Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater is my point. Fix what needs fixing and leave the rest alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by honedright
Printable View
Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater is my point. Fix what needs fixing and leave the rest alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by honedright
I just recieved this one.....
http://webmail.aol.com/28200/aol/en-...wMail&partId=4
Let me get this straight. We're going to pass a health care plan written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it, signed by a president that also hasn't read it, and who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's nearly broke.
What could possibly go wrong?
My stance in these various health care threads is in support of a public option alongside the private industry. I did not support the auto bailout and would suggest that if the private companies felt threatened by a public option, they need to evolve and do not have an inherit right to a near-monopoly.Quote:
Originally Posted by MinniesMate
If there is no public option available then I would not support reform. I think that health care should be cheap and affordable for keeping me healthy. There is still enough of a market for higher-class facilities, patient comfort/privacy, and elective procedures for the private companies to make their money. We are still capitalists and people with money will still pay for private insurance.
In the case of the lesser of two evils, I find our government to be much less slimy and shady than insurance companies.
I just wanted to comment on these two statements of yours.Quote:
Originally Posted by commiecat
I agree with you that health care should be affordable. I think the disagreement is the method to achieve that goal. You seem to think the government is a savior. In this case I think it is an impediment.
The part of your statement that stood out to me was the "keeping me healthy" part. You do, of course, realize that only you have control over keeping you healthy? And that is limited greatly by your genetics? I'm not necessarily saying this about you, but there seems to be a huge misconception (or is it blind faith?) about traditional medical practice, that they are somehow omnipotent. Not saying that the medical profession doesn't help. Medicine is mostly, if not entirely, reactive to illness, as opposed to proactive. Medicine, in general, doesn't do much until after illness occurs. Prevention is mostly, if not entirely, an individual responsibility. So keeping you healthy is really your job. And after you become sick, it is really a crap shoot as to whether medical treatment will restore you to some level of health. It may be a total restoration, or a partial one. And in some cases, no restoration at all. Ask any Doctor a prognosis and it will be given in percentages (you know, the old 50-50 chance of recovery bit?), and without any guarantees. It's because none of them really knows what will happen. There is an old saying that: "God does the healing, the Doctor collects the bill." Meaning that the outcome of medical treatment is really an unknown, except for the payment part.
The other statement I basically addressed in my second paragraph. I think government is an impediment - when and where it doesn't belong. I don't believe that government, in and of itself, is slimy and shady. Certainly there are administrations that fit the slimy catagory. I happen to believe that the current one fits this. But government certainly has an important and essential role. And I personally want government to perform it's role. In fact I gladly pay government to do it's job. It's when government steps beyond it's role (and history shows that when governments do this they generally fail miserably), and especially the role defined by state ratified founding documents, that I, and many conservative minded persons, have a disagreement.
Your log-in name says it all and why.Quote:
Originally Posted by commiecat
Health bill would cost $829B, cover 94 percent - Boston.com
Medical device tax still part of health care bill - The Boston Globe
It really looks like a great method to drive even more businesses out of the US...
Thanks for the link sparq.Quote:
Originally Posted by sparq
Think about this: This bill will increase the covered from 83% to 96% at a cost of $829,000,000,000. That means the bill will spend $829,000,000,000 to cover 11% of the people that are in the U.S. legally, including those that make up that 11% and are U.S. citizens. That is roughly 39,000,000 people added to the ranks of the insured.
That means this bill will cost $21,256.41/person to insure over a 10 year period. This doesn't even make sense because that is $2,1256/person/year. There is no way that you can insure a person for $2,000/year. This is the problem with the CBO; their numbers don't work in the real world. It is also the problem with the politicians in Washington. They use misleading numbers to support their side.
I know you are talking about the US, but other countries would beg to differ on that judgement ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by MinniesMate
For what it is worth, my current health insurance package for 2 persons costs 2400 per year (state-run mandatory) + 600 per year (private top up). And why, yes it would even cover the cost of healthcare if I got sick/injured while in the United States.
