Universal Health Care...

[CaneBrain 95]

I knew a couple doctors, one worked in a private clinic in Philly. He said that over half of the income from his practice went to the costs of filling out government forms. That was before office costs, malpractice insurance, etc. He didn't think he would be able to pay of his loans from medical school for over 20 years.But that's OK, Obama wants to make it 25 or 30, what's the big deal?And no, he didn't live lavishly, he lived in a small apartment. He'd been in his practice for over 5 years.

this is just as much (if not more) a student loan issue than a doctor's are not being paid enough issue. Student loan forgiveness for socially important professions (teachers, doctors, nurses) is something I believe in.Right now, part of going into a profession that requires a lot of education is accepting that you will have to live frugally for a while to get rid of that debt and then get a nice pay off down the line. From these facts, you can make a great case that his biggest problem was that it cost too much to become a doctor in the first place.

[hblask 1]

this is just as much (if not more) a student loan issue than a doctor's are not being paid enough issue. Student loan forgiveness for socially important professions (teachers, doctors, nurses) is something I believe in.Right now, part of going into a profession that requires a lot of education is accepting that you will have to live frugally for a while to get rid of that debt and then get a nice pay off down the line. From these facts, you can make a great case that his biggest problem was that it cost too much to become a doctor in the first place.

Central planning, eh? That's the best solution? And you can't think of any unintended consequences of this?Nah, you're smart, you'll get it.

[hblask 1]

So Obama, showing a lack of critical thinking skills (or possibly intentionally deceptive rhetoric, you decide), asks the following question:

Why would private insurance companies go out of business..if private insurers say that the marketplace provides the best quality health care; if they tell us that they’re offering a good deal, then why is it that the government, which they say can’t run anything, suddenly is going to drive them out of business? That’s not logical.

Just in case he really doesn't know, and this isn't just more propaganda, the answer is obvious: the government is the referee in this game. If you had a football game where one team got to make the calls, which team would you bet on?The same is true of healthcare. The government can tax unwilling people to subsidize the costs of their plan. (Oh, did we mention that Team Referees gets a 21 point lead?). Then, the government can tell the private plans what they MUST and what they MAY NOT include in their plan (Also, the Referees only need 5 yards for a first down instead of 10). And if the private plans *still* succeeded, they would be burdened with additional paperwork to prove that they are not cheatintg (did we mention our opponents are not allowed to throw passes? Only running plays...) Finally, the government will tax premiums on private plans to cover the costs of the government run plans, to make it "fair". (Oh, did we mention the Referees get to take your three best players?)So yeah, Obama, which is it: are you an idiot or are you being flagrantly dishonest on this issue?

[vbnautilus 48]

So yeah, Obama, which is it: are you an idiot or are you being flagrantly dishonest on this issue?

question: did you listen to the rest of the press conference? your point was part of the reporter's question who asked it, and obama addressed it. you may not be satisfied with his answer (in fact I can probably guarantee that), but it seems a little unfair to only present that snippet of what he said.edit: found transcriptQUESTION: And, while I appreciate your Spock-like language about the logic of the health care plan and the public plan, it does seem logical to a lot of people that if the government is offering a cheaper health care plan, then lots of employers will want to have their employees covered by that cheaper plan, which will not have to be for-profit, unlike private plans, and may, possibly, benefit from some government subsidies, who knows.OBAMA: (....answers part one of question, then ... ) Now, let me go to the -- the broader question you made about the public plan. As I said before, I think that there is a legitimate concern, if the public plan was simply eating off the taxpayer trough, that it would be hard for private insurers to compete.If, on the other hand, the public plan is structure in such a way where they've got to collect premiums and they've got to provide good services, then, if what the insurance companies are saying is true, that they're doing their best to serve their customers, that they're in the business of keeping people well and giving them security when they get sick, they should be able to compete.Now, if it turns out that the public plan, for example, is able to reduce administrative costs significantly, then you know what, I'd like the insurance companies to take note and say, hey, if the public plan can do that, why can't we?And that's good for everybody in the system. And I don't think there should be any objection to that.

[hblask 1]

If, on the other hand, the public plan is structure in such a way where they've got to collect premiums and they've got to provide good services, then, if what the insurance companies are saying is true, that they're doing their best to serve their customers, that they're in the business of keeping people well and giving them security when they get sick, they should be able to compete.

