tax), you, me, everybody who has health insurance is to one degree or another subsidizing the health care requirements of everybody else in that group, including you.

If you need that knee replacement, or your appendix explodes, or you get cancer, the cost to fix you will far exceed the premiums you paid in. The rest of those who remain healthy. not using the system and paying into the health group, is subsidizing you.

Whatever did the world do before HMO's?

#13 | Posted by Turd_Ferguson

There have always been HMO's. That' why we want equal rights now.

I demand to pay more for health care insurance to enrich the CEOs of insurance companies because God hates the Government Option.

Insurance is one thing. But I pay my insurance now and then don't tell me I won't be paying for the government insurance somehow. In other words, I will pay two premiums my own and what the government hides in my tax bill to pay for a program I won't use.

If I can get the same level, including time until procedures, medical care and treatment that our congresspersons get, I'll support it.

BUT if they still are a privileged class, no f'n way. Prove to me that it will be the case and I'll "believe." But otherwise, don't ask me to drink the Kool-aid.

I already pay insurance premiums for myself and taxes for everyone who doesn't pay for premiums. So I'm double "taxed" already.

But I'm not willing to give up quality of care that I pay for now just so someone who won't or can't pay for the same level of care. That's like saying that I will have to eat at McDonalds from now on instead of paying extra to dine at Ruth Chris' Steak House. Or even at Outback.

We're going to pay one way or the other. But until we ALL get to dine at Ruth Chris', then fuggetaboutit.

If the Government is going to require that I purchase something they had damn well better offer it.

Forcing me by law to support Private Industry is wrong. I should have the option to do so but I don't. It is currently required and that is wrong!

If you are going to require it, then offer it.

Linux and the GNU tools on which it built were developed by hackers in their spare time

Ah yes, but Unix was hatched in Bell Labs and nurtured for years in academia and DARPA.

Linux and GNU did not spring forth from nothing.

I had auto insurance on the brain with my last rant.

I'll wait 8 weeks because it is better than waiting forever which people do wait in this country.

#3 | Posted by jackass at 2009-07-09 01:21 AM | Reply

What an incredibly uninformed retard.

In the U.S. even poor people with no insurance can get medically urgent surgery the next day.

The 21-day wait for knee replacement is a matter of customer service: knee pain is a progressive problem, so patients know well in advance that someday they will need the surgery.

When the day comes, people need to get things in order at home and at work, so they schedule surgery for when it is most convenient.

Kinda like getting your oil changed and the tires rotated. You do it when you want to spend four hours at Wal-Mart, saving lots of money on brand name merchandise.

The truth is the right fears the public option because it will provide the same if not better coverage and cost less since there would no profit motive that has to be built into private insurance premiums.

#6 | Posted by JimmyWallback at 2009-07-09 10:04 AM | Reply

More than half of private insurance is written by Blue Cross plans, which, by charter, is a not-for-profit. When Blue Cross plans have an excess, they rebate it at the end of the year.

Sorry Jimmy (and Danni) but it works without ObamaHillarySocialistCare

But I pay my insurance now and then don't tell me I won't be paying for the government insurance somehow. In other words, I will pay two premiums my own and what the government hides in my tax bill to pay for a program I won't use.

#17 | Posted by Diablo

Pay Attention!! You already are, have been ever since you started getting a paycheck. Look on your paycheck. Look for the Fed MED/EE deduction. There it is.

To what extent do you use your health insurance? You and your employer are probably paying out $6,000 to $8,000 in premiums for you a year. Do you claim that much each year for health care? Do you have any chronic health care problems (for example, diabetes, one of the heps, cancer)? 'Cause if you do, you have already burned through that $6,000 to $8,000. Perhaps you should be cut off when you reach what you/your employer have paid in for the year.

In the U.S. even poor people with no insurance can get medically urgent surgery the next day.

#22 | Posted by vernon

Spent any time in an ER?

If Vernon is stupid enough to spend 4 hours at WallFart waiting for a oil change, he really must be a Rtard!!! Ever hear of a 15 minute oil change place? In and out in a few minutes. The most I've ever spent there is about half an hour if there was a line. Plus you can watch them while the do the work and make sure they aren't fucking your car up. Who knows what cheap Chinese crap WallFart puts in your car.

Cheaper than WallFart, too!!!

"Too bad there's nothing free and universal in God's non-socialist America. Like roads, police protection, fire departments, public schools, and public parks where we can protest against public programs like funding for parks."

What a joke! This is the problem with liberals. They think that if it comes from the government than it is free. It is not free. The productive members of our society have to pay for those services that the moochers use for free.

"More than half of private insurance is written by Blue Cross plans, which, by charter, is a not-for-profit. When Blue Cross plans have an excess, they rebate it at the end of the year.

Sorry Jimmy (and Danni) but it works without ObamaHillarySocialistCare""

Only problem Vernon, "non-profit" does not necessarily mean cheaper. "costs" such as CEO salaries, etc. still can inflate the expenses and thus the pass thru of costs to patients. Blue Cross is just as guilty as lots of other non-profits.

"Blue Cross CEO's pay rose 26%
Salary, bonus totaled $3.5m as insurer's net income slid 49%"

The 21-day wait for knee replacement

BFD.

I had 5 ortho surgeries after I fractured my leg and ankle.

All of them but the first I waited at least a month for.

I waited two weeks for the first one, with a broken leg and a shattered ankle in a splint.

Orthopedic procedures are rarely emergencies.

You don't even get a fast ambulance ride to the hospital for broken bones anymore.

"Don't want to pay for others' health care? You're already doing it because uninsured people go to the ER, where the costs are higher and their problems are worse because they never sought preventative care."

Riiight...and what will cost more? Indirectly "paying" for uninsured people who go to the ER, or insuring every American that will take the "public option?"

"Our health care system doesn't work any more."

Really? What about it doesn't work?

"We need a public option so that those of us who recognize this can fund it with the money we're currently paying for crappy private insurance that's getting worse all the time."

Fine - those in favor of it can pay for it. Those who aren't, shouldn't have to. Sound fair?

If Vernon is stupid enough to spend 4 hours at WallFart waiting for a oil change, he really must be a Rtard!!!

26 | Posted by axe at 2009-07-09 11:39 AM

Sorry for responding to a post meant for you Vern...

What should we call you? Dumbass? Moron? Idiot? A punk who can't read? He can't dumb it down any more than he did. Even for you Axe. Have someone read it for you who understands his point.

