Easy Universal Healthcare -

[timebuilder]

Historically, the government does a pretty poor job of running things. For that reason alone, we don't want to turn over 1/6 of the economy to them.

The actual solution is for NO ONE to have insurance. That's right, nada. That way, everything that a doctor, hospital, or pharmaceutical company charges MUST be within the reach of their customers.

Now, I didn't come up with this idea. It was a leading economist that told me this.

In fact, when I was a boy, we always paid the doctor in cash. We didn't have a lot of money, either. What changed? Lawsuits. Yep. It costs Cessna about 60 thousand to build a new C172 with a nice profit. So, why does a new one cost $120K? It's because that even after Congress passed the law that revived general aviation manufacturing in the US, it still costs a TON of money in liability premiums for every aircraft made.

So, if we get rid of the concept of insurance except for catastrophic costs, and we restrain the lawsuit lottery, we could have the same affordable medical care that we had in this country before lawyers started advertising and doctors started paying half their gross to insurance premiums.

[timebuilder]

Go look up say the last 40 years of USPS operations, and if they were operating at a loss or profit. Looking at a few months of data during what is called the biggest recession since the 1930s is hardly an argument for establishing a trend. Looking at the last 40 years IS a trend, and I'll give you a hint, their profit was a positive number.

Their profit was thanks to the ever-spiraling costs of postage. That profit started to nose over thanks to email, and now, the OMB is saying that the postal service is on the verge of bankruptcy.

Here is an an example of the current state of the postal service:

http://www.bkforum.com/showthread.php?t=30071

[BNME8EZ]

The biggest problem with health care is the cost which is high because of legal issues. Law suits cause insurance to go up and medical cost to rise. That being the case why don't the politicians want to talk about tort reform?

[timebuilder]

The biggest problem with health care is the cost which is high because of legal issues. Law suits cause insurance to go up and medical cost to rise. That being the case why don't the politicians want to talk about tort reform?

Easy answer:

The Democrat party is mainly supported by the trial lawyers, who want no limits on their income. If tort reform was passed, the lawyers might have to make good with only two homes, instead of four.

[BigJon3475]

Go look up say the last 40 years of USPS operations, and if they were operating at a loss or profit. Looking at a few months of data during what is called the biggest recession since the 1930s is hardly an argument for establishing a trend. Looking at the last 40 years IS a trend, and I'll give you a hint, their profit was a positive number.

Now think about what you just said. How long was the internet in use during that 40 years? There was a time and place for hand delivered mail. You can rest assured that the green movement and the internet are making that time something for the history books... They'll never be profitable again in it's current form. They'll need to come into a role something more similar to UPS or Fedex if they ever want to become useful again. That doesn't mean I don't like my mailman. It just means times change...

[billygoat22]

few weeks ago heard a complaint that insurance cos could drop people for making claims. Don't forget, you can drop them if they don't give what you're after.

If you don't like socialized healthcare, don't have that option. And there's no reason for them to deliver a decent product since they have a captive consumer base...unlike the present setup.

And there's a bit of gov restriction on the availabilty of what we can purchase on the open market, or limited market. And what about all that gov bs insur cos have to wade through? that's a cost of business as well.

[BigJon3475]

For anyone that thinks a co-op or anything else the government comes up with that promises you an ability to choose your doctor or to keep your own all you need to do is look at the GSEs and their original intent. They were originally created as an alternative to keep prices down in housing and they were never to be the monopoly. How'd that work out?

[timebuilder]

For anyone that thinks a co-op or anything else the government comes up with that promises you an ability to choose your doctor or to keep your own all you need to do is look at the GSEs and their original intent. They were originally created as an alternative to keep prices down in housing and they were never to be the monopoly. How'd that work out?

For those who are unfamiliar, he is referencing Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, which are Government Sponsored Entities.

Fannie Mae is the Federal National Mortgage Association.

Freddie Mac is the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation.

Of note is that Fannie and Freddy were grossly mismanaged by their officers, congressmen, and senators. It is for this reason that people are justifiably skittish about the government taking on any additional role in healthcare. They cannot properly manage Medicare as it is.

