Health Care

[loserbob 11]

Patty(I dont know how to post right under the article im referring to), what about the two tax credits Bush gave, I believe $600.00 each to each working American. He said they where to help stimulate the economy. Then awhile after, the news reports said people didnt spend, they paid off debt.

[loserbob 11]

Bill Oreilly supports the swiss plan which is choice of private insurers or the government "socialized" plan. They have both and get to choose. He said the Swiss plan works very well.

[pattygreen 5]

Patty(I dont know how to post right under the article im referring to), what about the two tax credits Bush gave, I believe $600.00 each to each working American. He said they where to help stimulate the economy. Then awhile after, the news reports said people didnt spend, they paid off debt.

What about them? All I can say is Obama could see that that doesn't work. Giving people money does NOT stimulate anything. Someone has to pay that money back.

Bob, If you click on the 'quote' button in that persons box, you will get their quote along with the space for you to type in your response.

[pattygreen 5]

Bill Oreilly supports the swiss plan which is choice of private insurers or the government "socialized" plan. They have both and get to choose. He said the Swiss plan works very well.

In our country, the government plan would not be making any profits, and therefore would be the lowest and best ins. for anyone. Because at first fewer would be on it, it would cover your needs and be a great price, and even free for some. But, over time, many companies will choose to put their employees on it because it will be less costly for them. Every time one company switches to the gov. plan, the less people there are on private plans, and therefore, they will have to raise their premiums even more to cover their losses. Eventually, the cost of private ins will cause everyone to turn to the gov. run plan. Now the gov. run plan has everyone on it and there is no more private ins. companies out there. How is that getting a choice? Now that the gov. has everyone on their plan and the nation is socialized medically, they will be the ones controlling your medical decisions instead. What's the difference who makes those decisions? The private ins. companies or the government? The difference is that with the government being your only option, there is no discussion or other place to turn.

[BJean 16]

Well if that is what it takes for us to get universal health care in America, then it's fine by me. I just don't agree that the picture you paint is anything we can count on.

It's been so long since Americans didn't have insurance coverage to cover all health care costs, people have forgotten what it is like to just pay as you go for your doctor visits and simple medications. If we had kept that system, insurance coverage simply to cover catastrophic health care costs, things wouldn't have become so convoluted in the U.S.

It has taken since the 50s for our health care system to become the hideous monster that it is today. Now you have to pay through the nose for coverage that is controlled by people who stand to make money if they deny you coverage. How good is that for your health?

loserbob, we have the kind of coverage in our company that you talk about - where you must have 4 or more employees to get group coverage. But they still won't insure my husband and me.

Studying successful health care systems that other countries have would be a good thing. But Americans are so afraid of "socialized medicine" they are not open to any meaningful solution, much less something that might be universal in nature.

And you have the insurance companies to thank. They have our legislators in their pockets and they never miss a beat putting out a load of crap when a plan is being discussed that doesn't include them making billions of dollars off us.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

In our country, the government plan would not be making any profits, and therefore would be the lowest and best ins. for anyone. Because at first fewer would be on it, it would cover your needs and be a great price, and even free for some. But, over time, many companies will choose to put their employees on it because it will be less costly for them. Every time one company switches to the gov. plan, the less people there are on private plans, and therefore, they will have to raise their premiums even more to cover their losses. Eventually, the cost of private ins will cause everyone to turn to the gov. run plan. Now the gov. run plan has everyone on it and there is no more private ins. companies out there.That would be a good thing, too. Because countries that have universal, single payer, government run healthcare love it. They shake their head in disbelief at how a country like ours doesn't. How is that getting a choice? Now that the gov. has everyone on their plan and the nation is socialized medically, they will be the ones controlling your medical decisions instead. What's the difference who makes those decisions?The difference is that you have an elected congressman and two elected senators. If you aren't happy with how the government plan is being run, then you call them. They don't want their re-election to be affected by constituents unhappy with their medical plan. You know their names. And they are answerable to you. But with private insurance, they are NOT answerable to you. They answer to the stockholders. And if your health insurance is through your employer (as most people's is) then you don't have a choice to change insurance companies. And BTW - those receiving the government run medicare are happier with their plan than those on private plans. The private ins. companies or the government? The difference is that with the government being your only option, there is no discussion or other place to turn.

Where do people covered through work turn now? Quit their job and buy their own policy? :w00t:

[BJean 16]

patty was speaking hypothetically I believe when she said: "Now that the gov. has everyone on their plan and the nation is socialized medically, they will be the ones controlling your medical decisions instead. What's the difference who makes those decisions?"

Huh? You're saying that we might have a choice between the government offering us insurance to cover our medical care and private insurers?

Why would anyone choose private insurers if they had the choice? Private insurance companies are motivated to keep us from getting any kind of medical treatment or medications so that they can continue to make billions and billions of dollars.

The government would not be similarly motivated. They are motivated to help the people in this country be as healthy as possible. We're all taxpayers and pay into the system and besides if we all die from inadequate health care, there will be no government.