(Kinda like getting your oil changed and the tires rotated. You do it when you want to spend four hours at Wal-Mart, saving lots of money on brand name merchandise.)

-or insuring every American that will take the "public option?"

The public option under discussion is still premium-based, not a Canadian style "free" system, just lower premiums than from insurance companies that are only concerned with their accounting bottom lines, not your health.

Savings are made by group purchase power and much lower admin costs. There are some subsidies for the poor, but I'm sure no family values person would complain about that, eh?

"What about it doesn't work?"

Seriously?

Medical costs are rising faster than overall costs, and have been for al long as any of us can remember. As the baby boomers retire, the demand for medical care will spike, whereas the supply will not, especially the 'supply' of dollars to pay for the care, since the ratio of workers to retirees will diminish. This will bring health care inflation that will drown the best of intentions. The current path is unsustainable; we'll either be broke, or health care will be out of reach of all but the wealthiest, or both.

Ultimately, the macro numbers tell us we have to find a cheaper way to deliver the health care. When we look around the globe at what works -- countries that spend less of their GDP on health care, countries that deliver better overall health, and in particular, countries that do both -- we see, for better or worse, single-payer is the most efficient, and preventive care is cheaper than disease care. Yes, that steps on a lot of toes, but this tsunami has been a long time coming, and the economies of scale will ultimately force some aspect of this upon us. Better to face it sooner, and work out some bugs.

I'm hoping for something fair and sensible, but it's Washington...who am I kidding?

"Medical costs are rising faster than overall costs, and have been for al long as any of us can remember. As the baby boomers retire, the demand for medical care will spike, whereas the supply will not, especially the 'supply' of dollars to pay for the care, since the ratio of workers to retirees will diminish. This will bring health care inflation that will drown the best of intentions. The current path is unsustainable; we'll either be broke, or health care will be out of reach of all but the wealthiest, or both."

RCade said it is broke, as in, now. Your post is full of doomsday predictions about the future. What about it is broke right now.

Fine - those in favor of it can pay for it. Those who aren't, shouldn't have to. Sound fair?

Can I stop paying to educate other peoples' children?

Using your logic, I shouldn't have to pay for people to send their kids to Public School.

Thank God we don't use Joe's logic in the REAL WORLD.

"Using your logic, I shouldn't have to pay for people to send their kids to Public School."

Even better, I could refuse to pay for the Iraq fiasco and tax cuts for the wealthiest. I like it!

Erwin Rommel the famous German general once said that if the allies get a toehold on the beaches of France it's over with.

The opposition to the Public Option sees it the same way. The purpose of the Public Option is to get toehold into the Health Care sector.
Once they get that then can slowly over time take it over and create a Government monopoly of the Heath Care sector.

In 1992 did they introduce a Public Option? No they tried for a total takeover, which failed, so now they are trying a different strategy.

"What about it is broke right now."

The tsunami is about to hit. Right NOW. The "future" will be here before we can fully fix the system. The first baby boomers will qualify for Medicare in a matter of months, not years.

OK here is my concern: right now my employer provides health insurance and pays for a huge chunk of the costs. If a publiction option is instituted then my employer is likely to quit providing the health insurance benefit. Thus, I am stuck paying for the cheaper public option which will not provide the same coverage as my employer provided plan, or I have to go directly to the insurer and pay more (because my employer is not pitching in) for the same coverage under my employer's plan. I guess I am supposed to sit back and hope the private insurers will lower their prices for sake of competition, but if they know the competing product is inferior why would they lower their prices?

Look at Medicare! Those in it hate it! There is NO other option for them! This Govermment is reducing the MEDICARE benefits in order to enhance the Public Option! Wait til they do the same thing in this program to start another assinine scheme.

If you want something new and different, make sure the other stuff you've done is WORKING properly!

The reason there is fraud in the MEDICARE progrom is it doesn't pay correctly or check billings sufficiently!

The real question is how do you get better care from the same number of DOCTORS currently on the rolls? Do you forfiet the right to sue?

The VA, MEDICARE, MEDICAID systems are falling apart and we sit here demanding another 'free' program! Where does it say it's free? Good luck in that one! Everything is OK just as long as someone else pays for it! Who the hell is SOMEONE ELSE?

Once we've knocked off the RICH who's left to pay? CHINA?

Get rid of the private options, go exclusively to a Public option because of cost savings/controls and watch the cost skyrocket, just look at MEDICARE getting less for more! YOU WILL PAY, make no mistake about that! Carre to buy a Public Option GAP Policy? Works for MEDICARE!

The first baby boomers will qualify for Medicare in a matter of months, not years.

Babyboomers are from 1948-1961. Medicare starts at 65. A matter of months?

I'll wait 8 weeks because it is better than waiting forever which people do wait in this country.

#3 | Posted by jackass

Obviously never been to the doctor.

The United States Census Bureau defines the demographic birth boom as between 1946 and 1964.

Even so, still not quite a matter of months. And I, for one, am not that anxious to qualify for Medicare yet.

I'll wait 8 weeks because it is better than waiting forever which people do wait in this country.

#3 | Posted by jackass

Obviously never been to the doctor.

I thought he was committed. Doesn't that count as seeing a doctor?

The United States Census Bureau defines the demographic birth boom as between 1946 and 1964.

Even so, still not quite a matter of months. And I, for one, am not that anxious to qualify for Medicare yet.

Cool. I thought I was the last of them. Being born in 1961. There are people three years younger who won't get anything as well.

The reason there is fraud in the MEDICARE progrom is it doesn't pay correctly or check billings sufficiently!

#40 | Posted by dogen

And of course everybody who is submitting claims to Medicare are all honest blokes, not trying to take advantage of the immense bureaucracy, no attempts to defraud the Government using false or altered claims, right?

"Babyboomers are from 1948-1961"

I'm sure those baby boomers born in 1946 and 1947 will be surprised.

Look at Medicare! Those in it hate it!

A friend of mine loves it.

Four surgeries in the past three years in the best hospitals in the world.

"Even so, still not quite a matter of months. "

Wrong again.

The first will qualify in less than 18 months, meaning I was EXACTLY correct when I posted "The first baby boomers will qualify for Medicare in a matter of months, not years."

9 million who don't want health insurance opt out of the system--until they get sick.

9 million are illegals. They will get health care now and in the future.

Once you are in this public system you can't get out.

Dogen has it right in his post.

------

They should be fixing Medicare/Medicaid.

They should expand the qualifications of Medicare to accept whoever.

There are like 1300 private carriers--that is plenty of competition.