And if wishes were horses, then beggars would ride.This is just Obama being disingenuous. There is no reason to create such a plan, and he knows it. Insurance companies *already have* competition. Creating a government plan does nothing to add to the level of competition, unless the rules are rigged in it's favor. For example, as a government plan, it may decide it doesn't need to make a profit -- something not realistic for private industry. But if it does that, now it wipes out the entire insurance industry, giving us socialized medicine. Rigging the rules is not competition, it's cheating, and all indications are that that is the direction Obama is heading -- to rig the system so that everyone has to choose his socialized medicine. If they were to create a plan that competed fairly, it would just change the number of choices from 100 to 101, and there'd be no reason for it to exist. It's clear that fair competition is nowhere on their radar; nationalization of 1/7th of the economy is their goal, and they are not being very subtle about it.

[Jeepster80125 0]

from http://alankatz.wordpress.com/2009/06/18/m...ded-to-the-mix/So many health care reform proposals are flying around the nation’s capital it’s nearly time to bring in the air traffic controllers. There are draft bills, option papers, proposals, outlines, and about any other kind of document you can name whirling around like jets over O’Hare.Michael Johnson of Blue Shield of California and I gave a presentation on health care reform Wednesday to a group of health insurance brokers. We were reading up on one of the latest ideas issued a few hours earlier literally minutes before the panel got underway. It’s only going to get worse as some stake out (somewhat extreme) negotiating positions while others offer up potential compromises.Here’s some of the more recent health care reform proposals to be launched — or about to be: 1. The web site The Hill is reporting that moderates in the House of Representatives from both sides of the aisle are meeting in private to fashioning a compromise package. Among those meeting are part of the GOP’s “Tuesday Group,” the New Democratic Coalition and the Democratic Blue Dog Coalition. Fearing retribution from party leaders, neither side is offering the names of participants. The meetings are significant not just because they are likely to produce yet another health care reform package. The negotiations also underscore the reality that while the media tends to portray both Democrats and Republicans as monolithic parties of extreme ideologies, there are a significant number of lawmakers who eschew the hardline ideology of their colleagues and search for pragmatic solutions. 2. Former Senate majority leaders unveiled a health care reform plan they hope will provide a middle ground in debate. The plan was developed by Republican former Senators Howard Baker and Bob Dole along with Democratic former Senators Tom Daschle and George Michell. (Former Senator Mitchell is credited by the Boston Globe with having contributed to the document, although it is signed by only Senators Baker, Daschle and Dole). It weaves around the middle on a number of issues, although it does lean to the left. For example, while the proposal does not call for a creation of a federal government-run health plan it would permit states to create them. It also calls for taxing the value of health plans an employee receives to the extent it exceeds the cost of coverage provided to members of Congress. According to the Boston Globe this would amount about $5,000 for an individual and $13, 000 for a family. 3. The House Republican leadership unveiled their health care reform plan on Wednesday, too. Among other features it would allow states, small businesses and other group to come together into “pools” to offer low cost health plans that, at a minimum, is provided in a majoirty of states. It also would offer lower-income Americans refundable tax credits they could use to purchase coverage and would make individual health insurance premiums tax deductible. It does not require consumers to buy coverage, but the GOP plan would encourage states “to create a Universal Access Program by establishing and/or reforming existing programs to guarantee all Americans, regardless of pre-existing conditions or past illnesses … access to affordable coverage.” Development of the GOP plan was led by Representative Roy Blunt. 4. Last week the Chairs of the three House committees with jurisdiction on health care reform released a framework for reform. The Tri-Committee Health Reform Draft Proposal, put forward by House of Representative Chairs Charles Rangel of the Ways and Means Committee, Henry Waxman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and George Miller of the Education and Labor Committee outlines the key provisions of a unified Democratic reform package. The framework calls for creation of a government-run health plan to compete with private carriers, requires all Americans to obtain coverage (with exemptions in cases of financial hardship), requires most employers to either provide coverage or pay a fee, and provides subsidies for Americans households with incomes up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level.There will be many more proposals coming soon. As it is relatively early in the legislative process, most will stake out relatively pure ideological positions. Neither party has an incentive to offer compromise solutions yet. So House Democrats, along with Senator Edward Kennedy and his Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, will anchor the left and the GOP Leadership and conservative Senators will anchor the right. As in most negotiations, the goal is to establish a starting position so far to one extreme or the other that the middle shifts in their direction. There will be some pragmatic proposals put forward as well. The most anticipated is that expected to be coming soon from the Senate Finance Committee. It’s Chair, Max Baucus, and its Ranking Member, Charles Grassley, seem to be sincere in their efforts to put forward a bi-partisan solution. In the meantime, President Barack Obama will keep up a drumbeat in support of getting comprehensive health care reform legislation through Congress before the end of the year. Although the White House continues to let Congress take the lead in fashioning the final reform package, the Obama Administration is beginning to get more engaged in the legislative process.What the final health care reform legislation will look like is, as yet, unknown. It may resemble one of the ideas already put forward. Or perhaps something new to the mix will gain momentum. I’m betting that something will pass this year. The process of getting to one bill will be messy, but eventually, a consensus will form.Not yet, but eventually.

