The problem with Obamacare

[bedub1]

Is this:

Lets say there are 15 insurance companies. The government joining the market will make 16. Unfortunately, the government will have an unfair advantage designed by the law of the bill. If you aren't insured, you have to get insurance, and you can only get it from the government. You can't get it from a private company. If you have insurance from one of the private companies, you can keep it. You can keep it, until you loose it, and then you have to buy the government plan. So the 15 companies cannot gain new clients/customers, they can't grow. They can only loose clients. The government program can't ever loose clients, it can only gain them. So eventually all 15 companies will be gone and all that will remain is the government program. This fits in perfectly with what Obama wants. He wants a single-payer system, but realizes we have to step into it. So it's like an escalator. One tiny step is taken, and then eventually there is nothing left but the single program Obama wants.

This is a TERRIBLE idea. If the government wants to enter the market, I'm okay with that. But they can't impose the restrictions of disallowing the private companies to compete with them to gain market share.

Now if this was a Republican idea, it would be almost identical, except for 1 item. Everybody would be required to have health insurance, and it would start at conception. Thus, since the "child" in the womb has health insurance, it wouldn't be allowed to be aborted or killed.

[PLAYER57832]

Is this:

Lets say there are 15 insurance companies. The government joining the market will make 16. Unfortunately, the government will have an unfair advantage designed by the law of the bill. If you aren't insured, you have to get insurance, and you can only get it from the government. You can't get it from a private company. If you have insurance from one of the private companies, you can keep it. You can keep it, until you loose it, and then you have to buy the government plan. So the 15 companies cannot gain new clients/customers, they can't grow. They can only loose clients. The government program can't ever loose clients, it can only gain them. So eventually all 15 companies will be gone and all that will remain is the government program. This fits in perfectly with what Obama wants. He wants a single-payer system, but realizes we have to step into it. So it's like an escalator. One tiny step is taken, and then eventually there is nothing left but the single program Obama wants.

.

You apparently have it exactly backwards. According to Ralph Nadar, the insurance companies and pharmaceautical companies have ensured that the only government policy will be for those the insurers reject -- namely the truly sick.

Unless and until there is true UNIVERSAL coverage, the government plans will be far to expensive for everyone, because the only way to make it reasonable is for everyone to pay, including particularly those who are healthy, as downpayment on when we do get sick or might get sick.

So, the real result will be what all the "doom and gloomers" have been predicting from a one-payor system -- rationing, etc.

See. WE ALREADY HAVE RATIONING. All but the wealthiest get told by insurance companies what procedures they can and cannot have. If you think that means better care, or even handy approval for things specifically listed in your policy as being covered -- you have not had much experience with insurers.

The poor actually get better care, to a point, BUT only if they can find someone to provide the care.

So, congratulate yourself. You have won. Not only will the Medicaid (for poor) AND Medicar systems be bankrupt, but unless you happen to become a multi-millionaire, you will not be covered yourself, when you finally do decide you need it.

Also think of the continual economic implications of no coverage. People will absolutely stack up whatever credit they can get, then leave it in bankruptcy because the only other choice is to let their kid or spouse or themselves not get treatments they need. Of course, in the mean time they will put off everything they can, so diseases, illnesses won't be caught early enough to be treated cheaply.

Yep, congratulations.

Oh, and that stupid bit about abortion... understand that 'abortion" in this country means removal of a DEAD fetus. No distinction is made because there is no record kept on whether a DNC was performed on someone who just wanted "rid of it" or someone who dearly wanted a child, but was told there was no option or the child would be doomed to an incredibly painful and short life, if they lived at all.

[SultanOfSurreal]

Is this:

Lets say there are 15 insurance companies. The government joining the market will make 16. Unfortunately, the government will have an unfair advantage designed by the law of the bill. If you aren't insured, you have to get insurance, and you can only get it from the government. You can't get it from a private company. If you have insurance from one of the private companies, you can keep it. You can keep it, until you loose it, and then you have to buy the government plan. So the 15 companies cannot gain new clients/customers, they can't grow. They can only loose clients. The government program can't ever loose clients, it can only gain them. So eventually all 15 companies will be gone and all that will remain is the government program. This fits in perfectly with what Obama wants. He wants a single-payer system, but realizes we have to step into it. So it's like an escalator. One tiny step is taken, and then eventually there is nothing left but the single program Obama wants.

