On Deck : Government Universal Health Care

[dude1394]

Sure these issues exist, that's why a market driven solution would be welcome, not a socialist guvment takeover that is being pushed by barry and his lady.

There are plenty of issues with health care, but going another trillion into the hole isn't something folks are all that willing to take on right now.

Haha...

SO IF, AS MICHELLE OBAMA SAYS, women are “crushed” under our health care system, then how come they live longer than men?

[Mavdog]

yeah, "the market" has sure stopped these conditions from existing....wait, the market CAUSED these conditions to exist!

it's amazing when people react to the obvious inequities of the existing health insurance platform with a cry of "let the market work". the market has "worked" to bring about these conditions.

that ridiculous rhetoric of "a socialist guvment [sic] takeover" is just old, inaccurate, and insulting to anyone who has taken the time to understand the plans that have been proposed. there is no "takeover" of the insurers, no "takeover" of the hospitals, no "takeover" of the medical providors.

maybe the right has come up with a new definition of "socialism", because the definition of socialism that we've used for over a century sure isn't shown anywhere in these plans.

[aquaadverse]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

yeah, "the market" has sure stopped these conditions from existing....wait, the market CAUSED these conditions to exist!

it's amazing when people react to the obvious inequities of the existing health insurance platform with a cry of "let the market work". the market has "worked" to bring about these conditions.

that ridiculous rhetoric of "a socialist guvment [sic] takeover" is just old, inaccurate, and insulting to anyone who has taken the time to understand the plans that have been proposed. there is no "takeover" of the insurers, no "takeover" of the hospitals, no "takeover" of the medical providors.

maybe the right has come up with a new definition of "socialism", because the definition of socialism that we've used for over a century sure isn't shown anywhere in these plans.

Nope. The market didn't setup modern HMOs or make an employer's portion a deductible expense virtually killing individual policies. The market didn't refuse to reign in frivolous and costly litigation bringing defensive procedures to the process. The market didn't fracture itself into 50 markets. Both Partys are guilty. Characterizing current conditions as a free market with little in the way of regulations setting what's allowable is just flat wrong.

If the current proposals go through, the market isn't choosing the Public Option, if it stays, as the only national plan.

If you raise the exposure without doing anything to lower costs, you will set up the environment where insurers will leave the market. If the penalties for not offering coverage is lower than company offered coverage, they will stop doing it. And if a small business gets a hardship waiver, guess where the workers get coverage?

There isn't anything like a finished Bill to debate yet, and insurance companies don't have to offer coverage. If you abolish caps and make it illegal to consider preexisting conditions they will act like a business. It doesn't, as you keep maintaining, take some explicit law to force them out.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

Nope. The market didn't setup modern HMOs

yep, hmo's have been around for almost a century, they were a creation of the "market".

or make an employer's portion a deductible expense virtually killing individual policies.

nope, almost 1/3 of those insured are thru individual policies.

The market didn't refuse to reign in frivolous and costly litigation bringing defensive procedures to the process. The market didn't fracture itself into 50 markets. Both Partys are guilty. Characterizing current conditions as a free market with little in the way of regulations setting what's allowable is just flat wrong.

odd, but none of that litany of complaints doesn't explain the issues mentioned, that women pay vastly more than men, and that many necessary procedures for women aren't even covered. care to try again?

If the current proposals go through, the market isn't choosing the Public Option, if it stays, as the only national plan.

yet all thos existing plans remain available to the people to purchase. your point isn't relative.

If you raise the exposure without doing anything to lower costs, you will set up the environment where insurers will leave the market. If the penalties for not offering coverage is lower than company offered coverage, they will stop doing it. And if a small business gets a hardship waiver, guess where the workers get coverage?

completely different issue. let's lower the costs as well.