[NickZepp 0]

Universal healthcare will lead to our doctors going from being among the most respected in the world to leaving for other opprotunities where they could actually get paid. That's basically what happened in England and Canada which run a similar system to the one Obama wants. Trying to fix health care so everyone gets it for sure and equalizing doctors saleries will end up ending health care in America because the doctors won't be any good and the health care will then mean nothing.

[brvheart 1,752]

If you don't think the health care scare is not a made-up issue to gain government power, read the article linked below.89% of Americans are SATISFIED with their own health care coverage93% of Americans who have had a recent serious illness are SATISFIED with their own coverage95% of Americans how have a chronic illness are SATISFIED with their own coverageEven 70% of the uninsured Americans are SATISFIED with their health care situationBUT ...56% of Americans are UNSATISFIED because they think everyone else has bad coverage and are concerned about themThat is why President Obama has switched to the so-called "public option" where you can keep what you have or switch at your choice. Current estimates are that it will cost $1,000,000,000,000 over ten years to cover 16,000,000 people -- that's right, $60,000 each. That number is calculated by the Congressional Budget Office (remember, Congress is run by Democrats), so you can bet it's a low estimate. And, that's after companies, etc. pay part of the premiums.So, why the "public option?" Because, the intent is to make the "public option" so subsidized that everyone is compelled to switch to it. That will make it very difficult for insurance companies and private health care companies to compete and drive up their costs. Then, President Obama will be able to say we all switched to government-run health care by our own choice. As he puts it, "It's about time that insurance companies get some competition." Wait, I thought the insurance companies already compete against each other? Everyone knows that when you have to compete with the government, the government is going to win -- not because they are going to win, but because they can cheat -- they change the rules to favor their side.http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/24...happy-coverage/

[Balloon guy 158]

Universal healthcare will lead to our doctors going from being among the most respected in the world to leaving for other opprotunities where they could actually get paid. That's basically what happened in England and Canada which run a similar system to the one Obama wants. Trying to fix health care so everyone gets it for sure and equalizing doctors saleries will end up ending health care in America because the doctors won't be any good and the health care will then mean nothing.

Nah...those doctors come to America, once we screw up our healthcare, there will be no where left to go.Rush said an interesting thing today. He told his listeners to go to town hall meetings etc and ask their congressmen and senators if they are going to recieve the same healthcare as they are planning on giving us.

[Balloon guy 158]

Barney Frank was on O'Rielly last night and he said that it will be easy to fund the $1,000,000,000,000.00 for the healthcare.He will first cut the Raptor airplane form the military budget..that's $440,000,000 a year, Leaving only $999,560,000,000.00 which they will find by cutting down the nuber of troops protecting Europe.Which btw Europeans..this means you will need to find the money in your budgets to now beef up your military spending since the US is pulling out.Or trust Russia, China and North Korea...either one.Personally I would rather keep the F-22 and let some people get sick...but I love airplanes

[akoff 0]

Barney Frank was on O'Rielly last night and he said that it will be easy to fund the $1,000,000,000,000.00 for the healthcare.He will first cut the Raptor airplane form the military budget..that's $440,000,000 a year, Leaving only $999,560,000,000.00 which they will find by cutting down the nuber of troops protecting Europe.Which btw Europeans..this means you will need to find the money in your budgets to now beef up your military spending since the US is pulling out.Or trust Russia, China and North Korea...either one.Personally I would rather keep the F-22 and let some people get sick...but I love airplanes

this is a classic.