When the gov't gets involved--we will see competition dissolve, erased and disappear.

Babyboomers are from 1948-1961....

#41 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2009-07-09 12:45 PM

Chrispee OC, you're just slightly off by a couple of years. All records record the Baby Boomers to be everyone born from 1946 through 1964

Chrispee OC = Crispee OC

(Guess I was so used to writing my own first name!)

Look at Medicare! Those in it hate it!

Really?

My mom is 81. She has a Medicare supplemental which is very affordable.

She has had one emergency and one elective surgery in the past three years.

No problems with medical bills she can't pay. She still has a home of her own to live in and knows she won't die penniless due to health care costs.

The doctors are the ones that don't like Medicare. Why? Because Bush cut their compensation. That's a problem that has to be addressed, but it's not a deal breaker, yet.

I agree with Danforth. We don't really have a choice. We have to do something, because the demographics will break the current system.

If the GOP had any sense, they would get out in front on this issue.

But, then, if the GOP had any sense, they wouldn't be alienating minority voters and shaking their fists at the sky.

"They should be fixing Medicare/Medicaid.

They should expand the qualifications of Medicare to accept whoever."

Fine with me but I think your buddies with the health insurance industry would excommunicate you for saying that.

SilverIronist

Just wanted to say thanks again for the realtor suggestions you gave me. Very helpful.

#49 | Posted by Danforth

You are right on this--the baby boomers are going to be in the system in a matter of months--big time.

Well--if the Medicare is so wonderful--why not fix it and add those folks --expand the list of people who qualify and get them in there instead of a giant boondoggle that they are talking about now?

----

Talk about abuse--in Oregon

Some ER ambulance dispatcher got the call to go pick up some woman at her home with a Yeast Infection!

She didn't want to wait in the ER so she called the ambualnce.

Really?

My mom is 81. She has a Medicare supplemental which is very affordable.

She has had one emergency and one elective surgery in the past three years.

53 | Posted by silver_ironist at 2009-07-09 01:01 PM

Does your Mom have a Medicare supplemental insurance policy (to cover the 20% cost not covered by Medicare which covers only 80%)?

My Mom had one with New York Life and she was paying $265 a month. But with her later hospital and doctor costs (2 broken hips and many other problems as she got into her later 80s) the NY Life supplemental policy more than paid for itself.

Chrispee OC, you're just slightly off by a couple of years. All records record the Baby Boomers to be everyone born from 1946 through 1964

Baby Boomer Statistics

When the GI's came back home after WW II in 1945 the baby BOOM took off.

Yeah. Looks like I screwed up. What really sucks is having to be wrong on a danforth post. Oh the humanity.

"Can I stop paying to educate other peoples' children?"

Nobody has argued "Don't like public education? Don't use it." That argument is being made in support of public healthcare.

The first will qualify in less than 18 months, meaning I was EXACTLY correct when I posted "The first baby boomers will qualify for Medicare in a matter of months, not years."

#49 | Posted by Danforth

You are right, Dan. I think I was in denial that my generation was THAT freakin' old!

"Really?
My mom"

Well, there we go. One guy on the internet says his mom likes Medicare, so that means Medicare is great.

I can say that my mom likes her private insurance. Does that mean private healthcare is great too?

"I think I was in denial that my generation was THAT freakin' old!"

You'll want to avoid all mirrors.

At least until that Dorain Grey pact kicks in.

Medicare is broke, my heathcare is not broke in fact it works just fine.

If Medicare can't support the baby boomers, they need to either get out of healthcare all together, raise taxes, cut benefits, or raise the age of eligibility.

There is no such thing as free lunch.

"What really sucks is having to be wrong on a danforth post. Oh the humanity."

Worth reposting.

"If Medicare can't support the baby boomers, they need to either get out of healthcare all together, raise taxes, cut benefits, or raise the age of eligibility."

Snarky, but true.

And since the first is not a serious suggestion, we're left with some, or all, of the last three, plus more stuff like UHC.

I'm not coming at this from the left or the right, rather from the macro numbers. We're running out of options.

Funny how no one can/will address my #39 post. If someone can assuage my concerns it would be greatly appreciated and maybe I would be more open to a public option.

"If a publiction option is instituted then my employer is likely to quit providing the health insurance benefit."

Then you would be justified in asking him to increase your pay the same amount. Employers provide health care benefits as part of your compensation package. It is not a gift.

"Thus, I am stuck paying for the cheaper public option which will not provide the same coverage as my employer provided plan"

How do you know that is true??

"but if they know the competing product is inferior why would they lower their prices?"

There is no reason to think the public option will offer inferior coverage, if anything it would be better because decisions about treatments, etc. would not be made by people who based their decision on profitability.

Last, why would your employer, if he switchesto the public option, not pay for it just as he does now for private insurance?

No, Joe (#62), but it does mean that the assertion that people in Medicare hate it is incorrect. I'm not comfortable making assertions about any majority of Medicaid/Medicare participants. Because how do you know? And that's just what I would suggest regarding Canadian healthcare. I know more people who like it (who don't necessarily like paying the taxes) than who don't. Others claim the opposite. Who the fuck knows? Let's ask Rasmussen--hahahahahahahaha!

Sorry. Got attacked by the stupid joke bug there.

Oh, and the school question--well, yes, that is exactly the argument that many people make: I don't like paying into the education system/education sucks, so I shouldn't have to pay for it. I think they're wrong; I think it's part of the social contract (like roads, police, fire); but there are those who make the argument.

Last, why would your employer, if he switchesto the public option, not pay for it just as he does now for private insurance?

Because nothing I have seen will allow employers to deduct the cost of health insurance coverage. Right now my employer gets a benefit for providing health insurance. This benefit will likely end with the passage of a public option. You do raise valid points, so it will best to see what exactly the legislation provides.

Then you would be justified in asking him to increase your pay the same amount. Employers provide health care benefits as part of your compensation package. It is not a gift.

Any pay increase will still likely not cover my increased costs in coverage. As for the inferior claim, everything I seem to read leads me to believe the government plan will not have all the "bells and whistles" of a private plan.

"Because nothing I have seen will allow employers to deduct the cost of health insurance coverage. Right now my employer gets a benefit for providing health insurance. This benefit will likely end with the passage of a public option."

You would know more about the tax side of the issue and so I guess that could end up being a problem. On the other side of the coin though, if the public option is cheap enough this will also take away the power many employers have to retain employees just because of the insurance benefit. That would help entrepreneurs and those who want to switch jobs.

