:banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead
enough said!!!
sorry i got so mad I forgot to post the link.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090909/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_care_overhaul
Agreed. As a young guy myself, im looking to SAVE MONEY. I dont need health care… the last time I went to the doctor was like…5 years ago. I shouldnt be forced to buy something that im not going to use.
This stuff really P@@@ES me OFF
How are they going to force a broken economy to pay for this? I just dont get it. Is seems like the libs want everyone to not like them.
Should you be forced to have auto insurnace?
Bluemoon06,
“Should you be forced to have auto insurnace?”
Everytime you cede control to the government, you lose a little more of your freedom… If you should be forced to have auto insurance, and health insurance, why not disability, life, dental, homeowners, fire, flood, etc.???
The other point is, you are not FINED for CHOOSING not to have auto insurance if you don’t have a car. Why should someone young and healthy (i.e. - no car), be FORCED to have health insurance?
Additionally, with Auto insurance, this is an EXAMPLE of how PRIVATE MARKET COMPETITION works to lower rates AND INCREASE services… No government plan necessary… neither for any of the other insurances listed above…
With our history of overspending as a nation and personal debt levels, why then should not EVERYONE be FORCED to have insurance to cover ALL their payments?
The Congress treats the people of this county like one big ATM… and that is EXACTLY what a government run program would be… a TAX, NOT sequestered to an account SPECIFIC to healthcare subject to oversight, but an EVER-INCREASING TAX into the general fund…
Social Security has taken in MORE than it needs EVERY YEAR since it’s inception, but BECAUSE it is a TAX and goes into the general fund, they CONSTANTLY need more… IOW, it DOESN’T go to what it was intended for… So the result is we have gone from a 33 to 1 ratio at it’s inception to 3 to 1… It is one big ATM…
You are seriously deluding yourself if you think nationalized healtcare would be any different… you may want to pay for incompetence, but I for one DO NOT…
This from an administration who thought it was a big deal that they would able to save $100 million in “savings”, get that, a MULTI-TRILLION DOLLAR ANNUAL BUDGET, and they were only able to find $100 MILLION in cost cuts which were LUDCICROUS to begin with… So they can’t come up with more than $100 Million, but you somehow think they can come up with HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS??? Are you THAT naive???
If they could REALLY create “savings” of $500 BILLION like they say, FINE… DO IT FIRST… PROVE they can do it BEFORE we move ahead with ANY of this… If not, sorry, they don’t DESERVE MORE OF OUR MONEY…
Simple as that… Let’s start setting some benchmarks for the GOVERNMENT…
I read somewhere that conservative males go to the doctor 1/3 as much as others.This is the case with me and anyone I know.I only go if I’m really bad off,which I can count on one hand in 35yrs those times.So to me once again this only will benifit the whinning liberals.And we all know how abused and terribly expensive it will be once it’s “free”.If the health insurance companies were allowed to sell a Catastrophic policy which would just pick up at a set rate.Kinda like the deductable on your car.For example; I’ll cover anything under $5k then I want insurance,why is’nt this available?I’m also told it would be very affordable.
And since none of this takes effect till 2013 why does’nt congress toss around ideas like these for a while until the majority of americans like it?Any bill also needs tort reform,bad!
But you do have a body, so you have to insure that body, especially if it is young. You are going to play a game of basketball go up to dunk get your shoes tangled in the basket and fall and break your elbow. I don’t want to have to pay for your broken elbow. The same logic that makes you have to get auto insurance.
In states with compulsory auto insurance the government insures the uninsurable. If you wreck your car every week or have a low credit score Geico will not insure you. You have to use the government default insurance I think ours is Texas fair insurance or some such plan
We don’t need insurance because we have bankruptcy
The first thing you do when you are presented with a problem is to define the problem. That problem definition lets you know what you are trying to solve. Are you trying to cut healthcare costs or are you trying to cover everybody? The government will do a very good job at getting everybody covered. Look at Social Security. Everybody is covered.
