Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The president himself stated he wants to sign a universal health care plan during his first term in office, so we know it is what he wants, and why settle for less when you have a super majority, at least until 2010?
0bama wants a health care plan that will eventually eliminate employer health care insurance. Below are more democrats, like 0bama and Barney Frank, stating the same thing, they want to eliminate private health care, and the “Public Option” is the Trojan horse to make it happen. VIDEO>> http://latest.coolpage.biz/?p=1800
Chicago, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) admitted that a strategic objective of the 0bama health care plan is to destroy private insurance, because it would not be able to compete. She wants to get us to a single payer, universal health care plan, and the public option is the way to get us there. VIDEO>> Video: Rep. Schakowsky Admits Goal of Healthcare Reform is to Destroy Private Insurance Industry | Verum Serum (http://www.verumserum.com/?p=5118 - broken link)
Kathleen Sebelius, the HHS secretary, does not like the current employer health care option; she too thinks the public option is a way to get us to a single payer system. She says that currently 75% of Americans are on a private plan, and only 25% are on a government plan. She wants to work with what we have now“dismantle” the private sector insurance, and close the gap between those on private health insurance and those on a government plan. VIDEO>> YouTube - Kathleen Sebelius in 2007: I'm all for a single-payer system...eventually
Russ Feingold also wants a single payer health care plan, he does not think the American people would allow a single payer health care plan to go into law, but he too thinks the democrats could slip in a Trojan horse, the public option, which could develop into universal, single payer health care. VIDEO>> YouTube - Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI): Ultimate Goal of Health Reform Legislation is Single Payer System
Jacob Hacker also believes that if we can get the Trojan horse of a public option, then we can get to a single payer, universal health care plan.. VIDEO >> Obama’s Health Care Trojan Horse » The Foundry
0bama once said he would have an open debate on health care, with CSPAN televising it all for us to see, but today, they are partisan, and doing it all behind closed doors. VIDEO >> YouTube - obama C span
The end of line is that 0bama wants universal health care, he wants to eliminate private health care, even if is takes a Trojan horse twenty years to do it; and he has a lot of democrats that feel the same way and say the same thing.
0bama wants a health care plan that will eventually eliminate employer health care insurance.
I honestly don't see why anyone would even argue for employer health insurance unless they're ignorant, unless you think it's optimal for citizens to be tied to corporations for all their healthcare needs. A solution to that doesn't even require a UHC.
Can you give me a compelling argument as to why we should maintain employer subsidies for them providing healthcare instead of possibly eliminating that and passing the subsidy down to the consumer?
I honestly don't see why anyone would even argue for employer health insurance unless they're ignorant, unless you think it's optimal for citizens to be tied to corporations for all their healthcare needs. A solution to that doesn't even require a UHC.
Can you give me a compelling argument as to why we should maintain employer subsidies for them providing healthcare instead of possibly eliminating that and passing the subsidy down to the consumer?
One reason is simple: How many people would elect to purchase health care insurance on their own if given that subsidy?
I agree with your argument. It makes more sense to pass that subsidy on to individuals rather than businesses. However, people don't always act rationally. I think many people would rather their employer pay and subsidize it than paying for it on their own with a subsidy.
One reason is simple: How many people would elect to purchase health care insurance on their own if given that subsidy?
I agree with your argument. It makes more sense to pass that subsidy on to individuals rather than businesses. However, people don't always act rationally. I think many people would rather their employer pay and subsidize it than paying for it on their own with a subsidy.
So I take it you're for a public option, given that argument, or at the very least for a government mandate.
I honestly don't see why anyone would even argue for employer health insurance unless they're ignorant, unless you think it's optimal for citizens to be tied to corporations for all their healthcare needs. A solution to that doesn't even require a UHC.
If we could bring down health care costs, then maybe the average person could afford some health insurance
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinkieMcGee
Can you give me a compelling argument as to why we should maintain employer subsidies for them providing healthcare instead of possibly eliminating that and passing the subsidy down to the consumer?
I would rather see the federal government look into ways to bring down health care costs, that did not include the government taking over health care.
Being tied to employer health care is not as bad as a federally run single payer, universal health care insurance. At least with employer provided insurance you usually have a few plans to choose from, or you can choose a private plan instead.
So I take it you're for a public option, given that argument, or at the very least for a government mandate.
I think this is one big reason why people are against a public option despite what some polls show. The reality is many employers would drop coverage if a public option exists. Companies are not required to provide health insurance for its employees. I understand that employers can't pay or subsidize the Public Option Insurance plan but that doesn't mean they will continue to contract with private insurers if a public option is made available. Think about it. If I'm a company and the government mandates that everyone must be insured and that a public option exists, what incentive would I have to provide health insurance for my employees since they have to buy it anyway and an affordable Public Option exists? Right now, there is an incentive for companies to provide health insurance because health insurance isn't mandatory and there is no public option available so it's a good way to maintain employee loyalty. But if it's mandatory and a public option exists, I have no incentive as an employer to offer private insurance.
The name of the Public Option may be changed simply to 'Medicare'- then perhaps all the dull lights out there will finally understand . Since the two are the same.
Being tied to employer health care is not as bad as a federally run single payer, universal health care insurance. At least with employer provided insurance you usually have a few plans to choose from, or you can choose a private plan instead.
I would argue that being tied to employer health care is worse than a public option, since in the case of employer based healthcare if you lose your job you're screwed at a time when you need healthcare the most.
Quote:
Originally Posted by azriverfan.
I think this is one big reason why people are against a public option despite what some polls show. The reality is many employers would drop coverage if a public option exists. Companies are not required to provide health insurance for its employees. I understand that employers can't pay or subsidize the Public Option Insurance plan but that doesn't mean they will continue to contract with private insurers if a public option is made available. Think about it. If I'm a company and the government mandates that everyone must be insured and that a public option exists, what incentive would I have to provide health insurance for my employees since they have to buy it anyway and an affordable Public Option exists? Right now, there is an incentive for companies to provide health insurance because health insurance isn't mandatory and there is no public option available so it's a good way to maintain employee loyalty. But if it's mandatory and a public option exists, I have no incentive as an employer to offer private insurance.
The employer has plenty of incentive if they can afford plans that are better than the public option. Like offering a higher salary for a position, they will attract more skilled workers. You also didn't answer my question so I have to assume you're for neither and are comfortable with the status quo given your previous post.
And employers dropping forms of private insurance is not a reality despite you stating that it is a reality. You are making a pretty broad assumption and are running with it to prove your point.
The name of the Public Option may be changed simply to 'Medicare'- then perhaps all the dull lights out there will finally understand . Since the two are the same.
0bama is cutting $500 billion out of Medicare to help fund 0bamaCare, does not seem like they are the same, unless its all a scam.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
0bamaCare - a Trojan Horse To Universal, Single Payer Health Care
