How about a flat, federal consumption tax. In fact, its worked rather well in the great state of TN, which Miss Marsha so proudly represents (the 7th congressional district). This will NOT cause a contraction of the economy beyond what is bearable, otherwise the state of TN would have bankrupted years ago, so let's get real. Fat cats, corporations, tax evaders with off shore accounts, even welfare reciepients will be forced to pay their fair share through consumption and purchases, simple.
After doing some research (imagine that!) it seems there are some explanation for the failure of this progam that the Congresswoman is not explaining. I wonder why?
"Several assumptions and comparisons with previous health care programs made by designers of the TennCare program proved to be inaccurate."
(cont.) The state underestimated the previous costs of Medicaid. TennCare, which covers 25% of the state's nearly 5 million residents, provides a wider array of services than Medicaid and has improved access to services, both of which have increased usage. TennCare enrollees may have been sicker than the state employee group or enrollees in other health maintenance organizations. The state did not send premium booklets to 80,000 enrollees expected to contribute monthly premiums."
I am a Tennessean, and I must say that Rep. Blackburn knows what she is talking about. TennCare did bankrupt the state, and if a similar plan is accepted for the entire nation, we will be driven farther and farther into debt. Why can people not understand how the market works? If you let the market work and let private industries do what they do best, everything will work out for the best. The major problem with the healthcare debate is that you have lawyers writing health laws???
Her and her republican buddies probably did everything in their power to doom the system? People from Tennessee fail at basic accounting? A state is a different then the fed?
Blackburn gives women a bad name and the Republican party a bad name. She is a smart ass little mousy bitch that does nothing for her party! He voice is like fingernails on a chalkboard. Oh, and whats up with these southerners that can't say the word "important" It is pronounced "imporTant", not "imporDant". Take an english lesson Marsha, you will sound more intelligent!
Have you been to Tennessee? Admittedly, I haven't-although, if Al Gore is any indication, maybe you're right
It appears you're from California--correct me if I'm wrong. People from glass houses shouldn't throw stones and people from bankrupt states shouldn't insult the fiscal policies of states that are not
Part of what's wrong with America, hell the world, is at the root of your comments. Most Tennesseans are white trash. Most Californians are yuppy d-bags, etc. Provincialism (cont)
and yes, considering that (whitetrash) kentucky sits right on top of it.. where there is a creationism museum, i'd say it HAS TO BE one of the most backwards places in the 'developed' world.
yes, I stand behind it absolutely (on a % basis).
I know the kind of people you're talking about. I concede Tennessee probably has more of them on a % basis than say, Maine
But, I think it's dangerous to lump people this way. Maybe you aren't dumb enough to be used the way some people are, but this type of thinking can be sow the seeds of provinciality and hate
I guess...it is a little upsetting to me how many adults still buy into these childish old superstitions
It is the norm in a lot of places in our country. I've been discouraged to realize how many there are where I live in New England--supposedly one of the more educated and advanced parts of the USA
Wow such blatant double standards. I suppose according to you, it is OK to a black person to call another nigger. But people of other races can't. Which means privilege is based on race. Which means racism. Which is ok?
You can't make it work, because the idea is inherently bad. Taking an important service. Allowing the government to use tax payer dollars to provide it, thus creating an unfair playing field which drives out competition, leaving you with a single coercive monopoly with no competitive incentive to provide value to consumers. There are many solutions that would bring down healthcare costs without sacrificing quality or medical progress. None of them involve giving politicians more power.
so medicare, medicaid, vet care bad, feeding monopolies that are driving up costs for profit good?
Besides none of the public options on the table will be tax payer subsidized, as soon as it starts it will succeed or fail based upon it's own merits as a separate non profit insurance company.
"none of the public options...will be tax payer funded" Really? Then I have some ocean front property in Arizona I'd like to sell you. The public option is a trojan horse to ultimately achieve 1-payer system. We know this, because of statements by Obama & Barney Frank on tape.
Was Fannie Mae allowed to fail on it's own merits? Social Security? Originally a retirement fund. Today it's a coercive welfare Ponzi scheme 10 trillion dollars in debt that we're forced to pay for. Politicians lie.
Right, well I'm merely stating what a public option is, and single payer it is not, going on the slippery slope to state that it is, is frankly moronic.
At best, you could state that it's a symbol of competition and maybe government can do something right if it succeeds that it may put other businesses out of business unless they change how they do their practice.
I think a better way to encourage competition is to allow people to purchase out of state insurance
The sad result of many well intended govt programs is that they often help the worst off while screwing those one rung up---I've seen people drop or try to drop private insurance for their children because state insurance is free and has more benefits--do you want to pay for a burger when you can have a steak for free?
oh, don't get me wrong, I'm actually in favor of a form single payer system with a lot of regulation (like making insurance companies non profit) and private interaction to increase choice. It actually fixes a lot of the inefficiencies and hidden costs that come with working with the insurance companies in the first place and will maximize choice while costing less by discarding those inefficiencies, but people think that's too socialist.
Right, well I can agree with you on the fact that government falls pretty short on a lot of things and it was never my position that government is always honest or is always right, my position is merely pointing out what a public option is and is not.
Social Security is a federal promise and even the stupidest of federal promises tend to be hard to get out of.
It's silly to claim it won't be tax payer subisidized. The only way that can be is if you mandate people buy insurance w/o helping them. This isn't helping the uninsured, it's punishing the poor.
My mother lost her job--she doesn't have insurance. If you want to help people like her, give her free care--taxpayer funded. Fining her for not buying something she can't afford is not helping her
As I stated above, I think there are better ways to break up the health care monopolies
well, her presentation was entirelly dishonest anyways, it's nothing like the public options that are on the table. What she's describing is a tax funded medicare type system, the public option is still going to cost people money just like any other business, but it will be a non profit company and a separate entity which can be used to encourage insurance companies to change their practices towards consumer protection and lowering costs or risk losing business via competition
Point taken. As I do not wish to spread the hate of racism, comment has been removed. It was not my intent to make a "racist" comment; but I can see how it would be perceived that way. My frustration with my home state got the better of me and I apologize.
Tennessee is retarded! Many other states run medicaid programs with out any problems. 49 other states in fact. It must be something in the water, perhaps its that the average I.Q. in Tennessee is 72
Blackburn's argument against a public option is misleading. The way she describes Tenncare, it was paid for with tax dollars like medaid and medicare are. That is obviously unsustainable without either raising taxes or converting entirely to a single payer system. The public option under consideration in congress and proposed by obama is not subsided by taxpayers. It is paid for by premiums and has to sustain itself on those premiums after the first two years.
Barabgm what strikes me as amusing are morons like you. The U.S. subsidizes Europe's defense expenditures and allows them to do all sorts of stupid social engineering schemes that always destroy their economies. And if you would actually study European politics and economics instead of spouting off like some mind-numbed drone about how great it all is, you would know that socialists are now getting thrown out on their asses for all the delusional scheming that has ruined their economies.
I agree about the defense expenditures thing, Europer should shoulder the burden as well. But as percentage out of GDP the US is spending a lot more money on healthcare and not getting as good results, the difference is that Euroepans all have universal, single-payer systems.
Like in Norway, where they won? Or Portugal, where they won? I know socialists in Germany and UK are going out on their asses, because they havent performed or presented a valid option to the hegemony currently in place.
Are the americans really incompetent enough not to be able to run universal healthcare? Basically all of Europe has done it, cheaper and more efficiently than the current US system. Im not calling the citizens of the US incompetent, the republicans are. Strikes me as amusing.
Yes I have, a bunch of times. I also have friends from some places where I havent been. But thanks for the implication that I dont know what Im talking about ;)
Probably true, but its the republicans who are working against universal healthcare at this point, and single-payer or something of the sort, something that, as I said, all other developed nations have managed.
A "free option" that's open-ended, and with unlimited liability is a certain failure. It's also not even vaguely similar to the public option being framed in healthcare reform. She is, in effect, comparing apples to hula hoops. Yes, they have a few similarities, and NO, they're not at all comparable.
3) the gov and congress should work on and set more regulation to guarantee the insurance co, to more considerate for people's health but not their own profit.
4) so obama endorses the reform without public option. i think think this is more practical, since we cannot get rid of lobbyists now.
5) so either there will be Public option, let keep it from corrution or fraud, or there is no public option, let make the private co, more merciful and sympathetic.
i think the financial obstacle is really such a matter we should think about.
1) from the fact that many people switch their insurance to comprehensive insurance suggests that the market of health insurance is so different from other market, wich free market ideology might not work.
2) assume the free market ideology works here. based on the stat of competition of insurance co, its the monopoly but not the free market causes the high spending.
So if Tennessee can't do it no one can? Wow! They must be really smart. And what do you know, when I hear the word Tennessee the first thing I think of is higher education. LOL!
"A lesson members of Congress need to give a good, close study of..." LOL. TennCare wasn't properly realized and underfunded from the start.
Mismanagement, fraud, and abuse also plague TennCare, but that goes with anything in a human society. The State never anticipated how much it would cost, and hospitals and doctors often go months without getting reimbursed for services rendered. Blackburn is again using her childish rhetoric that appeals enought to get her reelected in my state. Shame..
Something Representative Marsha Blackburn fails to mention, is that even with "escalating costs", the public option is still MUCH CHEAPER and provides a superb and more inclusive service, plus it allows doctors to properly focus on tackling causes of disease, rather than grovelling to rich clients for insurance cheques.
It's cheaper and gives people more choice.
The richest will still want to go private for their perks and treats, the insurance companies had better keep up.
I think ...without realizing it...she mentioned the reason it was a disaster. It was free. it wasn't paid for by taxes or user fees. And that is the problem with any public plan, raising taxes.
The proposed federal public option does not have this flaw as it has premiums and is not free or sustained by by taxes. very smart.