I plan to listen to Obama tonight maybe he will define the problem.
Wow,your basketball players must really jump high or dunk with his feet to get his shoes tangled in the basket.Just joking,I get the reference. :biggrin
One thing is that my insurance is very good. My mother in-law’s insurance is stupid good. I pay $10 and go to the doctor. I go whenever I can get away because of that. My mother in law pays nothing zero co-pay. She goes a lot. Nobody needs that. What we should do is insure catastrophic illness. When you get a chronic illness or an expensive procedure, the insurance should kick in preventing you from being bankrupted by illness.
You have insurance on your car right? But when you need an oil change you don’t pull up to Jiffy Lube and give them or Geico card. You pay. Because of that you don’t go to the Chrysler dealership to get an oil change you go to Thrifty-lube. If you paid for each of your doctor’s appointments you would figure out real quick which doctor was the best price to value. The health insurance industry would get out of the visit here and a visit there business and then they could concentrate their efforts on people that are really sick.
Because they were concentrating their efforts they could drop the cost greatly and insurance would be affordable.
Bluemoon06,
“But you do have a body, so you have to insure that body, especially if it is young.”
Actaully, it’s especially if you are old, where almost HALF of the TOTAL costs of heath insurance come from in the final years…
But, if that’s the case, dental, eyes, disabiliity ALL relate to increased costs for everyone else who has it… so according to you, these ALSO have to be insured because it is your body…
“You are going to play a game of basketball go up to dunk get your shoes tangled in the basket and fall and break your elbow. I don’t want to have to pay for your broken elbow.”
Well, first off, in our ever letigous society, I’m sure some lawyer would find some way to sue someone else for MONEY on your example… Another excellent example of why we need TORT REFORM as part of healthcare reform… Second, if you can’t take care of the costs of a broken elbow, it’s time to make some sacrifices…
“The same logic that makes you have to get auto insurance.”
Then the same logic applies for all the other insurances as insurance is a shared pool of risk… Look at you wanting to make the insurance companies RICHER… you closet capitalist you…
“In states with compulsory auto insurance the government insures the uninsurable. If you wreck your car every week or have a low credit score Geico will not insure you. You have to use the government default insurance I think ours is Texas fair insurance or some such plan”
Yes, and this insurance costs two-three TIMES what the average person pays…
Positive - With our history of overspending as a nation and personal debt levels, why then should not EVERYONE be FORCED to have insurance to cover ALL their payments?
Bluemoon06 - “We don’t need insurance because we have bankruptcy”
Then we don’t need health insurance either, because we have bankruptcy… I agree…
"The first thing you do when you are presented with a problem is to define the problem. That problem definition lets you know what you are trying to solve. Are you trying to cut healthcare costs or are you trying to cover everybody? "
COST has been a MAJOR argument for this “reform”… like I said, PROVE that they can cut the COSTS FIRST, and then we’ll talk about covering everyone, so we aren’t flushing MORE money down the drain… Otherwise, we have NO REASON to believe they can actually CUT COSTS, ESPECIALLY when their shining example was cutting $100 Million out of a 3.5 TRILLION dollar budget (the equivalent of asking someone to save $100 out of $35,000 - should be a NO-BRAINER, but it took them MONTHS just to come up with $100 Million and where they got the savings was RIDICULOUS - and you ACTUALLY believe they can find savings to the tune of 100’s of BILLIONS of dollars? :shocked Like I said, are you THAT naive Bluemoon06?)…
The INTEREST ALONE this year on the national debt will be OVER $650 BILLION DOLLARS… just imagine what could be done with THAT money that is being FLUSHED down the toilet making OTHER countries rich because our politicians don’t know how to run a government…
“The government will do a very good job at getting everybody covered. Look at Social Security. Everybody is covered.”
That is because it is an open-ended TAX, which you are FORCED to pay… You really need to do some reading up on Social Security…
“I plan to listen to Obama tonight maybe he will define the problem.”
