PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Health Care to go UP ?


ROYC75
09-09-2010, 02:06 PM
Yep, just as we all ( Conservatives,people against ObamaCare )said it would do, HC on the rise. The graphs are hard hitting ! So much about reform. All this shove it down there throats type crap was nothing more than a single payer take over as Obama wants it, the same type that is failing around the world.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Health Insurers Plan Hikes

http://finance.yahoo.com/insurance/article/110602/health-insurers-plan-hikes?mod=insurance-health

Health insurers say they plan to raise premiums for some Americans as a direct result of the health overhaul in coming weeks, complicating Democrats' efforts to trumpet their signature achievement before the midterm elections.


Aetna Inc. (NYSE: AET - News), some BlueCross BlueShield plans and other smaller carriers have asked for premium increases of between 1% and 9% to pay for extra benefits required under the law, according to filings with state regulators.

These and other insurers say Congress's landmark refashioning of U.S. health coverage, which passed in March after a brutal fight, is causing them to pass on more costs to consumers than Democrats predicted.

The rate increases largely apply to policies for individuals and small businesses and don't include people covered by a big employer or Medicare.

About 9% of Americans buy coverage through the individual market, according to the Census Bureau, and roughly one-fifth of people who get coverage through their employer work at companies with 50 or fewer employees, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. People in both groups are likely to feel the effects of the proposed increases, even as they see new benefits under the law, such as the elimination of lifetime and certain annual coverage caps.

Many carriers also are seeking additional rate increases that they say they need to cover rising medical costs. As a result, some consumers could face total premium increases of more than 20%.

While the increases apply mostly to the new policies insurers write after Oct. 1, consumers could be subject to the higher rates if they modify their existing plans and cause them to lose grandfathered status.

The rate increases are a dose of troubling news for Democrats just weeks before an election in which they are at risk of losing their majority in the House and possibly the Senate.

In addition to pledging that the law would restrain increases in Americans' insurance premiums, Democrats front-loaded the legislation with early provisions they hoped would boost public support. Those include letting children stay on their parents' insurance policies until age 26, eliminating co-payments for preventive care and barring insurers from denying policies to children with pre-existing conditions, plus the elimination of the coverage caps.

Weeks before the election, insurance companies began telling state regulators it is those very provisions that are forcing them to increase their rates.

Aetna, one of the nation's largest health insurers, said the extra benefits forced it to seek rate increases for new individual plans of 5.4% to 7.4% in California and 5.5% to 6.8% in Nevada after Sept. 23. Similar steps are planned across the country, according to Aetna.

Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Oregon said the cost of providing additional benefits under the health law will account on average for 3.4 percentage points of a 17.1% premium rise for a small-employer health plan. It asked regulators last month to approve the increase.

In Wisconsin and North Carolina, Celtic Insurance Co. says half of the 18% increase it is seeking comes from complying with health-law mandates.

The White House says insurers are using the law as an excuse to raise rates and predicts that state regulators will block some of the large increases.

"I would have real deep concerns that the kinds of rate increases that you're quoting… are justified," said Nancy-Ann DeParle, the White House's top health official. She said that for insurers, raising rates was "already their modus operandi before the bill" passed. "We believe consumers will see through this," she said.

[See 15 Insurance Policies You Don't Need]

Previously the administration had calculated that the batch of changes taking effect this fall would raise premiums no more than 1% to 2%, on average.

After Regence mailed a letter notifying plan administrators of its intention to raise group insurance rates in Washington state, the White House contacted company officials and accused them of inaccurately justifying the increase. Kerry Barnett, executive vice president for Regence BlueShield, said the insurer is changing the letter to more precisely explain the causes of the increase.

The industry contends its increases are justified. "Anytime you add a benefit, there are increased costs," said Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry's lobbying group.

Massachusetts, which enacted universal insurance coverage several years ago, also has seen steadily rising insurance premiums since then. Proponents of that plan attribute the hikes there to an overall increase in medical costs, while insurers cite it as a cautionary example of what can happen when new mandates to improve benefits aren't coupled with a strong enough provision to force healthy people to buy coverage.

Republicans, who have sought voter support by opposing the health law, say premium increases could help in November's congressional races. "People are finding out what's in [the law], they don't like it, and I think it's going to play a big factor in this election," said Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee.

About half of all states have the power to deny rate increases. Ms. DeParle pointed out that the law awards states $250 million to bolster their scrutiny of insurance-rate proposals, saying that will eventually curb premiums for people.

"In Kansas, I don't have a lot of authority to deny a rate increase, if it is justified," said Kansas Insurance Commissioner Sandy Praeger. She recently approved a 4% increase by Mennonite Mutual Aid Association to pay for the new provisions in the health law.

The process of reviewing rate increases varies by state. For instance, Ms. Praeger said she can deny only rate increases that are unreasonable or discriminatory.

[See 10 Things Primary-Care Doctors Won't Tell You]

Some regulators say not all insurers have adequately justified their increases. "A lot of it is guesswork for companies," said Tom Abel, supervisor at the Colorado Division of Insurance. "I was anticipating the carriers to be more uniform."

Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Oregon, which estimates its increase covers 57,000 members, said its goal is to "anticipate the financial needs of our members as accurately as possible and to collect just enough premiums to cover costs," said a spokeswoman. Other insurers offered similar explanations or declined to discuss their increases.

