Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr.yet

Health Insurnace or Jail, acording to Sen. John Shadegg, Ariz. the current items in the proposal are numerous new taxes, fines and Jail terms if you don't have health insurance
Quote Shadegg: " What the bills says is that this is a tax. If you don't buy health insurance and you don't by government-approved health insruance, then they will impose a tax on you and they told you how much the tax was. But unfortunately, the code says that if you don't pay thetax, that's a misdemeanor, and we can fine you more, in this case, an additional $25,000. And on top of that, we can put you in jail for up to a year.

So, the government will dictate to us how they will force everyone to buy insurance, that is a free enterprise, and will not create competition to reduce costs. This is Socialism, and not America.

---

It seems this debate has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous. Why should a government have to resort to fines and jail terms over something so basic. I think you must all be anarchists over there, freedom is only worth something if you are alive to enjoy it, the "I died Free" shout does you no good at all if it could have been avoided for a small fee and it isn't as though you won't get something for your money.

How is it not socialism for your governemnt to own an auto maker. How is it not socialism for your government to own banks, how is it not socialism for your government to own an insurance company. Don't you get it? They want some business for their investment, capitalism in action. No, socialism is not unamerican, it is just following a new tradition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr.yet

This is Socialism, and not America.

---

Yes this is the Republicans mantra that has been spouted ad nauseum.

Yet in reports of countries by human development index the top countries all have universal health care:
List of countries by Human Development Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Or
Statistics | Human Development Reports (HDR) | United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

[QUOTE=paraclete;2019207]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

What Elliot and I keep saying is that we KNOW the current system isn't perfect, but that a system run by the same institution that hasn't fixed the poor sections of New Orleans after 4 years (even though all of the rich sections, and most of the tourist areas are JUST FINE). The poor aren't getting helped by the government THERE--and there's a real, legitimate need for government help post-Katrina in New Orleans. Why in the WORLD would anyone believe that the government taking over health care would BENEFIT the poor?

QUOTE]

What has happen in New Orleans has a lot to do with social engineering and probably not a lot to do with disaster relief. You cannot expect the government to permit a return to flood prone areas and you know as well as I do priorities change over time, and just maybe you should include the city in the blame game. The New Orleans thing was badly handled from the start and from right at the top, but then what could you expect from a man who had a war to fight.

---

Either we have the government resources to help ALL social levels of people in our OWN country, or we don't.

We don't even have enough government resources to help the war he 'had' to fight.

What happened in New Orleans has to do with our government outsourcing everything to big business. Do you REALLY think that UHC isn't going to be the same thing? Do you REALLY think it won't be one big pharmaceudical company and one current insurance provider that get the no-bid contract to provide health care to the U.S.

We don't have the INFRASTRUCTURE to begin to set up a government run health care.

THAT is what happened in New Orleans--the government contracted the relief out to big businesses, and the big businesses took their cut and subcontracted it out to smaller businesses, until the people doing the work couldn't get the supplies they needed to do it.

How about screwing the war in Iraq, and using the billions of dollars we're spending over there on contractors to actually do something about the entire welfare system here at home?

PS... you didn't answer my question:

So... you're saying that we should all contribute according to our abilities (via a percentage of our taxes going to health care) and be treated according to our needs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

So...you're saying that we should all contribute according to our abilities (via a percentage of our taxes going to health care) and be treated according to our needs?

---

Hello Synn:

I'm not the person you're addressing, but you encapsulated MY opinion exactly.

excon

Yup... and who is John Galt?

[QUOTE=Synnen;2019276]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Either we have the government resources to help ALL social levels of people in our OWN country, or we don't.

We don't even have enough government resources to help the war he 'had' to fight.

What happened in New Orleans has to do with our government outsourcing everything to big business. Do you REALLY think that UHC isn't going to be the same thing? Do you REALLY think it won't be one big pharmaceudical company and one current insurance provider that get the no-bid contract to provide health care to the U.S.?

We don't have the INFRASTRUCTURE to begin to set up a government run health care.

THAT is what happened in New Orleans--the government contracted the relief out to big businesses, and the big businesses took their cut and subcontracted it out to smaller businesses, until the people doing the work couldn't get the supplies they needed to do it.