[hblask 1]

This is a quick hint of the problems Obama wants to force upon us. This could be listed as problem number one out of three thousand four hundred sixty eight problems with the plans the Democrats are concocting.Very simple and easy to explain, and goes a long way toward explaining why a "parallel plan" won't be a parallel plan but a complete takeover:

[hblask 1]

We get yet another example of the levels of intellectual honesty coming out of Obama and the Democrats:http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=aDvu77pZr7k4June 26 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Senate proposal to impose taxes for the first time on “gold-plated” health plans may bypass generous employee benefits negotiated by unions. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, the chief congressional advocate of taxing some employer-provided benefits to help pay for an overhaul of the U.S. health system, says any change should exempt perks secured in existing collective- bargaining agreements, which can be in place for as long as five years. The exception, which could make the proposal more politically palatable to Democrats from heavily unionized states such as Michigan, is adding controversy to an already contentious debate. It would shield the 12.4 percent of American workers who belong to unions from being taxed while exposing some other middle-income workers to the levy. “I can’t think of any other aspect of the individual income tax that treats benefits of different people differently because of who they work for,” said Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute, a Washington research group that often criticizes Democrats’ economic proposals. Edwards said the carve-out “smacks of political favoritism.” (article continued at link)

[Southern Buddhist 1]

I've got little enough dog in this race and am not going to bother debating it at length, but I'll throw this in:For all the claims that health insurance companies have competition, how do you mean "competition," exactly? Anthem (Blue Cross/Blue Shield) covers all of Virginia. Are you telling me that if Kaiser Permanente (which is only on the West Coast) has better service, then I can switch to them? Not really. If my employer covers me through Anthem and I get laid off and go on COBRA, can I switch to any provider I want or do I have to stay with Anthem? If I tried to switch, wouldn't everything be considered a "pre-existing condition" and not covered? Doesn't the "pre-existing" rule fail to serve me and falsely constrain my choice by forcing me for economic reasons to stay with the insurer I already have? If the cost of buying on the open market from Anthem is prohibitive, what "choice" do I have? Cable providers used to argue that because there was more than one cable provider in the nation, that meant they had "competition," regardless of the fact that they had local monopolies. From where I'm sitting, the "competition" in the insurance industry looks exactly the same. I don't see any other insurance companies trying to get my business. Every other business you can name is trying to get me to buy their product through TV ads, mailers, etc., but no insurance company is advertising for me to leave Anthem and come to them because they're better. If there's real competition, why not?Hblask, why would anyone want to force someone to sign up for worse benefits than they already have? In all honesty, if the plan forced people to accept lower benefits, you'd make a post complaining about that, so despite having principled disagreements on the plan as a whole, this specific element is just a case where you're going to criticize it either way.Brvheart, you listen to Fox too much. First off, the CBO and GAO are non-partisan. You remind us that "Congress is run by Democrats," so the CBO number must be a low estimate. The CBO and GAO exist specifically to give Congress fully vetted numbers that are beholden only to accounting practices. When Congress is run by Republicans, do you believe the numbers then, or do you admit then that estimates of the Iraq war's cost or the cost of Bush's tax cuts "must" be low, since that would fit their agenda? If you think there's a big conspiracy around the numbers, then you're a sucker to believe them when Republicans are in control. If you believe them when Republicans are in control, then you must not think there's a big conspiracy.[FWIW, the GAO gives Congress three numbers: a best-case scenario, a mid-case scenario, and a worst-case scenario. The worst-case scenario has historically been the one proven to be most accurate, but this has been true for at least forty years and does not correlate to which party is in power. It's been equally true for both parties, and it's been true across several different policies.]Secondly, whether the public option is subsidized or not, if people choose to switch to it, then they have, in fact, chosen to switch to it. If Obama then says that the people made their choice, then he's making a perfectly accurate statement. You might not like the choice, and economic incentives may have driven the choice, but economic incentives drive a lot of choices, all over the place in life. Getting a tax deduction for your kid is an economic incentive to reproduce, and getting a mortgage deduction on your home is an economic incentive to be a homeowner. The government has chosen to use economic incentives to drive citizens' behavior pretty much ever since we've had a government. Corporations use economic incentives -- a fifty-cent off coupon to try Oscar Meyer hot dogs over Ball Park is an economic incentive aimed at steering your behavior. In every case, you decide whether or not the incentive is sufficient to alter your behavior. To bitch about it now is to be a little late to the show, unless of course you're only complaining about it when the party you don't like does it and remaining silent when your own party does.