"Because nothing I have seen will allow employers to deduct the cost of health insurance coverage."

I don't know what will end up in the final bill, but didn't Obama's plan call for tax credits to help offset the cost of health care to the employer?

OK here is my concern: right now my employer provides health insurance and pays for a huge chunk of the costs. If a publiction option is instituted then my employer is likely to quit providing the health insurance benefit. Thus, I am stuck paying for the cheaper public option which will not provide the same coverage as my employer provided plan, or I have to go directly to the insurer and pay more (because my employer is not pitching in) for the same coverage under my employer's plan. I guess I am supposed to sit back and hope the private insurers will lower their prices for sake of competition, but if they know the competing product is inferior why would they lower their prices?

#39 | Posted by taxman at 2009-07-09 12:42 PM | Reply |

I don't know why you would assume the coverage would be different to inferior in the first place.

Employers under the current system are already moving to abandon it.

This is why no one bothered to respond, its pretty much some strawman argument. Lets flip it around just to be funny and see how it works. Employer now provides less, discuss.

#66 | Posted by Danforth
Snarky, but true.

And since the first is not a serious suggestion, we're left with some, or all, of the last three, plus more stuff like UHC.

--------
I know they are not going to get out of Healthcare, but I put in there just for argument sake.

Danforth is correct Medicare is going broke, and the numbers just don't add up it's not a left or right issues.

Seniors pay attention to Social Security, and Medicare big time, in political circles they call it the 3rd rail.
So basicaly the politicians are afraid if they chose any or some of the options they have, they will be voted out.

That is why fixing it is so hard.

If I don't TAKE the public option, does that mean my taxes won't go to pay for it?

If all the government is doing is creating a new insurance company, then go ahead. But I have a feeling that the Obamites aren't going to do it that way. Just last week they were proposing big fines for people who refuse coverage, and the week before that they were going to tax health care benefits from the private sector to pay for it.

Libtards lying, again.

#7 | Posted by rightisright at 2009-07-09 10:18 AM | Reply |

Just creating another insurance plan in and of itself is retarded. Problems with healthcare are not getting fixed by some new insurance plan alone. And you ought to know that mr self-proclaimed smarty pants.

And lol you call that lying? If they had R's after they're name you'd tell us this was part of the debate. Bias makes you stupid, get a clue.

That is why fixing it is so hard.
#74 | Posted by 90c2cab

Incumbency over constituency.

#39 | Posted by taxman

There are about 120 million Americans with employer based health insurance.

It will basically disappear.

The gov't doesn't create competition--it kills it.

You should check the cost of what health insurance would cost you/family.

"Because nothing I have seen will allow employers to deduct the cost of health insurance coverage. Right now my employer gets a benefit for providing health insurance. This benefit will likely end with the passage of a public option. You do raise valid points, so it will best to see what exactly the legislation provides."

Your living in dreamland if you think the bottom line for a company is profit when it comes to paying for healthcare. Taxman, that don't even make tax sense. LOL WTH ?!?!

"Your living in dreamland if you think the bottom line for a company is profit when it comes to paying for healthcare."

What IS the bottom line then?

Does the healthcare industry have some dispensation where they don't have a primary fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders?

Does anyone feel confident this body in Washington has what it takes to come up with an efficient, effective plan? Knowing full well they increased funding on a program like SCHIP? Which combined with other Gov. programs still can only get 4 out of 10 kids to sign up who qualify? Wouldn't it make more sense to fix the programs we have in place, before expanding into unchartered waters? We already have billions and billions of dollars committed as it is.

A) There is no reason to think the public option will offer inferior coverage, if anything it would be better because decisions about treatments, etc. would not be made by people who based their decision on profitability.

B) Last, why would your employer, if he switchesto the public option, not pay for it just as he does now for private insurance?

#68 | Posted by danni

A) Danni--there won't be enough doctors to take care of the shit that will hit the fan--so it will be rationed and expect long delays for treatment.

In the private system--if your doctor is too busy--you put in for second.

Won't be able to do that with the gov't system.

B) If there is no incentive for the boss to pay for it--he ain't going to pay for it.

Funny and Ironic thing about Obama's presidency is that I was saying the exact same thing during the Clinton years- word for word:

I am not happy with the job of the current President, but he's better than George Bush was.

That really is ironic in so many ways.

"That really is ironic in so many ways."

Actually, its just plain sad.

Many people here could do a better job than Bush had.

#80 | Posted by crispee_oc

Exactly--

There is estimated 10 million people who are qualified for Medicare or Medicaid and don't know it?

They want more people covered--just expand the requirements for the uninsured under the Medi plans.

Talk about abuse--in Oregon

Some ER ambulance dispatcher got the call to go pick up some woman at her home with a Yeast Infection!

She didn't want to wait in the ER so she called the ambualnce.

#57 | Posted by MURPHY at 2009-07-09 01:05 PM

That's a definite case of abuse BUT if you ever have an instance where you do not want to wait, 'cause you're in some real pain, then you always need to call an ambulance when you go to the ER.

When my Mom was in her early 80s and making a visit to her doctor's office, while waiting for the elevator in the lobby she was pushed off balance and knocked to the ground while using her walker by people around her shoving ahead to get into the elevator.

I left her and ran up to her doctor's office on the 2nd floor and the nurse came down to the lobby and helped me get her upstairs where they confirmed her hip had been broken. Her doctor then said, as the ER and the main hospital were just across the street, I should WALK across the street with her to go the ER and they loaned us a wheelchair. BIG MISTAKE. I should have called an ambulance.

Because we did not arrive "by ambulance" and instead she came in the ER front door being pushed in a wheelchair, we waited 5 F--KING HOURS sitting in the ER waiting room to have her seen by an ER doctor and admitted (even though our own doctor had called ahead). After a few hours she had gone into slight shock from the pain (although I didn't learn it was from shock until later and thought her chills were from her being cold and got a blanket for her while we sat in the waiting room).

They wouldn't even give her any strong pain medication until she was actually seen by one of the ER doctors. ER "triage" won't give you anything except Tylenol.

And even when the ER finally got her out of the waiting room and into one of the back rooms where they then ordered x-rays taken, they still were not going to give her anything for the pain as she had not yet been "officially examined" by one of the ER doctors. At that point I then got in their face and told them no way were they going to have her rolling from side to side for different x-ray positions with a broken hip until she got something for the pain -- and I wanted something a hell of lot stronger for her than only some Tylenol.

