ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[PopeBenXVI]

That's actually my idea (I think). I admittedly don't know much about any other systems, but I think someone mentioned Germany. I want a plan where the government takes care of the people that can't afford health insurance, imposes regulations making companies that do offer health insurance cover things like pre-existing conditions and long hospital stays, and some reform of the medical malpractice system. If that's what Germany has, do as the Germans do.

Isnt that the exact plan Obama and the Democrats originally put forward?

No - no - our plan is all about telling seniors to die.

And anyone who is critical of President Obama is racist.

Yes, if you disagree with a policy Obama proposes you are racist plain and simple. How can that not make perfect sense? Stop saying you disagree with his political views and admit it's because he is a brother! Pay no attention to any comments he himself has made in his book like calling his own grandmother "your typical white woman" whatever that means. Or "where white folks' greed runs a world in need," according to Obama himself. But thats not racist because he is black...or half black anyway......now I'm confused

[Snorri1234]

Yes, if you disagree with a policy Obama proposes you are racist plain and simple. How can that not make perfect sense? Stop saying you disagree with his political views and admit it's because he is a brother! Pay no attention to any comments he himself has made in his book like calling his own grandmother "your typical white woman" whatever that means. Or "where white folks' greed runs a world in need," according to Obama himself. But thats not racist because he is black...or half black anyway......now I'm confused

SURPRISE! It's the ignorant moron with a brand-new episode!

[Frigidus]

Yes, if you disagree with a policy Obama proposes you are racist plain and simple. How can that not make perfect sense? Stop saying you disagree with his political views and admit it's because he is a brother! Pay no attention to any comments he himself has made in his book like calling his own grandmother "your typical white woman" whatever that means. Or "where white folks' greed runs a world in need," according to Obama himself. But thats not racist because he is black...or half black anyway......now I'm confused

SURPRISE! It's the ignorant moron with a brand-new episode!

Some people view their opposition as literal straw men for some reason. I've been hearing this same garbage from some of my more right-leaning friends.

[Phatscotty]

Yes, if you disagree with a policy Obama proposes you are racist plain and simple. How can that not make perfect sense? Stop saying you disagree with his political views and admit it's because he is a brother! Pay no attention to any comments he himself has made in his book like calling his own grandmother "your typical white woman" whatever that means. Or "where white folks' greed runs a world in need," according to Obama himself. But thats not racist because he is black...or half black anyway......now I'm confused

SURPRISE! It's the ignorant moron with a brand-new episode!

Some people view their opposition as literal straw men for some reason. I've been hearing this same garbage from some of my more right-leaning friends.

have you considered, on this one time, maybe your firends are right? have you CONSIDERED it?

[Frigidus]

Yes, if you disagree with a policy Obama proposes you are racist plain and simple. How can that not make perfect sense? Stop saying you disagree with his political views and admit it's because he is a brother! Pay no attention to any comments he himself has made in his book like calling his own grandmother "your typical white woman" whatever that means. Or "where white folks' greed runs a world in need," according to Obama himself. But thats not racist because he is black...or half black anyway......now I'm confused

SURPRISE! It's the ignorant moron with a brand-new episode!

Some people view their opposition as literal straw men for some reason. I've been hearing this same garbage from some of my more right-leaning friends.

have you considered, on this one time, maybe your firends are right? have you CONSIDERED it?

I haven't ever considered myself a strawman, no. Nor have I ever suggested that disagreeing with Obama's policies makes you a racist.

That said, I actually value having my right wing friends. Political discussions with those you agree with are just intellectual masturbatory sessions. I've had some of my most interesting discussions of politics and religion with those I disagree with, and they help me clarify my own viewpoint. I'm not left wing across the board on all issues, and that is largely because I do consider outside opinion.

[Phatscotty]

well that sounds nice and logical. could you please bring this gentlemanly manner to the BC discussion and point me where i am wrong, so that i may further clarify my position? Cuz im starting to really dig into the certificate question, and im not liking what im seeing...

[Frigidus]

well that sounds nice and logical. could you please bring this gentlemanly manner to the BC discussion and point me where i am wrong, so that i may further clarify my position? Cuz im starting to really dig into the certificate question, and im not liking what im seeing...