How about screwing the war in Iraq, and using the billions of dollars we're spending over there on contractors to actually do something about the entire welfare system here at home?

---

If I read you right you are saying capitalism doesn't work, that you are actually afraid of there being more private sector involvement in health care. Right now you have 1600 health care insurers but they are a protected species, just a few allowed to operate in each state. I heard a proposal was to open the market so they could compete and people are against this. Once again you are saying the free market doesn't work. Your existing system is a license to print money, twice as expensive as a universal health care system and the outcomes aren't as good as they should be.

You already have the infrastructure to do this in medicare and medicade, there are people there with experience, it doesn't need a new corporation or government authority, just an expansion of what already exists, and what you save is the cost which is going into shareholder pockets about 23% of costs. No pharmeutical company can provide all medicines by the way, the patent system prevents it.

By all means get out of Iraq and move military and reconstruction spending to the health sector. You see once again you are saying the capitalist system doesn't work, not in Iraq, not in New Orleans, but where do you get the resources to do anything big. The Government doesn't have a team standing by that can reconstruct a city, or service 160,000 troops, or reconstruct a country. If there are no skilled people you have to get them from somewhere.
The emphasis now is on stimulus projects so sure NO is going to be further down the list.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

PS....you didn't answer my question:

So...you're saying that we should all contribute according to our abilities (via a percentage of our taxes going to health care) and be treated according to our needs?

---

Sure that is a fair way because none of us know when our situation will change. We can be millionaires one day and destitue the next.

What I'm saying is that CORPORATISM doesn't work--and the US government has moved to corporatism for a lot of its needs.

SOCIALISM (pay what you can, use what you need) doesn't work either. Who decides that MY need for a kidney is greater than YOUR need for it? Who decides that MY choices in treating my ovarian cysts are the right way to go? Under the new system, the most EFFICIENT thing to do, the most cost-effective, would be to yank the things out of me surgically--so sorry for your loss of being able to have a family. NEXT!

A mix of the two (Keynesian economics, rather than Friedmanite economics) works better. Teh government SHOULD have oversight of the health care system. But they should NOT go into the business themselves. They don't know HOW.

So my point has been, over and over: FIX the current system. Don't trash it and start with a system that been shown not to work the world over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

SOCIALISM doesn't work either. Who decides that MY need for a kidney is greater than YOUR need.

---

Hello again, Synn:

Some bureaucrat... Sucks, don't it...

But, you don't think that your insurance company just writes the checks, do you? Nahh. And, you're not saying, are you, that there ISN'T an insurance adjuster deciding what your needs are, right NOW, are you?? No, you wouldn't be saying that, cause it ain't true.

If it were ME, I'd rather have a bureaucrat in there, whose mandate is to give as much medical care as there is, to as many as there is - instead of an insurance adjuster whose mandate is to ration care so as to make as much profit as there is.

But, that's just me.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

What I'm saying is that CORPORATISM doesn't work--and the US government has moved to corporatism for a lot of its needs.

---

Absolutely correct. That's why you guys are caught between a rock and a hard place - lobbyists and corporations guide policy in your government more than anywhere else I know of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

SOCIALISM (pay what you can, use what you need) doesn't work either. Who decides that MY need for a kidney is greater than YOUR need for it? Who decides that MY choices in treating my ovarian cysts are the right way to go? Under the new system, the most EFFICIENT thing to do, the most cost-effective, would be to yank the things out of me surgically--so sorry for your loss of being able to have a family. NEXT!

---

Who decides? Doctors do. Same triage arrangement as you have now; how do you think it would run? Your doctors and you have the same conversations you have now.

Quote:

---

Don't trash it and start with a system that been shown not to work the world over.

---

Actually please refer to my previous post about the recent report on the best countries to live in. The system works all over the world, but maybe not in the US for the reason noted above. Are there any other countries that have successful market-driven health care systems?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Some bureaucrat... Sucks, don't it...