So, let me get this right, you think that NOW he will define the problem??? According to his own words, COSTS are the problem and the mythical 47 million uninsured are the problem… notice TORT REFORM, a MAJOR cost factor has not even been discussed at this point… REASON - the Dem’s are beholden to the trial lawyers… you know “special interests”… :rolleyes
Bluemoon06,
“One thing is that my insurance is very good. My mother in-law’s insurance is stupid good. I pay $10 and go to the doctor. I go whenever I can get away because of that.”
And you somehow think other people won’t do the same? Where are all the EXTRA doctors and nurses going to come from to service the mythical 47 million? It will simple lead to MORE wait times, even IF you can pay…
“My mother in law pays nothing zero co-pay. She goes a lot. Nobody needs that. What we should do is insure catastrophic illness. When you get a chronic illness or an expensive procedure, the insurance should kick in preventing you from being bankrupted by illness.”
Why, you said we don’t need all the other insurances BECAUSE we have bankruptcy… what exactly do you mean??? You are talking out of both sides of your mouth on this…
“You have insurance on your car right? But when you need an oil change you don’t pull up to Jiffy Lube and give them or Geico card. You pay. Because of that you don’t go to the Chrysler dealership to get an oil change you go to Thrifty-lube.”
So we agree, injected MARKET FORCES into the mix IS A GOOD THING…
“If you paid for each of your doctor’s appointments you would figure out real quick which doctor was the best price to value. The health insurance industry would get out of the visit here and a visit there business and then they could concentrate their efforts on people that are really sick.”
The argument for this is that the mythical 47 million can’t afford to do it… One way I can see to reintroduce market forces back into this, is to provide the 47 million with a set amount of dollars on an HSA (health savings account), that can ONLY be used for health related expenses, and at the end of the year, whatever they DON’T use, they get HALF the amount back IN CASH… Time it so the cash gets back to them around Christmas giving them more incentive… The other half goes back into the program SEQUESTERED SPECIFICALLY for that program… This will also make health related services COMPETE for the business…
“Because they were concentrating their efforts they could drop the cost greatly and insurance would be affordable”
TORT REFORM, intrastate insurance purchase (just like auto), putting the CONSUMER back in the driver seat and making the health insurance companies compete for their dollars (just like with all the other insurances - auto, life, disability, flood, fire, etc.), by taking employers out of the mix (employers could STILL provide a check once a year as part of compensation that is paid directly to the insurance company the CONSUMER picks), incentives for CONSUMERS to live more healthy (ie. - look up the Safeway example), etc… All of these will bring costs down…
Putting the GOVERNMENT in the middle of all of it, will NOT bring costs down… COMMON SENSE tells you that…
Pos,
Yes the lawyers are in bed with govt and they contribute overwhelmingly to democrats.So that’s the reason tort reform is’nt touched.I’m sure tonight’s speech(primetime as usual)will be the same lies "I’m open to any good ideas"which is a LIE!!This guy’s gift of gab is failing and people are discovering he’s just another lyer.
I wonder since the govt is in with lawyers and now pharmacy if you’ll ever see those disclaimers of deadly side effects on drug commercials anymore.I’m sure they’ll be totally honest,just like always… :rolleyes
Insurance doesn’t work if only the old and sick have it. You need young healthy people paying in so that old grampa can have his hip replaced. It is just like your gym membership. You pay $10 every month and never go. That allows me to go and only pay $10/month.
Remember we have to define the problem we are trying to solve. Is the problem the deficit or covering everybody? The problem is covering everybody. That gets done. You keep distracting yourself talking about tax pools as if the government was a business. It is not it is government. It can run deficits. It is ok.
Most bankruptcies are caused by medical expenses. Health insurance will eliminate this. You were talking about insurance against frivolous spending. That would be for Bankruptcy.