There isn't anything like a finished Bill to debate yet, and insurance companies don't have to offer coverage. If you abolish caps and make it illegal to consider preexisting conditions they will act like a business. It doesn't, as you keep maintaining, take some explicit law to force them out.

insurance companies "don't have to offer coverage"? uh, no, they don't. thay don't have to offer coverage today, but they do, because that's their business. and they will still offer coverage tomorrow, because that's their business. just like every other business, and just like they have done over time when their regulatory rules have changed, they will adapt to the environment. they will not stop issuing policies and begin making toasters. it's ridiculous to claim they will not continue to be insurers.

the insurers are guilty to using the concept of pre existing conditions as a rationale to either charge exorbinant premiums or to deny benefits when a claim is made. asthma, arthritis, migraines, acne, toe nail fungus, attention deficit disorder, even the fact that an individual has sought therapy...these are not valid reasons for higher premiums or denial of benefits yet they have been used to deny benefits and impose higher costs. clearly this abuse can only be stopped by legislation.

[Murphy3]

I suppose Obama surely makes the liberals begin to appreciate George W. Bush a little bit more.

[aquaadverse]

The HMO act of 1973 was the first effort to for force procedure by group at the same cost. You can keep trying to ignore it, but Nixon very deliberately wanted to switch the footing from individual policies to managed care by group to try to slow the inflation of costs from the new tech coming to market.

nope, almost 1/3 of those insured are thru individual policies

.

Then we have no worries from people losing coverage when they lose their jobs.

odd, but none of that litany of complaints doesn't explain the issues mentioned, that women pay vastly more than men, and that many necessary procedures for women aren't even covered. care to try again?

Probably because it's an entirely different subject. We don't have true competition on an open market basis. The ability to chose another insurer because it offers more benefit isn't happening. You can't blame a problem on a market when their isn't one.

yet all thos existing plans remain available to the people to purchase. your point isn't relative.

See Below.



Your continual claiming that insurance companies won't stop offering coverage if it's no longer profitable is wrong. They stopped offering homeowners insurance here in Florida and the State fund of last resort swelled to huge proportions. They aren't going to offer a product that loses them money.

The State had to change the underwriting laws to split wind/hurricane damage from the rest of the coverage and allow them to triple the deductible. Their business is making money. Until the environment was altered so they could make money again they stopped.

It's a fairytale belief that they'll forget they are a business and won't stop operating as one by offering coverage that is a loser. None of them only offers medical coverage, they have other lines. What's ridiculous is thinking they'll continue to market a product that loses them money. They don't get to print money or run at trillion dollar deficits.

the insurers are guilty to using the concept of pre existing conditions as a rationale to either charge exorbinant premiums or to deny benefits when a claim is made. asthma, arthritis, migraines, acne, toe nail fungus, attention deficit disorder, even the fact that an individual has sought therapy...these are not valid reasons for higher premiums or denial of benefits yet they have been used to deny benefits and impose higher costs. clearly this abuse can only be stopped by legislation.

No one is saying you don't need regulation.

You can't make a case that the current model of health care insurance is anywhere close to a free market. Until it's like Gieco or State Farm where I can carry my coverage from state to state it won't be. Your charge the companies have evolved to the current state in a free market so we have to have government competition is flawed.

The futility of handing out coverage versus lowering costs makes more sense if you look at the profit margins.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124947013703607453.html

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by aquaadverse

The HMO act of 1973 was the first effort to for force procedure by group at the same cost. You can keep trying to ignore it, but Nixon very deliberately wanted to switch the footing from individual policies to managed care by group to try to slow the inflation of costs from the new tech coming to market.

here, it is clear you need to brush up on the history of managed care.
wiki hmo link

Then we have no worries from people losing coverage when they lose their jobs.

not for the one third, but you seem unconcerned for the 2/3 that do get employer based heath coverage.

Probably because it's an entirely different subject. We don't have true competition on an open market basis. The ability to chose another insurer because it offers more benefit isn't happening. You can't blame a problem on a market when their isn't one.

that's odd, my health care provided by my employer- the same employer for the last 24 years-has changed 4 times over that timeframe.

apparently only you can't "choose another insurer", because the rest of the country seems to have found a way.

Your continual claiming that insurance companies won't stop offering coverage if it's no longer profitable is wrong. They stopped offering homeowners insurance here in Florida and the State fund of last resort swelled to huge proportions. They aren't going to offer a product that loses them money.

why don't you point out where I've said "insurance companies won't stop offering coverage if it's no longer profitable"?

your attempt at a straw man argument is pretty easy to see.

insurance providors will continue to offer coverage because they will continue to make a profit doing such.

