ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[GabonX]

Another witty response

You just keep em' coming don't you?

[Snorri1234]

Another witty response

You just keep em' coming don't you?

It wasn't a response.

[Phatscotty]

Another witty response

You just keep em' coming don't you?

It wasn't a response.

love my signature?

[PLAYER57832]

Stop companies from making profit and tax the evil rich who have made money in the last 20 years. Now there is a economic plan we can believe in.

Typical exaggerated rhetoric from you again. Making a profit is not evil. But, the tax laws have shifted in the past 20 years so that the wealthiest people are not paying for the benefits they and their companies recieve. Companies that are going to be forced out of business by having to truly pay their own way don't need to be in business, period.

Companies that do not provide healthcare leave their employees to either buy their own, which they generally cannot afford, or to go on tax-payer funded Medicaid, etc. Small businesses and private contractors get the worst shake because they cannot negotiate like bigger corporations can with the insurance companies. So, requiring insurance for everyone and either requiring private companies to offer insurance to all, regardless of pre-existing conditions OR a general government plan, will save everyone money. MOST ESPECIALLY the small business people.

Drug companies make the most money on the drugs they sell to everyone like blood pressure meds and made up things like "chronic" dry eye syndrome. Those are not meds the government researches. Drug companies forgo researching things like new antibiotics we will need very soon so they can make more cholesterol drugs to sell to millions every day and advertise for every 5 seconds.

Exactly, which is why removing the government won't give us more advanced health care.

If a major reason for bankruptcies is healthcare bills that still does not mean that the gov should provide it. If you can't afford a car it's not the gov's job to provide you with transportation to your job 20 miles away. It's an endless cycle of taxes for big spending. Basically nothing is done within budget....EVER, in Gov. Your asking a burglar to house sit for you because he has assured you he knows criminals better and can protect your home better but when you get back you will be cleaned out from him. You are handing over control of your house to a thief who is harder to control than the one outside your home trying to get it.

Ironically, this is exactly what many security firms of all types do .. hire the former criminals to create better defenses.

The difference between a car and healthcare is that we, as a nation, are not going to let people get sick and die simply because they cannot afford health care. We already cover everybody, in the emergency room. So, the question is not "should we provide health care". The question is how to do it most cheaply. Right now, the insurance companies get to choose who they insure. Naturally, they choose to insure healthy people who use few health care services. WE, the taxpayers, currently pick up the tab for a number of the rest. However, before we will, someone has to generally lose their home, their job and every other asset they have. Plus, they usually are past the ideal time for treatment in the case of things like heart disease, cancer, etc.

Still wondering where your tax limit is. At what % do you believe one is being taxed too much or is there no limit in your eyes? Just keep taxing until you can pay for every program Gov says is necessary?

Still wondering why you don't get that spreading the cost of insurance around will save EVERYONE but the few who are lucky enough to stay healthy all their lives (with no serious injuries or illnesses short of their death) will be CHEAPER. So, some of us will pay more to the government instead of private insurance companies. The OVERALL cost will be cheaper for most over their lifetimes.

Like all insurance, you pay whether you use it or not. In the case of healthcare, unlike car or house insurance, almost everyone will need it at some point. So, younger and very healthy older people will likely wind up paying a bit more. A lot of people will be buying insurance independently instead of relying upon their employers to buy it for them. All of that will result in better care for everyone far more cheaply than the current system.

[PopeBenXVI]

Player, forcing small business to ensure all their employees will not save everyone money as you mentioned. Many businesses can afford to give someone a job but not pay for part of healthcare for them. What will happen is Gov will tell them they need to pay a certain percent to have the employee's on the Gov plan or if they don't want to pay for them to be on the plan they pay something anyway! A tax which will go toward people being covered under the plan. Worker are also paying tax.

This will cost people jobs and cause wages will not rise. Many businesses are just able to afford their staff as is but Gov here is butting in and costing them more money they may not have. Being that you are concerned with bankruptcy you might be concerned about businesses going bankrupt and jobs being lost. It's hard to pay your mortgage when you have no job because of the Gov but at least when you lose your home you can get your phycologist visits paid for from Uncle Sam because your so depressed about losing your home. This article explains it pretty well.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 01934.html

Just read the crap in the stupid bill and you will understand why what they are proposing is not sound healthcare reform and why people are upset. If ensuring the uninsured was that important they could have not wasted the bailout money on payouts for their buddies and that money would have ensured everyone and bailed out the failing Gov healthcare systems we already have.

[Phatscotty]

cancer and other things are just way too expensive. since when do people get to go around demanding $100,000 procedures and treaments cuz they got cancer?