---

Actually it isn't a bureaucrat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

I understand your mistrust of government particularly a government that is regulation minded, my suggestion was never that your government take over the provision of health care rather they take over in part at least the provision of health insurance. There is a vast difference in the approach. The Free Market is an imperfect model when you are dealing with health services because of the inability of a large number of people to deal with the cost equation. A free market suggests setting no cap on cost. Look, the rich can get any health care they want, cost doesn't enter into it, but the poor cannot not. This is what needs to be corrected.

---

The problem with this is that Obama's stated goal is a single-payer health care system. Which means:

1) that the government WOULD take over the system, and,
2) that they would be taking over not just the health INSURANCE portion, but the entire system of PROVIDING health care. Simply put, when you control the methods of production (via the FDA) and distribution (via being the sole method of payment) you control the entire system.

As for the cost issue, as I have said before, the government pays MORE for health care services than the private sector does... 35% more for the services themselves and as much as 500% more for the administrative costs. Those costs get transferred to the consumer in the form of higher taxes to support the system. The consumer ends up paying MORE for health care, not less, under a government-run system. So having government in charge doesn't FIX the situation, it actually makes the situation WORSE.

In order to fix the problem of affordability, there are solutions that have been proposed. These include:

1) making health insurance premiums and the costs of health services pre-tax, which would lower the cost of insurance by as much as 30% INSTANTLY,

2) increasing insurance portability and interstate purchasing, which would make health insurance more competitive, thus lowering costs,

3) tort reform, which could lower medical expenses by as much as 60%

4) create "build-your-own-policy" policies that allow you to pay for what you want and discard what you don't, thus lowering costs of the policies.

These four items alone could lower the costs of health insurance by as much as 50% across the board, probably more, making them affordable to the vast majority of the "have nots" that you are worried about.

The interesting thing about the "Baukus Plan" that we have been hearing about is that acccording to the CBO's report (released yesterday) the plan leaves 25 million Americans STILL UNINSURED... out of 30 million that they claim are currently uninsured. So the government-health-insurance plan doesn't even really address the issue in any meaningful way.

Because it was never intended to address the issue.

The goal of government-run health care was never to insure the uninsured. It was and still is to take control of a large segment of the economy.

That's the BIGGEST problem with government-run health care.

Simply put, the free market DOES have all the answers to the problems of health care, and is in a better position to deal with the issues than the government is. We don't need regulatory caps to lower costs... we need more competition and lower taxes to do that. Which means that what we need is for the government to get out of the way. Government intervention only drives costs up, not down.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

The goal of government-run health care was never to insure the uninsured. It was and still is to take control of a large segment of the economy.

---

Hello again, Elliot:

As long as you think health care reform is really a secret left wing plot for a government take over of the health care industry, your arguments won't be taken seriously.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

So...you're saying that we should all contribute according to our abilities (via a percentage of our taxes going to health care) and be treated according to our needs?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello Synn:

I'm not the person you're addressing, but you encapsulated MY opinion exactly.

excon

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Sure that is a fair way because none of us know when our situation will change. We can be millionaires one day and destitue the next.

---

I wonder if either of you actually recognize the quote that Synn was citing.

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program, 1875.

Congratulations, excon and Paraclete. You are Marxists.

So's Obama.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Elliot:

As long as you think health care reform is really a secret left wing plot for a government take over of the health care industry, your arguments won't be taken seriously.

excon

---

Oh, excon, you silly man...

After the government has taken over 10 of the 12 largest banks in the country, 2 of the 3 largest auto makers, the largest insurance company, and several financial/securities brokerage institutions, as well as increasing the regulatory controls over the R&D and manufacturing sectors of the economy through crap & tax, dictating what types of cars, lightbulbs and toilet paper we can use, and deliberately driving up the price of oil by limiting our drilling... can you truly find a cogent argument that the government is NOT trying to take over every sector of the economy? They are already in the process of DOING it. Can you truthfully argue that it isn't happening when there is so much evidence that it is... when the government is actually doing these things?

Willfull blindness is such a sad state of affairs, excon. And rather surprising from a guy who thought that Bush was trying to take over the world via the USA Patriot Act. It is amazing how you can see government conspiracies where there are none, and ignore them when there is clear evidence of them.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

can you truly find a cogent argument that the government is NOT trying to take over every sector of the economy?

