Angry Mob of Racist Extremists Beats Black Man at Town Hall Meeting

[Frisky Feline]

dont mind me. health care plans...

 

[Reba]

Oh, and preventive care is intended to reduce the cost of medical care. After all, the entire reform is built on making medical care available to, and affordable by, the entire population. This issue is not about increasing the insurance company’s profits. That is where the biggest error is being made. Everything that has been proposed here in this thread does not increase quality of care or availability of care. It only contributes to the amount of money the insurance companies are putting in their bank accounts.

The reality is, the day that insurance companies don't make profits is the day they go out of business. No profits, no insurance companies, no coverage. Insurance companies don't stay in business for their health (excuse the pun).

They have to take in more than they pay out or else they close their doors.

 

[shel90]

The reality is, the day that insurance companies don't make profits is the day they go out of business. No profits, no insurance companies, no coverage. Insurance companies don't stay in business for their health (excuse the pun).

They have to take in more than they pay out or else they close their doors.

I was talking about increasing the profits, not reducing them.

 

[darkdog]

Are you comparing automobile insurance to medical insurance? IMO, I can’t compare the life and health of a human being to a car. If health insurance companies were not in the business of paying for preventive care, they would not pay for well baby check-ups, for pre-natal care, for any routine exams, for diagnostic tests, and a multitude of other services. Car insurance is intended to cover loss. Life insurance is intended to cover loss. Health insurance is intended to mitigate the cost of routine health care for living, breathing individuals. I am sorry but I wont accept that comparision. No offense.

Actually, I am making that comparison. I know it goes against the conventional way of thinking, so please hear me out. I'm saying that this attitude that health insurance should mitigate the cost of routine health care is the problem. Routine health care would be much cheaper if we didn't see it that way.

Imagine that employers offered food insurance intended to mitigate the cost of food. You just go to the grocery store, grab whatever food you want, flash your insurance card to the check out person, and you're done. What would happen? Wagyu steaks and shark fins for all! People would get whatever food they felt like without bothering to even look at the price. Because people are now disconnected from the cost of food, that would take the pressure off food manufacturers to keep their prices low. That, combined with soaring demand, would cause food prices to sky rocket. Then what? We would start complaining about the skyrocketing food prices and food insurance premiums. We would hear sob stories about people who don't get food insurance through their employer and can't afford it so they have to go bankrupt just to eat the bare minimum necessary for survival. Then there would be talk about a government takeover of food insurance. "Food is a right!" would be the mantra. Then, someone would come along and say, "You know, I think the problem is food insurance is disconnecting end consumers from the cost. Maybe we need a new way of thinking about food insurance." People would respond, "No, food insurance is intended to mitigate the cost of routine food for living, breathing individuals."

See the problem?

What I want is to have the end consumers buy their own insurance. If my company spends $5000 a year on my health insurance, I would rather have that money in my paycheck and then buy health insurance myself. I'm not talking about outlawing Cadillac plans. However, most people would probably do the math and realize they're better off buying a cheaper insurance plan with lower premiums and higher deductibles and then pay for their own routine medical care. After all, why spend thousands on health insurance premiums just to save hundreds in doctor visits?

You seem to be arguing that health insurance companies have some sort of moral obligation to offer more without actually charging more. Is there any other product or service we would say that about? "Yeah, I think it's really unfair that they actually charge more for the 24 ounce box of cereal than the 16 ounce box. People need to eat, you know."

 

[shel90]

Actually, I am making that comparison. I know it goes against the conventional way of thinking, so please hear me out. I'm saying that this attitude that health insurance should mitigate the cost of routine health care is the problem. Routine health care would be much cheaper if we didn't see it that way.