So they finally then went and called a doctor into her room and he ordered a pain shot and afterwards they proceeded with the x-raying once her pain medication had kicked in. You have to have someone be an advocate when you go to the hosptial today 'cause if you're in a bad condition, or at an age where you can't fight for yourself, you can get lost in the shuffle.

Moral of this story -- if you are in any significant pain, NEVER just walk through the ER front door. Always go by ambulance.

Moral of this story -- if you are in any significant pain, NEVER just walk through the ER front door. Always go by ambulance.

Thank God my mom has local Hoag Centers. I can take her there and they will either call paramedics, or arrange transportation to the hospital if needed. Otherwise she seems to get the proper care in a timely matter.

Yeah. Looks like I screwed up. What really sucks is having to be wrong on a danforth post. Oh the humanity.

#59 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2009-07-09 01:06 PM

Don't worry. We still ♥ ya.

Don't worry. We still ♥ ya.

#87 | Posted by CalifChris at 2009-07-09 02:04 PM

We might be stretching it a bit. Of course you are worth two 43's 86.

Moral of this story -- if you are in any significant pain, NEVER just walk through the ER front door. Always go by ambulance.

#85 | Posted by CalifChris

I feel for your Mom. Too many non emergencies inthe ER.

Older people who don't want to wait for their own doctor go to the ER via ambulance to have their Blood pressure checked.

---

When hubby went to the ER for his heart attack--they saw him right away--they had that oxygen machine on his face within minutes.

CC--you know with your Mom--you almost need to do a 'Denzel' and start going crazy to get the attention.

Later gaters--off to OC for business.

It is not the ER's fault totally. Logic dictates that if you can get in under your own power, then there is not as much of an emergancy as someone who must be brought in, so yes, follow Murphy's advice.

Later gaters--off to OC for business.

Did you schedule an appointment that I missed? Sorry I thought that said OC's.

I think that people will still elect to purchase supplementary insurance under a medicare for all plan. That doesn't really bother me as long as the public plan adds drugs and procedures in a fairly timely manner as they do now.

Medicare + for all will squeeze out most of the private market because that market is just plain fucking corrupt.

"A) Danni--there won't be enough doctors to take care of the shit that will hit the fan--so it will be rationed and expect long delays for treatment."

It probably requires more doctors to treat so many uninsured through ER visits than it will in clinics.

"In the private system--if your doctor is too busy--you put in for second.

Won't be able to do that with the gov't system."

The government system will be paying the bills exactly the same way private insurers do now, it has nothing to do with how many doctors there are.

"a) If there is no incentive for the boss to pay for it--he ain't going to pay for it."

The incentive for employers to pay for health insurance is retention of employees. It isn't done to be "nice". If the employer can save on that insurance it will leave more money for raises.

"Medicare + for all will squeeze out most of the private market because that market is just plain fucking corrupt."

Yep.

I am not happy with the job of the current President, but he's better than George Bush was.

Better than "W"? You prefer the hole that America is gonna have to climb out of to be even deeper?

Many people here could do a better job than Bush had.

As bad as many of the DR crew think "W" was (personally at this point I'd call him fair to middling in overall outlook but substandard in performance) I seriously doubt that.

As far as Iraq despite all the Monday morning quarterbacking about doctored intelligence to justify it most Americans would have supported it anyways. As for the economy in regards to the housing situation he did try to address it only to be dismissed by the Dems and the same as 0bama he was one of the best pals Wall St could hope for.

The government system will be paying the bills exactly the same way private insurers do now, it has nothing to do with how many doctors there are.

If the public option is just as you described then fine. Let them play.

I have my doubts and any difference will be put under a magnifying glass to see if it is on a level playing field.

The incentive for employers to pay for health insurance is retention of employees. It isn't done to be "nice". If the employer can save on that insurance it will leave more money for raises.

I seriously doubt that any inevitably bloated national health care system is gonna free up money for raises given the increased taxes businesses will have to pay. Face it by it's very nature big government is neither cost-efficient nor disciplined.

I am not happy with the job of the current President, but he's better than George Bush was.

This is someone who has already made their mind up. That is fine. Just admit it is all ideology and move on.

I guess when folks are critical of the criticisms of Obama because it has only been 6 months what they really mean is that they don't think it is fair to say something negative. Only positive things.

If it is too soon to judge then it is too soon to judge. I happen to believe that it is too soon to judge.................one way or the other.

"I found that the cost to my employer was twice what I could get on the market. "

Huh? Why couldn't your employer buy the same plan you could? And why couldn't he get a group rate, cutting the cost even further?

Eberly,
How about reading my quote in context?

This is someone who has already made their mind up.

Not even close. There is a huge gap between saying I am unhappy with his job thus far and calling him a failure. What you are is yet another partisan who views the world through a filter of "anyone I disagree with in on the other side." Shame.

The incentive for employers to pay for health insurance is retention of employees. It isn't done to be "nice". If the employer can save on that insurance it will leave more money for raises.

#95 | Posted by danni

Now Danni believes in "trickle down" economics.

When corporations saved in taxes then Danni claims they kept the money and said "fuck you" to the employees.....because they are rich greedy pricks.

But if they save in insurance premiums then they will gladly offer up raises to give the money to the employees.......because NOW they are wonderful loving people.

Ronald Reagan is in hell laughing his ass off at you Danni.

Eberly,
How about reading my quote in context?

I have gone back and re-read it. I think I am wrong and if I have misread it then I apologize.

Huh? Why couldn't your employer buy the same plan you could? And why couldn't he get a group rate, cutting the cost even further?

depending on the size of the employer it could work out that way if the group was really unhealthy and was being charged really high rates.

"When asked in a new Harris Poll how strongly they support 14 different government services, five services receive strong, or a fair amount of support, from about three-fourths of all adults or more. The five most popular services are The National Parks Service (85% support), Crime-fighting and prevention services (77%) Medicare (76%), Social Security (76%), and Unemployment benefits (74%).

Other services which are supported by 65 percent or more of all adults are Defense (71%), Medicaid (71%), Federal aid to public schools (69%) and Federal government emergency services (65%).

Three other services are supported by majorities of under 65 percent, Homeland Security (62%), Intelligence Services (61%), and food stamps (59%).

Only two services on the list do not receive majority support, Immigration and Naturalization services (47%) and Foreign aid (40%)."

For some of these services there is little difference in the levels of support among Republicans, Democrats and Independents. This is true of the National Park Service, Medicare, Social Security, Crime-fighting and Prevention, Immigration and Naturalization, and Foreign aid.