This is a TERRIBLE idea. If the government wants to enter the market, I'm okay with that. But they can't impose the restrictions of disallowing the private companies to compete with them to gain market share.

hmm interesting, but you seem to be forgetting that you're a deranged idiot whose rambling diatribes have no bearing on the actual issues at hand

Now if this was a Republican idea, it would be almost identical, except for 1 item. Everybody would be required to have health insurance, and it would start at conception. Thus, since the "child" in the womb has health insurance, it wouldn't be allowed to be aborted or killed.

lmao

[Jolly Roger]

If the government wants to enter the market, I'm okay with that. But they can't impose the restrictions of disallowing the private companies to compete with them to gain market share.

Unless I'm mistaken, the bill proposes that the government enter the market without disallowing private companies to compete with them. Have you read pages 72-128 (i.e., Title II Subtitles A and B)?

[Phatscotty]

Is this:

Lets say there are 15 insurance companies. The government joining the market will make 16. Unfortunately, the government will have an unfair advantage designed by the law of the bill. If you aren't insured, you have to get insurance, and you can only get it from the government. You can't get it from a private company. If you have insurance from one of the private companies, you can keep it. You can keep it, until you loose it, and then you have to buy the government plan. So the 15 companies cannot gain new clients/customers, they can't grow. They can only loose clients. The government program can't ever loose clients, it can only gain them. So eventually all 15 companies will be gone and all that will remain is the government program. This fits in perfectly with what Obama wants. He wants a single-payer system, but realizes we have to step into it. So it's like an escalator. One tiny step is taken, and then eventually there is nothing left but the single program Obama wants.

This is a TERRIBLE idea. If the government wants to enter the market, I'm okay with that. But they can't impose the restrictions of disallowing the private companies to compete with them to gain market share.

hmm interesting, but you seem to be forgetting that you're a deranged idiot whose rambling diatribes have no bearing on the actual issues at hand

Now if this was a Republican idea, it would be almost identical, except for 1 item. Everybody would be required to have health insurance, and it would start at conception. Thus, since the "child" in the womb has health insurance, it wouldn't be allowed to be aborted or killed.

nothin more than name calling. way to bring something to the table

[SultanOfSurreal]

nothin more than name calling. way to bring something to the table

oh man, totally sorry, i didn't realize that bedub's continual misunderstanding of every single issue he comes across warranted serious discussion

i'll try to remember this in the future

[GabonX]

Unless and until there is true UNIVERSAL coverage, the government plans will be far to expensive for everyone, because the only way to make it reasonable is for everyone to pay, including particularly those who are healthy, as downpayment on when we do get sick or might get sick.

That's all fine and good but to force people into such a system infringes on a person's basic liberties. It is dictatorship.

Oh, and that stupid bit about abortion... understand that 'abortion" in this country means removal of a DEAD fetus. No distinction is made because there is no record kept on whether a DNC was performed on someone who just wanted "rid of it" or someone who dearly wanted a child, but was told there was no option or the child would be doomed to an incredibly painful and short life, if they lived at all.

It also means that if you want an abortion for any other reason you're covered, and that I'm paying for it. Perhaps there should be some distinction between "removal of a DEAD fetus" and that other thing but there isn't.

I don't think you're in denial about this but rather I think you're trying to suppress debate on a legitimate issue that people have with this part of the plan. That seems to be the common strategy on the left, that is to say that if someone doesn't like the plan they just don't understand it.

People aren't that stupid.

[SultanOfSurreal]

People aren't that stupid.

as a matter of fact you are

[Nobunaga]

If the government wants to enter the market, I'm okay with that. But they can't impose the restrictions of disallowing the private companies to compete with them to gain market share.

Unless I'm mistaken, the bill proposes that the government enter the market without disallowing private companies to compete with them. Have you read pages 72-128 (i.e., Title II Subtitles A and B)?

