I pledge alegience, to the Pres...

[SLDS181]

I'm not sure what that assumption is based on. We can speculate about the quality of care offered by a public plan, but we don't know if it'll be deficient or excellent. The various versions of the legislation on the table all include a periodic review process that's designed to maintain a consistent level of coverage.

Consistent with what? With the bare minimum to keep you alive? With decent insurance that gives you some options and choices in your care? Great insurance that gives you total flexibility?

Maybe so, but you as a purchaser of private health insurance are already paying for other people... and for a healthy profit margin. The idea is to shift the dollars into a more efficient and cost effective channel. One that doesn't include a year over year profit motive.

Who cares? I'm not against profits, why would I be? I want to profit, someone else should to.

I have the kind of insurance that gives me alot more flexibility in my treatment options, lets me pick meds based on what I want (generic or brand name), etc. Why would I want to go back to what I used to have? Generics or I pay out the ... is what I want to avoid, so I have a plan that lets me avoid that.

I doubt brand name drugs, when generics are available, will be paid for.

I have the opposite viewpoint. If it contains the cost of caring for uninsured and underinsured people those savings will trickle up to the middle class and beyond. Private insurance costs are going through the roof because people are using emergency rooms as their GP, because millions of people have no insurance but still incur costs that we as consumers have to absorb, because insurance companies are beholden to their stock holders to make healthy profits every year, because profit margins in the industry are driven by the denial of claims... the list goes on and on. From my POV, the system is so screwed right now that government intervention is unlikely to make it any worse and may in fact make it better.

So you're saying.... I'll save because the people I am forced to pay for now (because hospitals can't turn the sick away if they need immediate attention) will be on a plan that I'll be paying for in advance?

I don't follow your logic here.

You're fine with handing that money to companies that have shown that profit is more important to them than providing reliable coverage.

Now you're making unqualified assumptions. Reliable coverage is exactly how they profit, why I use them, why others use them. Unreliable coverage, and I go elsewhere.

No, we definitely won't agree on this. We won't even agree on the fundamental aspects, obviously.

 

[Bones]

To me,it is starting to sound like if you disagree with Obama's policies,you are labled a racist! Disagreeing with policy is totally different than being a racist! The race card is played way too much,and is getting sooo old. And I totally disagree with him(Obama) on everything,so I guess I am a racist.Also,the only reason,though I am happy abouy it now,I quit smoking,was Obama enacted chip bill that raised the taxes on cigs,to pay for free health care for kids,I thought get your money somewhere else sucker,not through me,you creep Obama!

I just went back about 4 -5 pages and the only post I see mentioning racism is yours - I know there heave been a few in the thread - But - Exactly why did YOU decide to bring it up at this point?

 

[Justncredible]

I just went back about 4 -5 pages and the only post I see mentioning racism is yours - I know there heave been a few in the thread - But - Exactly why did YOU decide to bring it up at this point?

I think she is refering to carter and his recent remarks, and pelosi is comparing the dissent to murders in the 70's. The media is saying all over the place if you disagree with obama your a racist.

A 3% tax on tea broke the camels back once, really I think they are trying to once again break our backs with the heavy hand of government. We live in very scary times, wars have started over less. People are freaking out, 2 million marched on washington last week, the media is doing everything they can to dismis that to. How many lies will people continue to allow?

 

[Duckies]

I just went back about 4 -5 pages and the only post I see mentioning racism is yours - I know there heave been a few in the thread - But - Exactly why did YOU decide to bring it up at this point?

Its all they have at this point?

It goes along with deregulating things to the point where Doctors and hospitals will just lower rates until they are 'affordable' because that is what happens in a deregulated environment. Repealing Glass-Steagal taught us how well that works.



Meanwhile, those of us who live in reality soldier on...

 

[Surf Monkey]

Who cares? I'm not against profits, why would I be? I want to profit, someone else should to.

Who said I was against profit in general? Nobody. I'm not against profit. I'm not even against profit in the health care industry. That's why I've said over and over again that I support a hybrid system where there's a (partly or fully) publicly funded base level of coverage that people can supplement with whatever additional insurance they care to buy. My point is that the insurance companies are raising individual premiums at a rapid rate with the main purpose of increasing their already vast profit margins. It's (in my opinion) unethical and should be stopped. I'm tired of paying through the nose for crappy coverage simply because my insurance company promised its investors a dividend this quarter.