[PLAYER57832]

Player, forcing small business to ensure all their employees will not save everyone money as you mentioned. Many businesses can afford to give someone a job but not pay for part of healthcare for them. What will happen is Gov will tell them they need to pay a certain percent to have the employee's on the Gov plan or if they don't want to pay for them to be on the plan they pay something anyway! A tax which will go toward people being covered under the plan. Worker are also paying tax.

This will cost people jobs and cause wages will not rise. Many businesses are just able to afford their staff as is but Gov here is butting in and costing them more money they may not have. Being that you are concerned with bankruptcy you might be concerned about businesses going bankrupt and jobs being lost. It's hard to pay your mortgage when you have no job because of the Gov but at least when you lose your home you can get your phycologist visits paid for from Uncle Sam because your so depressed about losing your home. This article explains it pretty well.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 01934.html

Just read the crap in the stupid bill and you will understand why what they are proposing is not sound healthcare reform and why people are upset. If ensuring the uninsured was that important they could have not wasted the bailout money on payouts for their buddies and that money would have ensured everyone and bailed out the failing Gov healthcare systems we already have.

You actually gave the strongest argument yourself. More and more businesses are not providing insurance. Talking of the uninsured misses the biggest problem, though. Many of the bigger corporations are offering policies that have extremely high deductibles -- several thousand for employees who make less than $40,000 (these are the true figures from my husband's former plant), etc.

What you miss, when you talk of businesses going bankrupt is that there just is not option. Either we, as a nation become like a third world country, offering care only to the very wealthy and foreigners OR, we provide some sort of universal coverage. People, employers are used to paying, so that is the natural place to collect these premiums.

You do realize that the basic minimum premium under COBRA, which continues insurance when someone loses their job, is $700 for a family of 4. Not many small businesses pay their employees over $70000. The 10% is from the company profit, after all expenses. In short, most will not be paying as much.

You say this reform is not true reform? Well, the best, cheapest system would be a single-payor system. Right now the biggest expense, by far, in any doctors office is not malpractice insurance or supplies, its providing enough help to fill out all the paparwork required by so many different insurance plans. There is no consistency even within the same insurance plans, often, never mind between policies and companie. A single-payor system, with private insurance for the premium care would be best, but it is not what this bill is about because there are too many people with vested interests in keeping the insurance -driven system operating.

That said, this bill is a LOT better than our current system. It is a compromise, but it is better than what we have now.

I have read the bill. The bail out was largely formulated before Obama came into office and is not part of healthcare reform anyway.

[Phatscotty]

player, is specter gettin re-elected over there or what

[PopeBenXVI]

Player, forcing small business to ensure all their employees will not save everyone money as you mentioned. Many businesses can afford to give someone a job but not pay for part of healthcare for them. What will happen is Gov will tell them they need to pay a certain percent to have the employee's on the Gov plan or if they don't want to pay for them to be on the plan they pay something anyway! A tax which will go toward people being covered under the plan. Worker are also paying tax.

This will cost people jobs and cause wages will not rise. Many businesses are just able to afford their staff as is but Gov here is butting in and costing them more money they may not have. Being that you are concerned with bankruptcy you might be concerned about businesses going bankrupt and jobs being lost. It's hard to pay your mortgage when you have no job because of the Gov but at least when you lose your home you can get your phycologist visits paid for from Uncle Sam because your so depressed about losing your home. This article explains it pretty well.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 01934.html

Just read the crap in the stupid bill and you will understand why what they are proposing is not sound healthcare reform and why people are upset. If ensuring the uninsured was that important they could have not wasted the bailout money on payouts for their buddies and that money would have ensured everyone and bailed out the failing Gov healthcare systems we already have.

You actually gave the strongest argument yourself. More and more businesses are not providing insurance. Talking of the uninsured misses the biggest problem, though. Many of the bigger corporations are offering policies that have extremely high deductibles -- several thousand for employees who make less than $40,000 (these are the true figures from my husband's former plant), etc.

What you miss, when you talk of businesses going bankrupt is that there just is not option. Either we, as a nation become like a third world country, offering care only to the very wealthy and foreigners OR, we provide some sort of universal coverage. People, employers are used to paying, so that is the natural place to collect these premiums.

You do realize that the basic minimum premium under COBRA, which continues insurance when someone loses their job, is $700 for a family of 4. Not many small businesses pay their employees over $70000. The 10% is from the company profit, after all expenses. In short, most will not be paying as much.