I haven't ever succeeded in having a friendly disagreement on the internet. It's much easier for someone to get angry at text than it is to get angry at a person. At this point we're sort of running in circles on the health care debate, and most of what's needed to be said has been said.

[PLAYER57832]

I haven't ever succeeded in having a friendly disagreement on the internet.

I have, though I have also had a lot of folks telling me I am an idiot because I don't trust the internet links they provide.

[stahrgazer]

Yes, that's right Player. I think the result of the bill, in 10 years or so, would have been completely government-run health insurance.

But, isn't that based on the idea that once someone's private plan runs out (they lose their job, or what have you) they would not be able to get another private plan?

Partially. It's based on the idea that the government, because it has virtually limitless resources because of taxation, can offer cheaper (and maybe better) plans than private insurance.

But that argument should die a peaceful death when one considers other arenas where government plans and private/for-profit plans coexist to benefit of many more than a private-only plan.

1) Education. State schools like M-state, P-state, pick-a-state, vie with the Harvards and University of Phoenixes and Notre Dames, through the entire educational system including the little preschooler programs that vie with private programs. Public education did not eliminate profitability for private education.

2) Medicare. Government-provided healthcare for seniors, did not eliminate the availablity of private, for-profit, purchased insurance supplements to said plan.

3) Government-provided or sponsored housing. While some will say, "but housing markets crashed!" Yeah, they did, but not because some poor people got a little help getting a reasonably decent place to live. Government-assisted living space has been around many years, yet at the same time government was helping with housing, companies made lots of money building houses for people with jobs to buy.

4) Food. Availability of soup kitchens or government cheese didn't put Publix, Albertsons, Piggly Wiggly, Winn Dixie, and (pick your grocery store) out of business.

5) Satellites. Government still launches satellites. So do private companies, it's why we have cellphones.

6) Internet. Wow, a government-sponsored plan, but where would Microsoft be without this marvel that made getting a puter so much more viable than just "look, you can make a chart with excel"? Where would CC be without an "socialist" started internet?

That's just a few areas where government-sponsored did NOT eliminate private competition. But, it is a scare tactic insurance companies are lobbying for, in order to keep the typical person under insurance companies' thumbs. If you continue to believe it, my goodness, Mr. Insurance Billionaire, it's working! No wonder some of you (CEO of United Health Care) get salaries that can equate to $100,000 US per hour (assuming 8 hour days when of course, CEOs at that level take EXTENDED lunches).

[spurgistan]

That's actually my idea (I think). I admittedly don't know much about any other systems, but I think someone mentioned Germany. I want a plan where the government takes care of the people that can't afford health insurance, imposes regulations making companies that do offer health insurance cover things like pre-existing conditions and long hospital stays, and some reform of the medical malpractice system. If that's what Germany has, do as the Germans do.

Isnt that the exact plan Obama and the Democrats originally put forward?

No - no - our plan is all about telling seniors to die.

And anyone who is critical of President Obama is racist.

Well, obviously.

[GabonX]

What about black people who are critical?

[spurgistan]

What about black people who are critical?

Don't count.

[thegreekdog]

I guess I should take each of these in order and type some argument for or against them. Except you're correct, at least about the first two. The last four are ridiculous, and you probably realized that as you typed them (at least I hope you did).

That's just a few areas where government-sponsored did NOT eliminate private competition. But, it is a scare tactic insurance companies are lobbying for, in order to keep the typical person under insurance companies' thumbs. If you continue to believe it, my goodness, Mr. Insurance Billionaire, it's working! No wonder some of you (CEO of United Health Care) get salaries that can equate to $100,000 US per hour (assuming 8 hour days when of course, CEOs at that level take EXTENDED lunches).

I guess I've been fooled by Mr. Insurance Billionaire. That being said, if a universal healthcare plan gets proposed that looks and smells like public education, for example, I'd be in favor of it. Public education allows the less well-to-do to attend college. I would support a public health insurance plan that allows the less well-to-do to have government health insurance. I think that makes sense.

