PDA

View Full Version : Senate Finance Committee defeats Public option



b3rtstare
09-29-2009, 06:25 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/29/senate-panel-debates-govt-run-health-plan/




In a decisive vote that could forecast the demise of a proposed government health insurance plan, the Senate Finance Committee voted twice Tuesday against creating a "public option" that would compete with private companies.

The two votes marked a victory for Montana Democrat Max Baucus, the Senate Finance Committee chairman, who is hoping to push his middle-of-the-road measure through the panel by week's end. It also kept alive the possibility that at least one Republican may yet swing behind the overhaul, a key goal of both Baucus and the White House.

"My job is to put together a bill that gets to 60 votes" in the full Senate, Baucus said shortly before he joined a majority on the committee in defeating efforts to rewrite a key portion of his draft legislation. "No one shows me how to get to 60 votes with a public option," he said, using the term used to describe a new government role in health care. It would take 60 votes in the 100-member Senate to overcome any filibuster Republicans might attempt.

The first proposal failed in a 15-to-8 vote, which followed several hours of debate. The second proposal failed 13-10. Taken together, the votes were a defeat for liberal Democrats who view government-sponsored insurance for the middle class as a key component of President Obama's health care overhaul.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia proposed the first measure that was defeated by five Democrats, including Baucus, and all 10 committee Republicans.

Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York backed an alternative approach that he said would introduce more competition into the insurance market nationwide. His version differed from Rockefeller's chiefly in that it would have allowed for the government to negotiate payments with doctors, hospitals and other health care providers for an initial two-year period rather than pay them at the same rates as under Medicare.

The votes followed warnings by the Finance Committee's top Republicans that creating a government-run health insurance program would crush private companies.

Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., and Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, sparred with Democrats on the Senate floor over the necessity of a public plan -- with Grassley saying lawmakers shouldn't take advantage of the shortcomings in the health care system to "denigrate" American health care.

Rockefeller proposed a plan modeled on Medicare, the federal health care program for senior citizens, in which the government would set what it pays doctors, hospitals and other medical providers. Schumer proposed a government plan that looks more like a private insurance company and negotiates payment rates with providers.

Republicans and moderate Democrats, meanwhile, stood their ground in opposition to a government plan that would compete for subscribers with private carriers.

Ensign was quick to pounce on Rockefeller's amendment, arguing that his idea for a public option would deny doctors participation in Medicare for two years if they choose not to participate in a new government program.

Rockefeller, saying 70 percent of doctors support a public option, defended his proposal. He said it will protect American families, and he dismissed assertions that it will lead to a government takeover of health insurance. "It will be optional. No one has to do this," he said.

Grassley reiterated his opposition to a government-run plan and challenged Rockefeller's 70-percent statistic, saying another poll showed that not even a majority of doctors would support a public option that weakened the private insurance industry.

The United States is the only developed nation that does not have a comprehensive national health care plan, leaving about 50 million people without health insurance. The government provides coverage for the poor and elderly, but most Americans rely on private insurance, usually received through their employers. Others buy their own insurance or pay steep medical bills out of pocket.

Sen. Kent Conrad, D-ND, who has crafted an alternative plan that would set up a series of non-profit health care cooperatives, blasted Rockefeller's plan, saying, "The devil is in the details." Conrad said if the amendment is implemented, "every major hospital goes broke."

"I can't possibly support any amendment that does that," he said.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-NM, said he could support a public option, but he disagrees with Rockefeller's approach. "I think there is a problem with providing Medicare reimbursement rates," Bingaman said, echoing the concerns of Conrad.

As senators continue to spar over the public option, two liberal groups are launching a hard-hitting television and Internet ad featuring a young father from Montana. Bing Perrine, 26, who needs a heart operation and is uninsured and deeply in debt, looks straight into the camera and asks Baucus: "Whose side are you on?"

