Export thread

So, I don't think that it is mentioned in the bill. How much will it cost the average middle class schmo?

I might be wrong about it being mentioned.

Isn't it a bit scary if it isn't laid out? We're supposed to be happy with whatever they give us, and charge us?

It's like signing your name to a mortgage without knowing what the interest rate is.

Blind faith, that the government will do the right thing, is not one of my strong points.

If I'm wrong, please point out where it is mentioned. I will gladly admit that I am wrong. I just want to know what to expect. Clear cut answers not mumbo-jumbo.

I don't like the fact that they rushed it through without as much debate as I'd like. I mean, they are supposed to be a government of the people yet it's the people who have no idea of what's in this besides the inflammatory commercials by either side.

But at least they are doing something.

drawn_inward said:

So, I don't think that it is mentioned in the bill. How much will it cost the average middle class schmo?

I might be wrong about it being mentioned.

Isn't it a bit scary if it isn't laid out? We're supposed to be happy with whatever they give us, and charge us?

It's like signing your name to a mortgage without knowing what the interest rate is.

Blind faith, that the government will do the right thing, is not one of my strong points.

If I'm wrong, please point out where it is mentioned. I will gladly admit that I am wrong. I just want to know what to expect. Clear cut answers not mumbo-jumbo.

Click to expand...

This is my personal opinion.

I don't think the cost will make any difference (in short of making under 20$ a month or something) IF people don't have jobs to pay for it.

There are people out there right now without jobs and possibly scraping by with minimal necessities. Any amount will not be enough to help them since they would rather spend money on food, shelter, and utilities.

personally, I believe the government should concentrate on creating jobs (like the new deal) our roads and bridges need repair (remember one of the bridge collapse due to lack of repair? I can't remember the state) that would be a good start. We have tons of bridges and road need work. Put money into that.

We need to build alternative energy plants.

Create jobs FIRST then worry about healthcare 2nd. IF people can afford it, then people will get it.

What I'm afraid of is that right now I have great healthcare with my community college, but if a cheaper one is available, guess which one we will go to? (it is 100% paid by my work) it could increase my co-pay (right now 20$) and other stuff just to be on "cheaper" insurance. (this is what other fears also)

Yeah, I don't understand the rush either. Give it time and get a clear-cut plan. Work out the details. Don't throw a plan at us, and say, Mission Accomplished!

Chibibar said:

personally, I believe the government should concentrate on creating jobs (like the new deal) our roads and bridges need repair (remember one of the bridge collapse due to lack of repair? I can't remember the state) that would be a good start. We have tons of bridges and road need work. Put money into that.

Click to expand...

Most of the bridges in this country have been around SINCE the New Deal. That's part of the reason why they are falling apart: They are old and poorly maintained. Really, we need to strip up and replace whole sections of interstate highway too. Most of it is 50+ years old.

AshburnerX;294700][quote=Chibibar said:

personally, I believe the government should concentrate on creating jobs (like the new deal) our roads and bridges need repair (remember one of the bridge collapse due to lack of repair? I can't remember the state) that would be a good start. We have tons of bridges and road need work. Put money into that.

Click to expand...

Most of the bridges in this country have been around SINCE the New Deal. That's part of the reason why they are falling apart: They are old and poorly maintained. Really, we need to strip up and replace whole sections of interstate highway too. Most of it is 50+ years old.[/QUOTE]

See? see? that will create TONS of job. There are lots of road (federal control) out there.

BTW, that bridge collapse was in Minneapolis MN, My best friend commuted on that bridge every day. Thank god he wasn't on it that day.

It's gonna die in the Senate thank God. So no worries. I don't see the dems actually accomplishing anything major here. It's gonna be just like Bush on Social Security.

Espy said:

It's gonna die in the Senate thank God. So no worries. I don't see the dems actually accomplishing anything major here. It's gonna be just like Bush on Social Security.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily true. There's a lot that can get changed in the final bill.

This isn't over, by a long shot.

It is WAY too big and many vested interest involve. Private insurance company don't want to go under (and there is a possibility since how can you beat the government in pricing?)