There are however several services which receive more support from Democrats than Republicans, such as unemployment benefits (81% vs. 69%), federal aid to public schools (78% vs. 67%), and food stamps (71% vs. 45%).

There are also two services which receive substantially more support from Republicans than from Democrats, defense (93% vs. 61%) and homeland security (82% vs. 60%).

Measuring Their Performance

Support for a service does not necessarily mean that it gets high ratings for its performance. In an earlier survey conducted online among 1,833 adults by Harris Interactive between October 11 and 17, 2005, far fewer people gave most services high ratings. For example:

Medicaid which enjoys the support of 71 percent of all adults is rated 73 percent negative, 27 percent positive.

Federal aid to public schools which is supported by 69 percent of adults is rated 74 percent negative, 26 percent positive.

Social Security, which enjoys very strong support (76%) is rated 73 percent negative, 27 percent negative.

Medicare, also a very popular service (76% support) is rated 73 percent negative, 27 percent positive. (2005)

Accepted.

I was poking fun of history and how both Bushs were followed by very devise and polarizing figures who, despite claims to the contrary, were failures as well, but, because they lacked invading Iraq, are given a pass. THat is why I said:

Funny and Ironic thing about Obama's presidency is that I was saying the exact same thing during the Clinton years- word for word:

I am not happy with the job of the current President, but he's better than George Bush was.

History's cycle has gotten shorter.

Obama is not a failure yet, but is on that path.

#99 | Posted by Gimme_a_Scotch
I seriously doubt that any inevitably bloated national health care system is gonna free up money for raises given the increased taxes businesses will have to pay.
Face it by it's very nature big government is neither cost-efficient nor disciplined.
---------------------
Just look at California and Texas for your example, Cal has a huge state Government, and Texas has a small one.

The above post is meant to point out the same sort of incongruencey that one sees when people are polled about Congress.

People give Congress very poor ratings in general, but THEIR Congressman gets exceptionally high ratings.

Point being that people love to bitch about government services, but don't be going and trying to take them away.

Yes, the public truly hates all these inefficient, unworkable gub'mint programs, eh?

Posted by Corky

The results of those surveys shouldn't surprise anyone.

However I don't see where it belongs in this debate. Those services don't really compete with anybody. Folks aren't thinking about the alternatives when deciding they like them or not.

You mean you think the public will prefer the policies of current HMOs to those of a public option that have no pre-existing clauses, choice of physician, and cost about half as much?

You mean you think the public will prefer the policies of current HMOs to those of a public option that have no pre-existing clauses, choice of physician, and cost about half as much?

I'll wait until the government actually provides an option like that.

Question for you and anybody else Corky......why do you think HMOs operate the way they do? Meaning.....why do you think there are restrictions on physicians?

why do you think there are restrictions on physicians?

Any answer you can think of is a little bit right and a little bit wrong. To think one or two factors lead to that choice is ridiculous.

To think one or two factors lead to that choice is ridiculous.

I've never had an HMO but I have competed with them in the past when I sold group health plans.

HMOs were very cheap. My understanding for that was because those MDs chose to accept a real discount for the promise that patients would be funneled to them who are being covered by the HMO.

A public option will have to compete with that. Do you expect those same MDs to accept the discounted rate unless the volume of patients can be assured? How can they be assured of the volume if people aren't forced to go there??

We are a PPO office. They can choose us or another sleep lab to goto. We are also one of the few labs surviving right now (knock on wood)/

Mostly because bean counters run all the companies and it is the corporate bottom line that is the most important consideration, with patient care much lower on the list.

And they can get away with it because they all do it. If they have to compete with plans than don't, then they will have to match the service or fail.

Mostly because bean counters run all the companies and it is the corporate bottom line that is the most important consideration, with patient care much lower on the list.

That is mostly true, but doctors have to be willing to fight with them and they will cave in. Our doctor regularly gets on the phone with the insurance companies when they deny claims to explain why it is medically necessary and they usually end up paying.

We are a PPO office. They can choose us or another sleep lab to goto.

If another lab is out of that PPO network then the patient usually has to pay a higher co-insurance %and can be subject to a higher out of pocket maximum.

We have a few cancel due to co-pays, but we are in most networks and even some HMO plans, but the doctor I work for is not a fan of HMOs. He feels "fast food drive thru medicine" will cause more harm and the oath is to first do no harm.

Mostly because bean counters run all the companies and it is the corporate bottom line that is the most important consideration, with patient care much lower on the list.

And they can get away with it because they all do it. If they have to compete with plans than don't, then they will have to match the service or fail

I need some clarification here......"all the companies"? who are you talking about? the insurance companies, the HMO/PPOs, the MDs/clinics/hospitals or the companies buying these health plans?

but the doctor I work for is not a fan of HMOs. He feels "fast food drive thru medicine" will cause more harm and the oath is to first do no harm.

He is not a fan of the HMOs because the reimbursement rates he collects on behalf of the patients that come to you through the HMOs are much less than the patients that come from traditional insurance plans.

"In 2007 California had the 2nd lowest number of full-time equivalent state
government employees relative to population among all states. California had
103 state employees for every 10,000 residents while Illinois had the lowest ratio
at 97. The U.S. average was 143 state employees per 10,000 residents.
California's ratio of state government employees relative to population was 28%
below the national average.
Florida, Arizona and Nevada were also among the five states with the lowest
ratios of state workers to population. Texas had 122 state employees per 10,000
residents."

www.ccsce.com/pdf/Numbers-
oct08-govt-employees.pdf

Eb

We were talking about insurance companies/HMOs.

K

Most public option plans change the way doctors are paid.

" A Dartmouth researcher has a plan that would dramatically change the way health care providers are paid in this country.

As VPR's Bob Kinzel reports, the researcher says his plan would significantly reduce the number of unnecessary procedures, and would free up money to expand health care everyone.

(Kinzel) Dr. Elliot Fisher is the director of the Center of Health Policy Services at Dartmouth College. For the past 25 years he and his colleagues have been studying the link between health care costs and the quality of care that's being delivered.

Their conclusions are surprising and have become the focal point for payment reform efforts in Congress.

Speaking on VPR's Vermont Edition, Fisher says regions of the country that spend twice as much per capita on health care as other regions, don't have better patient outcomes and in some cases the outcomes are worse.