Why...because no steps were taken to , 1 Fix rates to the Private Health sector and 2, TennCare payments are running at about 40 per cent of the cost of services rendered, while the Medicaid program had been paying about 50 per cent. So the Private Providers upped the cost.
Why, who was skimming if payouts dropped?
Employers just cancel their existing health insurance and let their employees sign up for TennCare , the State never addressed that issue.
Can Obama learn from it? Of course. Will he learn from it? Of course not.
If you want to bring down health care cost we either have to adopt a completely laze fare no government intervention system of health care, which I dont believe the American people will ever go for, or we need the government to subsidize the supply side of health care. In other words scholarships for doctors. You cant dump another 40 million people into an already overcrowded health care system and expect cost to go down.
this "public option" is very different from the separate unsubsidized non profit health insurance option that isn't free, but another option that is part of the existing market as additional competition in an attempt to lower costs for everyone.
If you want to ignore that it's just going to be another insurance company that's non profit funded by people that want to go into it and not subsidized by government after it's implemented that's all you. If you think the system is just fine with millions of Americans determined to be uninsurable by insurance companies passing on rising costs to everyone else that's all you.
are you mad? this is going to be an enormous cost to all taxpayers at a time when we can't afford it. this is just about obama wanting to feed his ego and ram legislation through as fast and hard as he can. maybe he should worry more about giving michelle that kind of attention.
Oh, you're one of those brainwashed types that don't realize that Obama really hasn't touched what congress is doing to the bill. He basically said "we need health care reform" and wants congress to figure it out.
What you're thinking about is what bush did for most of his presidency and people like yourself probably didn't think too much about even if it was unmaintainable.
Now if you want to talk about increase in irresponsible spending we can talk about the last president a lot more on that topic.
The whole issue of health care reform is to reduce the long term costs since our costs have been disproportionately increasing from the rest of the world while getting worse results in many cases.
You should also tell your legislator to stop accepting their own government health insurance, kill medicare, medicaid, and the vets health insurance because all of those are government run as well.
You haven't seen arequipa's past posts. He would be fine with killing every govt agency in the world. Even the successful ones. He's what we call an ideologue, otherwise known as a fantasy-based arguer.
Point well taken, of course they also are as ignorant as to think that the public option is "socialized medicine" which leads me to think they're one of the brainwashed people that still think certain types of programs are okay, just not the ones being proposed now, which are the same arguments that were used to oppose the programs that are in place now...the exact same arguments.
so even though our costs are rising faster than every other countries health care, we're getting worse overall results than every other industrialized nation and millions of people are uninsured and hundreds of thousands are losing insurance every month, tens of thousands go bankrupt every year and tens of thousands of people die due to insurance denials of legitimate claims. "It still works" nice.
it's not perfect, but it's better than socialized medicine. i already am paying the mortgages of DEADBEAT LOSERS. i am not interested in paying their healthcare too.
2) you already do pay for their health care in different ways, usually in emergency bills or in rising costs of your own health care because of health insurance denial/rescission or because people can't pay hospital bills and the hospitals pass on the costs to you. You're still paying, it's just a matter of different results.
1) So you're okay with the fact that you're paying more for your health care than most of the people in the world for less care overall
2) So you're okay with the fact that a lot of our taxes goes to those rising health care costs and it's rising faster
3) worrying about the economy has to have our health care system in mind, it currently bankrupts many people, sick people don't work nearly as often as healthy people and it's costs have been rising disproportionately to pay.
1) it'll have access to a broad base of people reducing the problem of high risk per person making it have more predictable costs
2) it'll be non profit while having that large base and wont have to pander to stock holders as a result
3) current insurance firms don't really have much competition to do anything differently, like unethical denial of payment for legitimate claims are consistent amongst all of the insurance giants and they have no reason to stop.
That depends, if the insurance lobby neuters the public option enough via it's bought congress men it might do nothing, the objective of it is however to be competition for them and to lead by example or they can lose customers via normal competition from a non profit organization. At the very least it would reduce the monopoly =P
But I doubt it will. When it comes to politics I'm a bit cynical.
But when it comes to the people I'm optimistic. Have you ever considered the communistic option? (now calm down :P)
The communistic option is simple, you and everyone you know get together and sign a contract that says if anyone of you need medical treatment you all chip in to pay for it.
It's non-profit and doesn't need to wait for legislation.
*shrugs* I don't care much if it's a "communistic" or "socialist" idea, there's good and bad ideas from every school of thought. I guess it could technically work, but it would be dreadfully inefficient or ineffective unless you brought a lot of safety features, modern technology and checks that would prevent people making false claims to make money. It's good in principle, but isn't that how many ideas are?
I don't know though, wouldn't this be more of a type of anarchist (there are many different types) solution as it would avoid the legislative process. The ironic part is you'd need a lot of people to sign for it to be low risk for the people signing which is pretty much what non profit insurance is. Other countries have operating costs as low as 5% cuz they're non profit and they exist under different rules, out here it's like 20-25% of every dollar going to overhead costs.
If there aren't enough low risk people around then what you have is a situation when there isn't enough healthcare to go around, and no system can stop people from dying.
A communistic option could break the cartel and create market incentives on people to become lower risk (i.e. live healthier lifestyle).
The public option doesn't seem like it's going to pass anytime soon, so in the meanwhile... :P
1) never said you can just prevent death, but you can make things better overall
2) not necessarily as many people simply have pre existing conditions like they were born with it
3) well that's a given but you'd have to reach a lot of people just to spread risk, like if you have 1 person that you're covering and they have a 1% chance of getting sick you still miss out a hundred percent, which is why you need more than just a few people, and who'd manage the transactions and a few other issues.
because doctors can get bonuses for promoting healthy life styles, kind of like how other countries do it, someone who has a pre existing condition can't choose to be low risk and violence, well why did you bring that up at all, would this plan reduce death by violence magically?
um, the main problem is currently our system favors having insurance over not and the rules are in their favor. You also neglect that you'd have to have someone to oversee the contract being carried out as well otherwise doctors don't know if the person can pay for it or not if it's just a contract between a bunch of people, it's really still just insurance just a different form of it. With that sort of reasoning you may as well just start a non profit insurance company
uh...why do you assert that, the main problem is in health insurance coverage and making health care affordable not really lack of people to do it, heck there's some people which are nice enough that run free clinics at certain times of the year and they manage to treat a ton of people.
Besides, we lose a lot of doctor time and hospital funding just in how the health care industry has to deal with the existing health insurance industry, a good chunk of funding goes just to hiring people to talk with insurance industries and many doctors spend non treatment time playing "mother may I" which is another source of extra cost in hospitals and general efficiency.
right, well if you can come up with a simple plan that will work en mass and have enough support to make it happen I'm all for it. Again the contract idea sounds good in principle but if you want to talk about scale and over sight I think it falls short, it also likely wouldn't help most people with pre existing conditions.
I think that if implimented, the contract idea would need some time to spread, but eventually it would go pretty far as more and more people are seeing that it's cheaper and more reliable than regular insurance.
And pre existing conditions? Didn't you just say there are people nice enough to provide it for free?
I think though, the main strength is that this wouldn't require any legislation to pass, which means it can start today. At least to compete with insurance firms.
if you think it'll work, go for it, no one's stopping you, but I think you'd need a lot of people on it before you start taking on pre existing conditions because most people can't afford it and personally I don't think it'll scale well considering you'd need a lot of people to cover said people in an affordable way without invoking the same organization as a non profit health insurance company, but maybe that's just me
It's not for me, I live in Sweden and we already have universal healthcare, only the rich can afford private healthcare and most people here are already indocrinated into believing in the the socialistic Utopia.
I might do it if I ever move to a country with a smaller, less intrusive government, but it looks like USA is going in that direction so I'm staying here, where I at least have my civil liberties :D
Uh, right, you guys still pay a lot less than we do in health costs per person and per capita. I wouldn't call that perfect either, but there's plenty of far better models that improve greatly with the right legislation especially in comparison to the United states. I also doubt that people think "socialist utopia" is a reality either, but in the case of health care the free market definitely has it's limits especially when it's allowed to interact with government so freely.
We also have longer waiting lines and inferior health care treatment. It's especially bad for old people, we once had an elderly lady who got a piece of food stuck in her throat, she was not helped to remove it so it stayed there, until it started to rot and she died from infection.
People in Sweden have a false Utopian belief that the government will take care of everything, nobody cares about helping other people, or planing for the future. It's sad.
right, again we're still worse off than you are, there's people here with private insurance that get told by their insurance companies "you don't have cancer we're not paying for it" so when the person dies from cancer it's a "whoops" and again there's other models that are better that have a good hybrid of private hospitals and insurance with government controls and interaction/payment. Taiwan is actually a pretty good model, they just need to cut a few things and fund it properly.
Again, Sweden's health care and insurance system is not the only type of system. Secondly you're ignoring the many people in America that die to other factors before cancer, I'm reminded of "lies, damn lies and statistics" all over again, remember the part where a few tens of thousands die every year just because legitimate treatment requests were denied.
Lastly when you start spouting off statistics you should say which study and state if you've read it, often the summaries are bad.
If you want to read the study this claim is actually based upon it's not a direct "all of the US population"
"CONCORD has provided the first opportunity to estimate cancer survival in 11 states in USA covered by the National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR), and the study covers 42% of the US population"
The study it's self actually does not draw a direct causality to the health care system either and it's not like this study goes to find all the people that died of cancer w/o discovery
That is a lie. It is in the name. That is what 'public' in the public option refers to. They will be as private as Fannie or Freddie. Or maybe a private firm will actually take it up. But it will give the insurance companies you hate even more power, because you can be fined or thrown in jail if you opt out. How eager you are to jump from the frying pan into the fire.
right, that's exactly why they're lobbying everything they have against a public option and would rather have the baukus "plan" that forces people to buy from the big monopolies and hands them nearly half a trillion dollars to take those people up while giving up as little as possible in the process. Note: this particular politician that's in the insurance companies pockets viamently voted no for any public option.