Basic decent insurance are around 400$ for a SINGLE person. Normal people can barely afford it. Most companies usually pay 50% or higher (mine pays 100%) of that (btw. my insurance is 700 a month just for me)

that is a month. To most lower/middle that is 50% rent (or even 80% rent to some) Government would have to make it cheaper to make it affordable to ALL (or at least a lot)

that is a huge task.

Sorry, I should clarify. The bill, as it is, won't make it through the senate (5 bucks on that). If it does, it will be so stripped down it's not going to be recognizable as the house bill and probably do little or nothing to reform the system.
Just my opinion based on what is coming out right now about it in the Senate.

If you are interested in the CBO report, it can be found http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10688/hr3962Rangel.pdf

Which, according to Politifact.com it pays for itself in the long run.

Krisken said:

If you are interested in the CBO report, it can be found http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10688/hr3962Rangel.pdf

Which, according to Politifact.com it pays for itself in the long run.

Click to expand...

I don't know. I try to understand the economic on that one but here is my concern.

Currently insurance company get to pick and choose who they want to cover. More than likely the insurance would rather cover people who doesn't get sick often and pay out some (thus profit)

The current version basically want to design that EVERYONE is cover regardless of health conditions. The main problem is that people without health insurance (and even WITH health insurance) run up cost due to medical emergency and can't pay them (even with insurance it is expensive)

So..... who is going to pay that? the medical is high because of unpaid bill, hospital still need to make a profit to stay in business so I am not sure in the long run how this is "going to pay itself" when people still running up tab and the insurance company have to pay the bulk (minus co-pay that the insurer pay)

granted that the offset would be if you have TONS of people ON the plan, it kinda even out which mean a lot of people has to switch to the new plan to make this work.

Chibibar;294810][quote=Krisken said:

If you are interested in the CBO report, it can be found http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10688/hr3962Rangel.pdf

Which, according to Politifact.com it pays for itself in the long run.

Click to expand...

I don't know. I try to understand the economic on that one but here is my concern.

Currently insurance company get to pick and choose who they want to cover. More than likely the insurance would rather cover people who doesn't get sick often and pay out some (thus profit)

The current version basically want to design that EVERYONE is cover regardless of health conditions. The main problem is that people without health insurance (and even WITH health insurance) run up cost due to medical emergency and can't pay them (even with insurance it is expensive)

So..... who is going to pay that? the medical is high because of unpaid bill, hospital still need to make a profit to stay in business so I am not sure in the long run how this is "going to pay itself" when people still running up tab and the insurance company have to pay the bulk (minus co-pay that the insurer pay)

granted that the offset would be if you have TONS of people ON the plan, it kinda even out which mean a lot of people has to switch to the new plan to make this work.[/QUOTE]

What your forgetting is that prices will drop on the Hospital's/Doctor's end too, because they aren't raising prices to cover for people who can't/won't pay. This means treatment prices will go down.

Krisken said:

If you are interested in the CBO report, it can be found http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10688/hr3962Rangel.pdf

Which, according to Politifact.com it pays for itself in the long run.

Click to expand...

Why can't we get a ballpark of what we will be forced to pay? That's my straight question. I'm glad that it will pay for itself (I believe that when I see it).

I've heard some talking heads say that government subsidies will take care of the folks who can't afford it. So, those who can afford it, will have to pay for the plan and pay a shit-ton of taxes to cover folks that don't make enough. It seems like some people in the middle are getting ready to get screwed.

Chibibar said:

It is WAY too big and many vested interest involve. Private insurance company don't want to go under (and there is a possibility since how can you beat the government in pricing?)

Click to expand...

They don't need to, they can just offer better service...

@drawn_inward-Ok, as for the cost-
Current incarnation according to the Washington Post is a 10 year, $894 billion cost. A surtax to be applied to those who make over $500 thousand a year. Businesses would be required to provide health insurance to employees, though employers with an employee payroll under $500 thousand a year would be exempt.

So, at the moment, if you make less than $500,000 as an annual salary, you won't be paying extra.

Keep in mind though that once the Senate starts work on it that could all change.

Thanks.

drawn_inward said:

Thanks.

Click to expand...

Absolutely!