A small number of insurers have submitted plans to lower rates and cite the new mandates in the legislation as the reason. HMO Colorado, a Blue Cross Blue Shield plan owned by WellPoint Inc. (NYSE: WLP - News), submitted a letter to state regulators saying small group rates would fall 1.8% starting Oct. 1 because of changes from the law.

Democrats had hoped to sell the bill in the fall elections. But in recent weeks, some Democrats who voted for the bill have shied away from advertising that fact, while the handful of House Democrats who cast "no" votes see it as a potential boost to their re-election bids.

"I think it's a question of short term versus long term," said North Carolina Insurance Commissioner Wayne Goodwin, a Democrat up for re-election in 2012. "Thankfully we're seeing people get more coverage and protections than they've ever had before. But until we see the medical-cost inflation affected, you're likely to see rate increases as long as they are not excessive and in violation of the law."

Write to Janet Adamy at janet.adamy@wsj.com

BucEyedPea
09-09-2010, 02:17 PM
Will Someone Please Give Obama This Message?

That socialism doesn’t work, as Fidel Castro said recently. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100908/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cb_cuba_fidel_castro)


HAVANA – Fidel Castro told a visiting American journalist that Cuba's communist [socialism-yes they are the same thing] economic model doesn't work, a rare comment on domestic affairs from a man who has conspicuously steered clear of local issues since stepping down four years ago.

The fact that things are not working efficiently on this cash-strapped Caribbean island is hardly news. Fidel's brother Raul, the country's president, has said the same thing repeatedly. But the blunt assessment by the father of Cuba's 1959 revolution is sure to raise eyebrows.

Jeffrey Goldberg, a national correspondent for The Atlantic magazine, asked if Cuba's economic system was still worth exporting to other countries, and Castro replied: "The Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore" Goldberg wrote Wednesday in a post on his Atlantic blog.

Cashed strapped did he say? That's us. We've only been 3/5ths socialist the past 75 years! Obama's wrapping up the plan.

America's chickens have come home to ROOOST! ROFL

BIG_DADDY
09-09-2010, 02:20 PM
I may be wrong but it seems like everything is a win/win for insurance providers no matter what. They claim to not want government intervension but they keep pushing the rates up and up and up as if they trying to force their hand.

ROYC75
09-09-2010, 02:24 PM
I may be wrong but it seems like everything is a win/win for insurance providers no matter what. They claim to not want government intervension but they keep pushing the rates up and up and up as if they trying to force their hand.

Insurance companies will lose in the end game. Rates go up, Americans can't buy, you then rely on the single payer option that's is supplied by the Fed's. You get less coverage on single payer, quality of the service goes down.

It's the end of your private HC coverage as we know it..

orange
09-09-2010, 02:29 PM
It's the end of your private HC coverage as we know it..

Praise The Lord!!!

King_Chief_Fan
09-09-2010, 02:31 PM
yup....mine is going up 6%.

BucEyedPea
09-09-2010, 02:34 PM
Praise The Lord!!!

At your age enjoy the lines while the kids get to go first. Hope you like dying twenty years sooner.

vailpass
09-09-2010, 03:28 PM
Praise The Lord!!!

Huh? What do you mean by this?

blaise
09-09-2010, 03:33 PM
Huh? What do you mean by this?

He wants a full-on government run everything utopia.

ROYC75
09-09-2010, 03:39 PM
Praise The Lord!!!

You and idiot go together like a hand in a glove.

orange
09-09-2010, 03:48 PM
Huh? What do you mean by this?

I mean the current system is ****ed - stupid - retarded - choose your own expletive.

http://www.failfunnies.com/27/images/ultimate-wooden-puzzle-fail.jpg

In a nutshell - EMPLOYERS should PAY WAGES or SALARIES.

PEOPLE - including but not restricted to EMPLOYEES - should PURCHASE things, including HEALTH CARE.

The two lines have nothing to do with each other.

orange
09-09-2010, 03:52 PM
To continue...

If the GOVERNMENT wants to SUBSIDIZE HEALTH CARE, it should SUBSIDIZE the PEOPLE directly. Not extra layers of PROFIT-SKIMMING MIDDLEMEN, i.e. EMPLOYERS and UNDERWRITERS.

PROFIT-SKIMMING MIDDLEMEN whose INCENTIVES are NOT PROVIDING HEALTH CARE.

ROYC75
09-09-2010, 03:57 PM
To continue...

If the GOVERNMENT wants to SUBSIDIZE HEALTH CARE, it should SUBSIDIZE the PEOPLE directly. Not extra layers of PROFIT-SKIMMING MIDDLEMEN, i.e. EMPLOYERS and UNDERWRITERS.

PROFIT-SKIMMING MIDDLEMEN whose INCENTIVES are NOT PROVIDING HEALTH CARE.

Gee, free enterprise, imagine that.

If you have it your way, how long before they take our wages, next in line is Communism.

How far do you expect the government to be in our lives? Seriously, How much control do you want them to have over your life?

orange
09-09-2010, 04:04 PM
Gee, free enterprise, imagine that.

If you have it your way, how long before they take our wages, next in line is Communism.

How far do you expect the government to be in our lives? Seriously, How much control do you want them to have over your life?

ROFL

Employer Tax Incentives to Offer Health Insurance
Updated December 2008; Reposted August 2009

For some time, some state health policymakers have teamed with fiscal experts to pioneer the approach of giving employers special state tax incentives to offer health insurance.