The ad is sponsored by Democracy for America and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which say Baucus is too cozy with insurance and health care interests that have contributed to his campaigns and oppose a government plan.

Baucus aide Tyler Matsdorf said the ad falsely implies that the senator doesn't care about the plight of people with pre-existing health problems. It's just that Baucus would address such problems differently than the liberals, Matsdorf said. For example, his plan calls for nonprofit co-ops to compete with the insurance industry independently of the government. Insurers also oppose co-ops.

"Win or lose, it's clear that the strong public interest and support for a public option will be well represented by the supportive senators," said Gerald Shea, a top health care policy expert for the AFL-CIO labor federation. "My sense is that our message about how vital the public plan is to the critically important issue of cost control is beginning to break through the bubble that has surrounded Finance for months."

The wild card in Tuesday's debate is Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe, a moderate Republican. Aides say she's considering offering a compromise that would use the public option as a threat, to be deployed only if private insurers fail to keep premiums in check after a reasonable period of time.

If there's a final bill this year, it's possible that Snowe's idea will be the one to carry the day.

This is a small victory, though I wish this whole bill would die.

nutsy54
09-29-2009, 06:35 PM
In before Republicans are blamed because a Democrat controlled committee, in the Democrat controlled Senate, of the Democrat controlled Congress, couldn't pass an amendment supporting the Democrat President's number-one domestic agenda priority....

Boxman
09-30-2009, 07:24 AM
Corporate socialists masquerading as free marketeers...

amtharin
09-30-2009, 07:45 AM
Those damn Republicans are all about the status quo... oh wait??

SDMuscleBuddy
09-30-2009, 08:17 AM
The article in the OP couldn't possibly give you all of the information. If you are interested, you should find the debate from yesterdays session and listen to the exchange between Rockefeller, Baucus, and Grassley. The argument for a public option is compelling and Grassley couldn't successfully counter it. Schumer's amendment made more sense than Rockefeller's, giving the government the power to negotiate with health care providers.

I believe the Baucus bill will ultimately fail as it does little to make health care more affordable but does much to protect insurance company profits. A few other senators brought up the idea of creating private not-for-profit insurance co-ops, but Chairman Baucus didn't want to debate that until after the votes on the Rockefeller and Schumer bills stating he had a lot to say on that subject. It will be interesting to see if this new idea gets any legs.

It's interesting to note that Chairman Baucus received more in campaign contributions from the health care industry than any other Democrat on the committee, and the six senators that make up the "gang of six" on this committee that negotiated the Baucus bill (3 R's and 3 D's) received on average 25% more in health care lobby money than the rest of the Senate.

grup910
09-30-2009, 09:00 AM
Hooray! Less freedom of choice, more corporate control, higher and higher costs. What a big win that is for the people!

:rolleyes:

amtharin
09-30-2009, 09:04 AM
Hooray! Less freedom of choice, more corporate control, higher and higher costs. What a big win that is for the people!

:rolleyes:

No, no, no, they REJECTED the public option.

matpal
09-30-2009, 09:07 AM
The Baucus plan would probably be a lot worse, if that is possible.

reyalp
09-30-2009, 09:25 AM
In before Republicans are blamed because a Democrat controlled committee, in the Democrat controlled Senate, of the Democrat controlled Congress, couldn't pass an amendment supporting the Democrat President's number-one domestic agenda priority....

It's Bush's fault.

grup910
09-30-2009, 09:47 AM
No, no, no, they REJECTED the public option.

Exactly. The few corporate-owned DINOs -- acting like republicans -- rejected the public option and thereby reduced consumer choice, increased health care costs, gave more control of your life over to the corporate sector (which can exert control over you through fear of losing your health care if you lose your job or quit), and overall provided about the worst outcome for the american people that they could possibly give. Good job!!! :rolleyes:

nutsy54
09-30-2009, 03:22 PM
Hooray! Less freedom of choice, more corporate control, higher and higher costs. What a big win that is for the people!