[stahrgazer]

I guess I've been fooled by Mr. Insurance Billionaire. That being said, if a universal healthcare plan gets proposed that looks and smells like public education, for example, I'd be in favor of it. Public education allows the less well-to-do to attend college. I would support a public health insurance plan that allows the less well-to-do to have government health insurance. I think that makes sense.

That really is the major point of a public-option plan, to insure the uninsured and underinsured (like medicare does for senior citizens and medicaid does for the officially disabled).

Minor points to the public options and reforms in general were written to help make the plan viable, as in, affordable; measures that can save the private insurance companies some money, too; and measures that give employers a little more credit than they currently get, for providing a group insurance plan for their employees.

[thegreekdog]

That really is the major point of a public-option plan, to insure the uninsured and underinsured (like medicare does for senior citizens and medicaid does for the officially disabled).

Minor points to the public options and reforms in general were written to help make the plan viable, as in, affordable; measures that can save the private insurance companies some money, too; and measures that give employers a little more credit than they currently get, for providing a group insurance plan for their employees.

I don't think that is the point of the currently proposed public option plan. I think that's one of the points. However, as I've indicated on any number of occasions, there are simpler and more effective ways to insure the uninsured and underinsured than to have a public option plan. For example, the federal government could simply insure those who cannot afford health insurance and then provide regulations describing the minimum insurance that insurance providers must offer. However, there is no bill that calls for these types of measures. I really do believe that the reason there is no bill covering these types of measures is because Congress and the president would like to eventually control health insurance. I guess that makes me cynical, but when there are easier and more effective options out there to meet the goal of universal healthcare, and Congress does not propose such options, I get cynical.

[Titanic]

I don't think Congress or the president want to control healthcare. The NHS is a huge organisation and is not easy to run, and it covers 85% of UK healthcare. Anything near that percentage in the USA would be a colossal organisation, and I highly doubt that congress wants to run it, the congressmen are already inadequate at most things never mind something of that size or importance.

Also, seeing that around half the country hate everything to do with the government and most hate the high costs and beauracracy with current providers of healthcare, they just want to keep them honest and make them provide a good system.

[PopeBenXVI]

That really is the major point of a public-option plan, to insure the uninsured and underinsured (like medicare does for senior citizens and medicaid does for the officially disabled).

Minor points to the public options and reforms in general were written to help make the plan viable, as in, affordable; measures that can save the private insurance companies some money, too; and measures that give employers a little more credit than they currently get, for providing a group insurance plan for their employees.

I don't think that is the point of the currently proposed public option plan. I think that's one of the points. However, as I've indicated on any number of occasions, there are simpler and more effective ways to insure the uninsured and underinsured than to have a public option plan. For example, the federal government could simply insure those who cannot afford health insurance and then provide regulations describing the minimum insurance that insurance providers must offer. However, there is no bill that calls for these types of measures. I really do believe that the reason there is no bill covering these types of measures is because Congress and the president would like to eventually control health insurance. I guess that makes me cynical, but when there are easier and more effective options out there to meet the goal of universal healthcare, and Congress does not propose such options, I get cynical.

No, it makes you smart.

[PopeBenXVI]

I don't think Congress or the president want to control healthcare. The NHS is a huge organisation and is not easy to run, and it covers 85% of UK healthcare. Anything near that percentage in the USA would be a colossal organisation, and I highly doubt that congress wants to run it, the congressmen are already inadequate at most things never mind something of that size or importance.

Also, seeing that around half the country hate everything to do with the government and most hate the high costs and beauracracy with current providers of healthcare, they just want to keep them honest and make them provide a good system.

A classic case of who is watching the watchers? The Gov is way more dishonest (and wastes way more money) than Insurance companies. Why don't we let Micheal Vic head up the humane society to maintain quality of care for dogs?

[Timminz]

Why don't we let Micheal Vic head up the humane society to maintain quality of care for dogs?

Congratulations. That is officially the most retarded argument I've ever seen.

[PopeBenXVI]

Why don't we let Micheal Vic head up the humane society to maintain quality of care for dogs?

Congratulations. That is officially the most retarded argument I've ever seen.