The following are examples of small business, self-employed and related incentives identified in 17 states as of January 2009. There are a few instances in which a credit may only apply to enterprise zone business development scenarios, otherwise they are broad-based incentives, not geographically limited.

Note that at least two-thirds of the states impose some "premium tax" that is paid by some or all health insurers. That material is available to legislators and staff upon request; it is not online.

NCSL has a separate report on Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and States. These specially-structured accounts are exempt from all federal and most state taxation, but only apply to high-deductible health plans.

http://www.ncsl.org/?tabid=13956

...

IMPLICATIONS OF FEDERAL TAX INCENTIVES FOR HEALTH INSURANCE
INCREASED HEALTH COVERAGE
Federal tax subsidies have helped extend health coverage to more people and increased the number of insured in several ways. First, they encourage employees to prefer health coverage to taxable income for health insurance. Second, tax subsidies encourage employers to offer health insurance as part of employee compensation.1,7 Third, by encouraging employer-sponsored insurance, tax subsidies promote employment-based/risk pooling, and consequently group rates and more affordable coverage.1,7
Employment is an effective way of pooling risk because people generally do not choose employment based on their expected use of health care.7 If only those who needed (or expected to need) health care purchased health insurance, it would be even more expensive. Selden and Gray suggest that employment-based risk pooling has been a means of cost containment in a time of rapidly rising health care costs.2 Another benefit of this risk pooling is that employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) usually provides insurance beyond the current year, shielding enrollees from the risk of losing coverage or having their premiums become prohibitively expensive if they become sick, or as they get older.5

PREDOMINANCE OF EMPLOYER-SPONSORED INSURANCE
The significant tax incentives for ESI, and the ease of administering ESI, have resulted in the predominance of ESI as a means for health coverage in the U.S. In 2003, ESI covered about 65 percent of workers and their families.16 Selden and Gray report that among people with private coverage, about 94 percent had ESI through their employer or a family member’s employer in 2003.2

http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/07/02/07-002.pdf

orange
09-09-2010, 04:11 PM
free enterprise

ROFL ROFL

ROYC75
09-09-2010, 04:12 PM
ROFL

Employer Tax Incentives to Offer Health Insurance
Updated December 2008; Reposted August 2009

For some time, some state health policymakers have teamed with fiscal experts to pioneer the approach of giving employers special state tax incentives to offer health insurance.

The following are examples of small business, self-employed and related incentives identified in 17 states as of January 2009. There are a few instances in which a credit may only apply to enterprise zone business development scenarios, otherwise they are broad-based incentives, not geographically limited.

Note that at least two-thirds of the states impose some "premium tax" that is paid by some or all health insurers. That material is available to legislators and staff upon request; it is not online.

NCSL has a separate report on Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and States. These specially-structured accounts are exempt from all federal and most state taxation, but only apply to high-deductible health plans.

http://www.ncsl.org/?tabid=13956

Super Dooper ........ 17 states out of 50, you are on a roll there Orange head.

Bottom line, it will fail, the single payer option is thew ultimate goal by Obama.

Fact is the American people WILL revolt !

Brainiac
09-09-2010, 04:14 PM
Praise The Lord!!!

Sometimes the way you think truly baffles me.

ROYC75
09-09-2010, 04:14 PM
ROFL ROFL

You have a problem with FREE ENTERPRISE in America ?

orange
09-09-2010, 04:20 PM
You have a problem with FREE ENTERPRISE in America ?

Take your hand out of the glove and read it. What we have currently is NOTHING RESEMBLING FREE ENTERPRISE.

It's WELFARE for INSURANCE COMPANIES.

orange
09-09-2010, 04:22 PM
Super Dooper ........ 17 states out of 50, you are on a roll there Orange head.


That's just EXAMPLES - of just the STATES.

#14 and #15 outline the FEDS current control (and misdirection) of the system.

ROYC75
09-09-2010, 04:46 PM
Take your hand out of the glove and read it. What we have currently is NOTHING RESEMBLING FREE ENTERPRISE.

It's WELFARE for INSURANCE COMPANIES.

I'm all for HC reform with the insurance companies. But a single payer option is wrong for America.

We were suppose to get HC reform, instead we got the platform for laying down the single payer option.

Big difference ...... affordable HC with HC reform vs single payer option.

orange
09-09-2010, 07:04 PM
It's the end of your private HC coverage as we know it..

Praise The Lord!!!

I'm all for HC reform with the insurance companies.


So when I said "Praise the Lord!!!" your CORRECT response should have been, "HALLELUJAH, BROTHER!!!"

I expect you'll be offering a public apology now in the interest of honesty.

irishjayhawk
09-09-2010, 07:16 PM
Isn't this partially due to the sacking of the Public Option, which would have offered even more competition?

orange
09-10-2010, 09:45 AM
HHS Explicitly Threatens the Insurance Lobby – TIME (blog)
Filed Under: Insurance News
Sep.09, 2010
Ms. Karen Ignagni
President and Chief Executive Officer
America’s Health Insurance Plans
601 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
South Building, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20004


Dear Ms. Ignagni:

It has come to my attention that several health insurer carriers are sending letters to their enrollees falsely blaming premium increases for 2011 on the patient protections in the Affordable Care Act. I urge you to inform your members that there will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases.

