Universal Health Care Poll

[JoeyJoJo 18]

The compromise says that insurance companies must participate or the government will make its' own collectives. So, even if insurance companies drop out, people will be able to opt into a government plan. They won't lose their coverage.

There is a difference between "losing your current coverage" and "losing coverage." Also, if my insurance company drops out, do I have the choice to go to another insurance company or am I forced to "opt" into the government plan?

[LongLiveYorke 38]

There is a difference between "losing your current coverage" and "losing coverage." Also, if my insurance company drops out, do I have the choice to go to another insurance company or am I forced to "opt" into the government plan?

If your insurance company "drops out," it means that it chooses not to participate in a collective, non-profit plan. It can still sell insurance normally, and you can still buy insurance from it.You can have any plan you want. It so happens that there may exist non-profit cooperative plans. If those don't exist in certain states, then there will exist government plans. Those are just alternatives. If you like your plan right now, or your employer likes your plan or whatever, then you don't have to change. If you're in a state where the government is allowed to set up a public option plan, then you, if you so choose, may buy into what is essentially the same plan that congressmen get (as the talking point goes).

[LongLiveYorke 38]

That's not how Medicare works, it's not traditional insurance. It loses money on each participant, and more participants means more losses.

A person's premium for Medicare depends on their employment experience. But there are several different levels that one can pay, each of which is subsidized by the federal government.The new part is the ability for 55-65 year old to be able (if they so choose) to buy into Medicare WITHOUT a federal subsidy, so essentially they will simply be buying insurance from the federal government out of their own pocket. It will be cheaper because they're paying more and because they're generally healthier.(Also, the details of the plan are still coming it, but the Medicare option may only be available to those who qualify by not having employer based insurance)

[JoeyJoJo 18]

If your insurance company "drops out," it means that it chooses not to participate in a collective, non-profit plan. It can still sell insurance normally, and you can still buy insurance from it.You can have any plan you want. It so happens that there may exist non-profit cooperative plans. If those don't exist in certain states, then there will exist government plans. Those are just alternatives. If you like your plan right now, or your employer likes your plan or whatever, then you don't have to change. If you're in a state where the government is allowed to set up a public option plan, then you, if you so choose, may buy into what is essentially the same plan that congressmen get (as the talking point goes).

Even admitting that I don't really know anything, it strikes me as illogical to think that the government can implement a large-scale change to something like this while still maintaining that nothing is going to change for those who like what they currently have. It just seems like political speak."For those of you who like what you have, nothing will change. For those of you who want something new, here it is. Everybody will be happy; how can you be against this?"The problem seems to be that the government is setting it up so that the non-government options are destined to fail.

[hblask 1]

(And, I think the Fed-ex/USPS analogy is a good one).

It's a good analogy, and not just for the reason Stewart pointed out (that the private companies are successful and well-run, and the USPS sucks and loses money). It also shows Obama's notion of what "fair competition" is. FedEx and USPS are severely limited in the types of things they can deliver, while the USPS has no such rules. Yet we're supposed to believe that this "public option" is just another equal competitor in the health care playing field? Not a chance. So which is it? Does the government suck at managing things and the public option will fail miserably and be shut down? Or will it be the first government program that comes in under budget and with high quality and force the other insurers to lower prices?Or, should we just use the history of the last hundred years and make the safe assumption that the government will continue to do what is has always done, which is to fail, claim that the failure is due to lack of funds, give it more money, and change the rules so that the private sector competitors can't compete on a level playing field?

[Balloon guy 158]

It's a good analogy, and not just for the reason Stewart pointed out (that the private companies are successful and well-run, and the USPS sucks and loses money). It also shows Obama's notion of what "fair competition" is. FedEx and USPS are severely limited in the types of things they can deliver, while the USPS has no such rules. Yet we're supposed to believe that this "public option" is just another equal competitor in the health care playing field? Not a chance. So which is it? Does the government suck at managing things and the public option will fail miserably and be shut down? Or will it be the first government program that comes in under budget and with high quality and force the other insurers to lower prices?Or, should we just use the history of the last hundred years and make the safe assumption that the government will continue to do what is has always done, which is to fail, claim that the failure is due to lack of funds, give it more money, and change the rules so that the private sector competitors can't compete on a level playing field?

And don't forget that the USPS contracts with FedEx to handle it's rapid package delivery routes.Without the private company, the government one could not provide the services it does...And here is the USPS union website's slightly slanted view while they lobby for the government to cancel their use of this public company.

Inspector General:USPS Wasted $17.8 Million on FedEx ContractAPWU Web News Article #24-08, March 17, 2008An audit by the USPS Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has concluded that during Fiscal Years 2005 and 2006, the Postal Service’s Pacific Area incurred approximately $17.8 million in unnecessary costs by the use of “expensive FedEx transportation to move mail that could have been moved on low-priced surface transportation or on less costly passenger airlines.“The Postal Service also paid FedEx to sort mail when they could have avoided those costs by sorting the mail or properly preparing it for transport before giving it to FedEx,” the audit [NL-AR-08-002, Feb. 2008 - PDF] found. The report estimated that the Pacific Area USPS could save approximately $45 million over the next 10 years by eliminating the unnecessary expenditures.

Can't wait till the Government Employee Union gets to vote on the type and amount of health care I am going to get.

[Jeepster80125 0]

Supporters add hidden nuggets to health care bills"This is the kitchen sink train leaving the station," said Neil Trautwein of the National Retail Federation. "Every idea, good, bad or otherwise, that has ever been out there has to find its way in."

Reid’s Compromise Plan – More Costly To Taxpayers“Extending this successful program to those between 55 and 64 would be the largest expansion of Medicare in 44 years and would perhaps get us on the path to a single-payer model,” said Representative Anthony Weiner, Democrat of New York.

Awesome.Another note yorke...It's commonly suggested that the enrollment age for medicare be raised to age 70 or 75 to limit the number of participants, to keep the program from going broke in the next 10 years.One part of obamacare suggests lowering the medicare age to 45 or 55. With all the additional proposed cuts to medicare, it's ridiculous that this is even being considered.