:rolleyes:FINALLY! We have Grup on record, being pissed off at the Democrats! :)

nutsy54
09-30-2009, 03:25 PM
Exactly. The few corporate-owned DINOs -- acting like republicans -- rejected the public option and thereby reduced consumer choice, increased health care costs, gave more control of your life...It's laughable that you rant on and on about "Choice" and "Control of your life", while supporting a plan under which CONGRESS will dictate exactly what type of insurance you must (and are allowed to) obtain for yourself.

Too little? We'll tax the hell out of you
Too much? We'll tax the hell out of you
Do exactly as Pelosi, Reid, and Obama order you to? We'll get along just fine

How can you sit there and cry about Choice and Control, when everything about Obama's stated plan removes Choice and Control from your life, and hands it to some bureaucrat buried in Congress?

all pro
09-30-2009, 03:28 PM
The public option WILL be in the final version. You do know what riders and amendments are don't you?

SDMuscleBuddy
09-30-2009, 04:07 PM
It's laughable that you rant on and on about "Choice" and "Control of your life", while supporting a plan under which CONGRESS will dictate exactly what type of insurance you must (and are allowed to) obtain for yourself.

Too little? We'll tax the hell out of you
Too much? We'll tax the hell out of you
Do exactly as Pelosi, Reid, and Obama order you to? We'll get along just fine

How can you sit there and cry about Choice and Control, when everything about Obama's stated plan removes Choice and Control from your life, and hands it to some bureaucrat buried in Congress?

I disagree. If the plan includes a public option, we are taking control away from the insurance companies, who are currently dictating everything. If the public option sucks, then the insurance companies have nothing to worry about. If it's great, nobody will care about the insurance companies losing business, except their CEO's of course. Boo frikken hoo.

powerman2000
09-30-2009, 04:17 PM
In before Republicans are blamed because a Democrat controlled committee, in the Democrat controlled Senate, of the Democrat controlled Congress, couldn't pass an amendment supporting the Democrat President's number-one domestic agenda priority....

http://bestsmileys.com/lol/4.gif

grup910
09-30-2009, 04:19 PM
I disagree. If the plan includes a public option, we are taking control away from the insurance companies, who are currently dictating everything. If the public option sucks, then the insurance companies have nothing to worry about. If it's great, nobody will care about the insurance companies losing business, except their CEO's of course. Boo frikken hoo.

+1

Consumer/business health insurance costs have gone up astronomically in the past decade, with insurance corporation profits going up over 400% in that same time.

Why do they need to make so much profit in the face of so much sickness, suffering, death, people getting dropped from insurance just so the corporations can make more money, and people being denied for "pre-existing conditions" just so the corporations can make more money?

Oh yeah - because people like nutso fight against the people of the US and support politicians who want to benefit the corporations instead of the people.

Rep. Grayson had it right today: the republican plan is A) don't get sick, or B) if you do, die quickly. That's all they've got. Finally, someone with the guts to expose these republicans and dinos for what they are: greedy b4stards who care more about corporate profits than the health and well-being of their fellow citizens. Pretty pathetic.

powerman2000
09-30-2009, 04:20 PM
I disagree. If the plan includes a public option, we are taking control away from the insurance companies, who are currently dictating everything. If the public option sucks, then the insurance companies have nothing to worry about. If it's great, nobody will care about the insurance companies losing business, except their CEO's of course. Boo frikken hoo.

The bill guarantees only that the government doesn't guarantee anything and they could end up doing whatever the hell they want.

grup910
09-30-2009, 04:25 PM
It's laughable that you rant on and on about "Choice" and "Control of your life", while supporting a plan under which CONGRESS will dictate exactly what type of insurance you must (and are allowed to) obtain for yourself.

Too little? We'll tax the hell out of you
Too much? We'll tax the hell out of you
Do exactly as Pelosi, Reid, and Obama order you to? We'll get along just fine

How can you sit there and cry about Choice and Control, when everything about Obama's stated plan removes Choice and Control from your life, and hands it to some bureaucrat buried in Congress?