It is just a stunt. Besides they know there are enough stupid people who will try passing it for them. The fact that they appear publicly against it will only motivate these fools further.
right, conspiracy that doesn't make any logical sense, gotcha. "it's what they want you to think man" At the very least come up with an argument that works. There's nothing about any of the public options that "hand the monopolies more business" except for the nonsense some politicians are trying to pass on the side of it. I frankly don't think it's the best idea but I'm not going to resort to making arguments based on what it is not.
The public 'option' is not an option, it is about removing options. Primarily the option to opt out. If you try we will fine you, if you refuse to pay the fine, we will put you in jail. It makes perfect logical sense. The Orwellian equivalent is 'requisites are options' like saying 'freedom is slavery'
um, again you can criticize the nonsense that people are surrounding it with but you are dumb if you're going automatically attach it to the public option, but they can still apply that nonsense by forcing you to get insurance from the existing monopolies without the public option which is exactly what other people are proposing without a public option.
I am opposed to the idea of forcing people to buy insurance with or without a public option. Only with a public option it will be more damaging. They may say now that the public option won't be supported by taxes, but look what happened to Fannie and Freddie.
1) great I'm opposed to that too, but that doesn't by definition mean that public option = forcing people to not be able to opt out
2) It would be more damaging because?
3) not sure why you keep bringing up fannie and freddie as a business of this sort is different from one that interacts with so many financial firms that would cause a severe chain reaction of failing businesses which is the main reason why people even defended such nonsense to begin with.
Public Option is like Fannie and Freddie, it is used to provide service to people who cannot afford to pay for it by legally stealing from someone else, who earned that money fair and square. Naturally the people who are going to get stolen from will protest. So they lie. The government has a bad track record. You do not know why this is similar to Fannie and Freddie? You have a government supported organization that is not allowed to fail. Which means it has no incentive to perform well.
There is NO welfare in the Public Option. It will operate just like a regular private insurance company and will fund itself. There just is no PROFIT, so the desire to omit care is not there. Sounds like a lot of people on this vid don't understand the Public Option. Please read up everyone!
If there is no PROFIT, then care is based on political correctness. Fannie and Freddie where officially for profit. Yet, they ended up being a loss making public option in the housing market. The result was people in debt trap and rising home prices. Public option is the same, except with health.
I think you are wrong here. If there is no profit, there is no profit, it doesn't have anything to do with political correctness. I have researched the public option and I don't see how it can affect our taxes. It will be run just like a PHI company, without the profit. If I had my way, we would be on a single payer system. We are the laughing stock of the industrialized world. We bicker of the stupidest things.
If there is no profit, there is no way of knowing what people need. That is what profits indicate. Resources will then have to be allocated based on who shouts the loudest, or who has the biggest vote bank. Political correctness would have everything to do with it. Not only that you let the government control your health, you give them complete control over your life. Those who benefit from it will of course laugh at you. Those who do not will die. So they won't laugh at you.
What? If there is no profit, there is no way of knowing what people need? You know what people need, by what doctors say they need. This has NOTHING to do with profit. WTF? If there is a bunch of flu cases in one city, you don't have to look at the PHI companies profit, you can look at a database of how many flu cases in that city.
'You know what people need, by what doctors say they need.'
Well how do you know that they are telling the truth? How do you know to trust anything in any database? Especially one that is maintained by the government? Does the government have a good track record of telling the truth?
It is a "Doctor" database, not a government one. Why would a doctor lie? I guess some of them do, they have been caught ripping off Medicare, Medicaid, and PHI companies. The Doctor maintains the database. The right wingers are way too paranoid!
There will always be corruption, we need a more perfect system. I believe in Karma and for those who still and lie, they will pay in return. If anyone out there thinks that private health insurance companies don't need reforming, you have lived in a cave. And to those who say they like their insurance, I guarantee you that they have not submitted a major claim. The problem is not the people that don't have insurance, it is the ones that DO. Single payer is the ONLY answer!
I am not in favor of the status quo. For real reform requires you need to understand first what insurance is. Otherwise you will just exacerbate the problem you intend to solve. Private health insurance companies do not need reforming. They need freedom from intervention by the government. Private firms are held accountable by people that pay for their service. If they do a bad job, they take the business and their money elsewhere. Government are not so directly accountable. That make mess.
Oh, I understand what private health insurance companies are. Tell me WHAT government regulations are placed on them that makes it so they can not compete. Cause there are NO consumer regulations placed on them. Name some others!
I will tell you provided you tell me what your understanding of insurance is. Because without that you cannot understand why regulating health insurance is detrimental.
Due to the nature of health care, health insurance is subject to adverse selection. Without a balance, too many sick people in an insurance plan could lead to a larger amount of claims than can be covered by the insurance premiums. The risk of loss would be increased because the members of the plan would be paying less in premiums than their expected health care costs. This defeats the purpose of insurance and does not allow the insurer to pay for all claims and keep the company afloat.
Yup, you do not understand the nature of insurance. Insurance companies pool risks. So people in a pool all face the same sort of health risk. So there will be no systematic transfer of premiums from healthy to sick people. People in a pool would all be equally healthy or equally sick. Of course if you are sick, you will have to pay more for health care. Which is why they act as incentive for people to live healthy lives to begin with. Also risks that you can manage cannot be insured..
Are you actually saying that if you are more sick you should pay more? Cause if that is what your saying, you are certainly not thinking about your children or grandchildren. What if they lose their jobs and their children get sick. Should they not be allowed to receive medical care?
I am saying that no one owes you your health, unless they made you sick in the first place. If you are sick because you lived an unhealthy lifestyle, then you are responsible to bring yourself back to health. If you are sick because of an accident, then your insurance can cover you to the extent of your policy. No one owes you your life or your health. It is yours to keep and do with as you please. My parents paid for my medical care when I got sick,...
I will pay for my children when they are sick. And hopefully they to theirs. In addition to that we can teach them to live healthy lives. That is the only enduring way to spread health.
You said a great word: "Hopefully"! Are you willing to gamble with that? HOPEFULLY your children will be able to pay if your Grandchildren get sick. Sure, people that don't take care of themselves are more likely to get sick, but a lot of people and CHILDREN get sick that have lead healthy lives. I think you are not looking at this issue with wide open eyes!
I think you are not thinking. Life insurance is for people who try to lead healthy lives. You want them to cover suicide cases and alcoholics, which means you want them to reward irresponsible behavior. And they do it too! Which is why people who live responsibly are denied claims. And you are ok with that. You want the irresponsibles covered. I use the word hopefully because my children's choices are theirs not mine. They live their own lives not mine.
I guess we are going to have to disagree here, I think our healthcare is a RIGHT, not a privelage. Are you willing to tell your children that if they can't afford to pay insurance, that they are not allowed to bring your Grandchildren to the doctor's or hospitals because they are losers that don't have a job? Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it!
Yes, I think alcoholics and suicide cases and drug addicts are losers. If you want to pay for their health care, you should do it with your own money not mine. I may help you or I may not. It is my decision. You have no right to rob me under any circumstances. When you say health insurance is a right. You are telling people have a right to rob others to keep themselves healthy. It will only spread sickness.
..you cannot be insured against alchohoism or drug addiction because those are risks that you can control. Strictly speaking health insurance is a form of accident insurance. Now since you do not know that how can I explain what impact regulation can have on insurance firms. It would be like explaining music to a deaf person.
The Medical Association has known for decades that alcholism is a DISEASE. Look it up. If all Americans are insured it is actually better for the PHI industry. Greater risk pool!
Well and suicide results in deaths. But life insurance firms do not cover suicides and health insurance firms cannot cover alcholism. Only diseases that you the beneficiary cannot contribute to creating can be insured against.
You are kidding right? Ok let them. Hard working people who contributes their well earned money will be denied care to help them. I suppose it does not bother you. There will be fines and imprisonment for those who try to opt out. I suppose that will not bother you either. The best thing to do then is to live irresponsibly making more people unhealthy and choking the system. And that does not bother you too, I guess..
Are YOU kidding? If I get pulled over without car insurance, the normal fine where I live is $800. If the cop is in a bad mood, he can take my car. I don't even know what would happen if I was in an accident w/o car insurance. There is NO imprisonment part of any bill in Congress. You got to get off Fox News!
Right health insurance is going to be regulated just like car insurance. I do not think car insurance must be compulsory, the way it is now. But you can opt out by not buying a car. But health insurance you cannot opt out without killing yourself if it is made mandatory. What do you think will happen to people who want to opt out? Fines? What if you refuse to pay the fines? It will be prison no doubt.
So, if one of your children lose their job and can not afford health insurance, should they be allowed to go to the emergency room after they have an accident? (Which I of course do not wish on you!)
Yes, you pass that law and all of a sudden you will see jobless people getting into all sorts of accidents. Only if the people who run the emergency room are willing to bear the costs of treating them or find someone (like their parents?) who will can they use that facility. Since there is not enough resources to care for everyone, some people inevitably will be left out. I do not want the government to decide who that is going to be. That is a death panel.
You are avoiding the question. Let's put it this way.
Your child is driving in another state and doesn't have health insurance. They get in a car accident and the ambulance driver asks your child if they have health insurance. You child says no. Then the driver says, I know you are having a hard time breathing and are bleeding, but since you don't have health ins. you can't go to the ER.
Another state? That is the key word here is it not? Why is health insurance not valid across state lines? Because of regulations. That is not free market is it not? And why do you stick to federal regulations. State laws could be harming the industry just as much or more? So now you know of one interventionist regulation already and mitigates the effectiveness of insurance.
No silly boy. There is nothing super-special about a state that one should bear with their stupid but not tolerate that of the Federal government. Stupidity is stupidity and harm is harm, no matter where it originates.