The Affordable Care Act includes a number of provisions to provide Americans with access to health coverage that will be there when they need it. These provisions were fully supported by AHIP and its member companies. Many of the legislation’s key protections take effect for plan or policy years beginning on or after September 23, 2010. All plans must comply with provisions such as no lifetime limits, no rescissions except in cases of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of material fact, and coverage of most adult children up to age 26. New plans must comply with additional provisions, such as coverage of preventive services with no cost sharing, access to OB / GYNs without referrals, restrictions on annual limits on coverage, a prohibition on pre-existing condition exclusions of children (which applies to all group health plans), access to out-of-network emergency room services, and a strengthened appeals process. And health plans that cover early retirees could qualify for reinsurance to sustain that coverage for businesses, workers, and retirees alike.

According to our analysis and those of some industry and academic experts, any potential premium impact from the new consumer protections and increased quality provisions under the Affordable Care Act will be minimal. We estimate that that the effect will be no more than one to two percent. This is consistent with estimates from the Urban Institute (1 to 2 percent) and Mercer consultants (2.3 percent) as well as some insurers’ estimates. Pennsylvania’s Highmark, for example, estimates the effect of the legislation on premiums from 1.14 to 2 percent. Moreover, the trends in health costs, independent of the legislation, have slowed. Employers’ premiums for family coverage increased by only 3 percent in 2010 – a significant drop from previous years.

Any premium increases will be moderated by out-of-pocket savings resulting from the law. These savings include a reduction in the “hidden tax” on insured Americans that subsidizes care for the uninsured. By making sure insurance covers people who are most at risk, there will be less uncompensated care, and, as a result, the amount of cost shifting to those who have coverage today will be reduced by up to $1 billion in 2013. By making sure that high-risk individuals have insurance and emphasizing health care that prevents illnesses from becoming serious, long-term health problems, the law will also reduce the cost of avoidable hospitalizations. Prioritizing prevention without cost sharing could also result in significant savings: from lowering people’s out-of-pocket spending to lowering costs due to conditions like obesity, and to increasing worker productivity – today, increased sickness and lack of coverage security reduce economic output by $260 billion per year.

Given the importance of the new protections and the facts about their impact on costs, I ask for your help in stopping misinformation and scare tactics about the Affordable Care Act. Moreover, I want AHIP’s members to be put on notice: the Administration, in partnership with states, will not tolerate unjustified rate hikes in the name of consumer protections.

Already, my Department has provided 46 states with resources to strengthen the review and transparency of proposed premiums. Later this fall, we will issue a regulation that will require state or federal review of all potentially unreasonable rate increases filed by health insurers, with the justification for increases posted publicly for consumers and employers. We will also keep track of insurers with a record of unjustified rate increases: those plans may be excluded from health insurance Exchanges in 2014. Simply stated, we will not stand idly by as insurers blame their premium hikes and increased profits on the requirement that they provide consumers with basic protections.

Americans want affordable and reliable health insurance, and it is our job to make it happen. We worked hard to change the system to help consumers. It is my hope we can work together to stop misinformation and misleading marketing from the start.

Sincerely,

Kathleen Sebelius

http://insuranceforless.mobi/wp/index.php/insurance-news/hhs-explicitly-threatens-the-insurance-lobby-time-blog/

ROYC75
09-10-2010, 10:30 AM
So when I said "Praise the Lord!!!" your CORRECT response should have been, "HALLELUJAH, BROTHER!!!"

I expect you'll be offering a public apology now in the interest of honesty.

We don't need a single payer option like you want, we just need HC reform to lower the cost and make it affordable to all people.

Without a doubt Insurance companies have controlled DC for years, it's time we took control back.

This crap Obama has shoved down our throats without reading is the beginning of the end of HC insurance companies all together, thus the only optuion then is the single payer, BIG GOVERNMENT.

ROYC75
09-10-2010, 10:32 AM
Sincerely,

Kathleen Sebelius


This was all I needed to know...... Obama spoon feed to the Obots.

orange
09-10-2010, 10:45 AM
We don't need a single payer option like you want, we just need HC reform to lower the cost and make it affordable to all people.

Without a doubt Insurance companies have controlled DC for years, it's time we took control back.

This crap Obama has shoved down our throats without reading is the beginning of the end of HC insurance companies all together, thus the only optuion then is the single payer, BIG GOVERNMENT.

Except that I don't want single payer, per se.

A "single payer" in the literal sense, yes, as in all the bills go to one place and get payed instead of from multiple bureaucracies.

The orange Health Care System envisions a basic, barebones, one-size-fits-all plan that covers EVERYBODY, financed through the basic tax system, that nobody has to join or gets turned away etc. because EVERYBODY gets it. Then, if anyone wants additional/better insurance, they're free to buy it. WITHOUT government intervention (besides basic regulation like enforcing contractual claims, etc.). No taxpayer handouts to insurance companies. No requiring people to let their bosses choose their health plans. Individual choice - and free insurance markets. How radically socialist.

HonestChieffan
09-10-2010, 10:49 AM
Freaking loon

orange
09-10-2010, 10:57 AM
Freaking loon

I learned the reason for your constant crying this morning:

Sensitive eyes? Avoid cow pee
Julia Sommerfeld writes: When a crowd of about 50 Aussies started pawing at their suddenly burning, aching eyes, panic set in.

