ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[Nobunaga]

The Efficiency of the Court System combined with the Compassion of the IRS

PS and let's just ignore the FACT that socialized medicine is not even being considered right now.

The primary fix is to require everyone to carry insurers and insurance companies to cover everyone at reasonable rates.

... PLAYER, explain this one to me, please.

Under the header of “Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage,” the “Limitation On New Enrollment” section of the bill clearly states: (page 16 of the bill)

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

... In simpler English, for the kids from US public schools:

... Health insurance companies cannot legally enroll new members once this bill becomes law.

Read on.

Basically, its what's commonly known as a "grandfather" clause. The insurance companies will have to offer new policies, with terms that comply with the new laws.

.... What option is left then, PLAYER, if not the "Public Option"?

... I know you despise insurance companies and I don't entirely disagree with you on that point, but explain to me please how this is supposed to work without becoming "socialized medicine".

...

Actually, I think it may lead to that in time, but not because of this legislation. It will lead to that because it will become more and more apparent that paying all the private insurer's and investors their hefty salaries is not the real way to keep costs down and provide decent coverage.

BUT, the insurance lobby is far too powerful to let that happen right now.

... I appreciate the measured response, but...

... "Granfather" here means insurance that is in force if/when this bill passes, correct?

... Under "Limitation on New Enrollment", we see, ...

(A) In General. - Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offerring such (the grandfather) coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1."

... What comes after concerns dependents and the terms & conditions, not relevant to the argument.

... PLAYER, anybody, tell me how this can mean anything but the illegality of new insurance policies, issued by insurance companies, acting independently of government. Such becomes illegal - show me where I'm wrong. (not being snarky here - time for that later when I know what I'm talking about).

...

[thegreekdog]

You know what's fun? Complaining about something unrelated to the real problem at hand. I happen to think that free universal healthcare is a great idea. You know what I don't like though? Bureaucracy, which is found EVERYWHERE in your U.S. government. Having Public Healthcare will be no different than preparing your taxes, prosecuting someone, being prosecuted, getting on Welfare, registering to vote, or frankly doing anything else involving the government. Maybe it isn't that public healthcare is bad. Maybe it's just your government.

YES!!!! EXACTLY RIGHT!!!! I hope the rest of you non-US citizens take this statement to heart.

[thegreekdog]

Is anyone suprised that the previous threads about this very topic always seem to die whenever I or one of the other dancers makes solid points and arguments?*



I am not.






*Or in better words: "Lays down the LAW!"

I'm surprised considering it's untrue. I'll post in a topic as long as it's in the first page of MAAN.

Although, you're so intelligent and witty, it's no wonder you close down the threads like you do. I can't seem to debate with you because of your vast intellect. Jackass...

[Snorri1234]

... I appreciate the measured response, but...

... "Granfather" here means insurance that is in force if/when this bill passes, correct?

... Under "Limitation on New Enrollment", we see, ...

(A) In General. - Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offerring such (the grandfather) coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1."

... What comes after concerns dependents and the terms & conditions, not relevant to the argument.

... PLAYER, anybody, tell me how this can mean anything but the illegality of new insurance policies, issued by insurance companies, acting independently of government. Such becomes illegal - show me where I'm wrong. (not being snarky here - time for that later when I know what I'm talking about).

...

STOP READING SMALL PORTIONS OF A LARGE BILL AND THEN TAKING THEM OUT OF CONTEXT!!!!!!!!!!!!!


There.

Anyway, while Neoteny already quoted the larger part and explained why you were completely and uttely wrong, I must say that your objections seem to be rather silly.

First, you are passively asserting that the insurance companies didn't lobby hard to make sure they would still exist. They did and all that bill says is that they can't use the same insurances they used previously.

Second, the stuff that comes after the portion you quoted, and the stuff that comes before that, is very much relevant.

[thegreekdog]

The only way it will be socialized is if the insurance companies cannot provide better coverage than the government cheaper.