[/quote]
Tort reform is a red herring. Litigation, lawyers, jury awards and defensive medicine only account for 2% of healthcare costs. The reason we think it is out of control because we hear about some schmuck getting a $12million judgment because he smoked all his life. The reason we hear about it is because it never happens. It is a man bites dog situation.
Bluemoon06,
“Insurance doesn’t work if only the old and sick have it. You need young healthy people paying in so that old grampa can have his hip replaced. It is just like your gym membership. You pay $10 every month and never go. That allows me to go and only pay $10/month.”
The young adults, in large numbers, don’t currently have insurance (part of the mythical 47 million figure), and grandpa’s hip is still being replaced despite this…
" Is the problem the deficit or covering everybody? The problem is covering everybody. That gets done. You keep distracting yourself talking about tax pools as if the government was a business. It is not it is government. It can run deficits. It is ok"
And it is THAT kind of thinking that now has us paying over $650 BILLION DOLLARS in INTEREST ALONE this year on the national debt… 2/3 of the money they are looking for… gone… poof NEVER to be seen again… WASTED…
If deficits are OK, I want a FREE HOUSE, plasma, car, etc… Why not? Sky’s the limit apparently… :rolleyes :banghead
“Most bankruptcies are caused by medical expenses. Health insurance will eliminate this. You were talking about insurance against frivolous spending. That would be for Bankruptcy.”
You haven’t been keeping up… a good portion of medical bankrupcies occur with people HAVING insurance… the desease COSTS too much to treat BECAUSE the health industry has to MAKE UP the LOSSES from issues related to people NOT paying for their own health treatments, and issues related to TORT reform… These are into the 100’s of BILLIONS of dollars anually…
“Tort reform is a red herring. Litigation, lawyers, jury awards and defensive medicine only account for 2% of healthcare costs. The reason we think it is out of control because we hear about some schmuck getting a $12million judgment because he smoked all his life. The reason we hear about it is because it never happens. It is a man bites dog situation.”
USNEWS & World Report article, August 27, 2009
“A recent PricewaterhouseCoopers study estimated that these practices are responsible for up to 10 percent of the country’s annual healthcare spending, or some $210 billion.”
Keep in mind, Bluemoon06, whether you are talking 2% or 10%, you are talking BILLIONS…
My biggest issue here is, how will they enforce an unemployed person who doesnt work to pay for thier lack of health insurance. My business is struggling right now I do not want to be forced into paying another 3,800 dollars at the end of the year because I cant afford healthcare, (or would rather pay for it when I do). I also will not be able to afford that either. And no I do not want the Government controlling anymore of my life then when they did when I served. That is why I am not serving anymore!
I think one of the main reasons to have car insurance is to protect what you could possibly damage to someone else. Like thier health or property had you caused an accident. If I choose to not have health insurance and need medical assistance and choose not to use it, that doesnt hurt anyone else.
It does, because if a person doe not have health insurance and gets sick, he gets healthcare anyway but WE pay for it because he does not have his own insurance.
If a father doesn’t have health insurance and his kids can’t get immunization his kid gets sick and goes to school with your kids and they get sick. When you go out to Luby’s for dinner the guy serving you without healthcare will give you some whooping cough.
Sick people hurt us all.
I know I am a more responsible than that. When I get sick I dont go to the emergency room and take a ride in an ambulance. I drive myself to a medical facility that has lower payment options for the uninsured. Yes, I have to pay upfront and do not know what type of care I will receive, however, I still believe this is a better idea for me since I have been to this facility about twice in five years.
I know that is just me and there are people who abuse medical facilities. And I agree that everyone should have better medical benefits but I do not see charging me $3,800 for not having insurance when I spend less than $300.00 in five years on my medical expenses.
Now my two year old son has a BCBS plan with a good deductible. That is understandable and would be stupid on my part to disregard that.
I know someone is going to comment on me getting into a catastrophic scenario without health insurance. Please believe me that I agree something needs to be done to make insurance more affordable as soon as possible, but why should I have to be fined so much money for such a high rate of uncertainty.