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.
Emerald Maiden; You are the one who referred to Ms Mcaughrey..you said since she was not part of the bill was therefore irrevelant...didn't you beg the question. Maybe you forgot you labled someone as being irrevelant for not being part of the bill. I did not classify myself as bein relevant to anything. I thought we were all in a discussion group of sorts...but you make me wonder whether you are a plant...nothing seems to please you.
This discussion is about the bill, and not about what some public figures say about the bill. That is why they are irrelevant.
Ms. McCaughey is not involved in the process, except to try to derail it. She has no compunctions about lying to achieve her end of abrogating any chance we have at fixing our health care system. And YOU brought her up by including her dishonest video in this discussion.
Barney Frank is going to be held accountable for what he says by his constituents, and that is as it should be. So far, they seem to like him. He is only 1/535th of our legislative body. If the majority agree with him, his ideas will prevail. I believe you were objecting to the fact that he would like single-payer; let me break it to you gently - we already have single-payer for a large proportion of our population. It's called Medicare, and it is the most popular government program out there.
What is "killing" reforms are the actions, or inactions, of the POTUS. The actions of the Congress.
But mainly is - the POTUS did not count on the fact that the American people would actually become informed on the issue - and then actually have the audacity to ask questions.
1. Open up the purchase of health insurance across state lines solves the monopoly problem.
Insurance companies will then consolidate into fewer and larger companies in order to limit competition thereby keeping premium costs high.
Quote:
2. TORT reform which is NOT in this bill BTW.
Would be of limited value.
Quote:
3. Allow portability this would allow people to keep their insurance even if they change jobs.
We have that now. It is called a COBRA. Extremely expensive and only carries for 18 months.
Quote:
4. Give people who pay over a certain amount per year in health insurance costs a tax credit.
This would be a tax credit that would only benefit the insurance companies bottom line. This tax credit would promote increasing rates by insurance companies.
This would be a tax credit that would only benefit the insurance companies bottom line. This tax credit would promote increasing rates by insurance companies.
It would do no such thing.
But, giving tax payers / policy holders the right to deduct 100% of all their medical expenses would help make insurance more affordable for them.
And, I thought that was one of the PRIME reasons for reform - to make health insurance more affordable -
[quote=RayinAK;10282551]Want to know the latest about the "death panel" thing? Read this:
Senators exclude end-of-life provision from bill - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090813/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_end_of_life_2 - broken link)
Also, are you aware of what "moveon.org" is?[/QUOTE]
Yes, it is a grassroots movement that is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization, it primarily focuses on education and advocacy on national issues.
But, giving tax payers / policy holders the right to deduct 100% of all their medical expenses would help make insurance more affordable for them.
And, I thought that was one of the PRIME reasons for reform - to make health insurance more affordable -
A tax credit for insurance would encourage insurance companies to raise rates as soon as no one is looking. The insurance companies would certainly not have an incentive to lower rates and the government would be indirectly picking up the tab anyway.
Why not just cut out the exorbitantly expensive middle man (insurance companies) and have the government pay for the medical bills directly?
Why not just cut out the exorbitantly expensive middle man (insurance companies) and have the government pay for the medical bills directly?
Without getting deep into it right now - I would suggest that you do some reading / research on the legal issue of Eminent Domain. It is CRUCIAL to your position.
Without getting deep into it right now - I would suggest that you do some reading / research on the legal issue of Eminent Domain. It is CRUCIAL to your position.
Eminent Domain of what? The people's money. Are you implying that insurance companies have Eminent Domain of our health insurance but only if they want us?
The original $700 billion bailout package pushed by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and the Bush Administration gave money to Wall Street with no way for taxpayers to recoup their money. Many objected to such a crude giveaway to private interests.
Yet that has been the dynamic in our health insurance system for decades. Private insurers fight to take on the least amount of risk, trying avoiding covering people who might get sick, leaving government with the bill for their care.
Medicare was first enacted because private insurance companies did not want to cover older people who are more likely to need medical care. Medicare is the federal program that provides publicly administered health insurance to people 65 years of age or older and to younger people with severe disabilities, According to "The Evolution of Medicare... From Idea to Law," by Peter A. Corning, found on the web site of the Social Security Administration:
"The 1950 census showed that the aged population had grown from 3 million in 1900 to 12 million in 1950, or from 4 to 8 percent of the total population. Two-thirds of these people had incomes of less than $1,000 annually, and only 1 in 8 had health insurance. Old people were long considered "bad risks" by commercial insurers, and unions had not made much headway in obtaining coverage for retired workers through employer-sponsored plans."
So the government took on the risk of providing automatic, guaranteed health coverage to everyone over the age of 65 when it enacted Medicare in 1965.
Over time, Medicare took on the risk of insuring two other costly sub-populations, whom the private insurance companies did not want to cover. In 1972, Medicare eligibility was extended to people with severe long-term disabilities (those who had received Social Security Disability checks for 24 months) and people with end-stage renal disease (those who require regular, costly dialysis treatment and/or a kidney transplant). In 2000, Medicare eligibility was extended once again to people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).
The irony is that while Medicare has been charged with covering the highest risk individuals, it still manages to keep costs down better than the private insurance companies that cover the less risky working population. And private insurance plans are now willing to cover people with Medicare because the government has been willing to hand them huge subsidies that far exceed the cost of providing care under the original Medicare program.
Eminent Domain of what? The people's money. Are you implying that insurance companies have Eminent Domain of our health insurance but only if they want us?
You don't understand the legal premise of Eminent Domain.
If the Government shuts down (effectively) the insurance companies - "taking" their business away and "taking" stockholders investments away - the government has to pay them for it.
As I suggested - you may want to do some hard studying on the matter - Many outstanding Constitutional Lawyers are alreadying letting the lawmakers know about this
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.