Imagine that employers offered food insurance intended to mitigate the cost of food. You just go to the grocery store, grab whatever food you want, flash your insurance card to the check out person, and you're done. What would happen? Wagyu steaks and shark fins for all! People would get whatever food they felt like without bothering to even look at the price. Because people are now disconnected from the cost of food, that would take the pressure off food manufacturers to keep their prices low. That, combined with soaring demand, would cause food prices to sky rocket. Then what? We would start complaining about the skyrocketing food prices and food insurance premiums. We would hear sob stories about people who don't get food insurance through their employer and can't afford it so they have to go bankrupt just to eat the bare minimum necessary for survival. Then there would be talk about a government takeover of food insurance. "Food is a right!" would be the mantra. Then, someone would come along and say, "You know, I think the problem is food insurance is disconnecting end consumers from the cost. Maybe we need a new way of thinking about food insurance." People would respond, "No, food insurance is intended to mitigate the cost of routine food for living, breathing individuals."

See the problem?

What I want is to have the end consumers buy their own insurance. If my company spends $5000 a year on my health insurance, I would rather have that money in my paycheck and then buy health insurance myself. I'm not talking about outlawing Cadillac plans. However, most people would probably do the math and realize they're better off buying a cheaper insurance plan with lower premiums and higher deductibles and then pay for their own routine medical care. After all, why spend thousands on health insurance premiums just to save hundreds in doctor visits?

You seem to be arguing that health insurance companies have some sort of moral obligation to offer more without actually charging more. Is there any other product or service we would say that about? "Yeah, I think it's really unfair that they actually charge more for the 24 ounce box of cereal than the 16 ounce box. People need to eat, you know."

No, just that health insurance shouldnt deny people health care and that it should be made available to all Americans.

I didnt know that one's health has to come at a hefty price.

Why not keep privatized health care but add the Nationalized Health care and health care packages as an option?

That way people who cant afford to buy a health care package or dont have the luxury of working for a company that offers health benefits can use the Nationalized Health care.

 

[kokonut]

No, just that health insurance shouldnt deny people health care and that it should be made available to all Americans.

I didnt know that one's health has to come at a hefty price.

Why not keep privatized health care but add the Nationalized Health care and health care packages as an option?

That way people who cant afford to buy a health care package or dont have the luxury of working for a company that offers health benefits can use the Nationalized Health care.

The problem with this current attempt at nationalizing health care is that the language allow provisions that will regulate the private insurance industry to the point of driving them out of business.

 

[darkdog]

No, just that health insurance shouldnt deny people health care and that it should be made available to all Americans.

I didnt know that one's health has to come at a hefty price.

Why not keep privatized health care but add the Nationalized Health care and health care packages as an option?

That way people who cant afford to buy a health care package or dont have the luxury of working for a company that offers health benefits can use the Nationalized Health care.

Everything comes at a price. As long as people want infinite quantities of stuff and only finite resources exist, there will be a price. Prices exist as a signal to allocate scarce resources. I'm saying the price doesn't have to be so hefty. We're making it extra hefty by distorting the market and distorting the price.

Think about this. Suppose an insurance company has 1 million customers and it covers annual checkups and tests for all of them. It averages about $500 per person. You may be thinking "Good, all those people just saved $500." But the company just spent $500 million and that money needs to come from somewhere, so they get it by raising premiums $500 million across the board. Everyone's premiums just went up by $500. Nothing's different except they just sent that money through a middle man. In all reality, because of the paper work involved, the amount would be higher than $500. How is that saving money? Because their employers pay for the premiums? Remember, premiums are just part of your compensation package, so they higher your premiums, the lower your salary.

As for why we shouldn't have nationalized health care, the reasons are numerous.

1. We're already in a deep financial hole.
2. It would undercut private insurance and lower competition.
3. It would be horribly inefficient.
4. It would further distort prices which would drive up costs further.
5. If Medicare is any indication, the actual costs are likely to be far higher than the current projection (scary as they are).
6. The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to do it.

 

[Jiro]

No, just that health insurance shouldnt deny people health care and that it should be made available to all Americans.

I didnt know that one's health has to come at a hefty price.

