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.
Yes, I find this part of the "plan" very perplexing. Obama says this plan will provide more care and better care for everyone, and it will cost less. How on earth can any of you swallow such a blatant contradiction of reality. It's like saying I can build you a newer, better house and it will be cheaper than the one you have now. This mix of words just doesn't compute, plain and simple.
Also, I keep hearing the words "public option" How can you call a mandatory plan an option? Are any of you asking yourselves these questions too? This is just the latest attempt by our government to take more control of our lives and force us to do what they want. Funny how they really got fired up about healthcare right after they gained a large interest in AIG, one of the largest insurance providers in the world. And hey, wasn't that tax payer money that saved AIG? Well hell, we don't need to be taxed for healthcare. We already own our own insurance multi national. And I don't know about you, but I haven't seen any returns on my investment yet. I guess they can just keep it and pay for any medical costs I have come up.
Oh, and while I am thinking about it, isn't it funny how we are going to be taxed to pay off the stimulus bill that came from our tax money? I didn't know it worked like that. So we allow the government to lend our money to all these corporations and banks to help them out, and then we pay our own money back into the system. Hey, whatever works right.
I think it means that he can build a bigger and better house for your neighbor, with your money.
Of course but only 3% of that goes to overhead, while in private insurance 15%-35% goes to overhead. More of the Medicare money goes towards health care while more of the money in private insurance goes towards lining executives' pockets, lobbying, dumping the sick ect...
Look the savings from eliminating insurance company profits is more than wiped out by insuring 46 million more people. Haven't you noticed the CBO says this nightmare will cost $1 trillion!
Look the savings from eliminating insurance company profits is more than wiped out by insuring 46 million more people. Haven't you noticed the CBO says this nightmare will cost $1 trillion!
1 Trillion over 10 years is 100 billion a year
Divide that by 46 million people and you have $2173 per person per year.
That's $724 per month for a family of four.
Who is going to pay that? Families who presently 'can't afford insurance'?
No, I don't think so.
I just got on the local Blue Cross website and put together a quote for a family of four.
Depending on what deductible and co-pay you choose, there are 15 options listed from $143/mo to $809/mo
Only two of them cost more than the $724 figure.
In 13 of 15 plans, the BC insurance available NOW is cheaper than the government 'solution'. (12 of them are under $500/mo)
How is this government 'solution' necessary again?
Look the savings from eliminating insurance company profits is more than wiped out by insuring 46 million more people. Haven't you noticed the CBO says this nightmare will cost $1 trillion!
First of all, HR 3200, the bill that the CBO says will cost $1 trillion, isn't the health care reform that I want, even though it is a step in the right direction. The health care reform that I want is H.R. 676.
Second, the CBO could be wrong. The Commonwealth Fund did a study that projects $1.8 trillion in savings if the public option goes through. Study: Public Plan Could Save $1.8 Trillion Over 10 Years - California Healthline I happen to believe that it would save money because the private companies would have to compete with the public plan and if they keep charging these ridiculuous fees, they'll loose money because everyone will opt for the public plan.
Third, lets say that I'm totally wrong and we don't get the expected return on our trillion dollar investment. Bush made some trillion dollar investments that we haven't gotten a return on: Tax cuts for the rich, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I happen to believe that it would save money because the private companies would have to compete with the public plan and if they keep charging these ridiculuous fees, they'll loose money because everyone will opt for the public plan.
So you're ok with a government subsidized entity driving private companies out of business?
How about government farms to provide us with food?
Food is more essential than health care.
The government farms could produce food at a lower cost and save poor families lots of money. They might not even need food stamps, so there's even more savings.
Of course all the private farms will be driven to bankruptcy trying to compete, but that's ok isn't it?
Then we'll live in Soviet America, like you hoped.
I just got on the local Blue Cross website and put together a quote for a family of four.
Depending on what deductible and co-pay you choose, there are 15 options listed from $143/mo to $809/mo
Only two of them cost more than the $724 figure.
In 13 of 15 plans, the BC insurance available NOW is cheaper than the government 'solution'. (12 of them are under $500/mo)
How is this government 'solution' necessary again?
I went to Blue cross for a estimate and about 10 or 12 other insurance companies to get insurance.Do you know what they all said when they found out I had a melanoma mole removed 5 years ago?
denied......denied......denied,you must be 5 years more free of cancer before being eligable again,that's what they said.
NONE of them were fighting each other for my business.So what about that?
So you're ok with a government subsidized entity driving private companies out of business?
How about government farms to provide us with food?
Food is more essential than health care.
The government farms could produce food at a lower cost and save poor families lots of money. They might not even need food stamps, so there's even more savings.
Of course all the private farms will be driven to bankruptcy trying to compete, but that's ok isn't it?
Then we'll live in Soviet America, like you hoped.
We already have something like that, but even worse: farm subsidies. They generally go to rich megafarms that don't need them. If you earn less than $750,000 on the farm or if you have another occupation that brings in less than $500,000 and you decide to start a farming venture, you qualify for government subsidies. The majority of farm subsidies go to these megafarms and it ends up driving family farmers out of business. Now that we've got that covered, can we get back to debating health care? If you want to continue writing about farming, there is a good thread on farm subsidies that you should look at.
Divide that by 46 million people and you have $2173 per person per year.
That's $724 per month for a family of four.
Who is going to pay that? Families who presently 'can't afford insurance'?
No, I don't think so.
I just got on the local Blue Cross website and put together a quote for a family of four.
Depending on what deductible and co-pay you choose, there are 15 options listed from $143/mo to $809/mo
Only two of them cost more than the $724 figure.
In 13 of 15 plans, the BC insurance available NOW is cheaper than the government 'solution'. (12 of them are under $500/mo)
How is this government 'solution' necessary again?
You forgot to put all of the people that are underinsured in this equation. You also forgot to mention the ridiculous premius. Is that $143 figure for a family of four? I doubt it. When I got health insurance for my wife, I got her the most basic plan available and it was $93 per month. Depending on your age and medical history your premiums are going to be much higher or, like another poster mentioned, they won't give you insurance. How about when your insurance company doesn't cover what they are supposed to cover? My wife went to the ER and the bill was about $1,700. We were under the impression that she just had to pay a $100 deductible and she had to pay about half of the bill. The bill that we paid is much more than the $181 per person per year that the $1 trillion health care reform would cost.
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.