That's total bull, just like the imaginary right-wing "death panels" they tried to scare you with. Under the Obama plan, if you like the insurance you have, YOU KEEP IT. No one forces you to do anything. And no one drops you from your insurance merely at the whim of some corporate insurance industry bean counter. Oh yeah, that's such a bad thing: preventing insurance corporations from dropping people from their rolls. :rolleyes:

And if you don't have insurance, the plan provides multiple options to help you get it so you don't end up costing us way more later, when you have to go to the ER with no coverage.

Are you too challenged to understand that, or just too brainwashed by your right wing masters to have a clue? :rolleyes:

powerman2000
09-30-2009, 04:29 PM
That's total bull, just like the imaginary right-wing "death panels" they tried to scare you with. Under the Obama plan, if you like the insurance you have, YOU KEEP IT. No one forces you to do anything. And no one drops you from your insurance at their whim. Oh yeah, that's such a bad thing: preventing insurance corporations from dropping people from their rolls. :rolleyes:

And if you don't, the plan provides multiple options to help you get it so you don't end up costing us way more later, when you have to go to the ER with no coverage.

Are you too challenged to understand that, or just too brainwashed by your right wing masters to have a clue? :rolleyes:

Listen very carefully, there are NO GUARANTEES for any of that in the bill.

NONE!

Obama can say whatever he wants, but unless the bill relects his words with iron-clad verbage that guarantees it, then it doesn't mean piss.That's why it's being voted down.

grup910
09-30-2009, 04:32 PM
Listen very carefully, there are NO GUARANTEES for any of that in the bill.

NONE!

Obama can say whatever he wants, but unless the bill relects his words with iron-clad verbage that guarantees it, then it doesn't mean piss.That's why it's being voted down.

Is that what your right wing propaganda masters are telling you? You'll have to forgive me, I'm not really up on the latest "death panel" and other talking points from the corporate insurance lobby.

all pro
09-30-2009, 04:36 PM
That's total bull, just like the imaginary right-wing "death panels" they tried to scare you with. Under the Obama plan, if you like the insurance you have, YOU KEEP IT. No one forces you to do anything. And no one drops you from your insurance merely at the whim of some corporate insurance industry bean counter. Oh yeah, that's such a bad thing: preventing insurance corporations from dropping people from their rolls. :rolleyes:

And if you don't have insurance, the plan provides multiple options to help you get it so you don't end up costing us way more later, when you have to go to the ER with no coverage.

Are you too challenged to understand that, or just too brainwashed by your right wing masters to have a clue? :rolleyes:

HR3200

8 (b) GRACE PERIOD FOR CURRENT EMPLOYMENT9
BASED HEALTH PLANS.?
10 (1) GRACE PERIOD.?
11 (A) IN GENERAL.?The Commissioner
12 shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan
13 years beginning after the end of the 5-year pe14
riod beginning with Y1, an employment-based
15 health plan in operation as of the day before
16 the first day of Y1 must meet the same require17
ments as apply to a qualified health benefits
18 plan under section 101, including the essential
19 benefit package requirement under section 121.
20 (B) EXCEPTION FOR LIMITED BENEFITS
21 PLANS.?Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to
22 an employment-based health plan in which the
23 coverage consists only of one or more of the fol24
lowing:
VerDate Nov 24 2008 23:22 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
18
?HR 3200 IH
1 (i) Any coverage described in section
2 3001(a)(1)(B)(ii)(IV) of division B of the
3 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
4 of 2009 (Public Law 111?5).
5 (ii) Excepted benefits (as defined in
6 section 733(c) of the Employee Retirement
7 Income Security Act of 1974), including
8 coverage under a specified disease or ill9
ness policy described in paragraph (3)(A)
10 of such section.
11 (iii) Such other limited benefits as the
12 Commissioner may specify.
13 In no case shall an employment-based health
14 plan in which the coverage consists only of one
15 or more of the coverage or benefits described in
16 clauses (i) through (iii) be treated as acceptable
17 coverage under this division
18 (2) TRANSITIONAL TREATMENT AS ACCEPT19
ABLE COVERAGE.?During the grace period specified
20 in paragraph (1)(A), an employment-based health
21 plan that is described in such paragraph shall be
22 treated as acceptable coverage under this division.
23 (c) LIMITATION ON INDIVIDUAL HEALTH INSURANCE
In other words YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO KEEP YOUR CURRENT COVERAGE EVEN IF YOU LIKE IT!!!
You really should read the bill before running your mouth!
http://peters.house.gov/uploads/HR3200%20Full%20Text.pdf