... Can these private companies print their own money? What margins will the government need to stay "in buisness"?

....

[stahrgazer]

... Can these private companies print their own money? What margins will the government need to stay "in buisness"?

....

Since the Federal Reserve is a private business (honest, it really is private!!!) I'd say "private businesses have an easier time printing money than the US Government."

[stahrgazer]

It also means that if you want an abortion for any other reason you're covered, and that I'm paying for it. Perhaps there should be some distinction between "removal of a DEAD fetus" and that other thing but there isn't.

People aren't that stupid.

You're kidding, right? Medicaid doesn't pay for abortions; I know of no insurance company that pays for abortions, any funds that go to reproductive clinics, even those that may offer counselling that includes termination as choice, are prohibited by federal law from using those funds for abortions, so why in heck would any smart person think having national healthcare would mean "free abortions, folks!" Yes, someone with a non-viable fetus or growth in the womb can get a Dilation & Curette aka D&C; because in cases where something happened and whatever was there is already dead, gangrene can result. Yes, D&C is the same procedure used to terminate pregnancy, but the clinics must carefully document why the D&C is necessary, and since it's a non-emergency outpatient surgical procedure, they must have preapproval. "Just any ol' D&C" is not approved.

[GabonX]

... Can these private companies print their own money? What margins will the government need to stay "in buisness"?

....

Since the Federal Reserve is a private business (honest, it really is private!!!) I'd say "private businesses have an easier time printing money than the US Government."

Isn't that fucked up?

We huff and puff about repaying the national debt but the fact is that it is literally IMPOSSIBLE. Every dollar released into circulation as well as every dollar spent compounds debt to this corporation. On your tax receipt it says "Pay OBLIG to FRB" meaning that you are paying the government's (your) obligation to the Federal Reserve Bank.

The monetary system is very interesting. Basically it is set up to keep people in debt. In the beginning you pay for school, then when you get that payed off you take out loans on a house, you pay taxes on your house, your business, your conduct and on and so forth.

The role of the average citizen in society is becoming more and more like a Russian serf. Some people don't seem to realize this but those of us who do, DO NOT WANT IT.

[Neoteny]

Is this:

Lets say there are 15 insurance companies. The government joining the market will make 16. Unfortunately, the government will have an unfair advantage designed by the law of the bill. If you aren't insured, you have to get insurance, and you can only get it from the government. You can't get it from a private company. If you have insurance from one of the private companies, you can keep it. You can keep it, until you loose it, and then you have to buy the government plan. So the 15 companies cannot gain new clients/customers, they can't grow. They can only loose clients. The government program can't ever loose clients, it can only gain them. So eventually all 15 companies will be gone and all that will remain is the government program. This fits in perfectly with what Obama wants. He wants a single-payer system, but realizes we have to step into it. So it's like an escalator. One tiny step is taken, and then eventually there is nothing left but the single program Obama wants.

This is a TERRIBLE idea. If the government wants to enter the market, I'm okay with that. But they can't impose the restrictions of disallowing the private companies to compete with them to gain market share.

Now if this was a Republican idea, it would be almost identical, except for 1 item. Everybody would be required to have health insurance, and it would start at conception. Thus, since the "child" in the womb has health insurance, it wouldn't be allowed to be aborted or killed.

[SultanOfSurreal]

i'm stealing this to use elsewhere on the internet and you can do nothing to stop me

that fucking made my day

[Neoteny]

Permission granted whether you want it or not.

[danfrank]

If it was a republican idea , private insurance companies would be allowed to cross state lines to try and obtain new clientele . This effect all in itself would lower health insurance premiums. There are only a handful of companies that actually do business in all the states , although there unique to each states guidelines , it would open the playing field to the smaller insurance companies.. I buy my own insurance and it should be against the law for companies to advertise on tv in your state if you cannot buy it in that paticular state. Is that a tv network issue , an ignorant issue , or a political issue ?

I would also like to add that this healthcare plan is about race. Its about taking from the whiteman and giving it to the blacks, hispanics, and illegals. The majority( way over 50%) of the white population in the US have healthcare while less than 20% of the groups expected to benefit from this do.