OK, this time I will make it as simple as possible. Yes or no question. Your child gets in a car accident and they have no health insurance. They have broken bones and need immediate care. They have no health insurance. Should they be allowed in to the emergency room? Can't make it simplier than that. Again, yes or no!
Ultimately it is up to the people who run the emergency room. Should they choose to save my child, they may choose to stick him with the bill for saving him, I will have no problem with that. He better use his now healthy body to pay their debt with real money not just gratitude. His father may or may not help him to that.
..now the government has to put safegaurds. Which basically means they will dictate how you should live your life or they will deny you care. I am sure that does not bother you too. Eventually they will run all aspects of your life. That is what you get when you sign off your health. You walk down the road to serfdom. It will be too late then. Soviet Union would be here in the US.
Do you know how tired your statement is: Eventually they will run all aspects of your life... That statement is nothing but fear mongering which the GOP is famous for. Any reform will be for the greater good. Because actually what you are saying is Medicare is ok and all of the socialized institutions like FDA, FAA, USDA, CDC, etc., but anything else the gov is interfering. We are NOT on the road to serfdom, it is the same neo-con propoganda that is spewed evertime a Dem goes to the White House!
Yes, the statement is old, but it is not tired. It is still fresh and it is still true. Since america already is socialized, it is easy to deduce that the problems have not since been solved, only exacerbated. I am sorry, the people who did it cannot be given more power.
We are so far removed from being a socialized nation it is not even funny. Look the word up in the dictionary. Seriously now, you are so brainwashed. I am old enough to just laugh at the thought! You have failed to answer any of my questions.
What federal regulations are imposed on the PHI industry?
If your child lost their job and health insurance and got in an accident, should they be turned away from the ER? (You can't have it both ways!)
I cannot answer what regulations are imposed on the PHI industry unless I can be sure you know what insurance is. From this conversation, it appears that you don't and don't care to know. As for the ER question. I have already answered it. The problem you see in the American health care is the problem of socialization. FDA, FAA, USDA, CDC are its signs.
I know EXACTLY what the PHI industry is. Name the federal regulations that are imposed on them.
I think you need to spend some time in Tijuana, Mexico. That is EXACTLY what you get when you are in a democracy that doesn't believe in social justice. Oh, don't drink the water. If it was up to the GOP, we would be a 3rd world country in no time!
You have NOT answered the ER question. Should your child be allowed to go to the ER if they do not have insurance? A simple yes or no would be great!
You do not know even the basics of insurance. You just think you do. The saying a little knowledge is a dangerous thing is very apt. And social justice is what destroyed Latin America. You want to make the US like that do you not? As for the simple question, you have put the question in several forms and variations. So you are in fact lying when you said you asked one simple question you did not. And why stick to federal legislation, what about state?
Oh, yes I do know EVERYTHING about private health insurance. Everything. My Dad had to hire an attorney and fight Blue Cross for care, (and won), and my oldest brother died because he was denied care from a PHI company. Trust me, I know. Why should you give a shit about that?
Wow, what blows me away with your rants, is you are not even giving a shit about your children or grandchildren. We are GREAT because of our social programs. Now there is something YOU know nothing about!
You know something is wrong. But you do not know what insurance is. Thus you do not have a grasp on the precise nature of the problem and thus, you come up with unworkable solutions that others are only too willing to implement to take away any freedom you still have left. I care about my children and grand-children. What you do for people you care is teach them to live responsibly, that is the best chance they have got, not force others to care for them.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
What you are asking for is not general welfare. It is welfare of a specific kind to a specific group that you favor. A road or a post-office is general welfare. Even that can be done better by the private sector.
You can't have it both ways. Either your un-insured child should get emergency medical care or they shouldn't if they don't have insurance. Which is it? You are making this way more complicated than what it is.
I love it when you use false dichotomy. It is a sign of desperation. I have answered your question in elaborate terms. Now let me simplify it for you. The people who own and operate the emergency room need to decide.
I didn't ask you what the hospitals should do or not do. Do YOU think that if your child had no health insurance, should they be denied care and turned down from the emergency room? OMG, you are a joke here, just answer the question. This is an insurance question, not a hospital one! Good God!
Like I said, it is for the people who run the hospital to decide, how they should deal with people who need their service and do not have insurance. Part of the reason for today's crisis comes from not letting them make that decision.
Well, since you can't answer my question for obvious reasons, I will pray that your child doesn't get in an accident., Because if the hospitals don't get paid, they won't accept patients. The GOVERNMENT subsidizes them now. That is what this reform is trying to stop.
You are just another GOP hypocrit. You are the same as the white bald old guy at the Town Halls that says, "Keep government out of my healthcare and don't touch my Medicare." Jeez!
This has been flagged as spam show
How about a flat, federal consumption tax. In fact, its worked rather well in the great state of TN, which Miss Marsha so proudly represents (the 7th congressional district). This will NOT cause a contraction of the economy beyond what is bearable, otherwise the state of TN would have bankrupted years ago, so let's get real. Fat cats, corporations, tax evaders with off shore accounts, even welfare reciepients will be forced to pay their fair share through consumption and purchases, simple.
FromSoCal2TN 10 months ago
After doing some research (imagine that!) it seems there are some explanation for the failure of this progam that the Congresswoman is not explaining. I wonder why?
"Several assumptions and comparisons with previous health care programs made by designers of the TennCare program proved to be inaccurate."
classc63 1 year ago
(cont.) The state underestimated the previous costs of Medicaid. TennCare, which covers 25% of the state's nearly 5 million residents, provides a wider array of services than Medicaid and has improved access to services, both of which have increased usage. TennCare enrollees may have been sicker than the state employee group or enrollees in other health maintenance organizations. The state did not send premium booklets to 80,000 enrollees expected to contribute monthly premiums."
classc63 1 year ago
Why isn't Marsha Blackwell telling people that?
I am so tired of people who are misinformed and EAT whatever Republicans spew as if it's gospel.
PLEASE stop being ignorant--DO YOUR RESEARCH and THINK FOR YOURSELVES!!!
classc63 1 year ago
I am a Tennessean, and I must say that Rep. Blackburn knows what she is talking about. TennCare did bankrupt the state, and if a similar plan is accepted for the entire nation, we will be driven farther and farther into debt. Why can people not understand how the market works? If you let the market work and let private industries do what they do best, everything will work out for the best. The major problem with the healthcare debate is that you have lawyers writing health laws???
pharmdboy07 1 year ago
"A close study of what is going to happen"
Her and her republican buddies probably did everything in their power to doom the system? People from Tennessee fail at basic accounting? A state is a different then the fed?
donfolstar 2 years ago
Blackburn gives women a bad name and the Republican party a bad name. She is a smart ass little mousy bitch that does nothing for her party! He voice is like fingernails on a chalkboard. Oh, and whats up with these southerners that can't say the word "important" It is pronounced "imporTant", not "imporDant". Take an english lesson Marsha, you will sound more intelligent!
phillipmarch22 2 years ago
what a suprise, southern whitetrash against healthcare for all.
kmardes 2 years ago
What a surprise, another bitter leftist loser
rubiconsedge 2 years ago
you mean, independent thinker.
yes, what woooooould we do without honky tonk tennessee...
kmardes 2 years ago
Have you been to Tennessee? Admittedly, I haven't-although, if Al Gore is any indication, maybe you're right
It appears you're from California--correct me if I'm wrong. People from glass houses shouldn't throw stones and people from bankrupt states shouldn't insult the fiscal policies of states that are not
Part of what's wrong with America, hell the world, is at the root of your comments. Most Tennesseans are white trash. Most Californians are yuppy d-bags, etc. Provincialism (cont)
rubiconsedge 2 years ago
is a dangerous and foolish line of thinking
From all Tennesseans are white trash we can go to all liberals are wimps. All conservatives must be fundamentalists
Labeling people because they're from a specific group is at the heart of racism and all that's wrong with humanity
It grows the seeds of hatred. Go from labeling by state to religion or race:
Non-believers are evil heathens Foreigners are mongrels
Jews are inferior
The sad thing is you don't even wtf I'm talking about
rubiconsedge 2 years ago
yeah, that's why I said MOST is, not all.
and yes, considering that (whitetrash) kentucky sits right on top of it.. where there is a creationism museum, i'd say it HAS TO BE one of the most backwards places in the 'developed' world.
yes, I stand behind it absolutely (on a % basis).
kmardes 2 years ago
I know the kind of people you're talking about. I concede Tennessee probably has more of them on a % basis than say, Maine
But, I think it's dangerous to lump people this way. Maybe you aren't dumb enough to be used the way some people are, but this type of thinking can be sow the seeds of provinciality and hate
rubiconsedge 2 years ago
I know what you're saying, but its still painfully obvious that that's the case.
Look at the 9-12 protesters. Flat out scary... gullable, paranoid.. you name it. The world watches with horror and dumbfoundedness.
For a 'developed nation', too large of a % still believe in adam and eve and a talking snake.. yes, right there in tennessee and kentucky.
kmardes 2 years ago
I guess...it is a little upsetting to me how many adults still buy into these childish old superstitions
It is the norm in a lot of places in our country. I've been discouraged to realize how many there are where I live in New England--supposedly one of the more educated and advanced parts of the USA
rubiconsedge 2 years ago
Repeat this lie until you start believing it completely 'Calling a person nigger is racist, calling a person whitetrash is not'.
82abhilash 2 years ago
um, yes, most of tennessee is whitetrash. its not like its a secret or anything.
and that's coming from a whiteboy.
kmardes 2 years ago
Wow such blatant double standards. I suppose according to you, it is OK to a black person to call another nigger. But people of other races can't. Which means privilege is based on race. Which means racism. Which is ok?
82abhilash 2 years ago
Comment removed
pixygiggles 2 years ago 2
You can't make it work, because the idea is inherently bad. Taking an important service. Allowing the government to use tax payer dollars to provide it, thus creating an unfair playing field which drives out competition, leaving you with a single coercive monopoly with no competitive incentive to provide value to consumers. There are many solutions that would bring down healthcare costs without sacrificing quality or medical progress. None of them involve giving politicians more power.
truthadvocate 2 years ago
so medicare, medicaid, vet care bad, feeding monopolies that are driving up costs for profit good?