Not really. Private companies simply cannot compete with the federal government. The federal government has more resources. The federal government can offer rock bottom prices because they can spend at a deficit for many, many, many years with no repurcussions (while a private company will go bankrupt). The federal government TAKES MONEY from its private company competitors in the form of taxes. So, no, there is no fair competition, and soon after a plan like that is passed, the US federal government will be the only provider of health insurance.

On a side note, I pay $5 to go see a doctor. My wife has major health problems, and she's getting taken care of with little financial hit to myself.

Finally, I can't find the link anymore, but I read something last week (on vacation) where a couple of the president's advisors (including the press secretary) stated that they may have to raise taxes on the middle class to pay for this healthcare plan (among other things).

[Snorri1234]

I'm surprised considering it's untrue. I'll post in a topic as long as it's in the first page of MAAN.

Oh that's rather weird since the previous thing also about this shit had Gabon saying all kinds of stupid shit and me saying he was wrong.

He hasn't posted in it since but took the fight to this one.

Although, you're so intelligent and witty, it's no wonder you close down the threads like you do. I can't seem to debate with you because of your vast intellect. Jackass...

Thanks for the compliment.

[thegreekdog]

Oh that's rather weird since the previous thing also about this shit had Gabon saying all kinds of stupid shit and me saying he was wrong.

He hasn't posted in it since but took the fight to this one.

You beat Gabon. Congrats. I'll mail you a cookie.

[Snorri1234]

Not really. Private companies simply cannot compete with the federal government. The federal government has more resources. The federal government can offer rock bottom prices because they can spend at a deficit for many, many, many years with no repurcussions (while a private company will go bankrupt). The federal government TAKES MONEY from its private company competitors in the form of taxes. So, no, there is no fair competition, and soon after a plan like that is passed, the US federal government will be the only provider of health insurance.

Sooooooo..........doesn't this say that unregulated free market isn't that awesome?

If it can't compete with a bureacratic, incompetent, government-regulated company which gives worse care doesn't that mean they are worse? Since the free market is awesome and all that, surely the more richier people would rather get private (awesome) insurance than the poor-quality, bureaucratic and terrible stuff that is provided by the government?

[F1fth]

Oh that's rather weird since the previous thing also about this shit had Gabon saying all kinds of stupid shit and me saying he was wrong.

He hasn't posted in it since but took the fight to this one.

You beat Gabon. Congrats. I'll mail you a cookie.

SIG THIS NOW SNORRI!!!

[Snorri1234]

Oh that's rather weird since the previous thing also about this shit had Gabon saying all kinds of stupid shit and me saying he was wrong.

He hasn't posted in it since but took the fight to this one.

You beat Gabon. Congrats. I'll mail you a cookie.

I admit that it's rather easy. Still, didn't see your contributions much there. Especially after I made replies.

Here's the link:
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=92693

[bedub1]

So what would you guys be willing to pay to go see a doctor? Should it be "free"? Somebody complained about $70, which I think is very cheap. How much is your life and health and the valuable time of a doctor worth? I bet it's harder and requires more school and expensive equipment and insurance than being a lawyer, and I know lawyers that don't think anything of charging $200+ for a 1 hour consult...some of them are $4000/hour.....

[thegreekdog]

Not really. Private companies simply cannot compete with the federal government. The federal government has more resources. The federal government can offer rock bottom prices because they can spend at a deficit for many, many, many years with no repurcussions (while a private company will go bankrupt). The federal government TAKES MONEY from its private company competitors in the form of taxes. So, no, there is no fair competition, and soon after a plan like that is passed, the US federal government will be the only provider of health insurance.

Sooooooo..........doesn't this say that unregulated free market isn't that awesome?

If it can't compete with a bureacratic, incompetent, government-regulated company which gives worse care doesn't that mean they are worse? Since the free market is awesome and all that, surely the more richier people would rather get private (awesome) insurance than the poor-quality, bureaucratic and terrible stuff that is provided by the government?

Except it's not an unregulated free market. It's a regulated free market. For example, health insurance companies are required, by state law, to keep a certain amount of money in reserve (in other words, they have to make money). No such requirement on the federal government.