Franklin Raines was a close Obama adviser, and never actually held a formal title of "economic adviser" to Obama. That said, Raines mismanaged Fannie Mae into deep financial trouble while making some Nine Million Dollars in pay and bonuses. All from a government sponsored entity, no less. Two other figures were closely linked to the Obama administration during the runup to the election, but were virtually ignored by the legacy media.

[Dowadudda]

I think one of the reasons not the outcry from the health coomunity is, they realize if the government gets a hold of it, there will be tons of money for them. They know the government will screw it up, and that will be great money to them now, and long into the future.

[absoair]

OK, help me out here. In my 7:00am - 3:30pm job, I have about $350.00 deducted every 4 weeks for health insurance. What will I pay for universal?
I have a family of 5. My wife and I are under 45years of age.

[BigJon3475]

For those who are unfamiliar, he is referencing Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, which are Government Sponsored Entities.

Fannie Mae is the Federal National Mortgage Association.

Freddie Mac is the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation.

Of note is that Fannie and Freddy were grossly mismanaged by their officers, congressmen, and senators. It is for this reason that people are justifiably skittish about the government taking on any additional role in healthcare. They cannot properly manage Medicare as it is.

Franklin Raines was a close Obama adviser, and never actually held a formal title of "economic adviser" to Obama. That said, Raines mismanaged Fannie Mae into deep financial trouble while making some Nine Million Dollars in pay and bonuses. All from a government sponsored entity, no less. Two other figures were closely linked to the Obama administration during the runup to the election, but were virtually ignored by the legacy media.

Raines was the Chief in the Clinton's OMB office also. He cost them $6.3 billion in accounting fraud which prompted mortgage backed securities to be focused on by his predecessor. MBS's started under Raines though. Raines made $90 million while at Fannie.

[BigJon3475]

I think one of the reasons not the outcry from the health coomunity is, they realize if the government gets a hold of it, there will be tons of money for them. They know the government will screw it up, and that will be great money to them now, and long into the future.

Yeah the never ending pot of gold called the tax liability. The government can and will just tax what it needs. The problem is it always needs more than it taxes... The US government should be the illustrated example beside the definition of slippery slope.

[BigJon3475]

OK, help me out here. In my 7:00am - 3:30pm job, I have about $350.00 deducted every 4 weeks for health insurance. What will I pay for universal?
I have a family of 5. My wife and I are under 45years of age.

It's free haven't you head... The problem again is not what you'll see up front. It's what happens when the government miscalculates and now has the ability to tax what it needs. The proverbial hand in the pocket... Once it's there it'll be a cold day in hell when you get to remove it. Once the paperwork is in place for the government to tax what it needs and people are dependent upon it it will be virtually impossible to vote it out or decrease funds for it.

[Fuji]

OK, help me out here. In my 7:00am - 3:30pm job, I have about $350.00 deducted every 4 weeks for health insurance. What will I pay for universal?
I have a family of 5. My wife and I are under 45years of age.

You are not paying $350 a month for 5. You are paying much more, just indirectly. Average spending in US per person is roughly $6,500 per year. Your employer pays all that, and just makes your salary lower.

If you make an average wage, and have a relatively large family, you stand the most to benefit from all of this. Someone making lots of money with 1 or 2 people on the tax form stand to benefit less.

[BigJon3475]

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2907

Many employers that do offer coverage also would be subject to this requirement. Workers who would have to pay more than 13 percent of their income for their share of the premium costs under their employer’s plan, and who have family incomes below 300 percent of the poverty line, could receive a subsidy to purchase coverage through the exchange. Their employers, however, would then be billed for those subsidies.
As a result, firms that offer coverage generally would be worse off under this provision than under the “play-or-pay” provisions of the House health care bill or the bill that the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee has approved.

So basically if you're a business owner or someone who's already paying the tax liability for the rest of America (the upper 42% of the work force), guess what, you'll be paying even more for the rest of the country...