---

Hello again, Elliot:

Yes. The government is trying to SAVE those sectors of the economy. It's not an argument that I understand, so I'm not going to argue it with you... Suffice to say, MOST of the world economists argue cogently for the position I support. I'll rest on THEM.

But, of course, you're wearing your tin hat, and NOTHING is going to dissuade you from your loony conspiracy theories.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Elliot:

Yes. The government is trying to SAVE those sectors of the economy.

---

We had to destroy the bridge in order to save the bridge... is that it?

Pure BS. Pure COMMUNIST BS.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Elliot:

Yes. The government is trying to SAVE those sectors of the economy. It's not an argument that I understand, so I'm not going to argue it with you... Suffice to say, MOST of the world economists argue cogently for the position I support. I'll rest on THEM.

But, of course, you're wearing your tin hat, and NOTHING is going to dissuade you from your loony conspiracy theories.

excon

---

Correction:

Most FRIEDMANITE economists argue for your position. Most KEYNESIAN economists think the current swing towards Chicago School Economics is scary as hell.

Synn If I'm not wrong I think you got your economists mixed up. It is Keynesians who want gvt. Intervention .
Milt Friedman is famously quoted as saying “If you let the government run the Sahara Desert, soon there will be a shortage of sand.”

edit although you are quite correct that the Keynesians oppose the Chicago school. I meant to say that Excon is proposing Keynesian solutions... not those of Friedman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

What I'm saying is that CORPORATISM doesn't work--and the US government has moved to corporatism for a lot of its needs.

---

Hello Synn:

I don't know what corporatism is. It CAN'T be good because it ends in "ism". It sounds like a gang of corporations trying to take over the neighborhood... If that's what it is, it AIN'T good, and it won't work...

Let me rephrase the "wont work" part, because it depends on which end of the equation you're on. It certainly works for the corporations... Besides, there's something onerous about corporations banding together to seek their goals... In fact, it IS onerous... When banding together is something corporations have to do to make profits, then something is wrong...

It's antithetical to the idea of a business anyway... Doesn't the Wolverine keep telling us that seeking profit is GOOD for everybody?? I don't disagree with him. It is. Then I ask you, why do corporations need to band together... I thought improving your service would be something corporations would do to increase their profits. I thought making a better product would do that. I thought having the best and brightest people working for you would be enough...

But, it isn't. Here's another point the Wolverine and I agree on - when the government gets involved, NOTHING GOOD HAPPENS...

So, when corporations band together, what are they banding together to get?? I'll tell you what. It's the ear of government They want government to pass laws that make it easier for corporations to make money... And, the government obliges... If that weren't true, wouldn't the corporations spend the zillions they spend on lobbying, on R & D, or training new people, or improving customer service?? Sure, they would, but that's the old fashioned way. The NEW way is to get favors... And, they do...

I don't know when that happened, but it did. You KNOW it did too. I'll bet it was about the time they STOPPED have live people answer customer service lines. Why do you need to provide customer service if you can get the government to give you a break?? You don't, and they don't, and you know it.

So, when corporations become perverted, too big to fail, and they get ALL THE DOUGH, it's time for little people like you and me to revolt...

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Synn If I'm not wrong I think you got your economists mixed up. It is Keynesians who want gvt. intervention .
Milt Friedman is famously quoted as saying “If you let the government run the Sahara Desert, soon there will be a shortage of sand.”

edit although you are quite correct that the Keynesians oppose the Chicago school. I meant to say that Excon is proposing Keynesian solutions ....not those of Friedman

---

Tom's right, you did mix up your economists. Friedmanites support free-markets, while Keynesians support government intervention. Most conservatives tend to be Friedmanites, or at least modified Friedmanites. (I happen to be a purist, but not all Friedman supporters are.)

Excon, on the other hand, has gone way past being a Keynesian to being an outright Marxist, as seen in a prior post:

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...ml#post2020291

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Excon, on the other hand, has gone way past being a Keynesian to being an outright Marxist, as seen in a prior post

---

Hello again:

Isn't name calling what you do when you're out of gas?