You say this reform is not true reform? Well, the best, cheapest system would be a single-payor system. Right now the biggest expense, by far, in any doctors office is not malpractice insurance or supplies, its providing enough help to fill out all the paparwork required by so many different insurance plans. There is no consistency even within the same insurance plans, often, never mind between policies and companie. A single-payor system, with private insurance for the premium care would be best, but it is not what this bill is about because there are too many people with vested interests in keeping the insurance -driven system operating.

That said, this bill is a LOT better than our current system. It is a compromise, but it is better than what we have now.

I have read the bill. The bail out was largely formulated before Obama came into office and is not part of healthcare reform anyway.

Now I see why you don't care about why people are upset. You are a proponent of single payer (like Obama) and you know the way this is laid out will lead to that. Thats too bad.

[pimpdave]

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

[PLAYER57832]

Now I see why you don't care about why people are upset.

I care, but so far the people who are upset are upset because they don't have the facts.

You are a proponent of single payer (like Obama) and you know the way this is laid out will lead to that. Thats too bad.

You are living in a dream world if you think people can afford our current system. You are dreaming if you think insurers will willingly insure people who are going to cost them money. You are correct when you say that insurers are going to stop offering policies if the government offers a reasonable alternative. Insurers are in the business of making money, not providing healthcare. Their customer is not even us, its large employers.

You say companies will no longer offer insurance? We are already there! Some companies still do offer reasonable policies, but a large number off "Walmart" style policies that have HUGE deductibles and co-pays so that those with the insurance cannot afford to get care. In this regard, Walmart's insurance is not the worst. Bad, but not the worst.

You say that nameless bureaucrats will be limiting our care? They already do! Insurance executives decide, based on private data what care people can recieve. Many times people think things are covered, only to find that claims are denied. In the case of Blue Cross, which insures over 80% of the US insured population, there is a documented pattern of plain denying or delaying care for patients to save the company money.

You say that medical advances will be limited? The private companies go for only the "quick fix", "easy money" fixes -- viagra instead of cures for ovarian cancer, etc. Most of the real research happens in the NIH (not all, no, but a majority-- though few realize this because they are forbidden from any sort of "lobbying", even just saying "hey, we need money for .." unless specifically asked by congress). Of course, the companies are happy to make money off the successful research, just not to invest in it initially. (and no, they may not make the biggest money off cures for malaria, etc However, they do make decent money. Taxpayers who funded the research get nothing in return).

You say our costs will go up? What has your insurance bill been in the past 3 years? That is, not just your cost, but your employer's cost. Average increase is around 30%. In many cases that increased cost came with reduced coverage. Have your taxes gone up by 30%?

Employers will have to pay a 10% premium for government coverage. Many employers right now pay far more than that. For many employers right now, health care is the biggest expense they have.

How long will you keep your insurance? What happens when you reach that lifetime limit? Do you know what your limit is? Do you know what kind of care will eat that up?

If I cannot afford healthcare, then my health, the health of my children is affected. NOTE, I did not say "uninsured", I said cannot afford health care. You have declared yourself a Christian. How, exactly is leaving people unable to pay for care promoting the Christian ethic? Exactly what do you really think the result of this will be?

Not lots of nice, healthy babies in loving homes! Poor finances create stress, poor health and poor conditions generally for children.

[GabonX]

[Night Strike]

Yep, at least one Congressman thinks he knows better than his constituents. He admits that even if the people in his district are against a single-payer system, he'll still vote for it because it'll be good for them. Time to vote him out of office. He works for those people, so he'd better follow their wishes.

http://www.thefoxnation.com/eric-massa/2009/08/17/congressman-i-will-vote-against-interests-my-district

[PLAYER57832]

Yep, at least one Congressman thinks he knows better than his constituents. He admits that even if the people in his district are against a single-payer system, he'll still vote for it because it'll be good for them. Time to vote him out of office. He works for those people, so he'd better follow their wishes.

http://www.thefoxnation.com/eric-massa/2009/08/17/congressman-i-will-vote-against-interests-my-district

Newsflash: Most people really want a single-payor system. It will provide better care far more cheaply than our current system.

Sadly, that is not what is in this bill at all.

[GabonX]

Yep, at least one Congressman thinks he knows better than his constituents. He admits that even if the people in his district are against a single-payer system, he'll still vote for it because it'll be good for them. Time to vote him out of office. He works for those people, so he'd better follow their wishes.

http://www.thefoxnation.com/eric-massa/2009/08/17/congressman-i-will-vote-against-interests-my-district

Newsflash: Most people really want a single-payor system. It will provide better care far more cheaply than our current system.

Sadly, that is not what is in this bill at all.

Newsflash: Just because YOU want something doesn't mean most people do.

It seems that everyday a poll comes out that refutes your claims.