My grandmother in-law ( ) is 92 years old. She has beaten cancer the last 5 years or so a couple of times. She has been in the hospital now for the past 6 weeks or so and is not expected to make it home again. Although her wish is to die at home and not in a facility. The cancer is not whats killing her , possibly old age , the doctors are unsure of what it is. My point is this , although i am only speaking of grandma i am sure there are many elders that feel the same way. Grandma has decided at 92 years old she has seen enough , she states she is scared to die and she is going to miss the family , but she is tired of all the medical procedures and tests - that the doctors do not explain what they are for .. and yet the doctors insist on continuing to test. In my opinion, grandma ( and us all ) have the right to die, if she was strong enough to walk out she surely would. This is the type of waste that needs to be cut amongst many other things. DEATH PANELS do not need to be created , abiding by peoples wishes should be sufficient enough.

I want to add one more thing. It appears that the left side of this country are not held accountable for what they say in the present or in the past.. Obama has expressed his views on HC reform when he was a senator and now that people are calling him on his previous views ,it is said that we the people are taking it out of context. Fuel to anger the townhalls. It all boils down to population control, next year the world population will be 7billion. The US population is 300 million.

[MeDeFe]

I would also like to add that this healthcare plan is about race. Its about taking from the whiteman and giving it to the blacks, hispanics, and illegals. The majority( way over 50%) of the white population in the US have healthcare while less than 20% of the groups expected to benefit from this do.

Please go die a horrible death in a fire.

[sailorseal]

I would also like to add that this healthcare plan is about race. Its about taking from the whiteman and giving it to the blacks, hispanics, and illegals. The majority( way over 50%) of the white population in the US have healthcare while less than 20% of the groups expected to benefit from this do.

Please go die a horrible death in a fire.

I am sorry but danfrank that statement is truly disgusting

[Neoteny]

I would also like to add that this healthcare plan is about race. Its about taking from the whiteman and giving it to the blacks, hispanics, and illegals. The majority( way over 50%) of the white population in the US have healthcare while less than 20% of the groups expected to benefit from this do.

[Phatscotty]

Only a true racist see's things ONLY in COLOR. WE have way too many black, indian, asian, hispanic, orange and purple doctors in this country for danfranks statements to carry water. I highly seuspect he is a democrat trying to make the opposers look bad.

[Frigidus]

Only a true racist see's things ONLY in COLOR. WE have way too many black, indian, asian, hispanic, orange and purple doctors in this country for danfranks statements to carry water. I highly seuspect he is a democrat trying to make the opposers look bad.

Haha, seriously? No true Scotsman. There are people that actually reason like danfrank, and many of them have access to the internet.

[PLAYER57832]

My grandmother in-law ( ) is 92 years old. She has beaten cancer the last 5 years or so a couple of times. She has been in the hospital now for the past 6 weeks or so and is not expected to make it home again. Although her wish is to die at home and not in a facility. The cancer is not whats killing her , possibly old age , the doctors are unsure of what it is. My point is this , although i am only speaking of grandma i am sure there are many elders that feel the same way. Grandma has decided at 92 years old she has seen enough , she states she is scared to die and she is going to miss the family , but she is tired of all the medical procedures and tests - that the doctors do not explain what they are for .. and yet the doctors insist on continuing to test. In my opinion, grandma ( and us all ) have the right to die, if she was strong enough to walk out she surely would. This is the type of waste that needs to be cut amongst many other things. DEATH PANELS do not need to be created , abiding by peoples wishes should be sufficient enough.

First my condolences. I have gone through the same thing recently.

What you want is EXACTLY what is specified in the bill.

Right now, doctors do not get paid to sit down and talk to patients, listen to patients about what they really want near the end of their life. Your grandmother's doctor should have been able to sit down and talk with her (if she's competent) and your family (if SHE wished them included OR was incompetent about options, particularly hospice care. Hospice, by-the-way is NOT euthanasia. Euthenasia is not even legal in the US. This is about asking a patient if they do want to go through all those thousand tests, etc up to the last minute OR, if they would rather say "hey, I am done" and either go home or to a hospice facility where there are staff trained to help patients with a variety of services which can include counseling, pain relief and other "palative" care, etc.