I have the kind of insurance that gives me alot more flexibility in my treatment options, lets me pick meds based on what I want (generic or brand name), etc. Why would I want to go back to what I used to have? Generics or I pay out the ... is what I want to avoid, so I have a plan that lets me avoid that.

As I understand it, none of the bills include provisions to force anyone to give up their current coverage. In fact, there are sections that specifically protect people who want to keep their current plans.

I doubt brand name drugs, when generics are available, will be paid for.

Given the government's close ties to the pharmaceutical industry, I seriously question that assumption.

So you're saying.... I'll save because the people I am forced to pay for now (because hospitals can't turn the sick away if they need immediate attention) will be on a plan that I'll be paying for in advance?

I don't follow your logic here.

You're following it just fine. That's exactly what I'm saying. By keeping people from going to the hospital every time they have a headache or a cough, by giving people the kind of preventive care that most of us take for granted, the costs will be reduced over the whole system. It's cheaper to pay for care up front than to neglect the situation until people are forced to go to the most expensive place (the emergency room) to get their care. If I'm going to be paying for it (and I am, no matter who the money goes through) I want the money spent as efficiently as possible.

Now you're making unqualified assumptions. Reliable coverage is exactly how they profit, why I use them, why others use them. Unreliable coverage, and I go elsewhere.

Not in the least unqualified. There are voluminous studies, articles, books etc. that show very clearly how the health care companies conduct their business. That they routinely deny coverage in order to hike profits is anything but speculation.

 

[SLDS181]

That's why I've said over and over again that I support a hybrid system where there's a (partly or fully) publicly funded base level of coverage that people can supplement with whatever additional insurance they care to buy. My point is that the insurance companies are raising individual premiums at a rapid rate with the main purpose of increasing their already vast profit margins. It's (in my opinion) unethical and should be stopped. I'm tired of paying through the nose for crappy coverage simply because my insurance company promised its investors a dividend this quarter.

.... that more lends to government oversight and regulations.

As I understand it, none of the bills include provisions to force anyone to give up their current coverage. In fact, there are sections that specifically protect people who want to keep their current plans.

When someone in the middle class has his own insurance coverage, and the cost is something he can afford..... and now, through taxes, he will be paying for a second type of insurance making the first unaffordable... you wouldn't call that being forced to drop your preferred insurance method?

Given the government's close ties to the pharmaceutical industry, I seriously question that assumption.

Looking at medicare... I would have to disagree.

You're following it just fine. That's exactly what I'm saying. By keeping people from going to the hospital every time they have a headache or a cough, by giving people the kind of preventive care that most of us take for granted, the costs will be reduced over the whole system. It's cheaper to pay for care up front than to neglect the situation until people are forced to go to the most expensive place (the emergency room) to get their care. If I'm going to be paying for it (and I am, no matter who the money goes through) I want the money spent as efficiently as possible.

Thats debatable... thats suggesting a single incident of significant cost will have a lower overall cost than repeated lower cost visits. There I would have to disagree, but then we get back into the reasons why that happens, and we get back to the regulation aspect, and making healthcare affordable as opposed to a mandatory tax coming out of my paycheck.

Not in the least unqualified. There are voluminous studies, articles, books etc. that show very clearly how the health care companies conduct their business. That they routinely deny coverage in order to hike profits is anything but speculation.

And again, we're back to regulation. Again, I believe you to be making unqualified assumptions.

Like I said, we're going to disagree on the very basics, so this will not be productive.

 

[eric]

Just give us the freedom to opt out of the healthcare program without consequence of taxation (without representation), and all is well.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Again, I believe you to be making unqualified assumptions.

I think that of the two of us, you're making a lot more unqualified assumptions than I am. As I've shown repeatedly, the private insurance industry has a proven track record. We know what they do and why they do it. Drawing similar conclusions about a government plan, something that may not even happen in the final legislation, is the very definition of unqualified.

But whatever. You and I are never going to agree so maybe we should leave it at that.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Just give us the freedom to opt out of the healthcare program without consequence of taxation (without representation), and all is well.

Read the various versions of the legislation. That's exactly what the plan is. If any public option is even adopted, it'll be funded by premiums and be fully voluntary.

 

[Mighty Cowphin]

apparently politics and e-cig communities DO NOT MIX... we (as a group of people) will NEVER agree... we have to many differing views... no big deal folks... it is what America was founded on... believe what you want... in America (for the most part) we go on popular vote... we will see in the end what the health care plan looks like and if it will pass.