[hblask 1]

I've got little enough dog in this race and am not going to bother debating it at length, but I'll throw this in:

She says as she prepares for a lengthy post....

For all the claims that health insurance companies have competition, how do you mean "competition," exactly? Anthem (Blue Cross/Blue Shield) covers all of Virginia. Are you telling me that if Kaiser Permanente (which is only on the West Coast) has better service, then I can switch to them?

Part of the problem is state laws vary so much. Here in Minnesota we have a lot of competition. And for now, there is always the ultimate competitive plan: opting out and paying out of pocket. Obama wants to take that one away for ALL Americans, even people for whom Obama-care makes no sense.It sounds like your state laws need work, not federal laws. In states where competition is allowed, there is competition. In states where the rules are so tight that it's basically just different companies offering the exact same plan, not so much. Obama wants to go to the "not-so-much" plan.

Hblask, why would anyone want to force someone to sign up for worse benefits than they already have? In all honesty, if the plan forced people to accept lower benefits, you'd make a post complaining about that, so despite having principled disagreements on the plan as a whole, this specific element is just a case where you're going to criticize it either way.

Yes, that's correct, I would complain about any one-size-fits-all plan, even if it happens to be exactly the plan I dreamed of for myself and my family. Why? First, because I don't think the role of the federal government is to give me the goodies that I want, no matter how much that improves my life. Second, because there are over 300 million people in this country, and none of them are like me, so it would be presumptuous of me to force them to accept my version of health care.So why does Obama want us to accept worse benefits? Because he's an egomaniac who wants to be known as "the president that fixed health care". The only way he can get credit for that is to force a one-size-fits-all plan down our throats, and the only way to afford that is to make it worse than what we already have. Notice that congress is already exempting themselves from socialized medicine, because they know what a piece of crap they are foisting on us.

First off, the CBO and GAO are non-partisan.

I agree, they are non-partisan in that they have a long history of underestimating costs and overestimating benefits for both Republican and Democratic plans. It's not uncommon for them to be off by 100%.

Secondly, whether the public option is subsidized or not, if people choose to switch to it, then they have, in fact, chosen to switch to it.

Yeah, if I thought it was sustainable to get something for nothing, I would grab it, too. Reality doesn't work that way. Have we forgotten the mortgage crisis already?

If Obama then says that the people made their choice, then he's making a perfectly accurate statement. You might not like the choice, and economic incentives may have driven the choice, but economic incentives drive a lot of choices, all over the place in life.

No, he says it's "competition". It's not, it's the fox guarding the henhouse. That's not competition, that's a scam.

Getting a tax deduction for your kid is an economic incentive to reproduce, and getting a mortgage deduction on your home is an economic incentive to be a homeowner. The government has chosen to use economic incentives to drive citizens' behavior pretty much ever since we've had a government. Corporations use economic incentives -- a fifty-cent off coupon to try Oscar Meyer hot dogs over Ball Park is an economic incentive aimed at steering your behavior. In every case, you decide whether or not the incentive is sufficient to alter your behavior. To bitch about it now is to be a little late to the show, unless of course you're only complaining about it when the party you don't like does it and remaining silent when your own party does.

I bitch about all those things, too. The government should not be in the business of social engineering.

[strategy 4]

If I tried to switch, wouldn't everything be considered a "pre-existing condition" and not covered? Doesn't the "pre-existing" rule fail to serve me and falsely constrain my choice by forcing me for economic reasons to stay with the insurer I already have? If the cost of buying on the open market from Anthem is prohibitive, what "choice" do I have?

yet another source of friction. granted, I don't even pay for my own health insurance, but I would think the competitive force is the potential for parents to switch their (healthy) children to a better provider. for sure, there are aspects of the insurance industry that make it inefficient. I don't think creating a player at the federal level is going to do a whole lot to fix that, though.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

She says as she prepares for a lengthy post....