I understand there is a lot of misinformation coming from all sides of the issue. Everyone has a stake in the outcome, so facts tend to get a little distorted and the pro crowd tend to focus on the positive aspects and the con crowd tend to focus on the negatives. It doesn't help that both sides are using distortions in inaccurate information to make their case and scare people into their corners. While this certainly energizes the bases of each side, it doesn't do much in regards to improving healthcare.

@Li3n;295237][quote=Chibibar said:

It is WAY too big and many vested interest involve. Private insurance company don't want to go under (and there is a possibility since how can you beat the government in pricing?)

Click to expand...

They don't need to, they can just offer better service...[/QUOTE]

yea, but they would have to be LOWER prices than the government to keep up.

I mean right now the price is "comparative" toward everyone else, but like I said, it is around 400-700$ per month per person. Company pay X dollars and employee pay Y dollar which equal to Z (in this example 400-700$)

now if they provide better service, well, then the people would have to pay more cause the company are not going to pay more (well depends on the company)

I can assure you that government worker will probably end up on this plan cause government worker is trying to save as much money as possible.

While Li3n is right about lowering cost, but there is a "debt" already in place so the cost won't go down until they debt from old system goes away.

I can assure you that government worker will probably end up on this plan cause government worker is trying to save as much money as possible.

Click to expand...

Unless they're a member of Congress.

Covar said:

I can assure you that government worker will probably end up on this plan cause government worker is trying to save as much money as possible.

Click to expand...

Unless they're a member of Congress.

Click to expand...

Because they already have some of the best healthcare available given to them by us but many of them think we shouldn't have access to it?

I just feel that if it's good enough for the rest of the country it should be good enough for Congress.

Krisken;295636][quote=Covar said:

I can assure you that government worker will probably end up on this plan cause government worker is trying to save as much money as possible.

Click to expand...

Unless they're a member of Congress.

Click to expand...

Because they already have some of the best healthcare available given to them by us but many of them think we shouldn't have access to it?[/QUOTE]

well... if that same healthcare is available to us at a good price (say like 100 a month or something)

Sign me up!

Krisken;295636][quote=Covar said:

I can assure you that government worker will probably end up on this plan cause government worker is trying to save as much money as possible.

Click to expand...

Unless they're a member of Congress.

Click to expand...

Because they already have some of the best healthcare available given to them by us but many of them think we shouldn't have access to it?[/quote]

1) We won't be getting what they have in congress, not by a long shot
2) When calculating the cost of the bill, it depends on 250 billion dollars the CBO wasn't allowed to calculate because it is supposed to come out of medicare/medicaid cuts and "cost reductions." When have you EVER known the government to spend LESS money? When have you ever known the government to cut an entitlement program once established? When have you EVER known a government project to come in under (or even ON) budget?
3) We're spending over a trillion dollars to scrap an entire system, in which more than 70% of the people in the system were satisfied, in order to attempt to insure approximately 40 million people, and from all reports there will STILL be at least 18 million uninsured even with Obamacare. Surely there were alternative methods we could have used which wouldn't bankrupt the nation, put 1/6th of the US economy directly under government control, eliminate choice in medical coverage, and put government even more in charge of the life of the citizen?

But then, helping people get medical coverage was never the point of this excercise - increased government control and a permanent democrat majority were the real aims here. After all, just like they scare the old people every election year with "Republicans want to take away your social security so you starve to death in the cold, cold street," now they'll be able to say "Republicans want to take your health care away so your children die coughing and moaning in your arms."

Drawn_Inward: The real cost of this won't be in a deduction from your paycheck. It will be a far greater cost that you won't see coming until it is too late.

GasBandit;295697][quote=Krisken;295636][quote=Covar said:

I can assure you that government worker will probably end up on this plan cause government worker is trying to save as much money as possible.

Click to expand...

Unless they're a member of Congress.

Click to expand...