Fisher thinks the current "fee for service" payment system - a system that reimburses physicians for every office visit, every test and every procedure - is at the heart of the problem:

(Fisher) "So this is a dynamic system that is really set up to achieve poor results. And that's some of the insight of our work. That is, if you think about how we're paying people, how fragmented the care is, if we think about new ways of paying that would reward better care and better health at a lower cost, we might get what we want from our health care system."

(Kinzel) Fisher says between 30 and 50 percent of all primary care office visits are unnecessary because the work could be done over the phone or using the Internet. But he says the current system doesn't pay doctors for providing these types of services:

(Fisher) "The thing to understand is that the fee for service payment is part of the problem here. Because they only make their revenue by seeing patients in their offices - have to see you in their office - and there's a lot of unnecessary care that's generated."

(Kinzel) Fisher says the solution is creating regional accountable care organizations. These are local groups that would consist of hospitals, primary care physicians and specialists.

He says health care providers in these groups would be reimbursed based on the outcomes of their patients instead of using the fee for service model." more

I would say you are right with some doctors, but not the one I work for. I do payroll here and can tell you he is one of the lowest paid people here. Not all doctors are business men and, the older docs like who I work for (he is 69) did not go into medicine for money as GP doctors were not that rich back then.

And we are a lab Eberly, he sees no patients and gets no pay one way or the other from that. Our lab is paid and we are all paid salary from that.

Corky, I have less faith in a public option plan when I read what you posted in #124. Let me highlight 2 parts of that post.

As VPR's Bob Kinzel reports, the researcher says his plan would significantly reduce the number of unnecessary procedures, and would free up money to expand health care everyone.

We have to define "unnecessary" procedures. I might agree with this guy on what he deems to be "unnecessar" but try applying that to our public. You can't sell that. I know for a fact that some private insurance companies have tried to file plans that don't cover what they deemed to be "unnecessar" and the state insurance dept wouldn't approve the plan with those restrictions written in them. Now the govt is going to have a plan that does the same thing??? I'm all for it perhaps but, again, you won't sell that to our public. They will view it as restricted and shitty coverage.

Fisher says between 30 and 50 percent of all primary care office visits are unnecessary because the work could be done over the phone or using the Internet. But he says the current system doesn't pay doctors for providing these types of services:

I have no doubts believing that but how are you going to distinguish between which one's are necessary or or not?? same problem as above.

In any case, what this guy is saying is what I have known for years and years and i agree with him but what he is really describing is plan full of restrictions and less coverage. (it will get spun that way and we all know it).

It is a good education for folks who don't know why healthcare costs so much but I don't see a solution from this perspective.

As far as payment for services.....maybe there is something in that.

Eb

"(Fisher) "The thing to understand is that the fee for service payment is part of the problem here. Because they only make their revenue by seeing patients in their offices - have to see you in their office - and there's a lot of unnecessary care that's generated."

(Kinzel) Fisher says the solution is creating regional accountable care organizations. These are local groups that would consist of hospitals, primary care physicians and specialists.

He says health care providers in these groups would be reimbursed based on the outcomes of their patients instead of using the fee for service model"

Groups like this are already used in some instances. They can be successful. You might check out the rest of the article at the link, too.

I do payroll here and can tell you he is one of the lowest paid people here. Not all doctors are business men and, the older docs like who I work for (he is 69) did not go into medicine for money as GP doctors were not that rich back then.

This should be news to some who believe all MDs are rich greedy bastards making $1 million a year.

Your MD sees HMOs for what they are. They are mostly an option for folks are willing to engage in a very fast, high volume business model which often times, as you said, will cause more harm than good.

He says health care providers in these groups would be reimbursed based on the outcomes of their patients instead of using the fee for service model"

that still smells like "for profit" to me. Understand that in any system, there will be an accountant standing behind the MD advising him. This appears to be a slippery slope where MDs could start picking patients that will generate the biggest "outcome".

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not against this stuff.......just playing devil's advocate.

remember.....I'm a conservative....I'm close with the devil.

You will have to pardon me, but I admit to a case of "hero worship" for the doc I work for. I have never met a more compassionate and selfless man in my life. He had a choice two years ago to sell the lab and retire costing most of his people their jobs, keeping some people with full benefits, or keeping all people with reduced benefits and he chose the last. He has cut his pay four times this year so that we can afford to keep everyone on payroll.

I am not happy with the job of the current President, but he's better than George Bush was.

Better than "W"? You prefer the hole that America is gonna have to climb out of to be even deeper?

#97 | Posted by Gimme_a_Scotch

No need to climb out. O is gonna keeping digging the hole that Dubya started straight down and through to the other side. We'll just walk out. Easy.

And the hole leads to China

"And the hole leads to China"

We need to plug the hole.

I don't see how the public option can go wrong. Even if they offer the same amount of coverage/services as private health insurers the cost to the customer will be lower. They don't have to turn out a profit for stockholders, won't have a bloated claims department trying to figure out how to screw people out of their coverage, won't have to pay millions to executives, won't have to spend as much on advertising and most importantly won't have to spend money on lobbying. If the private insurers can't compete with that then too bad. They have lost out in the market place of ideas.
Private health insurance companies have benefited greatly from having health insurance tied to employers; they've been able to 'hide' their increasing cost from the public. An affordable public system that operates independent of employers will reduce the cost of doing business and make it easier for people to start small businesses. An affordable public system will also put more money into the economy, since people will be paying less for medical services.

Even if they offer the same amount of coverage/services as private health insurers the cost to the customer will be lower. They don't have to turn out a profit for stockholders, won't have a bloated claims department trying to figure out how to screw people out of their coverage, won't have to pay millions to executives, won't have to spend as much on advertising and most importantly won't have to spend money on lobbying.

If this is the basis as to why the public option is better then fine with me.

My natural skepticism tells me that it won't be this simple.

An affordable public system that operates independent of employers will reduce the cost of doing business

Are you sure? Right now, when 500 families who are insured under 1 group plan, the insurance company writes one policy, communicates with a single point of contact for purposes of communicating rates, enrollments, changes...basically a lot of administration is streamlined. Obviously people call insurance companies right now with questions on claims and other issues so I'm not arguing that all administration in group plans is with the employer directly. However, if a carrier now has to write 500 separate individual family policies (all with different options etc..) then I would think the cost of doing business would go up. Many streamlined issues are now eliminated.

If this is the basis as to why the public option is better then fine with me.

My natural skepticism tells me that it won't be this simple.

#136 | Posted by eberly at 2009-07-09 05:34 PM | Reply |

I gotta agree. We are dealing with a 7 headed hydra. And politicians are not always the champions of the most noble causes.