[thegreekdog]

Oh that's rather weird since the previous thing also about this shit had Gabon saying all kinds of stupid shit and me saying he was wrong.

He hasn't posted in it since but took the fight to this one.

You beat Gabon. Congrats. I'll mail you a cookie.

I admit that it's rather easy. Still, didn't see your contributions much there. Especially after I made replies.

Here's the link:
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=92693

What? Your totally awesome story? What does your story have to do with government-run universal healthcare again?

[PLAYER57832]

Not really. Private companies simply cannot compete with the federal government. The federal government has more resources. The federal government can offer rock bottom prices because they can spend at a deficit for many, many, many years with no repurcussions (while a private company will go bankrupt). The federal government TAKES MONEY from its private company competitors in the form of taxes. So, no, there is no fair competition, and soon after a plan like that is passed, the US federal government will be the only provider of health insurance.

Sooooooo..........doesn't this say that unregulated free market isn't that awesome?

If it can't compete with a bureacratic, incompetent, government-regulated company which gives worse care doesn't that mean they are worse? Since the free market is awesome and all that, surely the more richier people would rather get private (awesome) insurance than the poor-quality, bureaucratic and terrible stuff that is provided by the government?

Except they are not required to ensure anyone. Also, they do take pretty hefty salaries and they cancel policies on many sick people. Not always, but too many times to count. Blue Cross is perhaps the worst, but it could just be that since Blue Cross ensures about 80% of the insured in the US, their numbers just seem bigger.

Per your deductible. Sure, there is good insurance out there. I used to have a $5 deductible, too, when I had Blue Cross High Mark. I believe I paid a bit under $200 a month, back when I was single for that coverage. I believe the full cost was around $600 for ONE person. But, the policy most plants offer around here is what I described (the 15-$20 standard co-pay, which do not count toward a $500 deductible). And, even that good policy I had back then had a maxium lifetime cap of $2,000,000. That sounded like a fortune, but now ... knowing what cancer treatments, organ transplants, etc cost... It is not that much.

Except it's not an unregulated free market. It's a regulated free market. For example, health insurance companies are required, by state law, to keep a certain amount of money in reserve (in other words, they have to make money). No such requirement on the federal government.

Keeping money in reserve is not the problem here. The problem is it is much easier for them to make money if they ensure only healthy people. And, since no one is saying they have to insure sick people, its far too easy for them to just not cover them. Yes, the government does have an advantage, but it is an advantage of being able to offer better care far more cheaply than private insurers do.

And again, the hardest hit are the small employers.

[Phatscotty]

The answer to 1984 is 1776.

It's a cyclical process. I hope you guys weren't hoping for a comfortable and boring life.

It's boiling over now, with all the townhall protests. they are genuine, they tried to do the same thing with the tea parties. It was all people who didn't exactly know what to do or who to talk to, but knew there was a place they had to be.

[Phatscotty]

you know what else, ive been watching these townhall explosions, and the media CNN namely is editing the crap out of them and distorting the whole thing. I had my "1984" moment and sat and watched in disbelief.

you know what else else? I think a good amount of people who are from countries with socialized/nationalized/gov't run healthcare, when asked how their system is there, even if it did suck, would not admit it, on camera. Not to mention you have to weigh the biased of how their feeling about America effect the answers to that question when comparing to americas system.

You do realise that you are talking about almost the entire developed world outside the US yes

Exactly. Phatscotty you seem paranoid that theres some conspiracy against you. Maybe all of these hundreds of millions who live under universal healthcare actually like their system and prefer it to a profit base system.

If hanging on to my freedom is a conspiracy, count me in

[Phatscotty]

Good to see here what I already know for America. WE DON'T WANT IT! and the couple of you idiots that think the poor are rising up and the "gimme everything free" attitude? There will AT LEAST be a 15% VAT tax on EVERYTHING you buy, and I guarantee you the quality and quantity of healthcare only decreases year after year, while of course getting more expensive. Send you dipshits over to zimbabwe, and you can have your poor nirvana by taking all the riches stuff and burning thru it in 6 months like frickin animals with no thoughts of tomorow. 4,000,000,000% inflation, they deserve it.