I would like to see panels created to help doctors, who currently are not trained in this -- they are trained to "not give up" and too often see just plain listening to terminal patients as "giving up" -- this would help set guidelines for what should be expected, what is and is not reasonable, etc. Some of the guidelines would include saying, in cases like your grandmother's where there is no recovery possible, where they patient is going to die, THEN, the guidelines might say anything from simply "don't force the patient to get treatments they don't want", to sometimes, yes, suggesting that doctors gently explain that "we do this test, but it really is not going to help, why go through the pain." (though in my experience, that part is more about relatives, not the person involved.)

It is a step toward compassion, NOT euthanasia. Some of the guid

Some idiots, including Sarah Palin have tried to claim this is about cutting care or euthanasia. You should ask yourself who's pay they are in that they are so bent upon lying.

[Frigidus]

Some idiots, including Sarah Palin have tried to claim this is about cutting care or euthanasia. You should ask yourself who's pay they are in that they are so bent upon lying.

Anyone who feels that there are death panels in the healthcare bill are already long gone. They've been brainwashed after years of tuning in nightly for the Propaganda Channel.

[Phatscotty]

My grandmother in-law ( ) is 92 years old. She has beaten cancer the last 5 years or so a couple of times. She has been in the hospital now for the past 6 weeks or so and is not expected to make it home again. Although her wish is to die at home and not in a facility. The cancer is not whats killing her , possibly old age , the doctors are unsure of what it is. My point is this , although i am only speaking of grandma i am sure there are many elders that feel the same way. Grandma has decided at 92 years old she has seen enough , she states she is scared to die and she is going to miss the family , but she is tired of all the medical procedures and tests - that the doctors do not explain what they are for .. and yet the doctors insist on continuing to test. In my opinion, grandma ( and us all ) have the right to die, if she was strong enough to walk out she surely would. This is the type of waste that needs to be cut amongst many other things. DEATH PANELS do not need to be created , abiding by peoples wishes should be sufficient enough.

First my condolences. I have gone through the same thing recently.

What you want is EXACTLY what is specified in the bill.

Right now, doctors do not get paid to sit down and talk to patients, listen to patients about what they really want near the end of their life. Your grandmother's doctor should have been able to sit down and talk with her (if she's competent) and your family (if SHE wished them included OR was incompetent about options, particularly hospice care. Hospice, by-the-way is NOT euthanasia. Euthenasia is not even legal in the US. This is about asking a patient if they do want to go through all those thousand tests, etc up to the last minute OR, if they would rather say "hey, I am done" and either go home or to a hospice facility where there are staff trained to help patients with a variety of services which can include counseling, pain relief and other "palative" care, etc.

I would like to see panels created to help doctors, who currently are not trained in this -- they are trained to "not give up" and too often see just plain listening to terminal patients as "giving up" -- this would help set guidelines for what should be expected, what is and is not reasonable, etc. It is a step toward compassion, NOT euthanasia.
Some idiots, including Sarah Palin have tried to claim this is about cutting care or euthanasia. You should ask yourself who's pay they are in that they are so bent upon lying.

OK FIRST OF ALL children, it's a well known and unarguable fact that the majority of health care cost come at the end of life. EVERYONE knows and it's unarguable that health care costs need to be cut. QUESTION, where are they gonna cut first??????????? Palin's premise has already thought out and understood my stated facts. She is simply speaking about what information is already known. no wonder you just can;t understand and these things make your head hurt.

[GabonX]

I would also like to add that this healthcare plan is about race. Its about taking from the whiteman and giving it to the blacks, hispanics, and illegals. The majority( way over 50%) of the white population in the US have healthcare while less than 20% of the groups expected to benefit from this do.

Please go die a horrible death in a fire.

I am sorry but danfrank that statement is truly disgusting

Sorry guys, but this HAS been a cornerstone of Obama's work throughout his life. Is it disgusting that this is happening or disgusting that somebody would call him on it?