Did somebody release poison gas? (But why would terrorists strike the dairy pavilion at the Royal Adelaide agricultural show?)

No, it’s so, so much worse.

Austrialian health officials were called in CSI-like to investigate the outbreak, Reuters Life! reports. The culprit: Stagnant cow urine.

Apparently wet weather triggered an extra potent pee odor -- murder on the eyeballs.

The ammonia smell sent 20 people to the hospital; 30 were treated by first aid workers. All are OK.

Just something to consider next time your eyes tear up.

ROYC75
09-10-2010, 11:00 AM
Except that I don't want single payer, per se.

A "single payer" in the literal sense, yes, as in all the bills go to one place and get payed instead of from multiple bureaucracies.

The orange Health Care System envisions a basic, barebones, one-size-fits-all plan that covers EVERYBODY, financed through the basic tax system, that nobody has to join or gets turned away etc. because EVERYBODY gets it. Then, if anyone wants additional/better insurance, they're free to buy it. WITHOUT government intervention (besides basic regulation like enforcing contractual claims, etc.). No taxpayer handouts to insurance companies. No requiring people to let their bosses choose their health plans. Individual choice - and free insurance markets. How radically socialist.


That's BIG GOVERNMENT . Taking care of the people.

orange
09-10-2010, 11:02 AM
That's BIG GOVERNMENT . Taking care of the people.

No doubt about that. Guilty as charged. You'll have to forgive me, I just don't see that as a BIG PROBLEM.

p.s. We taxpayers gave insurance companies/employers $600 BILLION in 2007, for example. That's BIG WELFARE.

ROYC75
09-10-2010, 11:04 AM
No doubt about that. Guilty as charged. You'll have to forgive me, I just don't see that as a BIG PROBLEM.

p.s. We taxpayers gave insurance companies/employers $600 BILLION in 2007, for example. That's BIG WELFARE.

I understand that, that's the part that needs REFORM ! Get the lobbyist and special interest out of the way.

vailpass
09-10-2010, 12:32 PM
I mean the current system is ****ed - stupid - retarded - choose your own expletive.

[[/img]

In a nutshell - EMPLOYERS should PAY WAGES or SALARIES.

PEOPLE - including but not restricted to EMPLOYEES - should PURCHASE things, including HEALTH CARE.

The two lines have nothing to do with each other.

What the hell can you be talking about? Benefits are part of any reasonable compensation package. Being able to purchase in large groups allows employees to buy insurance at reduced rates.

Are you a product of the 1960s?

vailpass
09-10-2010, 12:35 PM
Except that I don't want single payer, per se.

A "single payer" in the literal sense, yes, as in all the bills go to one place and get payed instead of from multiple bureaucracies.

The orange Health Care System envisions a basic, barebones, one-size-fits-all plan that covers EVERYBODY, financed through the basic tax system, that nobody has to join or gets turned away etc. because EVERYBODY gets it. Then, if anyone wants additional/better insurance, they're free to buy it. WITHOUT government intervention (besides basic regulation like enforcing contractual claims, etc.). No taxpayer handouts to insurance companies. No requiring people to let their bosses choose their health plans. Individual choice - and free insurance markets. How radically socialist.

Fuck that shit comrade. You get yours, let me get mine. Government is not tasked with nor should it be allowed to run our personal lives.
You are one scary dude.

orange
09-10-2010, 12:36 PM
**** that shit comrade. You get yours, let me get mine. Government is not tasked with nor should it be allowed to run our personal lives.
You are one scary dude.

You much prefer your BOSS to run your personal life. I get it - NOT.

vailpass
09-10-2010, 12:39 PM
You much prefer your BOSS to run your personal life. I get it - NOT.

I don't have a boss but when I worked corporate I was happy to have the OPTION of participating in group health insurance. I, like you , was free then and I'm free now to NOT PARTICIPATE in the company plan and to BUY MY OWN INSURANCE.

Where we differ is that you see it as the government's responsibility to buy your health insurance where I see it as my own.
What makes you think it is the government's job to buy your health insurance?

orange
09-10-2010, 12:45 PM
What makes you think it is the government's job to buy your health insurance?

Who said anything about the government "buying your health insurance?" Or is that just the most damning twist of the words you could think of?

In my example, the government clearly CUTS OUT the insurance companies and acts as a PROVIDER of basic healthcare. Just like they PROVIDE education, fire protection, police protection, national security, a legal and financial system, roads and markets, etc. You know - "provide for the general welfare."

vailpass
09-10-2010, 12:46 PM
Who said anything about the government "buying your health insurance?" Or is that just the most damning twist of the words you could think of?

In my example, the government clearly CUTS OUT the insurance companies and acts as a PROVIDER of basic healthcare. Just like they PROVIDE education, fire protection, police protection, national security, a legal and financial system. You know - "provide for the general welfare."

QUOTE=orange;6991232]Except that I don't want single payer, per se.

A "single payer" in the literal sense, yes, as in all the bills go to one place and get payed instead of from multiple bureaucracies.

The orange Health Care System envisions a basic, barebones, one-size-fits-all plan that covers EVERYBODY, financed through the basic tax system, that nobody has to join or gets turned away etc. because EVERYBODY gets it. Then, if anyone wants additional/better insurance, they're free to buy it. WITHOUT government intervention (besides basic regulation like enforcing contractual claims, etc.). No taxpayer handouts to insurance companies. No requiring people to let their bosses choose their health plans. Individual choice - and free insurance markets. How radically socialist.[/QUOTE]

King_Chief_Fan
09-10-2010, 12:47 PM
Who said anything about the government "buying your health insurance?" Or is that just the most damning twist of the words you could think of?

