Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-08-2009, 12:00 PM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,224 posts, read 5,009,390 times
Reputation: 908

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
That is a deliberate and blatant lie. H.R. 3200 Section 102 clearly states that only if you do not make any changes to your existing policy and had health insurance prior to the law going into effect you keep your existing health insurance for a maximum period of 5 years.

After 5 years from the time the law is enacted, the Commissioner must establish a grace period whereby ALL private insurance plans must conform to the government insurance plan. Thereby eliminating all competition and making health insurance a single-payer government option for everyone. No choice in the matter.

Oh boy oh boy.

No.. they must not CONFORM TO THE GOVERNMENT health plan.

BUT they must conform to a MINIMUM STANDARD of insurance to be CONSIDERED ADEQUATE INSURANCE COVERAGE..

in otherwords they have to provide a certain LEVEL of coverage.

If you'd read the bill it even talks about what those minimum standard are:

ex:... there is a Maximum allowed out of pocket per family/household that private insurance must be in order to BE insurance.

This is to prevent those WITH insurance and thinking they actually have coverage from having to declare bankruptcy becasue their coverage is CRaP. THIS ENSURES your coverage IS NOT CRAP!! and meets a MIN Standard...

Right now 60% of bankruptcies are caused by medical bills.. 75% of them had insurance.

But no matter.. the right will read the devil in everything.. even when it's not there. Completely unreasonable lot.

ANd if it doesn't.. you can purchase a private plan that does OR you can purchase the public option.. YOUR CHOICE!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-08-2009, 12:21 PM
 
3,599 posts, read 6,781,054 times
Reputation: 1461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Politico View Post
Because we have the best doctors and medical facilities. Some foreigners, who can afford the exhorbitant costs, come here because we have the best doctors and treatment facilities in the world.

This obviously does not equate to the US having the best health insurance system, or the best access to health care for its citizens.

Since none of the proposed bills advocate closing down our excellent medical schools, shipping our med students/physicians overseas for training or downgrading the high quality of our hospitals/clinics, the caliber of physicians, training and treatment facilities in this country will remain high whether or not we have a public option, or even an eventual single-payer system.

Our healthcare system will remain top-notch, even after reform. The actual system (doctors, allied health professionals, cutting-edge treatments, medical facilities, reasearch and development, medical advancements, etc) is not what's in question. Access to the system and affordability are in question.

Currently, anyone who can afford it has access to our country's excellent health care system. Independently wealthy foreigners are not concerned with afforabilility. Independently wealthy foreigners who come here for treatment don't have anything to do with the arguments for or against the proposed health care legislation, and they don't change the fact that we are, in fact, the laughing stock of the world for being the only industrialized nation without some sort of national health insurance option.
Like I've stated before, we need to overhaul the entire system.
1. Increase taxes on EVERYONE to raise revenue to pay for health insurance.
2. Heavily subsidize medical education. Most if not all socialized medicine countries docs graduate with zero or very little debt.
3. Reform malpractice. You can compromise with the lawyers, and just make it a loser pays system. That's what they do in Germany. Patients will still have their day in court and be properly compensated if there is malpractice.
4. Reform insurance. Eliminate pre-existing conditions. But Americans need to live healthier.

45 million "uninsured" is very misleading. When you take away the 10-15 million illegals, take away the 10 million plus people who choose not to have insurance and can afford it (those making more than 75K a year), and than take away the 10 million (mainly those ages 18-30) who are young and think they are invincible and don't want to pay for insurance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2009, 12:32 PM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,224 posts, read 5,009,390 times
Reputation: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by aneftp View Post
Like I've stated before, we need to overhaul the entire system.
1. Increase taxes on EVERYONE to raise revenue to pay for health insurance.
2. Heavily subsidize medical education. Most if not all socialized medicine countries docs graduate with zero or very little debt.
3. Reform malpractice. You can compromise with the lawyers, and just make it a loser pays system. That's what they do in Germany. Patients will still have their day in court and be properly compensated if there is malpractice.
4. Reform insurance. Eliminate pre-existing conditions. But Americans need to live healthier.

45 million "uninsured" is very misleading. When you take away the 10-15 million illegals, take away the 10 million plus people who choose not to have insurance and can afford it (those making more than 75K a year), and than take away the 10 million (mainly those ages 18-30) who are young and think they are invincible and don't want to pay for insurance.
I agree with most of your post..
Ad a public option.. this will force insurance companies to "trim the fat" so to speak to be able to compete (ie: why pay one exec a $14M a year salary.. corporate jets.. all that other crap!!)