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again:

Isn't name calling what you do when you're outta gas??

excon

---

I'm not name calling, excon. I'm going by what YOU said you support.

You are the one who said that you're all for the idea of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." That is Marxism. MARX is the one who said it, and you agreed with it. In fact, your exact words were, "It encapsulates my opinion exactly." Ergo, you are a Marxist.

Don't like it? Tough. If you don't like being called a Marxist, then perhaps you should stop supporting his philosophies, positions and economic theories. Till then, you are what you are. I didn't lablel you a Marxist... you did that all on your own by stating that you supported the basic tenent of Marxism.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

So, when corporations become perverted, too big to fail, and they get ALL THE DOUGH, it's time for little people like you and me to revolt...

excon

---

How about when governments become perverted, too big to fail, and they get all the dough? Not to mention taking over private companies, dictating executive pay levels, and controlling production methods of the private sector?

Does that also mean it's time for us to revolt? Or is it OK for the government to do what you think is so evil for big corporations to do?

Elliot

Surely by now you've heard the CBO's estimates of the Baucus bill will reduce the deficit by $81 billion. One problem, THERE IS NO BAUCUS BILL.

Baucus' plan raises taxes on medical devices, which will naturally be passed on to the consumer. The tax goes into effect in 2010, 3 years before the plan would take effect.

Cato says the numbers don't add up.

Gah, what a stupid typing mistake. You are all correct.

My only excuse is that I'm so incredibly swamped at work--working minimum of 60 hours this week--that I'm just getting stupid.

Still don't want the government to RUN UHC. Wouldn't mind if they intervened a bit, but let's try re-making the old system before jumping to a new one run by a government that's run by corporations run by the rich elite, okay?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Surely by now you've heard the CBO's estimates of the Baucus bill will reduce the deficit by $81 billion. One problem, THERE IS NO BAUCUS BILL.

Baucus' plan raises taxes on medical devices, which will naturally be passed on to the consumer. The tax goes into effect in 2010, 3 years before the plan would take effect.

Cato says the numbers don't add up.

---

I heard something about that yesterday... I think it was Karl Rove that mentioned it on Hannity. According to the Bill that the Senate Finance Committee has put out, we would be paying for 10 years, but will only be receiving serviced for 7 years.

Well, heck, I could make a "budget neutral" health care plan if I did that too. If I could charge people for 10 years worth of work but only provide 7 years worth of services, I could get rich pretty quick too.

The question is, how many people want to pay for 10 years but only receive 7 years worth of coverage?

I just checked the bill, and yep... we start paying for it in 2010, but we only start getting coverage in 2013. What a scam...

Here's the full bill with all the Chairman's amendments and markups.

http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/leg/LEG%202009/100209_Americas_Healthy_Future_Act_AMENDED.pdf

Elliot

Edit: Sorry, it really ISN'T a bill. It's 252 pages of CONCEPTS that have not been written as legislation. We have no idea what the final "bill" will actually look like. But one thing we do know is that these "concepts" really don't look all that good... paying for 10 years but only getting 7 years worth of services... that ain't kosher. And trust me, I know kosher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

The problem with this is that Obama's stated goal is a single-payer health care system. Which means:

1) that the government WOULD take over the system, and,
2) that they would be taking over not just the health INSURANCE portion, but the entire system of PROVIDING health care. Simply put, when you control the methods of production (via the FDA) and distribution (via being the sole method of payment) you control the entire system.

As for the cost issue, as I have said before, the government pays MORE for health care services than the private sector does... 35% more for the services themselves and as much as 500% more for the administrative costs. Those costs get transferred to the consumer in the form of higher taxes to support the system. The consumer ends up paying MORE for health care, not less, under a government-run system. So having government in charge doesn't FIX the situation, it actually makes the situation WORSE.

---

I think you will find the government wants to reduce the amount it is paying in the long term, but you are correct you don't want the government as health care provider, but health insurer, and insurer of the last resort isn't necessarily a bad option, after all it is the insurer of the last resort in a number of other situations.