In my example, the government clearly CUTS OUT the insurance companies and acts as a PROVIDER of basic healthcare. Just like they PROVIDE education, fire protection, police protection, national security, a legal and financial system, roads and markets, etc. You know - "provide for the general welfare."

well you fucked up when you mentioned education....anyone happy with public school education?

vailpass
09-10-2010, 12:47 PM
Who said anything about the government "buying your health insurance?" Or is that just the most damning twist of the words you could think of?

In my example, the government clearly CUTS OUT the insurance companies and acts as a PROVIDER of basic healthcare. Just like they PROVIDE education, fire protection, police protection, national security, a legal and financial system, roads and markets, etc. You know - "provide for the general welfare."

You scare the hell out of me, you are a welfare state big government advocate. I'm glad you are in the loon minority.

orange
09-10-2010, 12:48 PM
...


PROVIDES not BUYS.

Do insurance companies BUY insurance? Or do they PROVIDE it?

orange
09-10-2010, 12:51 PM
well you ****ed up when you mentioned education....anyone happy with public school education?

I'm guessing that the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of Americans who have sent their children through the public schools are happier with it than without it - ANY of whom could have sent them to private school instead, by the way.

Whatever bitching they might do.

vailpass
09-10-2010, 12:51 PM
PROVIDES not BUYS.

Do insurance companies BUY insurance? Or do they PROVIDE it?

The fact that you want government to run our health insurance system puts you in such a different universe. I can't believe a rational, self-reliant American citizen would even say such a thing.

You probably won't answer this, nor are you obligated to do so, but do you currently have health insurance and, if so, is it through and employer?

I'm just trying to understand where someone would get the kind of thoughts you have.

HonestChieffan
09-10-2010, 12:54 PM
PROVIDES not BUYS.

Do insurance companies BUY insurance? Or do they PROVIDE it?

They get it from Unicorns and sprinkle it with moon dust then sell it to the people. Leprechauns manage the unicorns.

vailpass
09-10-2010, 12:56 PM
They get it from Unicorns and sprinkle it with moon dust then sell it to the people. Leprechauns manage the unicorns.

He says he doesn't want the government to pay for his health insurance then he says this: The orange Health Care System envisions a basic, barebones, one-size-fits-all plan that covers EVERYBODY, financed through the basic tax system, that nobody has to join or gets turned away etc. because EVERYBODY gets it.

If that isn't wanting the government to pay for health insurance what is it?

orange
09-10-2010, 12:56 PM
The fact that you want government to run our health insurance system puts you in such a different universe. I can't believe a rational, self-reliant American citizen would even say such a thing.

You probably won't answer this, nor are you obligated to do so, but do you currently have health insurance and, if so, is it through and employer?

I'm just trying to understand where someone would get the kind of thoughts you have.

Not at the moment, switching jobs. I have had a plan through my employer at one time; it became too expensive so they switched to cash bonuses and I bought a plan from a Small Business/Self-Employed specializing company. And my cost went way down - because I'm healthy, no kids, etc. I was subsidizing the rest of the pool, basically.

And yet I think the whole body politic should provide healthcare for the aged, infirm, children, etc. Right on my back. Now, where do you think I got such ideas?

vailpass
09-10-2010, 12:56 PM
Not at the moment, switching jobs. I have had a plan through my employer at one time; it became too expensive so they switched to cash bonuses and I bought a plan from a Small Business/Self-Employed specializing company. And my cost went way down.

You are currently without health insurance?

BucEyedPea
09-10-2010, 12:58 PM
I mean the current system is ****ed - stupid - retarded - choose your own expletive.


Well, it's been brought to us by the left all these years ya' know. So if you think it's stupid now—you just wait!

orange
09-10-2010, 01:01 PM
If that isn't wanting the government to pay for health insurance what is it?

It's the government PROVIDING healthcare.

orange
09-10-2010, 01:03 PM
You are currently without health insurance?

Why should I buy six months of insurance when I'm going to use it for two or three weeks?

BucEyedPea
09-10-2010, 01:03 PM
It's the government effing up healthcare.

FYP

vailpass
09-10-2010, 01:12 PM
Why should I buy six months of insurance when I'm going to use it for two or three weeks?

I certainly was NOT judging, I was asking a question hoping the answer would help me understand why someone would think it was a good idea to put the federal government in charge of health insurance.

vailpass
09-10-2010, 01:16 PM
It's the government PROVIDING healthcare.

The orange Health Care System envisions a basic, barebones, one-size-fits-all plan that covers EVERYBODY, financed through the basic tax system, that nobody has to join or gets turned away etc. because EVERYBODY gets it.

1. What does "financed through the basic tax system" mean? "Financed" is a synonym for "paid for" or "funded".

2. What does "EVERYBODY gets it" mean? Does this mean it is mandatory?

orange
09-10-2010, 01:16 PM
I certainly was NOT judging, I was asking a question hoping the answer would help me understand why someone would think it was a good idea to put the federal government in charge of health insurance.

I added more to #46. Can you discern where I'm coming from?