The State had to change the underwriting laws to split wind/hurricane damage from the rest of the coverage and allow them to triple the deductible. Their business is making money. Until the environment was altered so they could make money again they stopped.

property insurance is very different than health insurance.

It's a fairytale belief that they'll forget they are a business and won't stop operating as one by offering coverage that is a loser. None of them only offers medical coverage, they have other lines. What's ridiculous is thinking they'll continue to market a product that loses them money. They don't get to print money or run at trillion dollar deficits.

what? you need to call kaiser, united, humana and all those blue cross members and let them know they have other business lines than health insurance. they seem to be unaware of this discovery you've made!

You can't make a case that the current model of health care insurance is anywhere close to a free market. Until it's like Gieco or State Farm where I can carry my coverage from state to state it won't be. Your charge the companies have evolved to the current state in a free market so we have to have government competition is flawed.

The futility of handing out coverage versus lowering costs makes more sense if you look at the profit margins.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124947013703607453.html

sure I can, there is clearly a competitive market for choosing health insurance. there isn't a lack of providors. there's over a dozen just here in texas.

many industries would be very happy with a net margin over 4%, and that's after the cos provide a very high level of compensation. these insurers aren't hurting by any criteria.

the costs need to come down as well. no one is arguing anything different.

[dude1394]

This guy is a nut. "We'll tax the air".

STEPHANOPOULOS: …during the campaign. Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?
…
OBAMA: No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by dude1394[/quote

STEPHANOPOULOS: …during the campaign. Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?
…
OBAMA: No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs.

The auto insurance analogy is such a flawed one. The only required auto insurance is liability insurance. That means if I hit you, my insurance coverage pays for your car to be fixed. I can choose whether to carry collision coverage, which covers damage to my own car. If I don't carry it, I have to pay cash to fix my car.

In a logically consistent analogy, health insurance is collision coverage, not liability coverage.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

STEPHANOPOULOS: …during the campaign. Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?
…
OBAMA: No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs.

The auto insurance analogy is such a flawed one. The only required auto insurance is liability insurance. That means if I hit you, my insurance coverage pays for your car to be fixed. I can choose whether to carry collision coverage, which covers damage to my own car. If I don't carry it, I have to pay cash to fix my car.

In a logically consistent analogy, health insurance is collision coverage, not liability coverage.

[/QUOTE]So the F what? Once they mandate insurance, it's a tax.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

The auto insurance analogy is such a flawed one. The only required auto insurance is liability insurance. That means if I hit you, my insurance coverage pays for your car to be fixed. I can choose whether to carry collision coverage, which covers damage to my own car. If I don't carry it, I have to pay cash to fix my car.

In a logically consistent analogy, health insurance is collision coverage, not liability coverage.

one of the primary goals of mandated health insurance is to lessen/remove the cost to others when an uninsured person requires treatment.

today if an uninsured person incapable of paying for treatment needs care the cost is distributed among other patients or onto property owners in taxes.

in this regard it is similar to liability insurance. it covers the cost to others caused by an individual's need for care.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

one of the primary goals of mandated health insurance is to lessen/remove the cost to others when an uninsured person requires treatment.

today if an uninsured person incapable of paying for treatment needs care the cost is distributed among other patients or onto property owners in taxes.

Are you referring to emergency room care, or something else? I want to make sure I understand what you're saying.

[Mavdog]

Almost always emergency treatment, but also cases of indigent care. Bankrupcies of individuals owing for treatment is also a contributor.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

Almost always emergency treatment, but also cases of indigent care. Bankrupcies of individuals owing for treatment is also a contributor.

Okay. Can you explain to me how mandating coverage for everyone will "lessen/remove the cost to others when an uninsured person requires treatment"?

Why not just say we're going to subsidize treatment for people who can't afford it? Isn't that what Medicaid and CHIP are, in the first place?

How is it cheaper to tax (or charge premiums to, euphemistically speaking) everyone up front?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Okay. Can you explain to me how mandating coverage for everyone will "lessen/remove the cost to others when an uninsured person requires treatment"?

Why not just say we're going to subsidize treatment for people who can't afford it? Isn't that what Medicaid and CHIP are, in the first place?