Why not keep privatized health care but add the Nationalized Health care and health care packages as an option?

That way people who cant afford to buy a health care package or dont have the luxury of working for a company that offers health benefits can use the Nationalized Health care.

I understand and I sympathize but I do not believe each person should have equal access. Why? because we're not in utopia nor socialist country. Let me elaborate -

I do believe every single American should have an AFFORDABLE access to health care but I do not believe every single American should have EQUAL access to health care. What does that mean? For ie - each American is NOT entitled to "BEST MEDICAL" care available to them. I know I sound like a snobby elitist but it's the reality. That's why there are "classes" because we have finite resource. If you can afford the best, well good for you. If you cannot, well you'll have to make do with what's free and available for you.

These students go to public school. Other students go to private school. These people take mass transit. Other people have their own cars. These people have public police. Other people have their own bodyguards.

You get what I'm saying? I do believe Obama's right about a few things which was addressed in his weekly speech (posted by Foxrac) but I do not believe his solution is the answer to this problem.

 

[shel90]

I understand and I sympathize but I do not believe each person should have equal access. Why? because we're not in utopia nor socialist country. Let me elaborate -

I do believe every single American should have an AFFORDABLE access to health care but I do not believe every single American should have EQUAL access to health care. What does that mean? For ie - each American is NOT entitled to "BEST MEDICAL" care available to them. I know I sound like a snobby elitist but it's the reality. That's why there are "classes" because we have finite resource. If you can afford the best, well good for you. If you cannot, well you'll have to make do with what's free and available for you.

These students go to public school. Other students go to private school. These people take mass transit. Other people have their own cars. These people have public police. Other people have their own bodyguards.

You get what I'm saying? I do believe Obama's right about a few things which was addressed in his weekly speech (posted by Foxrac) but I do not believe his solution is the answer to this problem.

So someone's health and well-being should depend on their socioeconomic status? Wow..

 

[shel90]

• Page 16: States that if you have insurance at the time of the bill becoming law and change, you will be required to take a similar plan. If that is not available, you will be required to take the gov option!

• Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!

• Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!

• Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)

• Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.

• Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.

• Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.

• Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.

• Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (example: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)

• Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange.

• Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)

• Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens

• Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.

• Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter.

• Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No "judicial review" is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed.

• Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.

• Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives.

• Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families.

• Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, wh o does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll <>BR • Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll

• Page 167: Any individual who doesn't' have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income.

• Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them).

• Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records.

• Page 203: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." Yes, it really says that.

• Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected."

• Page 241: Doctors: no matter what speciality you have, you'll all be paid the same (thanks, AMA!)

• Page 253: Government sets value of doctors' time, their professional judgment, etc.

• Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private healthcare industries.

• Page 268: Government regulates re ntal and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs.

• Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of rationing!

• Page 280: Hospitals will be penalized for what the government deems preventable re-admissions.

• Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government.

• Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited for owning and investing in healthcare companies!

• Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand without government approval.

• Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on "community" input: in other words, yet another payoff for ACORN.

• Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures: i.e., rationing.

• Page 341: Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc.

• Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals.

• Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (healthcare by phone).

• Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia?

• Page 425: Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. Mandatory. Appears to20lock in estate taxes ahead of time.

• Page 425: Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death.

• Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends.

• Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient's health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT.

• Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life.

• Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for ACORN.

• Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for ACORN.

• Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage.

• Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining, creating and rationing those services.
AARP Online Community: Insurance and Medicare - What You Should Know About Healthcare Reform

http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

You stated several times saying that we dont have the money for it then why post links to the AARP if you are in disagreement with it?

 

[shel90]

The reality is, the day that insurance companies don't make profits is the day they go out of business. No profits, no insurance companies, no coverage. Insurance companies don't stay in business for their health (excuse the pun).

They have to take in more than they pay out or else they close their doors.

Wanted to add...