grup910
09-30-2009, 04:38 PM
HR3200

8 (b) GRACE PERIOD FOR CURRENT EMPLOYMENT9
BASED HEALTH PLANS.?
10 (1) GRACE PERIOD.?
11 (A) IN GENERAL.?The Commissioner
12 shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan
13 years beginning after the end of the 5-year pe14
riod beginning with Y1, an employment-based
15 health plan in operation as of the day before
16 the first day of Y1 must meet the same require17
ments as apply to a qualified health benefits
18 plan under section 101, including the essential
19 benefit package requirement under section 121.
20 (B) EXCEPTION FOR LIMITED BENEFITS
21 PLANS.?Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to
22 an employment-based health plan in which the
23 coverage consists only of one or more of the fol24
lowing:
VerDate Nov 24 2008 23:22 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
18
?HR 3200 IH
1 (i) Any coverage described in section
2 3001(a)(1)(B)(ii)(IV) of division B of the
3 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
4 of 2009 (Public Law 111?5).
5 (ii) Excepted benefits (as defined in
6 section 733(c) of the Employee Retirement
7 Income Security Act of 1974), including
8 coverage under a specified disease or ill9
ness policy described in paragraph (3)(A)
10 of such section.
11 (iii) Such other limited benefits as the
12 Commissioner may specify.
13 In no case shall an employment-based health
14 plan in which the coverage consists only of one
15 or more of the coverage or benefits described in
16 clauses (i) through (iii) be treated as acceptable
17 coverage under this division
18 (2) TRANSITIONAL TREATMENT AS ACCEPT19
ABLE COVERAGE.?During the grace period specified
20 in paragraph (1)(A), an employment-based health
21 plan that is described in such paragraph shall be
22 treated as acceptable coverage under this division.
23 (c) LIMITATION ON INDIVIDUAL HEALTH INSURANCE
In other words YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO KEEP YOUR CURRENT COVERAGE EVEN IF YOU LIKE IT!!!
You really should read the bill before running your mouth!
http://peters.house.gov/uploads/HR3200%20Full%20Text.pdf

Do you really think quoting the tiniest fraction of a huge bill out of context somehow shows that you know what you're talking about?

I'll tell you again: Under Obama's plan, if you like the insurance you have, YOU KEEP IT. You also get the added benefit that you cannot be dropped from it, like you can be now. End of story.

reyalp
09-30-2009, 04:40 PM
Is that what your right wing propaganda masters are telling you? You'll have to forgive me, I'm not really up on the latest "death panel" and other talking points from the corporate insurance lobby.

I see you posted all the guarantees from the bill.

Another epic fail by grup910.

all pro
09-30-2009, 04:40 PM
Do you really think quoting the tiniest fraction of a huge bill out of context somehow shows that you know what you're talking about?

I'll tell you again: Under Obama's plan, if you like the insurance you have, YOU KEEP IT. You also get the added benefit that you cannot be dropped from it, like you can be now. End of story.