How is it cheaper to tax (or charge premiums to, euphemistically speaking) everyone up front?

who do you believe currently pays the bill for treatment when the patient doesn't/can't pay?

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

who do you believe currently pays the bill for treatment when the patient doesn't/can't pay?

It depends. If we are talking about a community clinic (like we have here locally), then federal funds pay for care. If we are talking about an emergency room, then the hospital writes off the bill when it can't be collected from the patient or from government subsidized programs.

Now, will you answer my questions?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

It depends. If we are talking about a community clinic (like we have here locally), then federal funds pay for care. If we are talking about an emergency room, then the hospital writes off the bill when it can't be collected from the patient or from government subsidized programs.

Now, will you answer my questions?

so at the community clinic the answer is federal taxes. with the emergency room, if it is a privately owned facility, it is the rest of the billed patients as uncollected receivables would be estimated and added to the price of services. if it is a public facility it is the property taxes levied to support the facility, or iow property owners in the tax jurisdiction.

in all these situations someone else pays for the care given to the uninsured. if the patient were to be insured those costs wouldn't be apportioned to, in the case of the federal taxes, the taxpayers, in the private facility, to the rest of the patients receiving services there, and in the case of the public facility, the property owners.

requiring insurance stops the subsidy you mention.

it isn't inherently cheaper, it is just more equitable, although there should be efficiencies that reduce overall costs caused by these unpaid receivables.

[92bDad]

Mandating coverage is a load of crap...and yes it is a TAX!!!

Anything that someone HAS to pay to the Government is a TAX.

It's another way for the Government to take the people's money and use it as the Government sees best...rather than what the people see is best.

Now, when you add not only that it becomes mandatory, but now you add the amount some 20-30% of our household income...

Funny, currently I'm insured and I can afford it...under this Obama plan, I can't afford it...it's too expensive and I would imagine covers more that what I actually need.

Either this guy is truly the empty suite that Washington Insiders have been saying all along...or he's extremely clever and manipulative. Distracting the people from the meat of the plan/proposal...so that he can give in on those items that are hot button emotional aspects of his plan, in an effort to let what he really wants to go through under the radar.

What is so wrong with the government letting go of the current micro-management control that it has over the Health System and allowing true capatilism to shape and reform our Health System for the better? I know that in the end, this means less power and money for the Government and Politicians, but in the end, the people would be better served.

Now I get it...this entire debate is not about what's best for the people, but rather how much power, control and money the Government can have for itself...and how quickly they can make the people lower themselves to mere subjects of the ruling party.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

Mandating coverage is a load of crap...and yes it is a TAX!!!

Anything that someone HAS to pay to the Government is a TAX.

newsflash...the government isn't the insurer. the policy is written by an insurer, who will receive the premiums, not the government.

[92bDad]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

newsflash...the government isn't the insurer. the policy is written by an insurer, who will receive the premiums, not the government.

So why is the government involved at all?

What if I decide to live without coverage...who levies the fine? If I don't pay the fine what happens?

Ultimately, this plan comes down to Government imposing its will on the its people.

This should remain a private matter and the insurance companies should have more freedoms to compete in all states. The people should have more freedoms to customize thier policies and basically reject coverage for things that they believe they will not need.

For example, neither my wife nor I will ever get pregnant again...but the policy we currently have covers Pregnancy, simply because that is our companies group policy. In otherwords, I am paying for something that I obviously do NOT need in order to simply have some type of coverage.

But I digress...

All we want is for the Government to stay OUT of our business...LESS Government = Increased Individual Freedoms!!!

[92bDad]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G44NC...layer_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQ_tAe87ELo

First one is a serious clip, 2nd is a musical rather humorous clip.

[92bDad]

I'll support healthcare reform under one condition.

If anything of my coverage changes, then all who signed off on the bill as politicians must immidiately resign or be impeached...from the President on down.

In otherwords, if my rates go up, or I have to pay for someone else's coverage...my services go down...my deductable goes up...any of it changes, then those who voted for the plan are fired...and the bill is revoked so that we go back to what it is today and then we rework to reform the plan in the way that Americans actually want.

If I'm wrong, and the promises and rhetoric coming out of the left are true, then they would have no problem putting their job on the line with this type of guarantee.