Because they already have some of the best healthcare available given to them by us but many of them think we shouldn't have access to it?[/quote]

1) We won't be getting what they have in congress, not by a long shot
2) When calculating the cost of the bill, it depends on 250 billion dollars the CBO wasn't allowed to calculate because it is supposed to come out of medicare/medicaid cuts and "cost reductions." When have you EVER known the government to spend LESS money? When have you ever known the government to cut an entitlement program once established? When have you EVER known a government project to come in under (or even ON) budget?
3) We're spending over a trillion dollars to scrap an entire system, in which more than 70% of the people in the system were satisfied, in order to attempt to insure approximately 40 million people, and from all reports there will STILL be at least 18 million uninsured even with Obamacare. Surely there were alternative methods we could have used which wouldn't bankrupt the nation, put 1/6th of the US economy directly under government control, eliminate choice in medical coverage, and put government even more in charge of the life of the citizen?

But then, helping people get medical coverage was never the point of this excercise - increased government control and a permanent democrat majority were the real aims here. After all, just like they scare the old people every election year with "Republicans want to take away your social security so you starve to death in the cold, cold street," now they'll be able to say "Republicans want to take your health care away so your children die coughing and moaning in your arms."

Drawn_Inward: The real cost of this won't be in a deduction from your paycheck. It will be a far greater cost that you won't see coming until it is too late.[/QUOTE]

Gas: yup. I totally agree. I heard the government is "trying" not to make it depend on taxes, but lets get real here. We. the people, will end up paying in form of taxes, premiums, and probably some other way to get this healthcare (IMO)

Krisken said:

Click to expand...

Same thing people were saying about the mortgage sector up until late 2008. "STFU EVERYTHING WILL BE FINE."

GasBandit said:

Same thing people were saying about the mortgage sector up until late 2008. "STFU EVERYTHING WILL BE FINE."

Click to expand...

No, pretty much everyone knew it was going to end in a crash. They were just hoping it wouldn't happen until they got their money out. Too bad for them.

Krisken: I get the joke, but I think Gas is presenting a good point (yea siding with him on this one) that total cost is not just premium. I mean where does the extra money will be coming from? the billions and billions of dollars that need to start all this? Tax money, of course that is 10 year plan, so taxpayers will be spending tax money to support this until it becomes "self sufficient" like social security

GasBandit;295722][quote=Krisken said:

Click to expand...

Same thing people were saying about the mortgage sector up until late 2008. "STFU EVERYTHING WILL BE FINE."[/QUOTE]
Those things aren't even close. Healthcare is creating legislation, while the mortgage sector went to shit because of DE-REGULATION.

If you had a solution that didn't involve "turn it all over to private industry", I might be able to take you a little more seriously. I guess i have a hard time going with economic chaos and thinking the business sector has our interests at heart (they don't).

---------- Post added at 01:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:38 PM ----------

Chibibar said:

Krisken: I get the joke, but I think Gas is presenting a good point (yea siding with him on this one) that total cost is not just premium. I mean where does the extra money will be coming from? the billions and billions of dollars that need to start all this? Tax money, of course that is 10 year plan, so taxpayers will be spending tax money to support this until it becomes "self sufficient" like social security

Click to expand...

It also doesn't take into account the money that will be saved due to initiatives put in place by the Bush administration (yeah, I said something positive about Bush) regarding Health Information Technology.

With the push toward electronic health records medical information will be streamlined on local and national levels. This savings will help offset costs to the bill in huge ways. I could go on and on on HIT and how it will save a fortune in healthcare costs and reduce wait times significantly, if you want.

Krisken: no I actually like some of Bush (yea that is rare) I do like HIT cause information between hospitals, doctors, PCP (Primary Care Physicians) and other medical entities should be able to share information on the fly. It is a good thing.

But like all things government, there are too many hands in the cookie jar, or too many chiefs, or too many cooks (pick your saying) in it and thus doesn't quite come out the way it should be.

Chibibar said:

Krisken: no I actually like some of Bush (yea that is rare) I do like HIT cause information between hospitals, doctors, PCP (Primary Care Physicians) and other medical entities should be able to share information on the fly. It is a good thing.

But like all things government, there are too many hands in the cookie jar, or too many chiefs, or too many cooks (pick your saying) in it and thus doesn't quite come out the way it should be.

Click to expand...

Do you have some examples of who these groups or people are?

Krisken;295737][quote=GasBandit;295722][quote=Krisken said:

Click to expand...