 

[Bones]

Read the various versions of the legislation. That's exactly what the plan is. If any public option is even adopted, it'll be funded by premiums and be fully voluntary.

Here is the problem SM - The previous versions argument is stale -
The NEW legislation now being considered has all but totally abandoned the Public OPTION - You are correct and I have wanted this OPTION also - But now - The deal that is on the table is a SELL OUT to the insurance companies - What is now on the table is horrible - This debate needs to catch up to the current proposals -

In what is now being offered the only good things I see about it is that you will not be able to be dropped from your existing plan - There is also still a section that lets you get coverage with a preexisting condition - HOWEVER - If you already have a plan you have to drop it for 6 months and then reapply for the "higher risk" plan that will have higher deductibles and co-pays -

Now the mandatory coverage clause will FORCE everyone to purchase a plan from the Insurance companies with NO REGULATION on the costs of that plan - and the Government will subsidize those who can not afford it -

This is what was unveiled this week - The screaming ...... have "won" - The public OPTION is now gone in every sense of the word - Now there truly will be no options - And rather than having a reasonable amount of resources devoted to giving Health Care - A RIDICULOUS amount will go to giving the bank to the Insurance Companies - It is an overwhelming victory for the Lobbyists - The Tea-baggers have handed the system over to them on a silver platter (full of gold) - I sure hope they are pleased with themselves - They did just what the Insurance Companies wanted them to do - KILLED REASON -

I still strongly favor the public OPTION - Even if it was a compromise to the Single Payer System that I would truly have preferred - Sadly though - The deals have already been made for the new PAY THROUGH THE NOSE FOR ALL Plan - The public option plan has been sold down the river - To all of those who keep shouting for the "free-market" - Enjoy reaping what you have sewn - It is destined to be a system FAR WORSE than the current one - Even though it follows your ideology - Now the Republican opposition is claiming that it's not free enough - NOT FREE ENOUGH? - They can charge whatever they want AND will get guaranteed payment through our tax dollars on 45 million new customers by the fact that it will be mandatory - They are not even arguing about the Gov picking up the tab on those who can't afford it - They just want those two pathetic restrictions removed -

 

[Duckies]

Here is the problem SM - The previous versions argument is stale -
The NEW legislation now being considered has all but totally abandoned the Public OPTION - You are correct and I have wanted this OPTION also - But now - The deal that is on the table is a SELL OUT to the insurance companies - What is now on the table is horrible - This debate needs to catch up to the current proposals -

Yesterday, Jay Rockefeller added an amendment to the Baucus bill that added in a public option WITH a clause that the government can negotiate pharma.

The Finance committee will vote on that (and the other amendments) on Tuesday.

If it passes, it will join HR3200 and the Senate Help Bill in offering a PO.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Exactly. The Baucus bill as it came out of committee isn't going to be the final legislation. In fact, the Baucus bill in any form probably won't be the final legislation. In its current form, even with the Rockefeller amendment, it's a joke. The bill is compromised by Baucus's attempt to work with Republicans, who have no intention of voting for the bill, no matter what is or isn't in it. The bill is the result of bad-faith negotiations with a party that seeks to kill health care reform at all costs.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Thats debatable... thats suggesting a single incident of significant cost will have a lower overall cost than repeated lower cost visits.

And by the way, how can you suggest this is debatable? Do you change the oil in your car or do you wait until your engine fails? Which of the two scenarios (change your oil regularly or replace a failed engine) is cheaper and better for your car?

Preventive medicine saves money. Plain and simple. The emergency room is the most expensive way to deliver health care to people. It shouldn't be the first option when people feel a little sick and I sure as hell don't see any reason why we should continue to fund the most expensive option.

I don't get why right leaning people want to waste money. Isn't a central part of their platform fiscal conservatism?

 

[Bones]

Exactly. The Baucus bill as it came out of committee isn't going to be the final legislation. In fact, the Baucus bill in any form probably won't be the final legislation. In its current form, even with the Rockefeller amendment, it's a joke. The bill is compromised by Baucus's attempt to work with Republicans, who have no intention of voting for the bill, no matter what is or isn't in it. The bill is the result of bad-faith negotiations with a party that seeks to kill health care reform at all costs.