Quote:

---

In order to fix the problem of affordability, there are solutions that have been proposed. These include:

1) making health insurance premiums and the costs of health services pre-tax, which would lower the cost of insurance by as much as 30% INSTANTLY,

2) increasing insurance portability and interstate purchasing, which would make health insurance more competitive, thus lowering costs,

3) tort reform, which could lower medical expenses by as much as 60%

4) create "build-your-own-policy" policies that allow you to pay for what you want and discard what you don't, thus lowering costs of the policies.

---

Why would you want to give an immediate indirect subsidy to insurance companies? Yes it will increase the number of people with insurance but it doesn't fix the problem of those who can't afford it. Pay now and get a benefit later only works when you have money. The other proposals are valid and you would have expected number 4 to have arisen from market initiatives anyway, so lack of competition must be the problem.

Lower tax isn't the answer to everything, sometimes a little more tax, if directed to a specific purpose, can solve a problem by shifting emphasis and if it offsets an extortinately high insurance premium you might come out ahead. People get hung up on the idea of tax because they don't think they see anything for their money. Same thing with insurance, but remember the premiums will always be more than the costs, that's the way insurance works

Paraclete:

WITHOUT resorting to a whole new system by a "company" that Elliot and I don't trust in the least---how would YOU fix the current system?

Government regulation is an okay thing to use in your reasoning, but in no way, shape, or form can you say throw out the car because it has a flat tire.

Tell US how YOU would FIX it. Not replace it: FIX IT.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

Tell US how YOU would FIX it. Not replace it: FIX IT.

---

Hello Synn:

I'm not clete, but I'll answer... Have you stopped beating your husband, yet??

If you find that question strange, let's take yours... MY question assumed that you beat your husband... Your question assumes that ANY or ALL of the health care bills before congress "replace" your medical care and/or insurance coverage.

So, if you want to have a debate over what is really happening on the ground in YOUR congress, regarding YOUR future, I'll admit that you probably don't beat your husband, if you'll admit that NONE of the proposals on the table "replace" ANYTHING.

But, if you're unable to get beyond the right wing talking points, then we can't go any further, Synn.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

Paraclete:

WITHOUT resorting to a whole new system by a "company" that Elliot and I don't trust in the least---how would YOU fix the current system?

Government regulation is an okay thing to use in your reasoning, but in no way, shape, or form can you say throw out the car because it has a flat tire.

Tell US how YOU would FIX it. Not replace it: FIX IT.

---

What I see wrong with the system is that it is insurance based and therefore adversarial in nature where coverage can be denied. You should not have a system where need must be proven outside the prescription of a licensed medical practitioner.

So, portability is a must. If you have been insured you should not be denied cover for preexisting conditions. Such a concept is called knock for knock in the insurance industry.

The provision of insurance by employers is a serious flaw in the system, therefore the system needs to be converted to a system of payment of premium by the employer whilst the insurance contract is selected and belongs to the employee. This makes insurance part of a salary package not a benefit tied to employment with a particular employer and not subject to some negotiated package mininising cost to the employer. An employer could be given a right to insist an employee have minimum coverage.

Payment of premiums for a period as part of unemployment benefits when a person is laid off to maintain cover.

Reform of the tort system to limit costs and number of claims by regulating the damages that can be awarded and the circumstance that is regarded as negligence.

Consolidation of the number of insurance providers and licensing insurance providers to operate in all states

Allowing the insured to add options to a basic package of coverage. e.g. dental, health club, optical, cosmetic, etc to be optional cover. Allowing deductables and caps to lessen cost.

Regulating the maximum cost for procedures. Investigation of the billing policies of practitioners who consistenly bill for multiple procedures or whose income is outside the norm. Requiring practitioners to specifiy individual tests required rather that specifying group tests

Where a person is not insured a tax impost as a contribution. This could have a threshold so as not to burden the poor but to ensure that those who run the gauntlet contribute.

These are just a few thoughts obviously there are many areas requiring reform but if the system is broken you do need to fix it even if it means overturning the status quo.