Personally I think it's just because I think basic healthcare should be a part of the essential fabric of society.

BIG_DADDY
09-10-2010, 01:20 PM
I added more to #46. Can you discern where I'm coming from?

Personally I think it's just because I think basic healthcare should be a part of the essential fabric of society.

From school to healthcare I will never use a public system but you think I should fund it for everyone else and fail to see why everyone thinks you're left of left. FUCK big government.

orange
09-10-2010, 01:20 PM
1. What does "financed through the basic tax system" mean? "Financed" is a synonym for "paid for" or "funded".

2. What does "EVERYBODY gets it" mean? Does this mean it is mandatory?

Right. But the government pays the doctors, hospitals, etc. They underwrite the whole thing. They don't buy insurance from some company that's taking profits out.

And yes, it would be mandatory - but it wouldn't require any separate surtax; it would be out of income taxes (or VAT or whatever we end up with) - which would no doubt possibly be a little higher; but most of the money is money we're already spending on the current bloated system. And since the no frills would be LESS costly than the current average subsidized plan, and much waste would be eliminated, it might actually come in with a lower price tag.

If you want bloat, you can buy bloat. No one will stop you.

vailpass
09-10-2010, 01:22 PM
I added more to #46. Can you discern where I'm coming from?

Personally I think it's just because I think basic healthcare should be a part of the essential fabric of society.

Thanks for the clarification. We disagree on believing government should pay for healthcare as an essential fabric of society.

And yet I think the whole body politic should provide healthcare for the aged, infirm, children, etc. Right on my back. Now, where do you think I got such ideas?

We are in complete agreement on the govt. providing insurance for the elderly who can't afford their own. No question, you can tell a lot from a person or a nation by how they treat their elders.

"Children" definetely need healthcare though the burden rests first and formeost with the parents, not the government.

"Infirm"? I'm not sure what your definition is there.

"etc".? Not sure who all you include in there.

orange
09-10-2010, 01:27 PM
From school to healthcare I will never use a public system but you think I should fund it for everyone else and fail to see why everyone thinks you're left of left. **** big government.

My suggestion here is FAR less radical than Single-Payer or the Socialized Systems.

There's still FREE ENTERPRISE out the wazoo!

Like I said, if you want bloat, you can buy bloat. No one will stop you. No one else will have to pay for it, either, though.

orange
09-10-2010, 01:29 PM
"Infirm"? I'm not sure what your definition is there.

"etc".? Not sure who all you include in there.

"Infirm" would be those who were kicked off plans/never eligible before Obamacare.

"etc." I'm not sure, either. Just a CMA catchall in case I overlooked something.

BIG_DADDY
09-10-2010, 01:30 PM
My suggestion here is FAR less radical than Single-Payer or the Socialized Systems.

There's still FREE ENTERPRISE out the wazoo!

Like I said, if you want bloat, you can buy bloat. No one will stop you. No one else will have to pay for it, either, though.

Sounds like a reproduction of the school system I can't stand. No thanks.

BucEyedPea
09-10-2010, 01:37 PM
My suggestion here is FAR less radical than Single-Payer or the Socialized Systems.

There's still FREE ENTERPRISE out the wazoo!

There is? Lemme see nationalized financial sector, nationalize big auto, slowly nationalizing education, nationalized healthcare, drugs are partially nationalized, a federal bullet train is being sought=nationalizing more transportation. What's left? Oh wait, WalMarts should be nationalized too. Time for you to re-read the Communist Manifesto.

Sorry, orange, free enterprise is dying.

BIG_DADDY
09-10-2010, 01:54 PM
There is? Lemme see nationalized financial sector, nationalize big auto, slowly nationalizing education, nationalized healthcare, drugs are partially nationalized, a federal bullet train is being sought=nationalizing more transportation. What's left? Oh wait, WalMarts should be nationalized too. Time for you to re-read the Communist Manifesto.

Sorry, orange, free enterprise is dying.

If Orange had it his way he would drive a stake right through it's heart.

orange
09-10-2010, 01:55 PM
If Orange had it his way he would drive a stake right through it's heart.

Says the man who wants ME to pay for his kid's private school. LMAO

Iowanian
09-10-2010, 01:57 PM
I sit on a board, and the insurance rates for the employees of that organization are going up 31% this year.

BIG_DADDY
09-10-2010, 02:03 PM
Says the man who wants ME to pay for his kid's private school. LMAO

Dude, I am not for funding of schools in general but if we are going to do it I don't see an issue with lowering the tax burden and empowering people with choice. Nice try at twisting my position though. Your problem is you want an omnipotent government that dictates a one size fits all system we all have to follow. You are communistic in all your thinking. No wonder you like Obama.

BucEyedPea
09-10-2010, 02:09 PM
Says the man who wants ME to pay for his kid's private school. LMAO

Uh no, keeping some of one's own money for their needs is not you paying for someone else's private school. See, you don't believe in property....it's your money for some reason.

orange
09-10-2010, 02:13 PM
Nice try at twisting my position though.

Your position:

http://www.aperfectworld.org/clipart/gestures/handout02.GIF

Iowanian
09-10-2010, 02:20 PM
Orange, this isn't a thread about your sex life....

BIG_DADDY
09-10-2010, 03:01 PM
Orange, this isn't a thread about your sex life....