[PopeBenXVI]

Now I see why you don't care about why people are upset.

I care, but so far the people who are upset are upset because they don't have the facts.

You are a proponent of single payer (like Obama) and you know the way this is laid out will lead to that. Thats too bad.

You are living in a dream world if you think people can afford our current system. You are dreaming if you think insurers will willingly insure people who are going to cost them money. You are correct when you say that insurers are going to stop offering policies if the government offers a reasonable alternative. Insurers are in the business of making money, not providing healthcare. Their customer is not even us, its large employers.

You say companies will no longer offer insurance? We are already there! Some companies still do offer reasonable policies, but a large number off "Walmart" style policies that have HUGE deductibles and co-pays so that those with the insurance cannot afford to get care. In this regard, Walmart's insurance is not the worst. Bad, but not the worst.

You say that nameless bureaucrats will be limiting our care? They already do! Insurance executives decide, based on private data what care people can recieve. Many times people think things are covered, only to find that claims are denied. In the case of Blue Cross, which insures over 80% of the US insured population, there is a documented pattern of plain denying or delaying care for patients to save the company money.

You say that medical advances will be limited? The private companies go for only the "quick fix", "easy money" fixes -- viagra instead of cures for ovarian cancer, etc. Most of the real research happens in the NIH (not all, no, but a majority-- though few realize this because they are forbidden from any sort of "lobbying", even just saying "hey, we need money for .." unless specifically asked by congress). Of course, the companies are happy to make money off the successful research, just not to invest in it initially. (and no, they may not make the biggest money off cures for malaria, etc However, they do make decent money. Taxpayers who funded the research get nothing in return).

You say our costs will go up? What has your insurance bill been in the past 3 years? That is, not just your cost, but your employer's cost. Average increase is around 30%. In many cases that increased cost came with reduced coverage. Have your taxes gone up by 30%?

Employers will have to pay a 10% premium for government coverage. Many employers right now pay far more than that. For many employers right now, health care is the biggest expense they have.

How long will you keep your insurance? What happens when you reach that lifetime limit? Do you know what your limit is? Do you know what kind of care will eat that up?

If I cannot afford healthcare, then my health, the health of my children is affected. NOTE, I did not say "uninsured", I said cannot afford health care. You have declared yourself a Christian. How, exactly is leaving people unable to pay for care promoting the Christian ethic? Exactly what do you really think the result of this will be?

Not lots of nice, healthy babies in loving homes! Poor finances create stress, poor health and poor conditions generally for children.

Wow player, you are really something. Because I disagree with a Gov takeover of healthcare as a proposal to lower costs you infer I am not Christian? There is more than one way to reform healthcare. Having a specific plan for Healthcare reform does not make that plan a moral absolute. For one who promotes the homosexual lifestyle in mainstream life as ok for society you sure have some nerve speaking on Christian Ethics and morals.

[PopeBenXVI]

Yep, at least one Congressman thinks he knows better than his constituents. He admits that even if the people in his district are against a single-payer system, he'll still vote for it because it'll be good for them. Time to vote him out of office. He works for those people, so he'd better follow their wishes.

http://www.thefoxnation.com/eric-massa/2009/08/17/congressman-i-will-vote-against-interests-my-district

Thats because we no longer have a representative republic. We have a gang of arrogant thugs whom listen not to those who put them in office to represent them but to foreign and domestic terrorists with money. The majority of people running this country should be tried for treason because of the way they extort and lie to this countries people. This country will not last another 30 years. I hope I am wrong on that but I fear I am not.

[Phatscotty]

Yep, at least one Congressman thinks he knows better than his constituents. He admits that even if the people in his district are against a single-payer system, he'll still vote for it because it'll be good for them. Time to vote him out of office. He works for those people, so he'd better follow their wishes.

http://www.thefoxnation.com/eric-massa/2009/08/17/congressman-i-will-vote-against-interests-my-district

Thats because we no longer have a representative republic. We have a gang of arrogant thugs whom listen not to those who put them in office to represent them but to foreign and domestic terrorists with money. The majority of people running this country should be tried for treason because of the way they extort and lie to this countries people. This country will not last another 30 years. I hope I am wrong on that but I fear I am not.

ron paul 2012. make it happen

[MeDeFe]

Yep, at least one Congressman thinks he knows better than his constituents. He admits that even if the people in his district are against a single-payer system, he'll still vote for it because it'll be good for them. Time to vote him out of office. He works for those people, so he'd better follow their wishes.

http://www.thefoxnation.com/eric-massa/2009/08/17/congressman-i-will-vote-against-interests-my-district

Thats because we no longer have a representative republic. We have a gang of arrogant thugs whom listen not to those who put them in office to represent them but to foreign and domestic terrorists with money. The majority of people running this country should be tried for treason because of the way they extort and lie to this countries people. This country will not last another 30 years. I hope I am wrong on that but I fear I am not.

ron paul 2012. make it happen

The world ends in 2012.