Part of the problem is state laws vary so much. Here in Minnesota we have a lot of competition. And for now, there is always the ultimate competitive plan: opting out and paying out of pocket. Obama wants to take that one away for ALL Americans, even people for whom Obama-care makes no sense.It sounds like your state laws need work, not federal laws. In states where competition is allowed, there is competition. In states where the rules are so tight that it's basically just different companies offering the exact same plan, not so much. Obama wants to go to the "not-so-much" plan.

I'd be happy with just a change in my state laws. Unfortunately, considering how many states are willing to race to the bottom, that will never happen without federal intervention or a wholesale change to liberal government, which is perhaps how Minnesota wound up in better shape than Virginia.

I agree, they are non-partisan in that they have a long history of underestimating costs and overestimating benefits for both Republican and Democratic plans. It's not uncommon for them to be off by 100%.

Yeah, they're not actually much good at what they do, unless you take the worst-case scenario and discard the rest. I'm just annoyed by Brvheart's hypocrisy in criticizing the numbers when they don't suit him and accepting them at face value when they do.

I bitch about all those things, too. The government should not be in the business of social engineering.

And that, of course, is why I love you. You have the kind of intellectual integrity and honesty to criticize thing even when they benefit you. Just out of curiosity, though, do you also complain when business attempts to control behavior? Encouraging me through all means necessary to shop at Wal-Mart may not rise to the level of social engineering (although when they drive small stores out of business, one could argue that it does), but they, too, attempt for totally selfish reasons to manipulate my behavior via economic incentive. Over in the libertarian thread, libs are attacked for being lackeys of big business. If you are opposed to government's use of economic incentives, are you equally opposed to business's use of them?

[strategy 4]

If you are opposed to government's use of economic incentives, are you equally opposed to business's use of them?

you didn't ask me, but no. a business can cease to exist if its incentives aren't well-aimed. it takes much more effort to change bad incentives on the government side, and it can stay broken for decades.

[hblask 1]

I'd be happy with just a change in my state laws. Unfortunately, considering how many states are willing to race to the bottom, that will never happen without federal intervention or a wholesale change to liberal government, which is perhaps how Minnesota wound up in better shape than Virginia.

Believe it or not, states really do compete. If they try to "race to the bottom", they will quickly find that their tax dollars are going elsewhere. California has learned this the hard way several times (they seem to have short-term memory loss). There are states where I would never consider moving, because they suck so much -- some for too much govt, some for too little.

And that, of course, is why I love you. You have the kind of intellectual integrity and honesty to criticize thing even when they benefit you. Just out of curiosity, though, do you also complain when business attempts to control behavior? Encouraging me through all means necessary to shop at Wal-Mart may not rise to the level of social engineering (although when they drive small stores out of business, one could argue that it does), but they, too, attempt for totally selfish reasons to manipulate my behavior via economic incentive. Over in the libertarian thread, libs are attacked for being lackeys of big business. If you are opposed to government's use of economic incentives, are you equally opposed to business's use of them?

The government can't offer economic incentives without taking something first. And then they force that decision on everyone. A business takes their "incentives" from profit or potential profit, and have to offer something better than you can get anywhere else. So yeah, I encourage businesses to offer me incentives, because if they come up with a really bad one, I am free to ignore it. I don't have that choice when the federal government does it.

[Nimue1995 1]

Believe it or not, states really do compete. If they try to "race to the bottom", they will quickly find that their tax dollars are going elsewhere. California has learned this the hard way several times (they seem to have short-term memory loss). There are states where I would never consider moving, because they suck so much -- some for too much govt, some for too little.

Up to recently I would have put Montana in this catagory but it's been improving some so it's getting closer to an equilibrium that I can live with.

[brvheart 1,752]

Brvheart, you listen to Fox too much. First off, the CBO and GAO are non-partisan. You remind us that "Congress is run by Democrats," so the CBO number must be a low estimate. The CBO and GAO exist specifically to give Congress fully vetted numbers that are beholden only to accounting practices. When Congress is run by Republicans, do you believe the numbers then, or do you admit then that estimates of the Iraq war's cost or the cost of Bush's tax cuts "must" be low, since that would fit their agenda? If you think there's a big conspiracy around the numbers, then you're a sucker to believe them when Republicans are in control. If you believe them when Republicans are in control, then you must not think there's a big conspiracy.