LMAO, dude is amazing. Everything he stands for is about big government dictating what the masses should do. Even when you come up with idea that could lower costs and empower the citizenry it's like rubbing his fur the wrong way. That mentality is toxic. Had an analyst that used to work for me that went back to Russia. The game changes in that enviroment. You take advantage of as many feebies as you can while making as much money as you can under the table and then get it out of the country. He works in Moscow but over 90% of his wealth is out of the country. Those enviroments get so bad they actually lower your tax rate if you have a higher income because they just want people to report it. It's not eutopia it's a failed system. We are not that far away actually. That is the reason Obama was trying to crack down on offshore accounts. Being ahead of the curve on this is important by the way as certain businesses are easier to hide income.

Iowanian
09-10-2010, 03:40 PM
This should be the new Democratic symbol instead of the donkey.
Donkeys actually work....Dems always have their hand out.

Your position:

http://www.aperfectworld.org/clipart/gestures/handout02.GIF

vailpass
09-10-2010, 03:58 PM
Right. But the government pays the doctors, hospitals, etc. They underwrite the whole thing. They don't buy insurance from some company that's taking profits out.

And yes, it would be mandatory - but it wouldn't require any separate surtax; it would be out of income taxes (or VAT or whatever we end up with) - which would no doubt possibly be a little higher; but most of the money is money we're already spending on the current bloated system. And since the no frills would be LESS costly than the current average subsidized plan, and much waste would be eliminated, it might actually come in with a lower price tag.

If you want bloat, you can buy bloat. No one will stop you.

:shake: Unbelievable that someone would want to surrender their right to provide for and take care of themselves.
Have you considered how negatively this would impact quality of medical care? You want to drag everyone down to the same level. Unreal. Yours is the type of thinking that leads to gunshots and revolution.

vailpass
09-10-2010, 04:00 PM
Your position:

http://www.aperfectworld.org/clipart/gestures/handout02.GIF

Says the guy who wants the government to pay for his health insurance and to FORCE all Americans to accept government insurance.

orange
09-10-2010, 04:21 PM
Says the guy who wants the government to pay for his health insurance and to FORCE all Americans to accept government insurance.

Have you been asleep the last six months? You're now going to have to buy insurance. The difference is it's going to cost you more than my system would - or a public option, for that matter. That's why insurance companies opposed a public option - it would be cheaper and drive their profits down.

vailpass
09-10-2010, 04:53 PM
Have you been asleep the last six months? You're now going to have to buy insurance. The difference is it's going to cost you more than my system would - or a public option, for that matter. That's why insurance companies opposed a public option - it would be cheaper and drive their profits down.

You continue to dodge the fact that you advocate government paid health care, you want the government to be the sole administrator of health insurance, and that you want government insurance to be mandatory for US citizens.

After that you have nothing else to say. We the people want obama's health care dictate repealed and voided. We want less govt., not more.
It is vital to this country that the vote reflects that.

ROYC75
09-10-2010, 05:07 PM
Orange is comfortable with the government spending trillions of our dollars for some reason, that's the answer.

orange
09-10-2010, 05:17 PM
You continue to dodge the fact that you advocate government paid health care,

Dodging? I've advocated it repeatedly. Clean your screen.

you want the government to be the sole administrator of health insurance,

B.S. The government presents a FLOOR. Insurance companies are PERFECTLY FREE to add ANY supplemental coverage they can sell. But on the BUYER'S dime - NOT the TAXPAYER'S.

you want government insurance to be mandatory for US citizens.

As opposed to checking in to the Emergency Room uninsured and letting everyone else cover your ass. Yes. Absolutely.

orange
09-10-2010, 05:21 PM
Sounds like a reproduction of the school system I can't stand. No thanks.

BIG_DADDY gets it. He doesn't agree with it, but he understands. Maybe you should ask him to explain it to you because I'm not getting through.

vailpass
09-10-2010, 05:28 PM
Dodging (that the government pays for health care)? I've advocated it repeatedly. Clean your screen.

Who said anything about the government "buying your health insurance?" Or is that just the most damning twist of the words you could think of?."


Maybe I could better understand what you are saying if you would quit changing what you are saying.

orange
09-10-2010, 07:02 PM
Maybe I could better understand what you are saying if you would quit changing what you are saying.

I haven't changed at all.

... covers EVERYBODY, financed through the basic tax system

Dodging? I've advocated it repeatedly. Clean your screen.

Point one. Check.

The orange Health Care System envisions a basic, barebones, one-size-fits-all plan


B.S. The government presents a FLOOR.

Then, if anyone wants additional/better insurance, they're free to buy it. WITHOUT government intervention (besides basic regulation like enforcing contractual claims, etc.). No taxpayer handouts to insurance companies. No requiring people to let their bosses choose their health plans. Individual choice - and free insurance markets. How radically socialist.

Insurance companies are PERFECTLY FREE to add ANY supplemental coverage they can sell. But on the BUYER'S dime - NOT the TAXPAYER'S.

Point two. Check.


... that nobody has to join or gets turned away etc. because EVERYBODY gets it.

As opposed to checking in to the Emergency Room uninsured and letting everyone else cover your ass. Yes. Absolutely.

Point three. Check.

All three of your points present and accounted for. CLEARLY present and accounted for. From start to finish.

HonestChieffan
09-10-2010, 10:46 PM
The good news is HC will cost more but only for those who pay for it. Thems that gets it free wont see any increase at all. So really what is the issue?