You are correct. Insurance companies have always made profits. It is expected. However, it is not expected that they will sacrifice quality and eligibility for care of our society to increase and make excessive profits. In the days of fee-for-service insurance, companies made a profit, doctors were allowed to determine what procedures were in the best interest of their patient’s health, they were paid according to their fees, and health costs were lower. Since the insurance companies have decided that HMOs and PPOs are the way to increase profits for the insurance companies by limiting the care available to their subscribers, by denying services and refusing to pay doctors, and by using fee schedules, people are going without adequate coverage, medical costs have skyrocketed, and insurance company profits have increased at an alarming rate. There is no coincidence here.

 

[shel90]

Everything comes at a price. As long as people want infinite quantities of stuff and only finite resources exist, there will be a price. Prices exist as a signal to allocate scarce resources. I'm saying the price doesn't have to be so hefty. We're making it extra hefty by distorting the market and distorting the price.

Think about this. Suppose an insurance company has 1 million customers and it covers annual checkups and tests for all of them. It averages about $500 per person. You may be thinking "Good, all those people just saved $500." But the company just spent $500 million and that money needs to come from somewhere, so they get it by raising premiums $500 million across the board. Everyone's premiums just went up by $500. Nothing's different except they just sent that money through a middle man. In all reality, because of the paper work involved, the amount would be higher than $500. How is that saving money? Because their employers pay for the premiums? Remember, premiums are just part of your compensation package, so they higher your premiums, the lower your salary.

As for why we shouldn't have nationalized health care, the reasons are numerous.

1. We're already in a deep financial hole.
2. It would undercut private insurance and lower competition.
3. It would be horribly inefficient.
4. It would further distort prices which would drive up costs further.
5. If Medicare is any indication, the actual costs are likely to be far higher than the current projection (scary as they are).
6. The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to do it.

People can buy their own health insurance now. But the costs are prohibitive. That is why employers offer group insurance. The group rates decrease the cost for employer and employee, and spreads the risk over more people for the insurer. To stop offering the benefits of group rates would be the quickest way to make sure that even more people go uninsured.

 

[kokonut]

You stated several times saying that we dont have the money for it then why post links to the AARP if you are in disagreement with it?

We don't have the money. Are you implying that we do or that it's not a problem, financially, to fund this bill? The link was a reference to where that list came from (plus reading the comments wouldn't hurt, either).

 

[Reba]

Wanted to add...

... insurance company profits have increased at an alarming rate. There is no coincidence here.

What percentage rate do you consider "alarming." That is, what has been the rate of increase of profits over how many years, compared to the past? Also, compared to the general cost of living index.

I'm curious--what are the actual numbers?

 

[Jiro]

So someone's health and well-being should depend on their socioeconomic status? Wow..

that's the simple reality. If you want everybody's health & well-being to be equal.... then that's what communism & socialism are for. you can always move to Cuba!

By your logic - do you think everybody should equally have same type of food including what "fat rich men" eat? Do you think everybody should equally have same type of drug including what "fat rich men" have such as the most expensive AIDS cocktail and multiple blood transfusions for life? Do you think everybody should equally have same quality of housing that "fat rich men" have?

 

[darkdog]

that's the simple reality. If you want everybody's health & well-being to be equal.... then that's what communism & socialism are for. you can always move to Cuba!

By your logic - do you think everybody should equally have same type of food including what "fat rich men" eat? Do you think everybody should equally have same type of drug including what "fat rich men" have such as the most expensive AIDS cocktail and multiple blood transfusions for life? Do you think everybody should equally have same quality of housing that "fat rich men" have?

Yup. Inequality of results is simply inevitable. The only way to iron them out is to give a dangerous amount of power to a few elite, which creates a great inequality of power. We see from history what happens when such schemes are taken to an extreme. In the Soviet Union, the elites got the cool cars and got their own special stores to shop in. They enjoyed a pretty cozy life while everyone else got crapped on.

This bill obviously isn't going that far, but inequalities would still exist. Congress is refusing to put themselves on this plan. They're going to have a much better deal than the rest of us. I'm not willing to dump our freedoms and prosperity just because of something like inequality of results that may be unpleasant but is inevitable in any society.