Same thing people were saying about the mortgage sector up until late 2008. "STFU EVERYTHING WILL BE FINE."[/quote]
Those things aren't even close. Healthcare is creating legislation, while the mortgage sector went to shit because of DE-REGULATION.

If you had a solution that didn't involve "turn it all over to private industry", I might be able to take you a little more seriously. I guess i have a hard time going with economic chaos and thinking the business sector has our interests at heart (they don't).[/quote]That you think the public sector DOES shows incredible naivete. The difference is, if a private company does poorly, the idea is you can find one that treats you better. With government that's a little trickier.

Actually, the mortgage sector didn't go to pot because of deregulation, it went to pot because of government using it as a tool to social-engineer the insolvent into homeownership.

---------- Post added at 01:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:38 PM ----------

Click to expand...

Chibibar said:

Krisken: I get the joke, but I think Gas is presenting a good point (yea siding with him on this one) that total cost is not just premium. I mean where does the extra money will be coming from? the billions and billions of dollars that need to start all this? Tax money, of course that is 10 year plan, so taxpayers will be spending tax money to support this until it becomes "self sufficient" like social security

Click to expand...

It also doesn't take into account the money that will be saved due to initiatives put in place by the Bush administration (yeah, I said something positive about Bush) regarding Health Information Technology.

With the push toward electronic health records medical information will be streamlined on local and national levels. This savings will help offset costs to the bill in huge ways. I could go on and on on HIT and how it will save a fortune in healthcare costs and reduce wait times significantly, if you want.

Click to expand...

You really think E-health records are going to save hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars? That's beyond farfetched. HIT is more about safety than savings, anyway.

AshburnerX said:

No, pretty much everyone knew it was going to end in a crash. They were just hoping it wouldn't happen until they got their money out. Too bad for them.

Click to expand...

Barney Frank and Chris Dodd made a career out of doing exactly what I said, shouting "STFU IT'S FINE YOU JUST HATE BLACK PEOPLE" every time somebody spoke up about the problems coming.

Well, this was a fun thread. You guys can have fun with it, I guess.

Krisken;295765][quote=Chibibar said:

Krisken: no I actually like some of Bush (yea that is rare) I do like HIT cause information between hospitals, doctors, PCP (Primary Care Physicians) and other medical entities should be able to share information on the fly. It is a good thing.

But like all things government, there are too many hands in the cookie jar, or too many chiefs, or too many cooks (pick your saying) in it and thus doesn't quite come out the way it should be.

Click to expand...

Do you have some examples of who these groups or people are?[/QUOTE]

what? you mean the cookie jar comment?

Social Security?
Medicaid?
Medicare?
VA Medical? (I only hear stories from my friend who had to use this which is government run health care/insurance service)

Chibibar;295776][quote=Krisken;295765][quote=Chibibar said:

Krisken: no I actually like some of Bush (yea that is rare) I do like HIT cause information between hospitals, doctors, PCP (Primary Care Physicians) and other medical entities should be able to share information on the fly. It is a good thing.

But like all things government, there are too many hands in the cookie jar, or too many chiefs, or too many cooks (pick your saying) in it and thus doesn't quite come out the way it should be.

Click to expand...

Do you have some examples of who these groups or people are?[/quote]

what? you mean the cookie jar comment?

Social Security?
Medicaid?
Medicare?
VA Medical? (I only hear stories from my friend who had to use this which is government run health care/insurance service)[/QUOTE]
Each of those handle different situations. Should they all be part of the same group with the same rules and regulations?

Krisken;295779][quote=Chibibar;295776][quote=Krisken;295765][quote=Chibibar said:

Krisken: no I actually like some of Bush (yea that is rare) I do like HIT cause information between hospitals, doctors, PCP (Primary Care Physicians) and other medical entities should be able to share information on the fly. It is a good thing.

But like all things government, there are too many hands in the cookie jar, or too many chiefs, or too many cooks (pick your saying) in it and thus doesn't quite come out the way it should be.

Click to expand...

Do you have some examples of who these groups or people are?[/quote]

what? you mean the cookie jar comment?