I posted the link. The bill states that you wont be able to keep your coverage. That isn't in Soro's plans. You will have government health care and you will pay for it.

powerman2000
09-30-2009, 04:41 PM
Is that what your right wing propaganda masters are telling you? You'll have to forgive me, I'm not really up on the latest "death panel" and other talking points from the corporate insurance lobby.

Sorry, that's just the plain facts and why it's being voted down.

If you can't offer a rebuttal that proves what I said is wrong then you should save your breath.

ZenBowman
09-30-2009, 04:41 PM
Good. This bill is nonsense anyway. Go straight for the moon - single payer system FTW.

SDMuscleBuddy
09-30-2009, 04:42 PM
The bill guarantees only that the government doesn't guarantee anything and they could end up doing whatever the hell they want.

Which bill?

powerman2000
09-30-2009, 04:43 PM
I posted the link. The bill states that you wont be able to keep your coverage. That isn't in Soro's plans. You will have government health care and you will pay for it.

Or if you don't want it you'll still have to pay for it.

powerman2000
09-30-2009, 04:44 PM
Which bill?

What are we talking about here? :rolleyes:

grup910
09-30-2009, 04:47 PM
I posted the link. The bill states that you wont be able to keep your coverage. That isn't in Soro's plans. You will have government health care and you will pay for it.

You posted a couple dozen lines out of a 1000 page bill, lol. Pretending that you know what's in the bill because you post a few lines you don't understand isn't going to go very far. :rolleyes:

What right-wing web site is giving you your talking points on the bill?

Btw, since you know so much about the bill, please post the part that discusses the death panels. Oh, you can't? But that's okay -- there is no /guarantee/ in the bill that we won't have them anyway, right?

Lol, so clueless. :D

all pro
09-30-2009, 04:47 PM
Which bill?

All versions, but 3200 is the most likely one that will be passed. They'll just add in the amendments. It doesn't go into effect until 2013 so that Obama will have a chance for re-election. If it went into effect before that he wouldn't have anymore chance of re-election then you would have of pushing snow balls up a wild cat's ass with a hot poker.

nutsy54
09-30-2009, 04:49 PM
+1

Consumer/business health insurance costs have gone up astronomically in the past decade, with insurance corporation profits going up over 400% in that same time.And your answer is to open up "competition" to an organization that is currently over $11 TRILLION in debt, adding around $2 TRILLION more every year? (Please don't refer me to the latest lies about "deficit neutral" - how's that worked out for the past eight months?)

Once again: How is Choice involved, when every single American is being FORCED to do something they may not want to do, under threat of Government punishment if we dare to make the "wrong" decision?

powerman2000
09-30-2009, 04:51 PM
You posted a couple dozen lines out of a 1000 page bill, lol. Pretending that you know what's in the bill because you post a few lines you don't understand isn't going to go very far. :rolleyes:

What right-wing web site is giving you your talking points on the bill?

Btw, since you know so much about the bill, please post the part that discusses the death panels. Oh, you can't? But that's okay -- there is no /guarantee/ in the bill that we won't have them anyway, right?

Lol, so clueless. :D

Here's grup910
http://img365.imageshack.us/img365/9710/s1079384.jpg

Your death panel thing is just a weak strawman.

SDMuscleBuddy
09-30-2009, 04:52 PM
What are we talking about here? :rolleyes:

Actually, this thread is about the public option, which will be added to whichever bill goes to a final vote in each house. It also happens to be the admendment that will have the least impact on the deficit. Nothing in fact compared to what we'll be giving to insurance companies in exchange for insuring everybody. Not having a public option is the only thing that guarantees the insurance companies remain competitive and gives us more choice.

all pro
09-30-2009, 04:53 PM
You posted a couple dozen lines out of a 1000 page bill, lol. Pretending that you know what's in the bill because you post a few lines you don't understand isn't going to go very far. :rolleyes:

What right-wing web site is giving you your talking points on the bill?

Btw, since you know so much about the bill, please post the part that discusses the death panels. Oh, you can't? But that's okay -- there is no /guarantee/ in the bill that we won't have them anyway, right?