The incentive for employers to pay for health insurance is retention of employees. It isn't done to be "nice". If the employer can save on that insurance it will leave more money for raises.

#95 | Posted by danni

Now Danni believes in "trickle down" economics.

#103 | Posted by eberly at 2009-07-09 02:58 PM | Reply |

LOL Good call. Common sense tells us that business will just either invest in itself, or give those raises to the C-level execs.

"Right now, when 500 families who are insured under 1 group plan, the insurance company writes one policy, communicates with a single point of contact for purposes of communicating rates, enrollments, changes...basically a lot of administration is streamlined."

And when that is done with the Public Option company those same savings will still be possible without the need to also provide CEOs with multi-million dollar salaries nor stock holders dividends....which might just effect the decisions made by the people determining whether or not services and drugs are covered. I just don't want the profit motive to be a factor determining whether or not I get an operation or a drug I need.

"Now Danni believes in "trickle down" economics."

Bull shit. I believe in reality. My boss doesn't "give" me health insurance, he pays for it though. He gives it to me so that I will stay on my job. He wants me to stay on my job. He is willing to spend thousands of dollars a year to keep me on that job. Make no mistake, savings on health care will spell raises in income for employees though some employers will resist, when the economy recovers they will not retain important employees if they don't part with the cash.

Huh? Why couldn't your employer buy the same plan you could? And why couldn't he get a group rate, cutting the cost even further?

#101 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-07-09 02:54 PM | Reply |

Because some jobs are inherently more dangerous than your average walk down the street. It doesn't matter that I spend most of my day in a air conditioned office surrounded by nothing particuarly dangerous. But most of the employees here are drivers, and they require higher premiums. And as a result everyone here per person pays a higher premium.

Further, my own company in fact sent a bunch of us office workers out to purchase our own liability insurance the last couple of years. Because we could get it cheaper than the company could get it under a group plan. Medical may go this route too for us in the next couple of years.

Danni will never get it

The 4 year Obama plan.

Cost of doing buisness for insurance companies = 1,000

Cost of doing insurance business for the govenment = 100

Cost of doing business for the insurance companies in the second year = 1500

cost of doing insurance business for the government in the 2nd year = 100

Cost of doing business for the insurance companies in the 3 rd year =2,000

Cost of doing insurance business for the government in the 3rd year = 100

Cost of doing business for the insurance companies in the 4th year = Out of business

Cost of doing insurance business for the government in the 4th year. Whatever it takes there is no longer any competition.

The communists have arrived folks and it's not going to be pretty. Well, not for those that truly love liberty and aren't afraid to WORK for it.

"Pay Attention!! You already are, have been ever since you started getting a paycheck. Look on your paycheck. Look for the Fed MED/EE deduction. There it is."

I know that, Zot. Why would you think I would want to get ripped off even more with a new, even more expensive plan?
I have posted before I see nothing wrong with catastrophic coverage by government. The rest is bullshit. I am already being ripped off by paying two premiums and socialized medicine types want to rip me off more.

It is better to get this right than to get it done in short order.

Any business organization that intended to implement a large scale program with massive implications would first study the outcomes of multiple large scale pilot programs before jumping feet first into a single all encompassing plan.

Split the USA into different pilot zones of multiple states where different health care strategies could be trialed and analyzed before a final nationwide plan is implemented.

But if confusion is not part of the plan, Robson, they will be unable to favor their own voters. That is, after all, the only goal of this sham.

He writes, "Please explain, conservatives and wingnuts, why you wouldn't seriously consider switching to the public option if it turned out to be more affordable and portable from job to job -- not to mention the fact that you wouldn't be turned down for a preexisting condition; you wouldn't be randomly booted from the plan as soon as you needed it most; and you would never have to worry about health insurance coverage ever again. Employed or unemployed. Sick or healthy."

More affordable, better coverage!!!! Yippee!!! Oh, hold on, whose going to pay for this?

He goes on, "and it would be accountable to the American people."

Yep, just like your "stimulus" money! It's too bad that the only people who want the government to be "accountable" under both Republican and Democratic administrations are clearly nothing but partisan hacks. "Right wingnuts" when Obama is president, and "communists" when Bush is president.

All of you get a grip. (especially danforth, he's again going to argue that costs = benefits despite overwhelming evidence showing otherwise and say, "i'm an accountant" at that!)

Dang dudes, how is them bosses gonna makes them workers stay on them jobs when them folks gets to leaves a job and ain't losing health insurances by quitting that their job? That ain't reicht at all. See Sarah Barricuder Palinator done quitted her job as supreme leader of the Alaska and didn't need no kinda insurances to move to her new jobs of future preserdent of the USA USA USA. So if'n Sarah Palinator ain't a gots no insurance fer her and her childrens and then ain't no reason fer no other folk to be all wining about no kinds of insurance from the government sochalestes. So y'all just follow the Palinator and ya'll don't needs no kinds of health insurances. If'n y'all gets sicks just head on over to their emergency room and gets you some free qualities doctoring & them doctors at the ER will makes you all better and won't be no more kinds of problems. If'n Sarah Palinator's daughters done get knocked up ain't no reason for future preserdent Sarah Palinator to relies on no kinds of sochallest health cares. That knocked up Palin girl gonna just up and pay them bills like a real American in the USA USA USA. Thems Real Americans just up and pays them bills when they's becomes baby mama and has them baby daddy and baby mama dramas. So whens the Palinators gets all knocked up ain't no kinds of governments sochallesms that they be needing on to pays them bills for them babies to be aborned. Their ain't no rooms in this hear USA USA USA fer no kinds of sochallesm in the medicine world. IF'n your baby mama or baby daddy gets nocked up and has some young uns it be ups to you to be paying them bills for them babys. So don'ts be worrying on quitting no kinds of jobs like when the Palinator up and quitted to be the new preserdent and she ain't gots no kinds of mediciine insurance for no new babys to be baby mama'ed atween now and when the Palinator and the new Vicey Preserdent Michaell Bachsmann go on preserdenting in the 2000 and 12. If'n the Sarah Barricuder Palinator ain't a worried about them healthy insurances than y'all sochallests and leberalls don't a be needin no kinds of insurances neither!! USA USA USA!!! WHITE POWER TO THE TEE PARTAYS!!! DRILL THE BABY DRILL!!! RUN TO PRESERDENT PALINATOR!!!

Don't Like Public Option? Don't Use It, Just Pay for It!

Once agian "tiny" shows us all why is so important to not drop out of High School.