It's a no brainer. If you want us to believe that you can't see that, then it seems more like you just aren't being honest. I've read your posts and you seem intelligent enough to understand what is very uncomplicated logic about motivation and self-interest.

I think you're just on the Republican bandwagon - the party of NO! The obstructionist party. The party that the insurance companies can depend on.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

patty was speaking hypothetically I believe when she said: "Now that the gov. has everyone on their plan and the nation is socialized medically, they will be the ones controlling your medical decisions instead. What's the difference who makes those decisions?"

Huh? You're saying that we might have a choice between the government offering us insurance to cover our medical care and private insurers?

Why would anyone choose private insurers if they had the choice? Private insurance companies are motivated to keep us from getting any kind of medical treatment or medications so that they can continue to make billions and billions of dollars.

Exactly. If the government ran health care it would take the profit out of healthcare. Can you imagine the billions and billions that would save us? It's staggering to think that anyone would support a for-profit, greed motivated private insurance industry that is destroying our healthcare in this country and shutting out millions of people.

The government would not be similarly motivated. They are motivated to help the people in this country be as healthy as possible. We're all taxpayers and pay into the system and besides if we all die from inadequate health care, there will be no government.

It's a no brainer. If you want us to believe that you can't see that, then it seems more like you just aren't being honest. I've read your posts and you seem intelligent enough to understand what is very uncomplicated logic about motivation and self-interest.

I think you're just on the Republican bandwagon - the party of NO! The obstructionist party. The party that the insurance companies can depend on.

There's a few DINO's in that group, too, that we need to get rid of. To that end a progressive democrat is running against DINO Blanche Lincoln in the primary. I may contribute to his campaign.

[BJean 16]

You have to spoon feed me information. Dinos in the group? What's a dino? I mean other than the obvious Dino Blanche Lincoln.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

You have to spoon feed me information. Dinos in the group? What's a dino? I mean other than the obvious Dino Blanche Lincoln.

DINO = Democrat In Name Only- Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Bart Stupak, etc.. and many of the blue dog democrats.

When the republicans keep saying that the democrats have the majority, they forget about these guys, not to mention that the democrats traditionally don't vote like they all share one brain, like the republicans do.

[Devana 0]

What's the difference who makes those decisions? The private ins. companies or the government?

BIG BIG ENORMOUS DIFFERENCE!!!!

Private insurance companies.......how to get the biggest profits.

Government insurance.......how to best provide the best care for all.

Pretty straight forward.

Your fear of evil socialism is clouding your thinking and allowing you to be a pawn of big business.

[BJean 16]

Right Devana!

Cleo's you're so politically savvy. I have to keep my political leanings covert. I'd get thrown out of the neighborhood if my friends here found out how progressive I am. It's frustrating and exhausting trying to keep a lid on it.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Right Devana!

Cleo's you're so politically savvy. I have to keep my political leanings covert. I'd get thrown out of the neighborhood if my friends here found out how progressive I am. It's frustrating and exhausting trying to keep a lid on it.

People in my neighborhood know me as the lady with the political signs in her yard at election time. I have to counter my right-wing next door neighbor with his signs - although he didn't have any for the 2008 presidential election. I don't think McCain was far right enough for him.

[loserbob 11]

In our country, the government plan would not be making any profits, and therefore would be the lowest and best ins. for anyone. Because at first fewer would be on it, it would cover your needs and be a great price, and even free for some. But, over time, many companies will choose to put their employees on it because it will be less costly for them. Every time one company switches to the gov. plan, the less people there are on private plans, and therefore, they will have to raise their premiums even more to cover their losses. Eventually, the cost of private ins will cause everyone to turn to the gov. run plan. Now the gov. run plan has everyone on it and there is no more private ins. companies out there. How is that getting a choice? Now that the gov. has everyone on their plan and the nation is socialized medically, they will be the ones controlling your medical decisions instead. What's the difference who makes those decisions? The private ins. companies or the government? The difference is that with the government being your only option, there is no discussion or other place to turn.

Patty I see it differently(go figure ha). If the government has a plan that is cheaper with high quality(I dont care if others go out of business)I dont believe the others will go out of business, I think theyll have to lower prices to compete, not raise. I think now they tell you they would have to raise to scare you, theyre already raising anyway. And if they cant compete, theyll close down and someone else(smaller, more competitive)will take their place. Thats most of the problem, these companies get to big and dominating. I think it would create more competition. You would have many smaller, more able to be competitive companies, without the overhead of a big business. If you only had 1 or 2 gas stations, gas would be alot higher. There are many out there. If you look at prices of gas the stations always try to stay under the next guy, theres usually a 1 cent difference and most people will drive across the street to save the 1 cent per gallon.

[loserbob 11]

People in my neighborhood know me as the lady with the political signs in her yard at election time. I have to counter my right-wing next door neighbor with his signs - although he didn't have any for the 2008 presidential election. I don't think McCain was far right enough for him.

Cleosmom, Ive found that most of the people out our way are rep rednecks. I was at a plumbing supply warehouse in Greensburg yesterday, Another plumber came in and was teasing the guy working there saying"see, I told you not to vote for that chimp", I bit my tongue on that one.