Lol, so clueless. :D

I've already proven that I've read more of the bill and understand more of it then you. The only part of it that you've read is what I posted and you only just read it.

There's a lot more than what I'm posting;

19 ??(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the
20 continuum of end-of-life services and supports avail21
able, including palliative care and hospice, and bene22
fits for such services and supports that are available
23 under this title.
VerDate Nov 24 2008 00:08 Jul 15, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00425 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
426
?HR 3200 IH
1 ??(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of
2 orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar
3 orders, which shall include?
4 ??(I) the reasons why the development of
5 such an order is beneficial to the individual and
6 the individual?s family and the reasons why
7 such an order should be updated periodically as
8 the health of the individual changes;
9 ??(II) the information needed for an indi10
vidual or legal surrogate to make informed deci11
sions regarding the completion of such an
12 order; and
13 ??(III) the identification of resources that
14 an individual may use to determine the require15
ments of the State in which such individual re16
sides so that the treatment wishes of that indi17
vidual will be carried out if the individual is un18
able to communicate those wishes, including re19
quirements regarding the designation of a sur20
rogate decisionmaker (also known as a health
21 care proxy).
22 ??(ii) The Secretary shall limit the requirement
23 for explanations under clause (i) to consultations
24 furnished in a State?
VerDate Nov 24 2008 00:08 Jul 15, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00426 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
427
?HR 3200 IH
1 ??(I) in which all legal barriers have been
2 addressed for enabling orders for life sustaining
3 treatment to constitute a set of medical orders
4 respected across all care settings; and
5 ??(II) that has in effect a program for or6
ders for life sustaining treatment described in
7 clause (iii).
8 ??(iii) A program for orders for life sustaining
9 treatment for a States described in this clause is a
10 program that?
11 ??(I) ensures such orders are standardized
12 and uniquely identifiable throughout the State;
13 ??(II) distributes or makes accessible such
14 orders to physicians and other health profes15
sionals that (acting within the scope of the pro16
fessional?s authority under State law) may sign
17 orders for life sustaining treatment;
18 ??(III) provides training for health care
19 professionals across the continuum of care
20 about the goals and use of orders for life sus21
taining treatment; and
22 ??(IV) is guided by a coalition of stake23
holders includes representatives from emergency
24 medical services, emergency department physi25
cians or nurses, state long-term care associa-
VerDate Nov 24 2008 00:08 Jul 15, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00427 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
428
?HR 3200 IH
1 tion, state medical association, state surveyors,
2 agency responsible for senior services, state de3
partment of health, state hospital association,
4 home health association, state bar association,
5 and state hospice association.

grup910
09-30-2009, 04:53 PM
Sorry, that's just the plain facts and why it's being voted down.

If you can't offer a rebuttal that proves what I said is wrong then you should save your breath.

You've already been rebutted.

And the fact is that the reason the current bill got voted down is because smaller more rural states could lose money on medicare reimbursements:

"And, of course, the major reason Conrad, Baucus and the rest of them are against the public option is because they fear the states would not be able to financially keep up with all of this or match the shortfall of the Medicare reimbursement dollars. The rural senators are concerned a public option will bankrupt those hospitals."

Last night's episode of the Ed show addressed all that in detail:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33089660/ns/msnbc_tv-the_ed_show/

nutsy54
09-30-2009, 04:54 PM
That's total bull, just like the imaginary right-wing "death panels" they tried to scare you with. Under the Obama planWHAT plan? Show me the damn legislation that includes all his wonderfully vague, non-existent promises. (PS: Cute little attempt to completely ignore my statements, and throw out your own wildly unrelated red herring instead).

There is no damn Plan. Two years in the Senate, eight months as President, and he can't even point to a freaking bill that actually contains all of his wants/promises/demands for the "Number One Domestic Priority".