[Nobunaga]

... Woman in the UK refused ambulance after going into labor, delivers on a sidewalk. From the article,

'They (hospital) said they were not sending an ambulance and told me I had had nine months to sort out a lift.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... lance.html

... What a lovely bunch of people working those hospitals, eh?

... And the Canadian system is buzzing along nicely.

http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print ... 06&sponsor

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadi ... Gu_Z3KXoQw

... Can we get a thread merge here? How many of these are spinning about?

...

[Frigidus]

... Woman in the UK refused ambulance after going into labor, delivers on a sidewalk. From the article,

'They (hospital) said they were not sending an ambulance and told me I had had nine months to sort out a lift.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... lance.html

... What a lovely bunch of people working those hospitals, eh?

... And the Canadian system is buzzing along nicely.

http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print ... 06&sponsor

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadi ... Gu_Z3KXoQw

... Can we get a thread merge here? How many of these are spinning about?

...

The horror story route is a poor one to choose, as mistreatment of patients is infinitely better than no treatment of patients. How about all the stories of people paying into an insurance plan for years and years only to be refused treatment when they needed it?

[heavycola]

Wow player, you are really something. Because I disagree with a Gov takeover of healthcare as a proposal to lower costs you infer I am not Christian?

So you do advocate free healthcare for every member of society? Or just for those that can afford it?




Nobunaga you quote the Daily Mail with no sense of irony, apparently. 99.99% of UK citizens love the NHS. And that's a fact. Don't use it a counterargument, because you have no idea what you are talking about.

[Nobunaga]

Wow player, you are really something. Because I disagree with a Gov takeover of healthcare as a proposal to lower costs you infer I am not Christian?

So you do advocate free healthcare for every member of society? Or just for those that can afford it?




Nobunaga you quote the Daily Mail with no sense of irony, apparently. 99.99% of UK citizens love the NHS. And that's a fact. Don't use it a counterargument, because you have no idea what you are talking about.

... I'm just lobbing grenades here, man, and enjoying myself. I do not claim to know anything about the UK system... just what I read.

... But a baby on a sidewalk? I'm sure she's happy with your system...

...

[heavycola]

Wow player, you are really something. Because I disagree with a Gov takeover of healthcare as a proposal to lower costs you infer I am not Christian?

So you do advocate free healthcare for every member of society? Or just for those that can afford it?




Nobunaga you quote the Daily Mail with no sense of irony, apparently. 99.99% of UK citizens love the NHS. And that's a fact. Don't use it a counterargument, because you have no idea what you are talking about.

... I'm just lobbing grenades here, man, and enjoying myself. I do not claim to know anything about the UK system... just what I read.

... But a baby on a sidewalk? I'm sure she's happy with your system...

...

OMG there was a screw up! COuld it be down to a) an administrative error b) someone else not doing their job properly c) a miscommunictaion or d) A BREAKDOWN OF THE ENTIRE NATIONAL HEALTH SYSTEM!!1!1!!ONE!!!!

[PLAYER57832]

Wow player, you are really something. Because I disagree with a Gov takeover of healthcare as a proposal to lower costs you infer I am not Christian?

You cannot stop misquoting, I see.

I said that the real consequences are not consistant with views you have expressed before, will result in things you have said you don't like increasing.

The bill is NOT ABOUT A GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER. It is not socialism, it is not "destroying our government" or most of those other claims you made.

The current bill has a government plan as an option. It is NOT mandatory. The only way the public plan will oust the private plan is if the public plan is better and cheaper. Hardly a nefarious plan.

There is more than one way to reform healthcare. Having a specific plan for Healthcare reform does not make that plan a moral absolute.

Agreed. However, this plan is far better than our current system and is definitely not, as you keep insisting, socialism. Come up with something real, not poppycock!

For one who promotes the homosexual lifestyle in mainstream life as ok for society you sure have some nerve speaking on Christian Ethics and morals.

Again with the misquoting, not that it has anything to do with this debate. I don't "promote the homosexual lifestyle in mainstream society". I DO promote tolerance of people who are not harming you or I and who neither you nor I have convinced should live differently. I promote that because I want MY views and lifestyle tolerated.

Funny, how the right wing has to keep launching into idiot ideology, instead of anything real and true. Why don't you come up with a plan (or even just read the one that is out there), instead of trying to claim its socialism.