[timebuilder]

OK, help me out here. In my 7:00am - 3:30pm job, I have about $350.00 deducted every 4 weeks for health insurance. What will I pay for universal?
I have a family of 5. My wife and I are under 45years of age.

One of the problems with the house bills is the uncertainty created in the vague language used. For example, a requirement for "deficit neutrality" could result in your taxes being raised. Mine too.

One of the big dangers is that employers who are under economic pressure could decide to drop your "good" coverage in place of a "public option" plan, where your coverage is "not so good." This is the secret of rhetoric like "we will let you keep your private insurance."

Sure, until your private insurance no longer exists!

And, this will not cause your wages to rise in the coming inflationary environment.

[quickcat46]

Just a few thoughts on Health Insurance.

In 2007 there were 46.3 million people in the United States without health Insurance. That was 2 years ago when the economy was rolling along. Now in the middle of a recession that is pretty severe by any standards. With almost 10% of the workforce out of work how many people are now without coverage?

Why do we tie our health insurance to our jobs, the days when you got a job and stayed until retirement are over.

If one person through no fault of there own lose their house or a lifetime worth of savings then we need to rethink our healthcare policy.

If any person dies prematurely because they can't afford the treatment what does that say about us as human beings. I personally find this kind of behavior criminal, and I do believe that this has happened and will continue to occur until we deal with it.

If everyone was covered, would not the parents be sure the kids got all there shots and also make sure that Grandma and Grandpa got regular checkups and that the practice of preventive medicine would become much improved. By finding and identifying problems early the costs will always be much less expensive. Seems like a no brainer to me.

[timebuilder]

Raines was the Chief in the Clinton's OMB office also. He cost them $6.3 billion in accounting fraud which prompted mortgage backed securities to be focused on by his predecessor. MBS's started under Raines though. Raines made $90 million while at Fannie.

Thanks, I forgot the zero. I think Arlen Specter does that, too.

[timebuilder]

You are not paying $350 a month for 5. You are paying much more, just indirectly. Average spending in US per person is roughly $6,500 per year. Your employer pays all that, and just makes your salary lower.

If you make an average wage, and have a relatively large family, you stand the most to benefit from all of this. Someone making lots of money with 1 or 2 people on the tax form stand to benefit less.

An average worker with a large family will only benefit in theory, because there are so many "other" such families that will be getting into lines that will stretch out of waiting rooms. No additional doctors will suddenly appear when the patients appear, and the average worker will be able to keep his private insurance, until that coverage is no longer offered by the employer or the insurance company decides they cannot continue to offer policies. The COBRA cost when your employer opts into the public option plan will be staggering, so that's how you get forced into the public plan.

[timebuilder]

Just a few thoughts on Health Insurance.

In 2007 there were 46.3 million people in the United States without health Insurance. That was 2 years ago when the economy was rolling along. Now in the middle of a recession that is pretty severe by any standards. With almost 10% of the workforce out of work how many people are now without coverage?

The big estimate includes 12- 14 million illegals and all of the under 30 folks who are not interested in insurance, along with those who only lost their insurance during a part of the survey year. The actual number on "uninsured" is much smaller.

If any person dies prematurely because they can't afford the treatment what does that say about us as human beings. I personally find this kind of behavior criminal, and I do believe that this has happened and will continue to occur until we deal with it.

It says that we live in an imperfect world, one that we are incapable of perfecting as humans.

All you have to do is look to Britain, where women are denied lifesaving drugs for breast cancer because it is too expensive. That is exactly what we would see here.

If everyone was covered, would not the parents be sure the kids got all there shots and also make sure that Grandma and Grandpa got regular checkups and that the practice of preventive medicine would become much improved. By finding and identifying problems early the costs will always be much less expensive. Seems like a no brainer to me.

That is correct, because the Brain must be used to complete that scenario. No new doctors, no new hospitals that you or I would be caught sick in. I don't know any kids that don't get their shots, and my dad, a Great-Grandfather, gets his medical care, too. All of that happens under the CURRENT system.

So, there is no increase in care that would result under any of the proposed legislation, but there IS an excellent possibility, based on the existing models used in other countries, that care would DECREASE.