I don't ever remember saying that I trusted any politicians. Republican or Democrat. They are all spinsters. Also, you shouldn't assume that I listen to Fox, because I don't. I haven't had the fox news channel on in my house since before the election. I rarely go to their website. That doesn't mean that the information contained in the link is incorrect, because it's from Fox. You need to quit listening to NPR.

[Jeepster80125 0]

post

SB, Insurance rules and regulations are handled by each state on an individual basis. Some states, such as Colorado and Arizona, have a majority of the same basic rules, but different state mandates.If your employer offers Anthem insurance, you can not switch to any other carrier you want to, unless you move out of the group insurance market and into the private (individual) market. COBRA benefits are only offered as long as the group plan is in existence. If your old employer shutters it's doors while you're on COBRA, your insurance goes away. But, you could move over to the individual market on your own and move away from the group plan.It should be noted that the rules that govern large group health insurance (over 50 employees) are different than small group insurance (2-49 employees), which are different than business groups of one or individual insurance.Group insurance plans are typically 'guarantee issue' which means everyone is accepted regardless of health. This drives up the rates. Group insurance also requires maternity coverage including dependent daughters here in Colorado There are also several state mandated benefits that are required to be covered, such as drug and alcohol abuse, extensive coverage for mental and nervous disorders, and Autism testing for children. When you move to the private market, most plans are medically underwritten, which means you have to show proof of good health prior to acceptance. The insurance company can decline coverage based on health conditions, medications, etc. To answer your question of pre-existing conditions, it depends on which market you're in. If you move to a new plan and you have a gap in coverage of less than 63 days, than your pre-ex conditions will be covered from day one. This is for group insurance. If you've had a gap in coverage of more than 63 days, your pre-ex will likely have limitations on coverage for the first 6-12 months, depending on the gap. With individual insurance, if you develop a covered condition while on the plan then the plan will cover you for the time you're enrolled. Insurance companies can't terminate coverage just because you develop health conditions or have claims. They will, however, raise your rates to levels which require you to move elsewhere. Typically, if you have a pre-ex and are seeking new coverage in the private sector, depending on the condition it will get a rider and not be covered.Another option in your example SB would be to seek coverage from your state. Each state has a high risk insurance program for people who can't get coverage elsewhere. Ours is called Cover Colorado. This program is a guaranteed issue product, so ANYONE in Colorado seeking insurance can get covered here, regardless of health. I'm not sure what your state's high risk insurance pool is called but I'm sure it's there.Addressing your question regarding competition, you can relate your medical insurance to your car insurance. If you've had accidents then you're going to pay more for being a high risk driver, and some companies won't cover you. It's the same with insurance. Unhealthy people are going to pay more for coverage. It's just how it is. There's actuarial data that shows higher utilization, etc, so of course they're going to pay more for coverage. You have to understand that when you seek insurance, the carrier is deciding whether or not to take you on as a risk. They're not going to just open the front doors to all comers.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

The only way he can get credit for that is to force a one-size-fits-all plan down our throats, and the only way to afford that is to make it worse than what we already have. Notice that congress is already exempting themselves from socialized medicine, because they know what a piece of crap they are foisting on us.

FWIW, I read where Union Members are probably going to be exempt too. I wonder why they are being singled out.http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2060107...id=aDvu77pZr7k4

[brvheart 1,752]