Besides none of the public options on the table will be tax payer subsidized, as soon as it starts it will succeed or fail based upon it's own merits as a separate non profit insurance company.
garith21 2 years ago
"none of the public options...will be tax payer funded" Really? Then I have some ocean front property in Arizona I'd like to sell you. The public option is a trojan horse to ultimately achieve 1-payer system. We know this, because of statements by Obama & Barney Frank on tape.
Was Fannie Mae allowed to fail on it's own merits? Social Security? Originally a retirement fund. Today it's a coercive welfare Ponzi scheme 10 trillion dollars in debt that we're forced to pay for. Politicians lie.
truthadvocate 2 years ago 2
Right, well I'm merely stating what a public option is, and single payer it is not, going on the slippery slope to state that it is, is frankly moronic.
At best, you could state that it's a symbol of competition and maybe government can do something right if it succeeds that it may put other businesses out of business unless they change how they do their practice.
garith21 2 years ago
I think a better way to encourage competition is to allow people to purchase out of state insurance
The sad result of many well intended govt programs is that they often help the worst off while screwing those one rung up---I've seen people drop or try to drop private insurance for their children because state insurance is free and has more benefits--do you want to pay for a burger when you can have a steak for free?
The public has to pay for this, though
Not really fair all around
rubiconsedge 2 years ago
oh, don't get me wrong, I'm actually in favor of a form single payer system with a lot of regulation (like making insurance companies non profit) and private interaction to increase choice. It actually fixes a lot of the inefficiencies and hidden costs that come with working with the insurance companies in the first place and will maximize choice while costing less by discarding those inefficiencies, but people think that's too socialist.
garith21 2 years ago
Right, well I can agree with you on the fact that government falls pretty short on a lot of things and it was never my position that government is always honest or is always right, my position is merely pointing out what a public option is and is not.
Social Security is a federal promise and even the stupidest of federal promises tend to be hard to get out of.
garith21 2 years ago
It's silly to claim it won't be tax payer subisidized. The only way that can be is if you mandate people buy insurance w/o helping them. This isn't helping the uninsured, it's punishing the poor.
My mother lost her job--she doesn't have insurance. If you want to help people like her, give her free care--taxpayer funded. Fining her for not buying something she can't afford is not helping her
As I stated above, I think there are better ways to break up the health care monopolies
rubiconsedge 2 years ago
well, her presentation was entirelly dishonest anyways, it's nothing like the public options that are on the table. What she's describing is a tax funded medicare type system, the public option is still going to cost people money just like any other business, but it will be a non profit company and a separate entity which can be used to encourage insurance companies to change their practices towards consumer protection and lowering costs or risk losing business via competition
garith21 2 years ago
Not Racist: TennCare was mismanaged from the start by a bunch of hillbillies that didn't know what the heck they were doing.
Racist: Obamacare is being mismanaged from the start by a bunch of negroes that didn't know what the heck they were doing.
Hypocrisy? I think so.
82abhilash 2 years ago
Point taken. As I do not wish to spread the hate of racism, comment has been removed. It was not my intent to make a "racist" comment; but I can see how it would be perceived that way. My frustration with my home state got the better of me and I apologize.
pixygiggles 2 years ago
Tennessee is retarded! Many other states run medicaid programs with out any problems. 49 other states in fact. It must be something in the water, perhaps its that the average I.Q. in Tennessee is 72
LokiMythos 2 years ago
Maybe some sane people can take control of the Republican party and stop Obama. Maybe even save America. Maybe.
82abhilash 2 years ago
Blackburn's argument against a public option is misleading. The way she describes Tenncare, it was paid for with tax dollars like medaid and medicare are. That is obviously unsustainable without either raising taxes or converting entirely to a single payer system. The public option under consideration in congress and proposed by obama is not subsided by taxpayers. It is paid for by premiums and has to sustain itself on those premiums after the first two years.
alien13ufo 2 years ago
Barabgm what strikes me as amusing are morons like you. The U.S. subsidizes Europe's defense expenditures and allows them to do all sorts of stupid social engineering schemes that always destroy their economies. And if you would actually study European politics and economics instead of spouting off like some mind-numbed drone about how great it all is, you would know that socialists are now getting thrown out on their asses for all the delusional scheming that has ruined their economies.
Reasonjester 2 years ago
I agree about the defense expenditures thing, Europer should shoulder the burden as well. But as percentage out of GDP the US is spending a lot more money on healthcare and not getting as good results, the difference is that Euroepans all have universal, single-payer systems.
Like in Norway, where they won? Or Portugal, where they won? I know socialists in Germany and UK are going out on their asses, because they havent performed or presented a valid option to the hegemony currently in place.
barabg 2 years ago
Are the americans really incompetent enough not to be able to run universal healthcare? Basically all of Europe has done it, cheaper and more efficiently than the current US system. Im not calling the citizens of the US incompetent, the republicans are. Strikes me as amusing.
barabg 2 years ago 2
1, Have you ever been to the US?
2, Democrats are no more competent than Republicans. Massachusetts is is no better shape than Tenn
rubiconsedge 2 years ago
Yes I have, a bunch of times. I also have friends from some places where I havent been. But thanks for the implication that I dont know what Im talking about ;)
Probably true, but its the republicans who are working against universal healthcare at this point, and single-payer or something of the sort, something that, as I said, all other developed nations have managed.
barabg 2 years ago
Is providing health care "mismanagement and inadequate services"?
Mismanagement and inadequate services compared to what? Not providing management of any services?
Siddis33 2 years ago
A "free option" that's open-ended, and with unlimited liability is a certain failure. It's also not even vaguely similar to the public option being framed in healthcare reform. She is, in effect, comparing apples to hula hoops. Yes, they have a few similarities, and NO, they're not at all comparable.
voyeurdug 2 years ago 2
You Ma'am, are an idiot.
modwolfonyayo 2 years ago 3
3) the gov and congress should work on and set more regulation to guarantee the insurance co, to more considerate for people's health but not their own profit.
4) so obama endorses the reform without public option. i think think this is more practical, since we cannot get rid of lobbyists now.
5) so either there will be Public option, let keep it from corrution or fraud, or there is no public option, let make the private co, more merciful and sympathetic.
chenchiheshang 2 years ago
i think the financial obstacle is really such a matter we should think about.
1) from the fact that many people switch their insurance to comprehensive insurance suggests that the market of health insurance is so different from other market, wich free market ideology might not work.
2) assume the free market ideology works here. based on the stat of competition of insurance co, its the monopoly but not the free market causes the high spending.
chenchiheshang 2 years ago
So if Tennessee can't do it no one can? Wow! They must be really smart. And what do you know, when I hear the word Tennessee the first thing I think of is higher education. LOL!
tecnoblix 2 years ago 4
Idiocracy! Many countries around the world implement said system of universal healthcare.
4Clubs 2 years ago 3
"A lesson members of Congress need to give a good, close study of..." LOL. TennCare wasn't properly realized and underfunded from the start.
Mismanagement, fraud, and abuse also plague TennCare, but that goes with anything in a human society. The State never anticipated how much it would cost, and hospitals and doctors often go months without getting reimbursed for services rendered. Blackburn is again using her childish rhetoric that appeals enought to get her reelected in my state. Shame..
OhNoItsGojira 2 years ago 2
Yeah, she's insulting herself, and other government employees, by saying what she's saying. There's an incompetence side there definitely.
abyssquick 2 years ago 2
I know. Its all a mismanagement issue.
OhNoItsGojira 2 years ago
We have public option property insurance here in FL. Private companies wont' insure many houses in the state which are only 5-15' above sea level.
So we have many coastal towns entirely dependent on this public option, just to live here. It works just fine, and is not bankrupting anybody.
Fear of public options are irrational, and this is obviously an extreme case, a badly managed & orchestrated plan, being being used for an example.
We need a bloody public option.
abyssquick 2 years ago 2
Something Representative Marsha Blackburn fails to mention, is that even with "escalating costs", the public option is still MUCH CHEAPER and provides a superb and more inclusive service, plus it allows doctors to properly focus on tackling causes of disease, rather than grovelling to rich clients for insurance cheques.
It's cheaper and gives people more choice.
The richest will still want to go private for their perks and treats, the insurance companies had better keep up.
it's a new market
marsCubed 2 years ago
I think ...without realizing it...she mentioned the reason it was a disaster. It was free. it wasn't paid for by taxes or user fees. And that is the problem with any public plan, raising taxes.
The proposed federal public option does not have this flaw as it has premiums and is not free or sustained by by taxes. very smart.
verstwo2 2 years ago
Well said!
Why are we still talking about socialized medicine anymore? Isn't it dead?
thane17 2 years ago
Marsha Blackburn your my Rep. You lost my vote. See YA!
ArkeAngelRevonulet 2 years ago 3
Disaster !
Why...because no steps were taken to , 1 Fix rates to the Private Health sector and 2, TennCare payments are running at about 40 per cent of the cost of services rendered, while the Medicaid program had been paying about 50 per cent. So the Private Providers upped the cost.
Why, who was skimming if payouts dropped?
Employers just cancel their existing health insurance and let their employees sign up for TennCare , the State never addressed that issue.
ubuibiok 2 years ago
Can Obama learn from it? Of course. Will he learn from it? Of course not.
If you want to bring down health care cost we either have to adopt a completely laze fare no government intervention system of health care, which I dont believe the American people will ever go for, or we need the government to subsidize the supply side of health care. In other words scholarships for doctors. You cant dump another 40 million people into an already overcrowded health care system and expect cost to go down.
