Key liberal congressman flips to 'yes' on health care vote

[Daredevel7]

TXGolfer, I thought your medical trust fund was an interesting idea. Although, I do not understand why you keep saying "It's no fair!". With the assumption that a penalty fee for having no insurance is lower than paying for the mandatory insurance (does anyone have numbers for this? I googled it for 2 min, then gave up), you are the least screwed out of all those who don't "need" insurance. You obviously can afford the penalty fee. Kinda weird to be yelling out "No fair!" when the other side of the coin shows that poor people just cannot afford insurance or health care, so they can't do anything about their illness.

I understand the general issue of giving money to the poor. After all, you've earned that money, why should you give it to someone who probably didn't do jack squat with his/her life? I understand this issue when it comes to taxes, benefits etc. But should we project this issue in the case for health care? Is it the same thing?

"They didn't work, so they don't deserve Social security benefits, retirement benefits, welfare benefits, and so on."

vs

"They didn't work, so they don't deserve to fix their broken arm, get chemotherapy for cancer, get medicine, get root canal, and so on."

Are they the same thing to you all?

 

[TXgolfer]

TXGolfer, I thought your medical trust fund was an interesting idea. Although, I do not understand why you keep saying "It's no fair!". With the assumption that a penalty fee for having no insurance is lower than paying for the mandatory insurance (does anyone have numbers for this? I googled it for 2 min, then gave up), you are the least screwed out of all those who don't "need" insurance. You obviously can afford the penalty fee. Kinda weird to be yelling out "No fair!" when the other side of the coin shows that poor people just cannot afford insurance or health care, so they can't do anything about their illness.

I understand the general issue of giving money to the poor. After all, you've earned that money, why should you give it to someone who probably didn't do jack squat with his/her life? I understand this issue when it comes to taxes, benefits etc. But should we project this issue in the case for health care? Is it the same thing?

"They didn't work, so they don't deserve Social security benefits, retirement benefits, welfare benefits, and so on."

vs

"They didn't work, so they don't deserve to fix their broken arm, get chemotherapy for cancer, get medicine, get root canal, and so on."

Are they the same thing to you all?

I actually have a great deal of compassion for the poor and contribute to numerous charities in addition to participating in building projects. I often hire people from shelters as day labor when I am at the lake. I am very familiar with the plight of the poor.

It's my belief that this plan hurts the poor. The costs are high at a time when the country is in significant financial trouble....the dollar is already weak and a weaker dollar hurts the poor more than anyone. And we have no idea what this bill will cost. The jobs bill was priced at $15 billion and within 10 days it rose to $18 billion. (20%)

The plan will cut jobs. Caterpillar is expecting to lose $100 million in the first year due to this plan. It's a fact companies will either cut jobs or raise prices to pay for this plan. Higher costs and fewer jobs both hurt the poor.

Mandates require all to have insurance....The most needy will be subsidized...but what about the hard working middle class folks who are just beyond the limit for subsidy.....do we want to encourage people to earn less? If so that actually creates more poor and an even greater separation of the classes. Not to mention adding to the cost for those subsidies.

Many smaller businesses will close. I closed my business at the prospect of higher taxes and health care mandates.....it just wasn't worth it anymore. As I posted before 2 of my golf buddies did the same. Between our 3 businesses 70 people lost their jobs. More will choose to do the same and some of those small business owners will seek employment. That adds to an already large pool of job seekers.

And what about the entrepreneurial spirit of our country that leads to innovation. Do we really want the free thinkers of our country opting for a 9-5 to comply with the health care mandate. Start up costs are often prohibitive. Add mandatory health care to those costs and alot of great ideas may never leave the ground.

The problem is not that it is unfair to me. The plan is not fair to all and in my opinion will have a negative impact on the poor rather than a positive impact. And again....it is most likely unconstitutional under the commerce clause. It will be interesting to watch.

 

[Reba]

Then perhaps they need to do what is necessary to insure that they do fall under the provision. Otherwise, anyone that simply doesn't want to purchase insurance can claim to be affiliated with a sect that does not believe in traditional medical care.