I absolutely understand this. I'm healthy and take care of myself. I also have control over securing my home and not setting it on fire. But should something happen, I can rely on my emergency services to assist. Let's just charge people monthly for police and fire protection, and then tell the people who can't afford it "Well, not getting burglarized is something you can control."Quote:
Originally Posted by honedright
I pay an exorbitant amount of money for insurance that, currently, I'm not really using. When you do need to rely on the insurance company for assistance, it's a crap shoot whether or not they make you jump through hoops or not.
I've yet to hear someone explain why the existing system, in which private insurers have all the leverage, and in some regions a monopoly, is better without a public option. Competition will lower prices and increase service.
Currently I have no details about the specific percentage of my 'social' tax which goes to healthcare (am at work). It is divided between pension fund, healthcare, and a couple of other things. But a rough guess puts it at somewhere between 2000 - 2500 per year.Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelP
Huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by honedright
You seem to make the assumption that the majority of instances where people need medical care is some crapshoot with bad outcomes. Only a tiny percentage is in this category. Most folks go to a doctor for a problem and it is taken care of and they fully recover or if its a pain or disabling condition they receive treatment which allows them to function in comfort.
You have this general fear of Government and you are transposing that to specific instances where you are unwilling to consider government can do a good job. On the other hand you seem to think the health Insurance Industry is the way to go when the system which they control is falling down around us. yea I know you don't think that's the case. All I know is the checks I write each month keep going up at an alarming rate and the plan keeps shrinking.
I have no idea how that contributes to anything, but since we're passing judgment based on usernames I guess I shouldn't take anything written by you seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by MinniesMate
http://msp60.photobucket.com/albums/...key_Mouse1.gif
:roflmao
Actually most folks go to a doctor, or the ER, with complaints of self resolving conditions such as headache, backache, colds, and flu where medical treatment is usually not necessary. Don't know the current numbers, but this is a huge waste of time and money.Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigspendur
BTW, I don't have a general fear of government. My fear in regards to government is very specific.
Just wondering about all those who do not use medical services due to religious or personal belief, and possibly do not want health care insurance.
As a former alternative health care provider, I know that there are many who shun allopathic medicine in favor of alternative methods. There may even be some who just don't want to bother with medicine. Maybe they just accept that when it's time to go, it's time to go.
Should the Baucus bill pass mandating all Americans purchase health care insurance, how will those individuals be handled? Will they too be forced to pay or be fined? Or will there be some exemption?
Are they paying (as a form of taxes) for all the other services provided by state? Fire depts, schools, police, military, etc etc. If not, then they will find a cause to stay as a freeriders and not pay for their medical care as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by honedright
That's what, 60 million people?Quote:
Originally Posted by honedright
Sure, that's failing.
In this country, those who choose not to have major medical services don't get them. However, they still pay the tax. I think a lot of people who have those convictions would appreciate the rights of people who do. Also, they still have the right to that system them selves, if they're faith should fail them at their moment of need.
Even the new health bill will not cover 100% of Americans. According to your logic even that will be failing.Quote:
Originally Posted by gregs656
I honestly don't know what my wife has to do with it or why you would think it funny. What a jerk.Quote:
Originally Posted by commiecat
Actually, the Baucus Bill is just a smoke screen to divert attention away from the bill that is sponsored by Spkr. Pelosi. Her bill is to be attached to one that already passed the house dealing with a tax issue. It is to come before the Senate next week.Quote:
Originally Posted by honedright
Under that bill, all Americans will be required to purchase insurance. If they don't they will be subject to a $25,0000 fine and up to 12 months in prison. As for those that object over religious reasons, the proponents will argue the Constitution prohibits the respect of religion and treating those who object to conventional medical treatment for religious reasons will have to purchase the insurance anyway.
Reform>>>> Must Be!!! If not, We are screwed!!
Government Control>>>>> Must not be!!! If so, We are screwed!!!
"We are from the government and we are here to help."--The most frightening words in the United States!Quote:
Originally Posted by krisbarger
Governments have always grown out of control. From the dawn of time they were put there out of need, but they grow into a mother that eats her own children. It is a never ending cycle.