EricTokar 2 years ago
*palms face* fun :D
KnuckleBallz 2 years ago
*palms face*
this "public option" is very different from the separate unsubsidized non profit health insurance option that isn't free, but another option that is part of the existing market as additional competition in an attempt to lower costs for everyone.
garith21 2 years ago
*palms face* when are you people going to realize a government run national health care plan is unfeasible, untenable and stupid?
arequipa1 2 years ago
If you want to ignore that it's just going to be another insurance company that's non profit funded by people that want to go into it and not subsidized by government after it's implemented that's all you. If you think the system is just fine with millions of Americans determined to be uninsurable by insurance companies passing on rising costs to everyone else that's all you.
garith21 2 years ago
are you mad? this is going to be an enormous cost to all taxpayers at a time when we can't afford it. this is just about obama wanting to feed his ego and ram legislation through as fast and hard as he can. maybe he should worry more about giving michelle that kind of attention.
arequipa1 2 years ago
Oh, you're one of those brainwashed types that don't realize that Obama really hasn't touched what congress is doing to the bill. He basically said "we need health care reform" and wants congress to figure it out.
What you're thinking about is what bush did for most of his presidency and people like yourself probably didn't think too much about even if it was unmaintainable.
garith21 2 years ago
please. let go of bush. you people need to MOVE ON. he is not president anymore.
if you don't think this is all about obama's big fat ego, you're dead wrong.
arequipa1 2 years ago
Now if you want to talk about increase in irresponsible spending we can talk about the last president a lot more on that topic.
The whole issue of health care reform is to reduce the long term costs since our costs have been disproportionately increasing from the rest of the world while getting worse results in many cases.
garith21 2 years ago
LMAO!!!!!!!!!
you actually think this is going to reduce costs!!!
oh, that's rich!
arequipa1 2 years ago
You should also tell your legislator to stop accepting their own government health insurance, kill medicare, medicaid, and the vets health insurance because all of those are government run as well.
garith21 2 years ago
You haven't seen arequipa's past posts. He would be fine with killing every govt agency in the world. Even the successful ones. He's what we call an ideologue, otherwise known as a fantasy-based arguer.
eirefrance 2 years ago
Point well taken, of course they also are as ignorant as to think that the public option is "socialized medicine" which leads me to think they're one of the brainwashed people that still think certain types of programs are okay, just not the ones being proposed now, which are the same arguments that were used to oppose the programs that are in place now...the exact same arguments.
garith21 2 years ago
We have single payer healthcare, are ranked higher on the WHO healthcare rating and uses ½ as much on healthcare as the US does.
What is infeasible is a healthcare system that is based on making the most money out of the illness of others.
You're paying 2-10 times the price for the same med's as I am, even though the prices in general are higher where I live than you.
And why? Because the pharma's lobbied in anti-competition regulation.
You want the thief to be your insurer!
Wise up.
Aaberg123 2 years ago
blah blah blah.
i'm tired of these same old arguments.
the system we have now is imperfect, but it works.
stop repeating yourselves. i know what you're going to say before you say it.
arequipa1 2 years ago
so even though our costs are rising faster than every other countries health care, we're getting worse overall results than every other industrialized nation and millions of people are uninsured and hundreds of thousands are losing insurance every month, tens of thousands go bankrupt every year and tens of thousands of people die due to insurance denials of legitimate claims. "It still works" nice.
garith21 2 years ago
it's not perfect, but it's better than socialized medicine. i already am paying the mortgages of DEADBEAT LOSERS. i am not interested in paying their healthcare too.
arequipa1 2 years ago
1) a public option isn't socialized medicine
2) you already do pay for their health care in different ways, usually in emergency bills or in rising costs of your own health care because of health insurance denial/rescission or because people can't pay hospital bills and the hospitals pass on the costs to you. You're still paying, it's just a matter of different results.
garith21 2 years ago
i am satisfied with the current state of things.
i do not want obama and his band of bureaucrats stirring up the pot any more than it's already stirred up.
there is most certainly not a health care crisis in this country. he needs to get his foot out of his mouth and worry more about the economy.
arequipa1 2 years ago
1) So you're okay with the fact that you're paying more for your health care than most of the people in the world for less care overall
2) So you're okay with the fact that a lot of our taxes goes to those rising health care costs and it's rising faster
3) worrying about the economy has to have our health care system in mind, it currently bankrupts many people, sick people don't work nearly as often as healthy people and it's costs have been rising disproportionately to pay.
garith21 2 years ago
Spoken like a true intellectual dimwit. Well done, you've confirmed my stereotype of the uneducated American hick.
The thing is: It doesn't work!
Now crawl back into the hole from whence you came, moron.
Aaberg123 2 years ago
lol, go jackoff to some more pics of obama. i know you like that stuff.
arequipa1 2 years ago
You could be more pathetic, I'm sure, but I just don't see how right now.
Aaberg123 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
mmmm, slurp it up! yeah, taste obama's man-juice! yeah baby! Aaberg123 LOVES that dirty stuff!
arequipa1 2 years ago
.....
Aaberg123 2 years ago
If your public option just going to be just the same as any other insurance firm then how is that really going to add anything to your market?
Mastikator 2 years ago
1) it'll have access to a broad base of people reducing the problem of high risk per person making it have more predictable costs
2) it'll be non profit while having that large base and wont have to pander to stock holders as a result
3) current insurance firms don't really have much competition to do anything differently, like unethical denial of payment for legitimate claims are consistent amongst all of the insurance giants and they have no reason to stop.
garith21 2 years ago 4
So if I understand it correctly, the public option is going to break the cartel?
Mastikator 2 years ago
That depends, if the insurance lobby neuters the public option enough via it's bought congress men it might do nothing, the objective of it is however to be competition for them and to lead by example or they can lose customers via normal competition from a non profit organization. At the very least it would reduce the monopoly =P
garith21 2 years ago
In that case I hope it succeeds in that goal.
But I doubt it will. When it comes to politics I'm a bit cynical.
But when it comes to the people I'm optimistic. Have you ever considered the communistic option? (now calm down :P)
The communistic option is simple, you and everyone you know get together and sign a contract that says if anyone of you need medical treatment you all chip in to pay for it.
It's non-profit and doesn't need to wait for legislation.
Could it work?
Mastikator 2 years ago
*shrugs* I don't care much if it's a "communistic" or "socialist" idea, there's good and bad ideas from every school of thought. I guess it could technically work, but it would be dreadfully inefficient or ineffective unless you brought a lot of safety features, modern technology and checks that would prevent people making false claims to make money. It's good in principle, but isn't that how many ideas are?
garith21 2 years ago
I don't know though, wouldn't this be more of a type of anarchist (there are many different types) solution as it would avoid the legislative process. The ironic part is you'd need a lot of people to sign for it to be low risk for the people signing which is pretty much what non profit insurance is. Other countries have operating costs as low as 5% cuz they're non profit and they exist under different rules, out here it's like 20-25% of every dollar going to overhead costs.
garith21 2 years ago
If there aren't enough low risk people around then what you have is a situation when there isn't enough healthcare to go around, and no system can stop people from dying.
A communistic option could break the cartel and create market incentives on people to become lower risk (i.e. live healthier lifestyle).
The public option doesn't seem like it's going to pass anytime soon, so in the meanwhile... :P
Mastikator 2 years ago
1) never said you can just prevent death, but you can make things better overall
2) not necessarily as many people simply have pre existing conditions like they were born with it
3) well that's a given but you'd have to reach a lot of people just to spread risk, like if you have 1 person that you're covering and they have a 1% chance of getting sick you still miss out a hundred percent, which is why you need more than just a few people, and who'd manage the transactions and a few other issues.
garith21 2 years ago
What difference does it make if things are better overall when everyone is dying from unhealthy lifestyles and violence?
Mastikator 2 years ago
because doctors can get bonuses for promoting healthy life styles, kind of like how other countries do it, someone who has a pre existing condition can't choose to be low risk and violence, well why did you bring that up at all, would this plan reduce death by violence magically?
garith21 2 years ago
Just saying, if the problem lies elsewhere then why are you should be focusing on that.
Do you want to pay for people with pre-existing conditions? Do you think most people do?
My guess is "yes", so why not just do it?
Mastikator 2 years ago
um, the main problem is currently our system favors having insurance over not and the rules are in their favor. You also neglect that you'd have to have someone to oversee the contract being carried out as well otherwise doctors don't know if the person can pay for it or not if it's just a contract between a bunch of people, it's really still just insurance just a different form of it. With that sort of reasoning you may as well just start a non profit insurance company
garith21 2 years ago
Can you at least admit that if there isn't enough healthcare to go around, no system can make it enough?
Mastikator 2 years ago
uh...why do you assert that, the main problem is in health insurance coverage and making health care affordable not really lack of people to do it, heck there's some people which are nice enough that run free clinics at certain times of the year and they manage to treat a ton of people.
garith21 2 years ago
Besides, we lose a lot of doctor time and hospital funding just in how the health care industry has to deal with the existing health insurance industry, a good chunk of funding goes just to hiring people to talk with insurance industries and many doctors spend non treatment time playing "mother may I" which is another source of extra cost in hospitals and general efficiency.
garith21 2 years ago
So break the cartel.
Mastikator 2 years ago
right, well if you can come up with a simple plan that will work en mass and have enough support to make it happen I'm all for it. Again the contract idea sounds good in principle but if you want to talk about scale and over sight I think it falls short, it also likely wouldn't help most people with pre existing conditions.
garith21 2 years ago
I think that if implimented, the contract idea would need some time to spread, but eventually it would go pretty far as more and more people are seeing that it's cheaper and more reliable than regular insurance.
And pre existing conditions? Didn't you just say there are people nice enough to provide it for free?
I think though, the main strength is that this wouldn't require any legislation to pass, which means it can start today. At least to compete with insurance firms.