Cool - Good to hear - Thanks to you and Duckies too -
I have been very busy with work lately and only caught the highlights - Which really ...... me off - Glad to know there is still hope on that front - I was under the impression that it had been squashed - That Baucus Bill is a LOAD - Thanks for setting me straight -

A mandatory requirement without a Public Option would be outright foolishness and totally unfordable - Tax-Wise -

I guess it looks like the next big diversion is going to be the immigration amnesty issue - I saw Boner already trying to paint it as a way to sneak illegals into the health care plan further draining the tax dollars - Do they ever have an argument that DOES NOT defy LOGIC? - If we make them legal then - First off they won't be ILLEGAL and secondly - They will be PAYING TAXES where before they were not - The tax revenues will INCREASE in direct proportion to their legal status - They will no longer be using services they are not paying for - Derrrr -

 

[hobson]

I'll believe that when I see it. The bill is being drafted by the insurance providers (and big pharma and other lobbyists). Why would they put themselves out of business?

Where did you get that information? As a matter of fact, the insurance industry says it will force them out of health insurance business and Obama, in his own words, defends the charge here:

Private Insurers vs Public Health - FOXBusiness.com

Obama is also threatening legal action against insurance companies who criticize his plan. HHS investigates Humana for Medicare mailer warning seniors on health overhaul

We should be so lucky to get out of being screwed by the big corporate insurance providers.

Well, at least you can choose your partner or no partner at all. If Obama gets his way, Government will choose your partner. If you refuse to participate you will pay for the pleasure of not getting screwed – Obama has a tax for you.

 

[SLDS181]

And by the way, how can you suggest this is debatable? Do you change the oil in your car or do you wait until your engine fails? Which of the two scenarios (change your oil regularly or replace a failed engine) is cheaper and better for your car?

Preventive medicine saves money. Plain and simple. The emergency room is the most expensive way to deliver health care to people. It shouldn't be the first option when people feel a little sick and I sure as hell don't see any reason why we should continue to fund the most expensive option.

I don't get why right leaning people want to waste money. Isn't a central part of their platform fiscal conservatism?

Sorry, missed this comment.

Aside from the fact that not changing your oil will always cause engine troubles, while not visiting the doctor does not mean you will die....

The average cost of a doctors visit is (my gf no longer has insurance under her parents, so I've looked at this) $275, and the average emergency room visit is $560. If she goes to a doctor once a year, its about the same as an emergency room visit once every 2 years. She's good about eating right, resting when she's not feeling well, etc. She has only actually needed a doctors visit (to get on antibiotics or something) once in the past 4-5 years we've been together (doctor's visits due to a car accident aside, which are covered by car insurance). So, an emergency room visit for her costs half the price (by average) of going to the doctor once a year for "preventative maintenance" (based on your comparison).

So, like I said, its debatable. Show me general data to the contrary, and I'm happy to take a look. From my own personal experience, however.... no, preventative medicine is not a cost savings.

 

[Surf Monkey]

I disagree. You're not making a valid price comparison. A doctor's office visit may be $275 and an emergency room visit may be $560, but that doesn't tell the whole story. A $275 doctor's office visit that reveals early signs of cancer and leads to swift, successful treatment is vastly different in its price implications from a $560 emergency room visit that reveals cancer in an advanced stage which requires extended treatment that wouldn't have been necessary with early diagnosis. Just one example. If you want to believe that preventive care is useless, that's your prerogative, but the bulk of the evidence contradicts that position.

 

[Robert]

So- What would you do with an illegal alien that is bleeding to death in the emergency room? Call imigration? Take them out back and shoot them? or Stop the bleeding.

The fact is that people die without proper healthcare. Also- People die who have healthcare- they insurance company just won't pay for more expensive treatments they need. We are a civilized country. No one should die for lack of funds.

 

[SLDS181]

I disagree. You're not making a valid price comparison. A doctor's office visit may be $275 and an emergency room visit may be $560, but that doesn't tell the whole story. A $275 doctor's office visit that reveals early signs of cancer and leads to swift, successful treatment is vastly different in its price implications from a $560 emergency room visit that reveals cancer in an advanced stage which requires extended treatment that wouldn't have been necessary with early diagnosis. Just one example. If you want to believe that preventive care is useless, that's your prerogative, but the bulk of the evidence contradicts that position.

....

Do you have experience with cancer, and finding it? Because I do....

If you're just visiting the doctor, you will not find cancer. I mean that. Its something that is looked for when there are signs, and even when there are signs, its missed.

My aunt visited 9 doctors in one year because she had terrible headaches. Every one of them figured it was a migraine, she was overreacting, here are some pills. Turned out to be multiple tumors.

I have yet to see this evidence you speak of....