And..I need to correct you on something.

Non citizens DOES NOT equal illegal. Those numbers include those here legally either with work visa's, green cards.. etc.

AND.. if you look at how costs have increased compared to salaries it's easy to see why those that fall in the $50K and over range are having problems affording their healthcare.

Let's say , for example, a family purchases a home all within their budget (mortgage not to exceed 35% of income). Year one, they pay their mortgage and their budget allows for savings and investment in retirement college funds.

Year 2. .. wage increases only 2.5%.. health care 12%. Savings contribution goes down (because as we all know all other bills go up too!)..

Year 3.. same thing... only now savings is at nill.. money in goes right out..

This is not a problem that happened overnight.. this has been going on for a VERY long time and as it continues to grow.. we find more and more working regular people.. and even those with seemingly good incomes (75K and more) and not being able to afford insurance.. lest they leave their home .. that once upon a time wasn't an issue.. but again.. the year over year increase of 4x's salary in health care expenditures are the problem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2009, 12:39 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,823 posts, read 23,442,152 times
Reputation: 6541
Quote:
Originally Posted by PurpleLove08 View Post
Which bill? There is more than one health care bill going around. Whenever someone says THE BILL without referencing a specific one they look like a fool because there is more than one bill floating around.
Please show me a link to the bill you are quoting and where one will be required to buy insurance.
He is referring to H.R. 3200. Specifically Section 207(c)(1)(A), the part where the IRS will effectively fine individuals who do not have what the government considers "acceptable coverage." No choice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2009, 12:49 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,823 posts, read 23,442,152 times
Reputation: 6541
Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy View Post
Oh boy oh boy.

No.. they must not CONFORM TO THE GOVERNMENT health plan.
Yet another lie. Section 102(b)(1)(A) states:

Quote:
The Commissioner shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan years beginning after the end of the 5-year period beginning with Y1, an employment-based health plan in operation as of the day before the first day of Y1 must meet the same requirements as apply to a qualified health benefits plan under section 101, including the essential benefit package requirement under section 121.
Compliance is not optional.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy View Post
ANd if it doesn't.. you can purchase a private plan that does OR you can purchase the public option.. YOUR CHOICE!
Even more lies. The only choice anyone will have 5 years after H.R. 3200 is enacted into law, is a single-payer government insurance plan.

This is entirely about government control, not about reforming health care. It is unconstitutional and illegal, which is why the anti-American liberal freaks are so supportive of the socialist take over of the health care industry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2009, 04:20 PM
 
Location: State of Being
35,879 posts, read 77,448,814 times
Reputation: 22752
Guys - lets get back to discussing the public option. I am still confused about what the term means in re: to this legislation. No one has been able to tell me what this public option will look like.

Please help me figure this out! We have had sooo many other threads on healthcare reform. I am asking for something in specific - and I think all of you are as curious as I am as to what "public option" means - how much it will cost, what the terms of the policies are, who can buy into it, etc.

This is very crucial info to all of us. We need to know what Congress thinks a "public option" means and who would qualify.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2009, 11:48 PM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,224 posts, read 5,009,390 times
Reputation: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
Yet another lie. Section 102(b)(1)(A) states:



Compliance is not optional.



Even more lies. The only choice anyone will have 5 years after H.R. 3200 is enacted into law, is a single-payer government insurance plan.

This is entirely about government control, not about reforming health care. It is unconstitutional and illegal, which is why the anti-American liberal freaks are so supportive of the socialist take over of the health care industry.
Wow.. you reall believe your own nonsense do you.

Did you even read the section about what qualifies as health insurance.. the STANDARD that insurance must meet to BE insurance to be purchased on the EXCHANGE??

take one section out of context and ignore the rest..yeah okay whatever!!

HR 3200 is not ONLY about the public option. The public OPTION>> OPTION.. being the KEY WORD HERE is only aPORTION.