[Phatscotty]

Titanic, the president is asking you to report opposing opinions to the white house............NOOOOOOOOOO, NOBODY IS OUT TO GET ME!

[comic boy]

Good to see here what I already know for America. WE DON'T WANT IT! and the couple of you idiots that think the poor are rising up and the "gimme everything free" attitude? There will AT LEAST be a 15% VAT tax on EVERYTHING you buy, and I guarantee you the quality and quantity of healthcare only decreases year after year, while of course getting more expensive. Send you dipshits over to zimbabwe, and you can have your poor nirvana by taking all the riches stuff and burning thru it in 6 months like frickin animals with no thoughts of tomorow. 4,000,000,000% inflation, they deserve it.

Spoken like a true moron

[Snorri1234]

Oh that's rather weird since the previous thing also about this shit had Gabon saying all kinds of stupid shit and me saying he was wrong.

He hasn't posted in it since but took the fight to this one.

You beat Gabon. Congrats. I'll mail you a cookie.

I admit that it's rather easy. Still, didn't see your contributions much there. Especially after I made replies.

Here's the link:
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=92693

What? Your totally awesome story? What does your story have to do with government-run universal healthcare again?

It is good to know you are unable to read anything but the last page. Congratulations.

[Snorri1234]

Not really. Private companies simply cannot compete with the federal government. The federal government has more resources. The federal government can offer rock bottom prices because they can spend at a deficit for many, many, many years with no repurcussions (while a private company will go bankrupt). The federal government TAKES MONEY from its private company competitors in the form of taxes. So, no, there is no fair competition, and soon after a plan like that is passed, the US federal government will be the only provider of health insurance.

Sooooooo..........doesn't this say that unregulated free market isn't that awesome?

If it can't compete with a bureacratic, incompetent, government-regulated company which gives worse care doesn't that mean they are worse? Since the free market is awesome and all that, surely the more richier people would rather get private (awesome) insurance than the poor-quality, bureaucratic and terrible stuff that is provided by the government?

Except it's not an unregulated free market. It's a regulated free market. For example, health insurance companies are required, by state law, to keep a certain amount of money in reserve (in other words, they have to make money). No such requirement on the federal government.

Why would that matter?

[thegreekdog]

Why would that matter?

I don't know if you're missing the point on purpose or not, but I'll try to re-explain. When the government "competes" with the free market, it's not really a competition, at least on the amount one has to pay. The government is subsidized by taxes and the lack of a need to generate income. Taxes, for their part, are taken directly from (1) the companies the government is in competition with and (2) the people the government is supposed to help. So, the government will offer a person health insurance for $10, private companies offer health insurance for $100 (because they are required to by law). So a person is obviously going to choose the government. Eventually, all private health insurance companies fold up, government runs the healthcare system. I believe this is what happened in Canada. So, for you and anyone else, including the President, to say that there will be competition, is a bit shortsighted, inaccurate, and uninformed (or nefarious, depending).

Finally, this "grandfather" notion is great... except that if anything in a person's life changes (for example, leaving a job) and the person loses his or her health insurance, that person must use government health insurance. So, that's not really grandfathering in the sense that youse are using the term.

[Timminz]

I believe this is what happened in Canada.

False.

[SultanOfSurreal]

So what would you guys be willing to pay to go see a doctor? Should it be "free"? Somebody complained about $70, which I think is very cheap. How much is your life and health and the valuable time of a doctor worth? I bet it's harder and requires more school and expensive equipment and insurance than being a lawyer, and I know lawyers that don't think anything of charging $200+ for a 1 hour consult...some of them are $4000/hour.....

in all countries with universal healthcare, training and schooling for doctors is subsidized and insurance costs for doctors are literally about 1000% lower than in the US

ps $70 is not cheap you sheltered piece of suburban white trash

[thegreekdog]

I believe this is what happened in Canada.

False.

There are private health insurance providers in Canada? I just heard this last night on the radio, so I may be misunderstanding.