By the way, this also means that if anything changes in 10 years, then all those who voted for the bill, would lose any and all "Retirement" benefits...in other words, as it relates to the President...he would lose all that income he will be getting when he is out of office, he will also lose all the security details and other perks of having been President.

I'm curious...just how much is President Obama and the rest of the Democrats willing to back up what they say?

[mcsluggo]

you are right in some (most) instances. But requiring everyone to stay covered across their whole life cycle will also require people in their 20s and 30s to remain covered. Many of these people take the calculated risk that they won't need coverage until they are older, and if they DO have a catastrophic event in the meantime, it will be before they will have accumulated significant assets that can be taken from them. Forcing THESE people into the system does reduce overall costs. Also forcing people into the system gives them access to less costly (in the long run) preventative care that hopefully they will utilize (since they have already paid for it) which also would lower overall costs.

that said.... it is hard to imagine that these cost benefits will outweigh some of the other increased costs from covering more people. HOwever, it is NOT hard to imagine that the coverage that these people receive will then be provided MUCH more efficiently (than catastrophic e-r care). So even if overall costs go up some, you are getting more than $1 in increased service for every $1 formally programmed.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Well, sure, if they are paying for the insurance. But the whole premise was that they don't have insurance NOW. What makes you think they'll suddenly be able to afford it on their own?

the uninsured lack coverage for a variety of reasons, cost being one of them. the proposals include a "bare bones" policy that could be lower in cost than what is offered today.

Sure it is. A mandate will unquestionably lead to the subsidization of a lot more health care than we have under the current system. I don't think that can be seriously debated.

there is no quid pro quo that the costs will increase, and there is rational that the costs will actually decrease. so yes your premise can be debated.

Not really, unless you somehow believe that mandating coverage will make insurance cheaper. There's certainly no evidence of that.

there can be less expensive policies offered, and for the reform to be successful there must be reduced costs as well.

[aquaadverse]

here, it is clear you need to brush up on the history of managed care.

Back Atcha

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_...on_Act_of_1973

that's odd, my health care provided by my employer- the same employer for the last 24 years-has changed 4 times over that time frame. apparently only you can't "choose another insurer", because the rest of the country seems to have found a way.

Now take a plan and move to another state and see how that works for you. There are 1300 companies offering the product. Large companies are often self insured and use the insurance company for administration. There is virtually no free market choice. My auto, life and individual accounts like brokerage have all followed me through 4 States in the last few decades with no hassles. Medical should be no different.

property insurance is very different than health insurance.

Yeah, taking in more in premiums than you pay out in claims and overhead in a highly regulated environment is worlds apart. No one sues them either.

what? you need to call kaiser, united, humana and all those blue cross members and let them know they have other business lines than health insurance. they seem to be unaware of this discovery you've made!

Blue Cross is nonprofit. Kaiser and Humana are the administrative fronts for the PPOs and HMOs associations. They don't and won't offer products at large. Their product isn't insurance, it's administration with a large chunk of the business self insured companies. Aetna and Prudential are insurance companies and offer product in other lines.

sure I can, there is clearly a competitive market for choosing health insurance. there isn't a lack of providors. there's over a dozen just here in texas.

many industries would be very happy with a net margin over 4%, and that's after the cos provide a very high level of compensation. these insurers aren't hurting by any criteria.

the costs need to come down as well. no one is arguing anything different.

There are 1300 companies who can't leverage national markets because we currently have 50 individual markets. While 12 providers in one of the largest and most populous states might be "competitive" for you, it's minuscule.

When and if a Public Option becomes available under the current proposals the US government will be pulling in a national market of penalty payers and a possible national plan like Medicare. Meanwhile 50 separate markets will still exist for everyone else.

[mcsluggo]

interesting article on malpractice, and the effect on medical costs

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/bu...nhardt.html?em

I personally still find the direct costs figures to be startlingly low... which is not to deny that there is still a drag on the system from this, but the drag is more ethereal than I had realized, and this leads to different possible solutions, I would assume--- I have to assume it is extremely hard to directly measure and quantify "defensive medicine", particularly to disentangle if from <<<whatever the term is for unnecessary tests that are not defensive... but are padding reimbursable costs>>> in this case, the goal would be to reduce costs overall, and not worry too hard about which of the two camps it falls under... death panels, anyone?