I have a better one - Lets let Gov run more healthcare because they are more honest.

[Frigidus]

Why don't we let Micheal Vic head up the humane society to maintain quality of care for dogs?

Congratulations. That is officially the most retarded argument I've ever seen.

I have a better one - Lets let Gov run more healthcare because they are more honest.

I don't think it's possible to be less honest than the insurance companies, so that isn't retarded.

[PopeBenXVI]

Why don't we let Micheal Vic head up the humane society to maintain quality of care for dogs?

Congratulations. That is officially the most retarded argument I've ever seen.

I have a better one - Lets let Gov run more healthcare because they are more honest.

I don't think it's possible to be less honest than the insurance companies, so that isn't retarded.

[PLAYER57832]

That really is the major point of a public-option plan, to insure the uninsured and underinsured (like medicare does for senior citizens and medicaid does for the officially disabled).

Minor points to the public options and reforms in general were written to help make the plan viable, as in, affordable; measures that can save the private insurance companies some money, too; and measures that give employers a little more credit than they currently get, for providing a group insurance plan for their employees.

I don't think that is the point of the currently proposed public option plan. I think that's one of the points. However, as I've indicated on any number of occasions, there are simpler and more effective ways to insure the uninsured and underinsured than to have a public option plan. For example, the federal government could simply insure those who cannot afford health insurance and then provide regulations describing the minimum insurance that insurance providers must offer. However, there is no bill that calls for these types of measures.

I really don't understand why you say this. The current bill does require the insurance companies to offer minimum levels of insurance. The public plan is offered as a "baseline" minimum policy. Most people will pay premiums for that policy, if they select it, but those who are below certain income levels will be subsidized or get it free.

This plan actually offers more competition than in public education, because public education is always free (though "extras" like sports, band, etc, may cost some money). The public option plan will cost most people money.

I am against a Medicare-like-only public option because Medicare simply excludes too many people who really need it. Under this plan, no one would be forced to pay for substandard insurance, which is what many, many people must do now. I have said it again, but how is it "just" that a businessman who takes home $100,000 a year with the same size family as mine can pay $90 a month and get FULL coverage, while my family has to pay $164 a month for far less coverage in the private sector. We are excluded from the public plan because insurance companies cried "unfair competition". Yet there was no provision (at least in PA) to require the insurance companies to offer better insurance. That last part is mandated under this current law, but if the public option is not there, the temptation to erode those minimum requirements will be too hefty.


I really do believe that the reason there is no bill covering these types of measures is because Congress and the president would like to eventually control health insurance. I guess that makes me cynical, but when there are easier and more effective options out there to meet the goal of universal healthcare, and Congress does not propose such options, I get cynical.[/quote]

[PLAYER57832]

Why don't we let Micheal Vic head up the humane society to maintain quality of care for dogs?

Congratulations. That is officially the most retarded argument I've ever seen.

I have a better one - Lets let Gov run more healthcare because they are more honest.

Compared to Blue Cross and Blue Shield, that IS the absolute truth. To claim otherwise means you have NO real experience with anything but the highest tiers of Blue Cross insurance. They have an absolute policy of denying people care simply to delay treatments until it is too late, etc. The standard claim "we don't limit your care... we just are not going to pay" is one of the most dishonest and plain evil statements in any industry.

[Night Strike]

I really don't understand why you say this. The current bill does require the insurance companies to offer minimum levels of insurance. The public plan is offered as a "baseline" minimum policy. Most people will pay premiums for that policy, if they select it, but those who are below certain income levels will be subsidized or get it free.

Actually, this is exactly where the public option will eventually drive private insurance out of business. The bill sets forth a health panel that will decide what the minimum coverage would be. Nothing is set in place to stop the panel from slowly ratcheting up the amount of items that are considered minimal requirements. Since the public option won't have to run for a profit, they can continue providing these minimums while fining insurance companies who do not have the capital to provide the funding for more minimums. This year the basics could include primary care, neo-natal care, mammograms, prostate exams, and outpatient minor surgeries. 3 years from now the minimum could require genetic testing, advanced cancer care, and abortion. There are no caps on what the panel can set as a minimum.