You can absolutly insure a single person for less th 2000 a year.case in point I pay 165 a month multiply by 12 it comes out to1,970 dollars. That is what I pay with no employer help.My wife pays a little over 200 a month for employer sponsered health plan.My coverages are better and my deductable is lower.Maybe we should just do away with employer based healthcare.Then again maybe this is a big city problem.Big city living requires big city money.Quote:
Originally Posted by MinniesMate
It's a good thing i don't drink alot of beer.Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigspendur
Here's a thought granted it's not a good one.Maybe this health care bill in conjunction with all the other recent spending including prevoius administration is to ensure the demise of the dollar in order to pave the way for a one world currancy.
RELAX, don't worry, be happy:D big brother is here to take complete control. just hand over your paycheck and set back and let the good times roll. after all this is what americans voted for isn't it? "be careful what you wish for, it just might come true" that just about says it allQuote:
Originally Posted by MinniesMate
In other words, those that have desired it and have the power to make it happen have been setting the stage to purposely bankrupt the U.S. leaving the U.S. seemingly no other choice but to acquiesce in this way?Quote:
Originally Posted by spanx
When I was half my age, twenty, I would have been horrified at the thought that such a thing was even possible in my lifetime. I'm still horrified at heart, but such a change seems probable now.
Chris L
I believe this to be so.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisL
People on Social Security will start contributing in 2010.Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigspendur
They're already loosing the yearly cost of living adjustment.
But no, this is neither a Tax Increase nor a Benefits Reduction, it's only less pocket money for the retirees.
If I am not totally mistaken, the COLA is based on the difference of CPI-W between last year's 3rd trimester and this year's 3rd trimester. This year, the calculation results in a negative COLA but you can't decrease the benefits... ergo no increase this year. You'd have needed massive inflation before the end of September to get a COLA increase.Quote:
Originally Posted by Navaja
Yes, I know that the metric used for the calculation sucks as it doesn't represent the average shopping basket of a retiree. That works both ways, that means that for the last decade the retirees received living cost adjustments based on the price increase of goods they didn't buy.
How will it work for Americans abroad who have health insurance in the country the live in?
For the Americans abroad, it will be business as usual: taxation without representation and get the foreign benefits they pay for, ultimately depending on the foreign country.
Their pension status might depend of the agreements between the States and the country they live/work in or of the duration of their employment abroad.
I guess I should make my question more clear - will American citizens have to pay for a US-based health insurance when living abroad? (health insurance != tax)Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelP
I guess it would depend of the circumstances of life/employment abroad. I'm afraid they would have to buy in the American plan by default.
On a semi related subject, some friends of mine just moved back to the States. They were on a 3 years contract in Germany with an employer's mandatory American health plan. A plan which actually didn't cover non American doctors and hospitals, even tho the friends were specifically hired for a contract abroad.
I am more interested in situation of people who move abroad without a specific job contract (like for retirement) or who have dual citizenship/permanent residency abroad (married to German, Japanese, etc. ;). If they have to buy American plans by default, they are screwed big way.Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelP
Yes, that would be problematic as well.
Don't forget Cap and Trade. That's another "non-tax" decrease in disposable income...or any income period.Quote:
Originally Posted by Navaja
I'm not sure if this is the same thing, but the news reported that the cost of living increase was an automatic thing that has provided a raise to recipients of social security since the mid-1970's. I'm sure that there is a formula that is used to calculate the automatic kick-in like you say.Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelP
I looked this up, and it said "see Oil Companies."Quote:
Originally Posted by honedright
:rofl2:
Yes, it is the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by MinniesMate
Originally, the government had to vote every SSI benefit increase. In 1973, they voted a law indexing the Cost Of Living Adjustment (COLA) on the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W for short). That law took effect in 1975 and automatically increased the benefits with a percentage based on the difference of CPI-W between two years, the calculation is traditionally done at the end of the 3rd trimester. The CPI-W at the end of September 2009 was actually lower than at the end of September 2008, therefore negative index and no increase.
The definition has recently been amended to include U.S. Banks, specifically those that received TARP bail out money.Quote:
Originally Posted by avatar1999