It's ALSO about setting up STANDARDS that insurance companies must meet in order to be considered ACCEPTABLE form of insurance.. and within that section it talks

Quote:
TITLE II--HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE AND RELATED PROVISIONSCommentsClose CommentsPermalink



Subtitle A--Health Insurance Exchange

(a) Establishment- There is established within the Health Choices Administration and under the direction of the Commissioner a Health Insurance Exchange in order to facilitate access of individuals and employers, through a transparent process, to a variety of choices of affordable, quality health insurance coverage, including a public health insurance option.
Quote:
(a) Access to Coverage- In accordance with this section, all individuals are eligible to obtain coverage through enrollment in an Exchange-participating health benefits plan offered through the Health Insurance Exchange unless such individuals are enrolled in another qualified health benefits plan or other acceptable coverage.
Quote:
(2) ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE- For purposes of this division, the term ‘acceptable coverage’ means any of the following:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink


1
(A) QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN COVERAGE- Coverage under a qualified health benefits plan.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

1
(B) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE; COVERAGE UNDER CURRENT GROUP HEALTH PLAN- Coverage under a grandfathered health insurance coverage (as defined in subsection (a) of section 102) or under a current group health plan (described in subsection (b) of such section).CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(C) MEDICARE- Coverage under part A of title XVIII of the Social Security Act.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink


(D) MEDICAID- Coverage for medical assistance under title XIX of the Social Security Act, excluding such coverage that is only available because of the application of subsection (u), (z), or (aa) of section 1902 of such Act.
That means there are OPTIONS .. on the exchange.

yes.. if the insurance you currently have does NOT meet the minimum standards of coverage set forth then YES.. your PLAN becomes INVALID after 5 years and deemed NOT ACCEPTABLE for NOT meeting with the minimum standard. AT WHICH POINT.. you can purchase an insurance plan on the EXCHANGE or enroll in the PUBLIC OPTION!!!!

Now.. there is a section that talks about WHAT makes up those minimum standards.. AND IN that it talks about MAX amounts that a plan can charge as OUT OF POCKET deductible ( in otherwords can not exceed x amount of dollars) among other things.

You're right about ONE thing.. compliance in obtaining an ACCEPTABLE coverage is mandatory.. YOU MUST be INSURED.. and insured by an acceptable plan PURCHASED ON THE EXCHANGE.. be it a private plan OR the GOVERNMENT OPTION!!

Sheesh !!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2009, 12:11 AM
 
23,654 posts, read 17,501,648 times
Reputation: 7472
Public option = just another word for Obamacare. LOL
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2009, 06:54 AM
 
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
5,224 posts, read 5,009,390 times
Reputation: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
He is referring to H.R. 3200. Specifically Section 207(c)(1)(A), the part where the IRS will effectively fine individuals who do not have what the government considers "acceptable coverage." No choice.

Is not your car insurance set to a "min" standard of acceptable coverage you must have on your automobile.

Please..

BTW..I think you are confusing the false assumption that a public option will put private insurance out of business thereby making public option the ONLY choice with the actual FACTS.. that there is MORE THAN A PUBLIC OPTION available.. via my post above.

What is so wrong with their being a MINIMUM standard of coverage?? Are you not aware that 60% of bankruptcies filed are because of medical bills and 75% of them actually had "insurance". Obviously the insurance was CRAP and did NOTHING to protect the actual consumer.. as it is SUPPOSED to do!

Again..if you actually READ the part that explains WHAT criteria must be met to be considered "acceptable" form of insurance.. it's not bad at ALL.. and A LOT of the plans out there already meet with such a criteria.

But that's okay.. you won't listen to reason.. your probably too busy believing the death panel nonsense going around.. there is no reasoning with the irrational.

I supposed the facts are not as much fun as your fantasy!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2009, 07:09 AM
 
Location: Pueblo CO
232 posts, read 302,260 times
Reputation: 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by anifani821 View Post
I am hearing all sorts of misinformation about a "public option" in the discussion on healthcare reform.

What do you define as a "public option?" I want to know what folks actually think that public option represents.

I have heard some people refer to it as "free healthcare."

I have heard others say it would mean a type of insurance issued by the government which would have low cost premiums.

I have heard others say it would mean that any of us could participate in the Medicaid program, if our employer didn't provide insurance, and would have a low monthly premium cost.

So what are you all thinking this means: "public option?"
Public option?: Speaking as a nurse, it means covering the 60 million (and climbing) who fall through the cracks (disenfranchised), cause me too work harder (or to have a job), and cause you and everyone else to get sicker with higher premiums! Summed up: It's about the other guy..........., which should concern all of us trying to connect on this planet! Hope this doesn't offend all you nonbleeding hearts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:03 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top