This reminds me of this kid from Rhode Island who got this really nasty disease called RSD that is apparently one of the most painful things to have. His only hope was this treatment available in Germany and not here due to stringent FDA restrictions (thanks government!). If his family was super rich, they could have afforded it no problem, but they weren't. They set up a website, got in the media, and were able to raise the $75,000 to make it happen.

Government has a terrible track record of solving these problems, so I don't know why we keep trusting it. As I said before, in whatever system, people will always fall through the cracks and that's why this society should place more emphasis on personal giving and charity. This is a compassionate country- I think we should tap into that more instead of forcing people to fork money over to utopian schemes with track records of failure.

 

[ASLGAL]

Sorry Shel, what a hot topic and I only get to check in briefly each day.
You asked "who is the snitch?"

The White House(Obama Admin) is asking that people turn in those who have views against the Obamacare Plan and voice them.
So, anyone could be the snitch.

I am curious as to what pressure Obama Admin plans to put on "the people" to shut up freedom of speech?
More of the ACORN/thug type stuff we have started to see? or worse?

I certainly did not agree with Clinton's Admin and many aspects of Bush's Admin and voiced my opinions as a free and productive member of society.
It appears that Obama isn't going to stop at telling "the people" to 'Shut Up' and is going to go farther.

 

[shel90]

Sorry Shel, what a hot topic and I only get to check in briefly each day.
You asked "who is the snitch?"

The White House(Obama Admin) is asking that people turn in those who have views against the Obamacare Plan and voice them.
So, anyone could be the snitch.

I am curious as to what pressure Obama Admin plans to put on "the people" to shut up freedom of speech?
More of the ACORN/thug type stuff we have started to see? or worse?

I certainly did not agree with Clinton's Admin and many aspects of Bush's Admin and voiced my opinions as a free and productive member of society.
It appears that Obama isn't going to stop at telling "the people" to 'Shut Up' and is going to go farther.

I am wondering...

Can you provide a link or some sort of substantive proof that the Obama Admin has told anyone to shut up regarding health care reform. I think you must have Obama and his administration confused with the Republican supported and funded Teabaggers and birthers that are being organized to disrupt townhall meetings all over this country and prevent true discourse from taking place. They are the ones denying freedom of speech.

 

[shel90]

Yes, they are, and they aren't as good as private insurance.

Hubby and I use the VA hospital, so I speak from experience. Most of the staff at VA hospitals are wonderful people, and the services, once you get them, are usually very good. The problem is, you are at their mercy as far as making appointments and being able to see specialists. And then, we still have to pay for the services and meds. It is not free.

We veterans earned our medical services, and we pay the Tricare insurance premiums, the co-pays, and the taxes that support the system. Medical care for veterans was supposed to be one of our "benefits" for our military service.

The VA system covers a very select population, unlike Obamacare which will have to cover a very large, diverse population.

Should civilians who didn't earn Obamacare expect better benefits than those who earned and paid for them?

If you want to make a case for Obamacare, I suggest you don't include VA medical services as a support for your argument. It will backfire on you.

The VA hospitals discuss "end of life" matters now. Last time my uncle went for my annual physical they asked if he had a living will, and if they could keep a copy on file at the clinic. It was not a "patient initiated discussion."

Here is the explanation for that:

The government requires hospitals to ask adult patients if they have a living will, or "advance directive." If the patient doesn't have one, and wants one, the hospital has to provide assistance. The mandate on hospitals was instituted during a Republican administration, in 1992, under President George H.W. Bush.

Just thought that it would be interesting that conservatives and die hard Republicans, yet, one of the things that they are objecting to in health care reform something that was mandated under a Republican…George Bush.

 

[KarissaMann05]

Okay I don't read a whole of this thread but the first post is ...

GEEZ! So much hateful for any race. =/