Canada Sees Boom in Private Health Care BusinessFacing long waits and substandard care, a growing number of Canadians are willing to pay for health treatment, leading to a booming private business in Canada -- a country often touted as a successful example of a universal health system. "Any wait time was an enormous frustration for me and also pain. I just couldn't live my life the way I wanted to," says Canadian patient Christine Crossman, who was told she could wait up to a year for an MRI after injuring her hip during an exercise class. Warned she would have to wait for the scan, and then wait even longer for surgery, Crossman opted for a private clinic.As the Obama administration prepares to launch its legislative effort to create a national health care system, many experts on both sides of the debate site Canada as a successful model.But the Canadian system is not without its problems. Critics lament the shortage of doctors as patients flood the system, resulting in long waits for some treatment."No question, it was worth the money," said Crossman, who paid several hundred dollars and waited just a few days.Health care delivery in Canada falls largely under provincial jurisdiction, complicating matters.Private for-profit clinics are permitted in some provinces and not allowed in others. Under the Canada Health Act, privately run facilities cannot charge citizens for services covered by government insurance.But a 2005 Supreme Court ruling in Quebec opened the door for patients facing unreasonable wait times to pay-out-of-pocket for private treatment."I think there is a fundamental shift in different parts of the country that's beginning to happen. I think people are beginning to realize that they should have a choice," says Luc Boulay, a partner at St. Joseph MRI, a private clinic in Quebec that charges around $700 for most scans.Yet advocates looking to preserve fairness claim that private clinics undermine the very foundation of the country's healthcare system."Private clinics don't produce one new doctor, nurse, or specialist. All they do it take the existing ones out of the public system, make wait times longer for everybody else while people who can pay more and more and more money jump the queue for health care services," said Natalie Mehra, member of the Ontario Health Coalition.Canada spends $3,600 per capita on health care -- almost half of what is spent in the U.S. And while some in Washington look to its northern neighbor for ideas, the Canadian system is still changing."One can understand that this is evolving and a mix of private and public seems to be favorable in some context. On the other hand, we need to be really careful that we're not treating health care the way we treat a value meal at McDonalds," Dr. Michael Orsini from the University of Ottawa told FOX News.Provincial governments now face the difficult job of finding a balance in meeting the country's health care needs -- reducing wait times and maintaining fair access without redefining the universal ideals at the core of Canada's health care system.

[Jeepster80125 0]

Canada Sees Boom in Private Health Care BusinessFacing long waits and substandard care, a growing number of Canadians are willing to pay for health treatment, leading to a booming private business in Canada -- a country often touted as a successful example of a universal health system. "Any wait time was an enormous frustration for me and also pain. I just couldn't live my life the way I wanted to," says Canadian patient Christine Crossman, who was told she could wait up to a year for an MRI after injuring her hip during an exercise class. Warned she would have to wait for the scan, and then wait even longer for surgery, Crossman opted for a private clinic.As the Obama administration prepares to launch its legislative effort to create a national health care system, many experts on both sides of the debate site Canada as a successful model.But the Canadian system is not without its problems. Critics lament the shortage of doctors as patients flood the system, resulting in long waits for some treatment."No question, it was worth the money," said Crossman, who paid several hundred dollars and waited just a few days.Health care delivery in Canada falls largely under provincial jurisdiction, complicating matters.Private for-profit clinics are permitted in some provinces and not allowed in others. Under the Canada Health Act, privately run facilities cannot charge citizens for services covered by government insurance.But a 2005 Supreme Court ruling in Quebec opened the door for patients facing unreasonable wait times to pay-out-of-pocket for private treatment."I think there is a fundamental shift in different parts of the country that's beginning to happen. I think people are beginning to realize that they should have a choice," says Luc Boulay, a partner at St. Joseph MRI, a private clinic in Quebec that charges around $700 for most scans.Yet advocates looking to preserve fairness claim that private clinics undermine the very foundation of the country's healthcare system."Private clinics don't produce one new doctor, nurse, or specialist. All they do it take the existing ones out of the public system, make wait times longer for everybody else while people who can pay more and more and more money jump the queue for health care services," said Natalie Mehra, member of the Ontario Health Coalition.Canada spends $3,600 per capita on health care -- almost half of what is spent in the U.S. And while some in Washington look to its northern neighbor for ideas, the Canadian system is still changing."One can understand that this is evolving and a mix of private and public seems to be favorable in some context. On the other hand, we need to be really careful that we're not treating health care the way we treat a value meal at McDonalds," Dr. Michael Orsini from the University of Ottawa told FOX News.Provincial governments now face the difficult job of finding a balance in meeting the country's health care needs -- reducing wait times and maintaining fair access without redefining the universal ideals at the core of Canada's health care system.

BUT IT'S GOING TO BE FREE, THAT MEANS I DON'T HAVE TO PAY ANYTHING! FREE!