Mastikator 2 years ago
if you think it'll work, go for it, no one's stopping you, but I think you'd need a lot of people on it before you start taking on pre existing conditions because most people can't afford it and personally I don't think it'll scale well considering you'd need a lot of people to cover said people in an affordable way without invoking the same organization as a non profit health insurance company, but maybe that's just me
garith21 2 years ago
It's not for me, I live in Sweden and we already have universal healthcare, only the rich can afford private healthcare and most people here are already indocrinated into believing in the the socialistic Utopia.
I might do it if I ever move to a country with a smaller, less intrusive government, but it looks like USA is going in that direction so I'm staying here, where I at least have my civil liberties :D
Mastikator 2 years ago
Uh, right, you guys still pay a lot less than we do in health costs per person and per capita. I wouldn't call that perfect either, but there's plenty of far better models that improve greatly with the right legislation especially in comparison to the United states. I also doubt that people think "socialist utopia" is a reality either, but in the case of health care the free market definitely has it's limits especially when it's allowed to interact with government so freely.
garith21 2 years ago
We also have longer waiting lines and inferior health care treatment. It's especially bad for old people, we once had an elderly lady who got a piece of food stuck in her throat, she was not helped to remove it so it stayed there, until it started to rot and she died from infection.
People in Sweden have a false Utopian belief that the government will take care of everything, nobody cares about helping other people, or planing for the future. It's sad.
Mastikator 2 years ago
right, again we're still worse off than you are, there's people here with private insurance that get told by their insurance companies "you don't have cancer we're not paying for it" so when the person dies from cancer it's a "whoops" and again there's other models that are better that have a good hybrid of private hospitals and insurance with government controls and interaction/payment. Taiwan is actually a pretty good model, they just need to cut a few things and fund it properly.
garith21 2 years ago
Statistically, people with cancer live longer in the US than in Sweden.
Mastikator 2 years ago
Again, Sweden's health care and insurance system is not the only type of system. Secondly you're ignoring the many people in America that die to other factors before cancer, I'm reminded of "lies, damn lies and statistics" all over again, remember the part where a few tens of thousands die every year just because legitimate treatment requests were denied.
Lastly when you start spouting off statistics you should say which study and state if you've read it, often the summaries are bad.
garith21 2 years ago
If you want to read the study this claim is actually based upon it's not a direct "all of the US population"
"CONCORD has provided the first opportunity to estimate cancer survival in 11 states in USA covered by the National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR), and the study covers 42% of the US population"
The study it's self actually does not draw a direct causality to the health care system either and it's not like this study goes to find all the people that died of cancer w/o discovery
garith21 2 years ago
If nothing else, you and mastikator had an intelligent discussion, something rare on youtube
rubiconsedge 2 years ago
That is a lie. It is in the name. That is what 'public' in the public option refers to. They will be as private as Fannie or Freddie. Or maybe a private firm will actually take it up. But it will give the insurance companies you hate even more power, because you can be fined or thrown in jail if you opt out. How eager you are to jump from the frying pan into the fire.
82abhilash 2 years ago
right, that's exactly why they're lobbying everything they have against a public option and would rather have the baukus "plan" that forces people to buy from the big monopolies and hands them nearly half a trillion dollars to take those people up while giving up as little as possible in the process. Note: this particular politician that's in the insurance companies pockets viamently voted no for any public option.
garith21 2 years ago
It is just a stunt. Besides they know there are enough stupid people who will try passing it for them. The fact that they appear publicly against it will only motivate these fools further.
82abhilash 2 years ago
right, conspiracy that doesn't make any logical sense, gotcha. "it's what they want you to think man" At the very least come up with an argument that works. There's nothing about any of the public options that "hand the monopolies more business" except for the nonsense some politicians are trying to pass on the side of it. I frankly don't think it's the best idea but I'm not going to resort to making arguments based on what it is not.
garith21 2 years ago
The public 'option' is not an option, it is about removing options. Primarily the option to opt out. If you try we will fine you, if you refuse to pay the fine, we will put you in jail. It makes perfect logical sense. The Orwellian equivalent is 'requisites are options' like saying 'freedom is slavery'
82abhilash 2 years ago
um, again you can criticize the nonsense that people are surrounding it with but you are dumb if you're going automatically attach it to the public option, but they can still apply that nonsense by forcing you to get insurance from the existing monopolies without the public option which is exactly what other people are proposing without a public option.
garith21 2 years ago
I am opposed to the idea of forcing people to buy insurance with or without a public option. Only with a public option it will be more damaging. They may say now that the public option won't be supported by taxes, but look what happened to Fannie and Freddie.
82abhilash 2 years ago
1) great I'm opposed to that too, but that doesn't by definition mean that public option = forcing people to not be able to opt out
2) It would be more damaging because?
3) not sure why you keep bringing up fannie and freddie as a business of this sort is different from one that interacts with so many financial firms that would cause a severe chain reaction of failing businesses which is the main reason why people even defended such nonsense to begin with.
garith21 2 years ago
Public Option is like Fannie and Freddie, it is used to provide service to people who cannot afford to pay for it by legally stealing from someone else, who earned that money fair and square. Naturally the people who are going to get stolen from will protest. So they lie. The government has a bad track record. You do not know why this is similar to Fannie and Freddie? You have a government supported organization that is not allowed to fail. Which means it has no incentive to perform well.
82abhilash 2 years ago
There is NO welfare in the Public Option. It will operate just like a regular private insurance company and will fund itself. There just is no PROFIT, so the desire to omit care is not there. Sounds like a lot of people on this vid don't understand the Public Option. Please read up everyone!
phillipmarch22 2 years ago
If there is no PROFIT, then care is based on political correctness. Fannie and Freddie where officially for profit. Yet, they ended up being a loss making public option in the housing market. The result was people in debt trap and rising home prices. Public option is the same, except with health.
82abhilash 2 years ago
I think you are wrong here. If there is no profit, there is no profit, it doesn't have anything to do with political correctness. I have researched the public option and I don't see how it can affect our taxes. It will be run just like a PHI company, without the profit. If I had my way, we would be on a single payer system. We are the laughing stock of the industrialized world. We bicker of the stupidest things.
phillipmarch22 2 years ago
If there is no profit, there is no way of knowing what people need. That is what profits indicate. Resources will then have to be allocated based on who shouts the loudest, or who has the biggest vote bank. Political correctness would have everything to do with it. Not only that you let the government control your health, you give them complete control over your life. Those who benefit from it will of course laugh at you. Those who do not will die. So they won't laugh at you.
82abhilash 2 years ago
What? If there is no profit, there is no way of knowing what people need? You know what people need, by what doctors say they need. This has NOTHING to do with profit. WTF? If there is a bunch of flu cases in one city, you don't have to look at the PHI companies profit, you can look at a database of how many flu cases in that city.
phillipmarch22 2 years ago
'You know what people need, by what doctors say they need.'
Well how do you know that they are telling the truth? How do you know to trust anything in any database? Especially one that is maintained by the government? Does the government have a good track record of telling the truth?
82abhilash 2 years ago
It is a "Doctor" database, not a government one. Why would a doctor lie? I guess some of them do, they have been caught ripping off Medicare, Medicaid, and PHI companies. The Doctor maintains the database. The right wingers are way too paranoid!
phillipmarch22 2 years ago
You are right, doctors never lie.
82abhilash 2 years ago
There will always be corruption, we need a more perfect system. I believe in Karma and for those who still and lie, they will pay in return. If anyone out there thinks that private health insurance companies don't need reforming, you have lived in a cave. And to those who say they like their insurance, I guarantee you that they have not submitted a major claim. The problem is not the people that don't have insurance, it is the ones that DO. Single payer is the ONLY answer!
phillipmarch22 2 years ago
Oops! Steal and lie! Way tired!
phillipmarch22 2 years ago
I am not in favor of the status quo. For real reform requires you need to understand first what insurance is. Otherwise you will just exacerbate the problem you intend to solve. Private health insurance companies do not need reforming. They need freedom from intervention by the government. Private firms are held accountable by people that pay for their service. If they do a bad job, they take the business and their money elsewhere. Government are not so directly accountable. That make mess.
82abhilash 2 years ago
Oh, I understand what private health insurance companies are. Tell me WHAT government regulations are placed on them that makes it so they can not compete. Cause there are NO consumer regulations placed on them. Name some others!
phillipmarch22 2 years ago
I will tell you provided you tell me what your understanding of insurance is. Because without that you cannot understand why regulating health insurance is detrimental.
82abhilash 2 years ago
Due to the nature of health care, health insurance is subject to adverse selection. Without a balance, too many sick people in an insurance plan could lead to a larger amount of claims than can be covered by the insurance premiums. The risk of loss would be increased because the members of the plan would be paying less in premiums than their expected health care costs. This defeats the purpose of insurance and does not allow the insurer to pay for all claims and keep the company afloat.
phillipmarch22 2 years ago
Yup, you do not understand the nature of insurance. Insurance companies pool risks. So people in a pool all face the same sort of health risk. So there will be no systematic transfer of premiums from healthy to sick people. People in a pool would all be equally healthy or equally sick. Of course if you are sick, you will have to pay more for health care. Which is why they act as incentive for people to live healthy lives to begin with. Also risks that you can manage cannot be insured..
82abhilash 2 years ago
Are you actually saying that if you are more sick you should pay more? Cause if that is what your saying, you are certainly not thinking about your children or grandchildren. What if they lose their jobs and their children get sick. Should they not be allowed to receive medical care?
phillipmarch22 2 years ago
I am saying that no one owes you your health, unless they made you sick in the first place. If you are sick because you lived an unhealthy lifestyle, then you are responsible to bring yourself back to health. If you are sick because of an accident, then your insurance can cover you to the extent of your policy. No one owes you your life or your health. It is yours to keep and do with as you please. My parents paid for my medical care when I got sick,...
82abhilash 2 years ago
I will pay for my children when they are sick. And hopefully they to theirs. In addition to that we can teach them to live healthy lives. That is the only enduring way to spread health.