Social Security?
Medicaid?
Medicare?
VA Medical? (I only hear stories from my friend who had to use this which is government run health care/insurance service)[/QUOTE]
Each of those handle different situations. Should they all be part of the same group with the same rules and regulations?[/QUOTE]

different group yes, all ran by the government.

and..... what a headache it is.
(that is where I'm getting at)

---------- Post added at 02:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:21 PM ----------

The basic premise is that government run (at least in the U.S.) is not as streamline as it should it. So many red tapes and such makes common people have a hard time to get anything done.

This is just America's past on government run stuff. Many fear (like me) that what makes this government run stuff any smoother?

I am not saying that the private industry is doing any better (which is not since we are in this bind but we are talking mainly the government ability to do things) maybe there should be more rules and regulation instead of direct involvement.

i.e. rules ON insurance instead of BE the insurance company.

on a different note: (still part about health care)
It looks like the government is trying to instill religious doctrine into the bill
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/10/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5604239.shtml

short version: Federal tax money should not support abortion.
long version: ya have ta read da article

While I wish the Catholic Church would stay out of it I think a hell of a lot more people might get behind it if they made sure it didn't cover abortion. Not that it really matters, we shovel money to Planned Parenthood anyway so if you don't like your taxpayer dollars going to fund abortion then you are way late to the party.

Espy said:

While I wish the Catholic Church would stay out of it I think a hell of a lot more people might get behind it if they made sure it didn't cover abortion. Not that it really matters, we shovel money to Planned Parenthood anyway so if you don't like your taxpayer dollars going to fund abortion then you are way late to the party.

Click to expand...

True, but I think it is interesting that they are more "lobbying" toward this. Of course the comment on IRS can be interesting.

There is a tax-exempt issue. Can you imagine if the Catholic church have to start paying taxes?

GasBandit said:

Drawn_Inward: The real cost of this won't be in a deduction from your paycheck. It will be a far greater cost that you won't see coming until it is too late.

Click to expand...

Believe me, I'm not thrilled by Obamacare. I am wanting to know if anyone has actually done the math for the projected cost for the individual/family/small business.

It scares me that this plan will be a REQUIREMENT, and yet, we don't know the final cost. That should be scary to everyone. We can't opt out. We will be forced to do what the government says.

Will the government decide on our treatment as well?

I just want to know the facts. That's all. I'm not blindly attacking the plan. I want to know what the plan entails with the least amount of rhetoric as possible.

---
The abortion issue is pretty much a moot point. As Espy said, it's a bit late to be complaining about it now.

drawn_inward;295884][quote=GasBandit said:

Drawn_Inward: The real cost of this won't be in a deduction from your paycheck. It will be a far greater cost that you won't see coming until it is too late.

Click to expand...

Believe me, I'm not thrilled by Obamacare. I am wanting to know if anyone has actually done the math for the projected cost for the individual/family/small business.

It scares me that this plan will be a REQUIREMENT, and yet, we don't know the final cost. That should be scary to everyone. We can't opt out. We will be forced to do what the government says.

Will the government decide on our treatment as well?

I just want to know the facts. That's all. I'm not blindly attacking the plan. I want to know what the plan entails with the least amount of rhetoric as possible.

---
The abortion issue is pretty much a moot point. As Espy said, it's a bit late to be complaining about it now.[/QUOTE]
As I've listed before, Politifact.com is really good at tearing up Republicans and Democrats and the inaccuracies they have been spewing.

For instance, on the right you have this disproven...

Health care reform will not force people into a government-run plan

and on the left you have this disproven...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/nov/09/nita-lowey/lowey-says-stupak-amendment-restricts-abortion-cov/Lowey says Stupak amendment restricts abortion coverage even for those who pay for their own plan

So the site is good at taking the things that people have said about the healthcare bills (and the plan put forth by the GOP) and pointing out what is true and untrue.

right, but we are talking about the government health insurance plan.

Poor people can barely PAY for insurance (hence the reason we are in this mess to begin with) so........ If poor people can't have abortion (because insurance company won't cover them OR they can't afford the extra premium) then what?

Krisken said:

Health care reform will not force people into a government-run plan

Click to expand...

Not right away it won't. But it's a trojan horse to single payer, because a private company that HAS to show a profit cannot compete with a government run plan that doesn't. To say nothing of the fact that it will be cheaper for businesses to pay the fines for not providing health insurance than it will be to provide health insurance, thus causing many people to lose what they have.