Um, so religions need government approval?

Sorry, this isn't China (yet).

 

[Reba]

"They didn't work, so they don't deserve Social security benefits, retirement benefits, welfare benefits, and so on."

If they didn't work, from what do they retire???

 

[sallylou]

The gambling theory of health insurance is interesting but incorrect. Insurance is based on the idea of shared risk. A large pools of people pay premiums to get protection against a certain risk. The premiums pay for the cost of the people who happen to fall prey to the risk. Not everyone is going to fall prey to a certain risk. It's a pool of resources for risk sharing.

 

[deafskeptic]

Possible but it would require an amendment to the bill.....which of course requires a vote.

Certain things can be "tweaked" like Fine amounts or deadlines but actually adding something to a bill requires an amendment

Yes, I know.

 

[TXgolfer]

The gambling theory of health insurance is interesting but incorrect. Insurance is based on the idea of shared risk. A large pools of people pay premiums to get protection against a certain risk. The premiums pay for the cost of the people who happen to fall prey to the risk. Not everyone is going to fall prey to a certain risk. It's a pool of resources for risk sharing.

Like......horse racing? Gambler's put money into the win pool place pool and show pool. The track takes a percentage of each pool and the the winners are paid. It's managed risk because if there was not a pool betting on a horse would be a one to one prospect in which both the track and gambler are at risk. But with a pool risk is shared and odds are created.....same concept but with a few tweaks.


Health Insurance companies are in business to make money. Obviously they risk assessment is a big part of the formula.

Interesting that Obama said in today's speech That the plan would remove lifetime caps and not allow companies to refuse those with pre existing conditions yet costs would go down....I can't wait to see how that is going to happen....lol.

 

[sallylou]

Not all insurance is for profit. The insurance that is for profit can be regulated. It's called insurance law.

 

[TXgolfer]

Not all insurance is for profit. The insurance that is for profit can be regulated. It's called insurance law.

Horse races are heavily regulated

Insurance companies are required to remain solvent by Federal statute. My point in comparing Ins cos to gambling is that they must assess risk in order to do so. By telling an Insurance company that they cannot judge pre existing conditions you take away a tool used in order to remain solvent. When you remove the lifetime cap Ins Cos lose another tool to remain solvent. So obviously rates would have to go up.

You can't tell a company...."hey see this guy with heart disease? You have to cover him now...oh, and there are no limits to his coverage. If he lives 10 years and runs up $10 million so be it. Oh and another thing you have to lower those rates.....for everybody"

That's going to work out well:roll:

 

[Daredevel7]

Horse races are heavily regulated

Insurance companies are required to remain solvent by Federal statute. My point in comparing Ins cos to gambling is that they must access risk in order to do so. By telling an Insurance company that they cannot judge pre existing conditions you take away a tool used in order to remain solvent. When you remove the lifetime cap Ins Cos lose another tool to remain solvent. So obviously rates would have to go up.

You can't tell a company...."hey see this guy with heart disease? You have to cover him now...oh, and there are no limits to his coverage. If he lives 10 years and runs up $10 million so be it. Oh and another thing you have to lower those rates.....for everybody"

That's going to work out well:roll:

Instead of asking yourself "Why would you take away the tool of pre-existing conditions to assess risk?", why not ask yourself "Why does it even cost 10 million in the first place?"

 

[Beowulf]

Instead of asking yourself "Why would you take away the tool of pre-existing conditions to assess risk?", why not ask yourself "Why does it even cost 10 million in the first place?"

It's sort of like robbing Peter to pay Paul, eh? I had a friend who worked in insurance, and I've seen him carry thousands in his wallet. Why do I say this? No idea, lol. It is the only exposure to insurance I have personally seen and it is not so pretty. On the other hand, I went to the city ER a couple weeks ago and I couldn't help but be struck at the number of poor people and I am sure they were uninsured. All I know is, something's gotta give.

 

[TXgolfer]

Instead of asking yourself "Why would you take away the tool of pre-existing conditions to assess risk?", why not ask yourself "Why does it even cost 10 million in the first place?"