[dude1394]

Maybe this should be in the thugocracy thread.

Categories: Senate Ensign receives handwritten confirmation

This doesn't happen often enough.
Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) received a handwritten note Thursday from Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold confirming the penalty for failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance.
Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead. He signed it "Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold."
The note was a follow-up to Ensign's questioning at the markup.

In the comments .. "Yea go to jail ==== FREE health care!! "

[dude1394]

Republican health care principles.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...402003_pf.html

So here are 10 ideas to increase the affordability and quality of health care. Some of these are buried within various Republican and Democratic plans that have been floated. They offer a path forward toward significant bipartisan reform. These proposals would require insurance companies to do their jobs and spread risk over large populations, restore patients' power to make their own health-care decisions, and focus our system on quality instead of activity.

-- Voluntary purchasing pools: Give individuals and small businesses the opportunities that large businesses and the government have to seek lower insurance costs.

-- Portability: As people change jobs or move across state lines, they change insurance plans. By allowing consumers to "own" their policies, insurers would have incentive to make more investments in prevention and in managing chronic conditions.

-- Lawsuit reform: It makes no sense to ignore one of the biggest cost drivers in the system -- the cost of defensive medicine, largely driven by lawsuits. Worse, many doctors have stopped performing high-risk procedures for fear of liability.

-- Require coverage of preexisting conditions: Insurance should not be least accessible when it is needed most. Companies should be incentivized to focus on delivering high-quality effective care, not to avoid covering the sick.

-- Transparency and payment reform: Consumers have more information when choosing a car or restaurant than when selecting a health-care provider. Provider quality and cost should be plainly available to consumers, and payment systems should be based on outcomes, not volume. Today's system results in wide variations in treatment instead of the consistent application of best practices. We must reward efficiency and quality.

-- Electronic medical records: The current system of paper records threatens patient privacy and leads to bad outcomes and higher costs.

-- Tax-free health savings accounts: HSAs have helped reduce costs for employers and consumers. Some businesses have seen their costs decrease by double-digit percentages. But current regulations discourage individuals and small businesses from utilizing HSAs.

-- Reward healthy lifestyle choices: Providing premium rebates and other incentives to people who make healthy choices or participate in management of their chronic diseases has been shown to reduce costs and improve health.

-- Cover young adults: A large portion of the uninsured are people who cannot afford coverage after they have "aged out" of their parents' policies. Permitting young people to stay on their parents' plans longer would reduce the number of uninsured and keep healthy people in insurance risk pools -- helping to lower premiums for everyone.

-- Refundable tax credits (for the uninsured and those who would benefit from greater flexibility of coverage): Redirecting some of the billions already spent on the uninsured will help make non-emergency care outside the emergency room affordable for millions and will provide choices of coverage through the private market rather than forcing people into a government-run system. We should trust American families to make choices for themselves while we ensure they have access to quality, affordable health care.
In short, ideas matter. The public is interested in solutions that will improve America's health-care system, not dismantle it. Republicans can lead on this.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Republican health care principles.

no, as jindal says himself "Some of these are buried within various Republican and Democratic plans that have been floated. They offer a path forward toward significant bipartisan reform."

the operative word is "bipartisan reform". it's a great concept....

[dude1394]

Couldn't agree more. I actually DO believe that health care is busted(including medicare) but this cluster-**** being foisted on the country is unbelievable, as Charles says, there isn't enough graft in actually fixing it.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Kill The Bills: Do Health Reform Right. “Insuring the uninsured is a moral imperative. The problem is that the Democrats have chosen the worst possible method — a $1 trillion new entitlement of stupefying arbitrariness and inefficiency. The better choice is targeted measures that attack the inefficiencies of the current system one by one — tort reform, interstate purchasing. and taxing employee benefits. It would take 20 pages to write such a bill, not 2,000 — and provide the funds to cover the uninsured without wrecking both U.S. health care and the U.S. Treasury.” But there’s no graft in that approach.