That site also has some discrepancies in it - it says "only small businesses would have access to the exchange, so no big deal, won't affect many people." Small business, by the commonly held description, (as shown in a previous link in this thread) accounts for a huge percentage of jobs in America.

It also makes a lot of assumptions - first and foremost, that politicians can be held to what they say. "It won't be paid for by unlimited government funds, because it's not allowed to be." Well, 5 years down the road when the thing is imploding because it was only creative accounting that made it look feasable in the first place, do you think the government will just say "uhp, sorry, it's broke, no more government health insurance, sorry everybody." Or, will they say "sorry everybody, your insurance premiums are all going up. Remember to vote for me come november!" Or, are they more likely to just change the plan to keep it afloat with money from the general coffer, exactly like they did with social security?

GasBandit said:

Not right away it won't. But it's a trojan horse to single payer, because a private company that HAS to show a profit cannot compete with a government run plan that doesn't.

Click to expand...

wait, won't consumers go for the best option available?

I thought that was like a basic tenant of your entire philosophy: that consumers will pay more for better product. So all insurance companies have to do is provide better coverage than the government run plan. It shouldn't be THAT hard, considering all the horror stories you spout about what would happen with a government run plan.

Kissinger;295976][quote=GasBandit said:

Not right away it won't. But it's a trojan horse to single payer, because a private company that HAS to show a profit cannot compete with a government run plan that doesn't.

Click to expand...

wait, won't consumers go for the best option available?

I thought that was like a basic tenant of your entire philosophy: that consumers will pay more for better product. So all insurance companies have to do is provide better coverage than the government run plan. It shouldn't be THAT hard, considering all the horror stories you spout about what would happen with a government run plan.[/QUOTE]

Where did you get that? It's not my philosophy. My philosophy is that fair competition in the private sector, overseen by a small government that merely prevents monopoly or illegal business practices delivers superior options for consumers for a lower cost.

But in fair competition, consumers will pay more for a superior product, right? So why wouldn't they pay more for superior, private insurance?

Kissinger said:

But in fair competition, consumers will pay more for a superior product, right? So why wouldn't they pay more for superior, private insurance?

Click to expand...

I bolded the pertinent part for you. The answers lie just a few posts higher in this thread.

See, the thing I don't get is that if the government plan is going to be so horrible, wouldn't the people who can currently afford private insurance just stay on that so insurance companies can keep making money hand over fist like they're doing now?

Kissinger said:

See, the thing I don't get is that if the government plan is going to be so horrible, wouldn't the people who can currently afford private insurance just stay on that so insurance companies can keep making money hand over fist like they're doing now?

Click to expand...

The landscape of the insurance industry is different than most other things. Insurance has been so super-uber-regulated that it can't, for instance, sell insurance across state lines or to individuals (only to groups, or indirectly to individuals through even more "creative accounting").

So, basically, regulation hostile to both competition and to what would normally be an inelastic demand curve has made it such as it is now. If we go into this and introduce another competitor who has the added advantage of not having to stay in the black... it's just a countdown from there.

Also, the changes in allowed business practices (things like pre-existing condition exclusions going bye-bye) will also increase costs exponentially - which the government plan will be able to absorb without raising premiums/deductibles/coinsurance/etc... but private insurance will not.


I'm not saying there aren't problems with the existing system, but we should have been addressing those problems directly instead of leaping on the fast-track to single payer.

Kissinger said:

See, the thing I don't get is that if the government plan is going to be so horrible, wouldn't the people who can currently afford private insurance just stay on that so insurance companies can keep making money hand over fist like they're doing now?

Click to expand...

for private sector, sure, but when your company (or your job like me) PAYS part of that insurance, company is willing to sacrifice some benefits to get lower rates.

Sure, as consumers, you can always pay MORE for better care but guess what? that kinda defeat the whole "affordable" insurances for low income isn't it?

The whole idea behind this was to supply insurance for 40 million people who CAN'T afford current insurance or UNABLE to get insurance due to insurance company reserve the right to refuse insurance.

So..... if the program is subpar (it is possible look at medicare) then poor people are still stuck.