Where I come from all citizens have a minimum coverage provided by a 1.5%taxation surcharge and there are insurers and mutual societies who provide cover beyond that. They are issued with an identity card which enables them to obtain medical services nation wide within the bulk billing system or refunds. Medical expenses beyond a theshold are tax deductable and practitioners are encouraged to bulk bill the system at a regulated fee.
The payment system operates electronicly. They may charge more and the gap may be insured, this places the burden on the patient for payment and claim. The tax surcharge is waived if insurance cover exists. There is also a safety net which helps with serious and cronic illness. Cosmetic surgeries are not included. The Price of Pharmeuticals are regulated and the use of generics encouraged. Because most of the insurance cover is provided by mutual societies (co-ops in your parlance) premiums are relatively low and the insurance industry highly competitive.

Having observed such a system for thirty years, I wonder what the US citizen has to fear from change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Having observed such a system for thirty years, I wonder what the US citizen has to fear from change.

---

We don't fear change, we fear disaster in attempting to completely remake the industry. Fix it, don't replace it. It's been said enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello Synn:

I'm not clete, but I'll answer... Have you stopped beating your husband, yet???

If you find that question strange, let's take yours... MY question assumed that you beat your husband... Your question assumes that ANY or ALL of the health care bills before congress "replace" your medical care and/or insurance coverage.

So, if you wanna have a debate over what is really happening on the ground in YOUR congress, regarding YOUR future, I'll admit that you probably don't beat your husband, if you'll admit that NONE of the proposals on the table "replace" ANYTHING.

But, if you're unable to get beyond the right wing talking points, then we can't go any further, Synn.

excon

---

Everything I've seen says that within 5 years, EVERYONE must use the new system, Exy. If you think that getting private insurance after that isn't going to be unaffordable except to the very wealthy, you've got a more optimistic view than I do.

SURE, I can keep things exactly the way they are for me---except my premiums will double, my coverage will be less (because of fewer people in the medical field, and those that ARE will have more patients), and I'll STILL have to pay for the government version that "I'm not using". Yeah, right.

Maybe I don't beat my husband NOW, but 5 years from now, I might HAVE to.

PS--I'm going to admit here that I'm spread thin lately. I've been ill, and working too many hours. If that means that I've misread something or misTYPE something (see yesterday's idiotic answer from me for proof), please point it out in a forgiving fashion.

This is an interesting topic for me, I'm enjoying being involved in discussion, but please try not to murder me if I'm dumber than usual :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

Everything I've seen says that within 5 years, EVERYONE must use the new system, Exy.

---

Hello again, Synn:

SHOW ME what you've seen. If it's from the death panel lady, you KNOW you're going to get an argument... If it's from the words in the bill (any bill), we can discuss it.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Synn:

SHOW ME what you've seen. If it's from the death panel lady, you KNOW you're gonna get an argument... If it's from the words in the bill (any bill), we can discuss it.

excon

---

Please read HR 3200, Title I, Section A. This section talks about the fact that anyone who is not covered under a "qualified plan" as of Year 1 of the bill may only receive coverage under the Government program... private insurance would no longer be available to that person.

Assuming that people stay at a particular job with a particular employer for an average of 3 years, that would mean that within an average of 3 years, most people will have been forced to take only the government plan, because they will no longer be covered under their former employer's plan, and private plans would not be available to them under Title I section A.

That was deliberately written into the House bill in order to phase private insurance out of existence. Which means that Synnen was right... the goal of HR 3200 is to REPLACE private insurance, not augment it.

You wanted the words of the bill... you got them.

Except that you'll tell us that it doesn't really say that... it really says something else.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Please read HR 3200, Title I, Section A.....

You wanted the words of the bill... you got em.

---

But you really didn't show the words of the bill.

Copy/paste them from here: Text of H.R.3200 as Introduced in House: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress It's much easier if you use the Section numbers as they are unique.

Edit to add: here 's a great resource: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/H.R._3200 You can link directly to the relevant section!

Actually, I have the entire Bill downloaded as a PDF file.

But the secdtion that I refer to is several pages long... too long to post here. That's why I didn't do a C&P, but rather referenced the section in question.

Elliot

Use the wikisource to link to the relevant section. There are many Title I in all the Divisions.