That answer is easy....Lawsuits, malpractice insurance, FDA regulations, rapidly changing technology, unions, cost of education, Obama, greed, deadbeats, costs exceeding coverage, the uninsured (yes they are a factor) and about 1000 other things.


That being said John the responsible health nut who works hard, stays fit and avoids vices shouldn't have his premiums rise because his insurance company has to cover Larry the loser who lost his job and pickled his liver.

There maybe solutions for poor ol Larry. But burdening free enterprise isn't one of them. That solution will cost everyone

 

[jillio]

This is just getting funny now.

It will be fun to watch what happens

Tell those many, many people who have been denied benefits based on that pre-existing condition clause just how funny you find the discussion.:roll:

 

[jillio]

That answer is easy....Lawsuits, malpractice insurance, FDA regulations, rapidly changing technology, unions, cost of education, Obama, greed, deadbeats, costs exceeding coverage, the uninsured (yes they are a factor) and about 1000 other things.


That being said John the responsible health nut who works hard, stays fit and avoids vices shouldn't have his premiums rise because his insurance company has to cover Larry the loser who lost his job and pickled his liver.
There maybe solutions for poor ol Larry. But burdening free enterprise isn't one of them. That solution will cost everyone

That is the whole premise behind group coverage rates. Those with little risk mediate those with greater risk and bring the cost of premiums down.

Given the number of lawsuits compared to the number of people who recieve medical care, it is ridiculas to place the blame for rising medical costs on lawsuits. As I stated prior, several states have enacted malpractice caps. It has not served to reduce costs at all.

 

[jillio]

TXGolfer, I thought your medical trust fund was an interesting idea. Although, I do not understand why you keep saying "It's no fair!". With the assumption that a penalty fee for having no insurance is lower than paying for the mandatory insurance (does anyone have numbers for this? I googled it for 2 min, then gave up), you are the least screwed out of all those who don't "need" insurance. You obviously can afford the penalty fee. Kinda weird to be yelling out "No fair!" when the other side of the coin shows that poor people just cannot afford insurance or health care, so they can't do anything about their illness.

I understand the general issue of giving money to the poor. After all, you've earned that money, why should you give it to someone who probably didn't do jack squat with his/her life? I understand this issue when it comes to taxes, benefits etc. But should we project this issue in the case for health care? Is it the same thing?

"They didn't work, so they don't deserve Social security benefits, retirement benefits, welfare benefits, and so on."

vs

"They didn't work, so they don't deserve to fix their broken arm, get chemotherapy for cancer, get medicine, get root canal, and so on."

Are they the same thing to you all?

Well said, DD.

 

[jillio]

I see. So people are not entitled to their individual religious beliefs.....they must be tied to an organization

Of course they are entitled to individual religious beliefs. And they accept the consequence of those beliefs in the process. It is called personal responsibility.

 

[jillio]

The gambling theory of health insurance is interesting but incorrect. Insurance is based on the idea of shared risk. A large pools of people pay premiums to get protection against a certain risk. The premiums pay for the cost of the people who happen to fall prey to the risk. Not everyone is going to fall prey to a certain risk. It's a pool of resources for risk sharing.

Exactly.

 

[TXgolfer]

That is the whole premise behind group coverage rates. Those with little risk mediate those with greater risk and bring the cost of premiums down.

Given the number of lawsuits compared to the number of people who recieve medical care, it is ridiculas to place the blame for rising medical costs on lawsuits. As I stated prior, several states have enacted malpractice caps. It has not served to reduce costs at all.

And that premise fails. :shrug: As I have said I hope it passes. It's fun to watch others learn a hard lesson. The country is due for a wake up call in economics and politics.....Passage of this bill is like scheduling that wake up call.

I am practicing my "I told you so's" now

 

[jillio]

No, that premise doesn't fail. It is the premise that has insured that for-profit insurance companies have stayed in business.

I see. So you are hoping for passage simply because you wish to see failure. How humanitarian of you.

 

[KarissaMann05]

Wirelessly posted

If Obamacare fails, will people still blame Bush?