[dude1394]

JOHN STOSSEL: We Pay Them To Lie To Us. “I happily suspend disbelief when a magician says he’ll saw a woman in half. That’s entertainment. But when Harry Reid says he’ll give 30 million additional people health coverage while cutting the deficit, improving health care and reducing its cost, it’s not entertaining. It’s incredible.”

[dude1394]

[dude1394]

So our father in law has medicare. He also has an AARP and a Medicare supplemental policy. His total monthly policy is now approximately 350/month. So for 350/month he gets "free" healthcare from medicare.


what is shocking to me is the below statement that government-sponsored health insurance is ALREADY 60%, what exactly is the problem here?.

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/89785/

TUNKU VARADRAJAN ON HEALTH CARE:

Medicare is not a bad thing, per se, but it is inefficient, costly, and fraud-ridden. If fully costed, no one would prefer a Medicare policy to a private plan. If subsidized, everyone would, and employers will tilt to make sure their employees subscribe to it. If so, this incremental Medicare approach would raise government-sponsored health insurance from about 60 percent (Medicare, Medicaid, veterans, and government employees) to 70 percent or more. So Republicans, libertarians, and others, beware: Much more than the camel’s nose in now under the tent.

This bill stinks. Kill it dead, and bury it at the crossroads with a stake through its heart.

[dude1394]

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/200...are/#more-1267

Obamanomics and Health Care

The point is that the more intertwined industry and government become, the harder it is to discern who’s “taking over” whom — and the less it matters, because the taxpayer is taking it on the chin either way. Or to put it another way: The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which …

[dude1394]

This is such a great health care bill, one that everyone can get behind...at least if you are a democrat and are getting some taxpayer dollars thrown your way you can. I wonder which democrat will get the most in the upcoming vote for the final product?? Maybe a pool could be started.

In the House, freshmen Democrats elected from conservative districts balked at voting for the most liberal bill to move in more than 40 years. They were bought off with promises of plum committee assignments or bullied into line by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with threats of burial in committee catacombs.
Sen. Mary Landrieu, a Democrat from conservative Louisiana, held out, citing the enormous costs. Ironically, she delivered her vote after getting a promise of $300 million for her pork-laden state.
Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., took up the torch lit by Michigan's Bart Stupak in the House and insisted that the Senate bill ban abortions from public funding. He didn't get his abortion amendment.
But he did win a promise from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to exempt Nebraska from the cost of the mandated Medicaid expansion.
Forty-nine other states will have to eat those costs, along with Nebraska's share. In Michigan, it could total $500 million the state doesn't have.
Send some love to Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox, who has joined a handful of his colleagues from other states to challenge the constitutionality of the curious deal.

[dalmations202]

Clunker Math



Think of it this way:



A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons of gas a year.



A vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons a year.



So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction will reduce US gasoline



consumption by 320 gallons per year.



They claim 700,000 vehicles so that's 224 million gallons saved per year.







That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.



5 million barrels is about 5 hours worth of US consumption.



More importantly, 5 million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs about $350 million dollars



So, the government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars to save $350 million.



We spent $8.57 for every dollar we saved.







I'm pretty sure they will do a great job with our health care, though.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

Clunker Math


We spent $8.57 for every dollar we saved.
.

But think about how much happier a bunch of politically connected rich folk are now. Isn't it worth all the cash and hand-wringing when you think about the smiles that must have spread across their children's faces as they opened up all their extra Christmas presents a couple weeks ago?
It's for the children!

[Mavericks Rockets Fan]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

Clunker Math



Think of it this way:



A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons of gas a year.



A vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons a year.



So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction will reduce US gasoline



consumption by 320 gallons per year.



They claim 700,000 vehicles so that's 224 million gallons saved per year.







That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.



5 million barrels is about 5 hours worth of US consumption.



More importantly, 5 million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs about $350 million dollars



So, the government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars to save $350 million.



We spent $8.57 for every dollar we saved.







I'm pretty sure they will do a great job with our health care, though.

But it is 350 million dollars saved every year. In other words, it would pay for itself in 9 years. Just thought I would point that out...

[GermanDunk]

Just asking.

15 mpg is 15 miles per gallon ?

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by GermanDunk

Just asking.

15 mpg is 15 miles per gallon ?

yes