GasBandit;295998][quote=Kissinger said:

See, the thing I don't get is that if the government plan is going to be so horrible, wouldn't the people who can currently afford private insurance just stay on that so insurance companies can keep making money hand over fist like they're doing now?

Click to expand...

The landscape of the insurance industry is different than most other things. Insurance has been so super-uber-regulated that it can't, for instance, sell insurance across state lines or to individuals (only to groups, or indirectly to individuals through even more "creative accounting").

So, basically, regulation hostile to both competition and to what would normally be an inelastic demand curve has made it such as it is now. If we go into this and introduce another competitor who has the added advantage of not having to stay in the black... it's just a countdown from there.

Also, the changes in allowed business practices (things like pre-existing condition exclusions going bye-bye) will also increase costs exponentially - which the government plan will be able to absorb without raising premiums/deductibles/coinsurance/etc... but private insurance will not.


I'm not saying there aren't problems with the existing system, but we should have been addressing those problems directly instead of leaping on the fast-track to single payer.[/quote]
Fast track to single payer is very hyperbolic. It's not even single payer option. It's a government option health plan.

The reason insurance can't sell across state lines is because each state has different rules regarding health care. If these rules were not in place, an insurance company that wants to make the most profit with the least amount of restriction could set up in a state with very little restrictions. The company would be under the rules of the state they are set up in.

Really, the rules are there for YOUR protection. I don't understand why this gets blown out of proportion to act as if the insurance companies are somehow getting screwed.

I'd like to add that there is this perception of Medicare being so evil. I don't get it.

GasBandit;295964][quote=Krisken said:

Health care reform will not force people into a government-run plan

Click to expand...

Not right away it won't. But it's a trojan horse to single payer, because a private company that HAS to show a profit cannot compete with a government run plan that doesn't. To say nothing of the fact that it will be cheaper for businesses to pay the fines for not providing health insurance than it will be to provide health insurance, thus causing many people to lose what they have.
[/QUOTE]

The first one is false, and there are counter examples.
The seconde is just your guessing.


I think your problem is that you consider, or so it seems, that supposed main purpose of the government to control you more and more as a fundamental part of your argument, and when someone doesn't agree or at least doubts it many of you arguments start to fall apart for them (us).

Kissinger said:

But in fair competition, consumers will pay more for a superior product, right? So why wouldn't they pay more for superior, private insurance?

Click to expand...

Yea that's not how a free market works at all.

Consumers will pay for the product with the greatest value. That is quality and price. Say for example the best product in a particular market costs $500. Another product costs $300 but is only a quarter as good as the $500 product. Then yes the consumer will purchase the superior product. Now if someone was to come along and offer a product that was half as good as the $500 product for $225 The sales would shift in favor of the $225 inferior product.

tegid said:

I think your problem is that you consider, or so it seems, that supposed main purpose of the government to control you more and more as a fundamental part of your argument, and when someone doesn't agree or at least doubts it many of you arguments start to fall apart for them (us).

Click to expand...

Well, the main purpose of Obamacare sure isn't to make sure everybody gets health care. We're spending another trillion dollars that will (by their own calculations) only reduce the number of uninsured from about 40 million to about 18 million. And it took 2000 pages of legislation to do it.

And even Democrat Senator Mark Warner says that Obama blew it on healthcare reform when he decided to shift his focus to health insurance reform. If you want to lower the cost of health insurance, you need to address the real issue - the cost of health care itself. The trial lawyer lobby won't let tort reform be touched, but there's plenty of other ideas for lowering costs and increasing competition that Democrats just plug their ears and sing "La la la" every time they're brought up because... you guessed it.. it's not about health care.. it's about government power.

From my political thread today -

Even a liberal admits that with healthcare reform, Democrats are creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind.

Of the 200 amendments the Democrats in the House rejected before passing Pelosicare, 11 would have required for Congress to enroll in the government option.

So much for what is good for the goose being good enough for the gander.

---------- Post added at 02:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:51 PM ----------

Krisken said:

I'd like to add that there is this perception of Medicare being so evil. I don't get it.

Click to expand...

No, not evil. Certainly well-intentioned. But in a very bad way financially. Which is about to get worse.