82abhilash 2 years ago
You said a great word: "Hopefully"! Are you willing to gamble with that? HOPEFULLY your children will be able to pay if your Grandchildren get sick. Sure, people that don't take care of themselves are more likely to get sick, but a lot of people and CHILDREN get sick that have lead healthy lives. I think you are not looking at this issue with wide open eyes!
phillipmarch22 2 years ago
I think you are not thinking. Life insurance is for people who try to lead healthy lives. You want them to cover suicide cases and alcoholics, which means you want them to reward irresponsible behavior. And they do it too! Which is why people who live responsibly are denied claims. And you are ok with that. You want the irresponsibles covered. I use the word hopefully because my children's choices are theirs not mine. They live their own lives not mine.
82abhilash 2 years ago
I guess we are going to have to disagree here, I think our healthcare is a RIGHT, not a privelage. Are you willing to tell your children that if they can't afford to pay insurance, that they are not allowed to bring your Grandchildren to the doctor's or hospitals because they are losers that don't have a job? Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it!
phillipmarch22 2 years ago
Yes, I think alcoholics and suicide cases and drug addicts are losers. If you want to pay for their health care, you should do it with your own money not mine. I may help you or I may not. It is my decision. You have no right to rob me under any circumstances. When you say health insurance is a right. You are telling people have a right to rob others to keep themselves healthy. It will only spread sickness.
82abhilash 2 years ago
..you cannot be insured against alchohoism or drug addiction because those are risks that you can control. Strictly speaking health insurance is a form of accident insurance. Now since you do not know that how can I explain what impact regulation can have on insurance firms. It would be like explaining music to a deaf person.
82abhilash 2 years ago
The Medical Association has known for decades that alcholism is a DISEASE. Look it up. If all Americans are insured it is actually better for the PHI industry. Greater risk pool!
phillipmarch22 2 years ago
Well and suicide results in deaths. But life insurance firms do not cover suicides and health insurance firms cannot cover alcholism. Only diseases that you the beneficiary cannot contribute to creating can be insured against.
82abhilash 2 years ago
Well, pretty soon private health insurance companies WILL be covering survivors of suicide and alcoholism. Not a minute too soon!
phillipmarch22 2 years ago
You are kidding right? Ok let them. Hard working people who contributes their well earned money will be denied care to help them. I suppose it does not bother you. There will be fines and imprisonment for those who try to opt out. I suppose that will not bother you either. The best thing to do then is to live irresponsibly making more people unhealthy and choking the system. And that does not bother you too, I guess..
82abhilash 2 years ago
Are YOU kidding? If I get pulled over without car insurance, the normal fine where I live is $800. If the cop is in a bad mood, he can take my car. I don't even know what would happen if I was in an accident w/o car insurance. There is NO imprisonment part of any bill in Congress. You got to get off Fox News!
phillipmarch22 2 years ago
Right health insurance is going to be regulated just like car insurance. I do not think car insurance must be compulsory, the way it is now. But you can opt out by not buying a car. But health insurance you cannot opt out without killing yourself if it is made mandatory. What do you think will happen to people who want to opt out? Fines? What if you refuse to pay the fines? It will be prison no doubt.
82abhilash 2 years ago
So, if one of your children lose their job and can not afford health insurance, should they be allowed to go to the emergency room after they have an accident? (Which I of course do not wish on you!)
phillipmarch22 2 years ago
Yes, you pass that law and all of a sudden you will see jobless people getting into all sorts of accidents. Only if the people who run the emergency room are willing to bear the costs of treating them or find someone (like their parents?) who will can they use that facility. Since there is not enough resources to care for everyone, some people inevitably will be left out. I do not want the government to decide who that is going to be. That is a death panel.
82abhilash 2 years ago
You are avoiding the question. Let's put it this way.
Your child is driving in another state and doesn't have health insurance. They get in a car accident and the ambulance driver asks your child if they have health insurance. You child says no. Then the driver says, I know you are having a hard time breathing and are bleeding, but since you don't have health ins. you can't go to the ER.
Are you cool with that?
What are the federal regs on the PHI industry?
phillipmarch22 2 years ago
Another state? That is the key word here is it not? Why is health insurance not valid across state lines? Because of regulations. That is not free market is it not? And why do you stick to federal regulations. State laws could be harming the industry just as much or more? So now you know of one interventionist regulation already and mitigates the effectiveness of insurance.
82abhilash 2 years ago
That is a "State" regulation, not federal. You are all about state rights, right?
phillipmarch22 2 years ago
No silly boy. There is nothing super-special about a state that one should bear with their stupid but not tolerate that of the Federal government. Stupidity is stupidity and harm is harm, no matter where it originates.
82abhilash 2 years ago
OK, this time I will make it as simple as possible. Yes or no question. Your child gets in a car accident and they have no health insurance. They have broken bones and need immediate care. They have no health insurance. Should they be allowed in to the emergency room? Can't make it simplier than that. Again, yes or no!
phillipmarch22 2 years ago
Ultimately it is up to the people who run the emergency room. Should they choose to save my child, they may choose to stick him with the bill for saving him, I will have no problem with that. He better use his now healthy body to pay their debt with real money not just gratitude. His father may or may not help him to that.
82abhilash 2 years ago
..now the government has to put safegaurds. Which basically means they will dictate how you should live your life or they will deny you care. I am sure that does not bother you too. Eventually they will run all aspects of your life. That is what you get when you sign off your health. You walk down the road to serfdom. It will be too late then. Soviet Union would be here in the US.
82abhilash 2 years ago
Do you know how tired your statement is: Eventually they will run all aspects of your life... That statement is nothing but fear mongering which the GOP is famous for. Any reform will be for the greater good. Because actually what you are saying is Medicare is ok and all of the socialized institutions like FDA, FAA, USDA, CDC, etc., but anything else the gov is interfering. We are NOT on the road to serfdom, it is the same neo-con propoganda that is spewed evertime a Dem goes to the White House!
phillipmarch22 2 years ago
Yes, the statement is old, but it is not tired. It is still fresh and it is still true. Since america already is socialized, it is easy to deduce that the problems have not since been solved, only exacerbated. I am sorry, the people who did it cannot be given more power.
82abhilash 2 years ago
We are so far removed from being a socialized nation it is not even funny. Look the word up in the dictionary. Seriously now, you are so brainwashed. I am old enough to just laugh at the thought! You have failed to answer any of my questions.
What federal regulations are imposed on the PHI industry?
If your child lost their job and health insurance and got in an accident, should they be turned away from the ER? (You can't have it both ways!)
phillipmarch22 2 years ago
I cannot answer what regulations are imposed on the PHI industry unless I can be sure you know what insurance is. From this conversation, it appears that you don't and don't care to know. As for the ER question. I have already answered it. The problem you see in the American health care is the problem of socialization. FDA, FAA, USDA, CDC are its signs.
82abhilash 2 years ago
I know EXACTLY what the PHI industry is. Name the federal regulations that are imposed on them.
I think you need to spend some time in Tijuana, Mexico. That is EXACTLY what you get when you are in a democracy that doesn't believe in social justice. Oh, don't drink the water. If it was up to the GOP, we would be a 3rd world country in no time!
You have NOT answered the ER question. Should your child be allowed to go to the ER if they do not have insurance? A simple yes or no would be great!
phillipmarch22 2 years ago
You do not know even the basics of insurance. You just think you do. The saying a little knowledge is a dangerous thing is very apt. And social justice is what destroyed Latin America. You want to make the US like that do you not? As for the simple question, you have put the question in several forms and variations. So you are in fact lying when you said you asked one simple question you did not. And why stick to federal legislation, what about state?
82abhilash 2 years ago
Oh, yes I do know EVERYTHING about private health insurance. Everything. My Dad had to hire an attorney and fight Blue Cross for care, (and won), and my oldest brother died because he was denied care from a PHI company. Trust me, I know. Why should you give a shit about that?
Wow, what blows me away with your rants, is you are not even giving a shit about your children or grandchildren. We are GREAT because of our social programs. Now there is something YOU know nothing about!
phillipmarch22 2 years ago
You know something is wrong. But you do not know what insurance is. Thus you do not have a grasp on the precise nature of the problem and thus, you come up with unworkable solutions that others are only too willing to implement to take away any freedom you still have left. I care about my children and grand-children. What you do for people you care is teach them to live responsibly, that is the best chance they have got, not force others to care for them.
82abhilash 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
"...promote the general welfare..."
phillipmarch22 2 years ago
What you are asking for is not general welfare. It is welfare of a specific kind to a specific group that you favor. A road or a post-office is general welfare. Even that can be done better by the private sector.
82abhilash 2 years ago
You can't have it both ways. Either your un-insured child should get emergency medical care or they shouldn't if they don't have insurance. Which is it? You are making this way more complicated than what it is.
phillipmarch22 2 years ago
I love it when you use false dichotomy. It is a sign of desperation. I have answered your question in elaborate terms. Now let me simplify it for you. The people who own and operate the emergency room need to decide.
82abhilash 2 years ago
I didn't ask you what the hospitals should do or not do. Do YOU think that if your child had no health insurance, should they be denied care and turned down from the emergency room? OMG, you are a joke here, just answer the question. This is an insurance question, not a hospital one! Good God!
phillipmarch22 2 years ago
Like I said, it is for the people who run the hospital to decide, how they should deal with people who need their service and do not have insurance. Part of the reason for today's crisis comes from not letting them make that decision.
82abhilash 2 years ago
Well, since you can't answer my question for obvious reasons, I will pray that your child doesn't get in an accident., Because if the hospitals don't get paid, they won't accept patients. The GOVERNMENT subsidizes them now. That is what this reform is trying to stop.
You are just another GOP hypocrit. You are the same as the white bald old guy at the Town Halls that says, "Keep government out of my healthcare and don't touch my Medicare." Jeez!
phillipmarch22 2 years ago