And the legislation that does exist will very clearly tax the hell out of anyone who dares to make a decision that Congress disagrees with. Too much? Too little? None? TAX TAX TAX

grup910
09-30-2009, 04:59 PM
WHAT plan? Show me the damn legislation that includes all his wonderfully vague, non-existent promises. (PS: Cute little attempt to completely ignore my statements, and throw out your own wildly unrelated red herring instead).

There is no damn Plan. Two years in the Senate, eight months as President, and he can't even point to a freaking bill that actually contains all of his wants/promises/demands for the "Number One Domestic Priority".

And the legislation that does exist will very clearly tax the hell out of anyone who dares to make a decision that Congress disagrees with. Too much? Too little? None? TAX TAX TAX

The plan that puts an end to bullsh!t like this:


The top 10 health insurance companies in America have collectively posted 428 percent increase in profit during the past decade. That's staggering. That's why we need some government involvement. They've done it by raising your premiums 120 percent on American families, and just rigging the insurance pool by excluding people with pre-existing conditions.


You know - the one that's good for the American people and economy that you're against.

"No damn plan" is the republican plan. More of the same raping of the American consumer so insurance corporations can keep raking in the profits at our expense. And if you get sick, die quickly. That's the republican plan.

SDMuscleBuddy
09-30-2009, 05:01 PM
And your answer is to open up "competition" to an organization that is currently over $11 TRILLION in debt, adding around $2 TRILLION more every year? (Please don't refer me to the latest lies about "deficit neutral" - how's that worked out for the past eight months?)

Once again: How is Choice involved, when every single American is being FORCED to do something they may not want to do, under threat of Government punishment if we dare to make the "wrong" decision?

It seems to me that mandated insurance without a public option is only favorable in the minds of the Republicans. I'm not in favor of mandated insurance. Not the way this bill is going. IMO requiring everyone to have insurance only works with a single-payer system. In that case, it just comes out of the general fund and everyone is automatically covered.

ZenBowman
09-30-2009, 05:03 PM
It seems to me that mandated insurance without a public option is only favorable in the minds of the Republicans. I'm not in favor of mandated insurance. Not the way this bill is going. IMO requiring everyone to have insurance only works with a single-payer system. In that case, it just comes out of the general fund and everyone is automatically covered.

This. I am all for single-payer.

powerman2000
09-30-2009, 05:03 PM
The plan that puts an end to bullsh!t like this:
You know - the one that's good for the American people and economy that you're against.


http://bestsmileys.com/doh/1.gif

grup910
09-30-2009, 05:06 PM
This. I am all for single-payer.

Good luck. The corporations killed that option a long time ago, with the help of people like nutso and powerman here.

Meanwhile, 120 more people died today because they lacked health insurance. More than 44,000 will die for lack of insurance this year. The health insurance corporations and CEOs still made their money, though. 420% increase in profits while people are dying for lack of coverage and being dropped from their policies because the costs are going up way too much for people to keep up with.

That's the kind of country these right wingers like nutso want us to live in. Bow down to corporate profits and die. Funny how they always find the money for war, though. Real nice folks.

nutsy54
09-30-2009, 05:08 PM
The plan that puts an end to bullsh!t like this:

You know - the one that's good for the American people and economy that you're against.Thank you for clearly pointing out that no such plan ACTUALLY EXISTS. Otherwise you would have simply cited the House or Senate Bill number...

How the hell can you support legislation that doesn't exist? How can you possibly continue defending something when you have no idea what the final result will be - and when almost everything we have seen on paper is the opposite of what the President has promised?

But, just continue your endless insults and hate-filled rantings, instead of actually addressing the issues, and the specific questions that have been posed...

powerman2000
09-30-2009, 05:09 PM
Not having a public option is the only thing that guarantees the insurance companies remain competitive and gives us more choice.

http://bestsmileys.com/doh/1.gif

Explain how a public option will make private insurance companies more competitive.

That is one of many things that Obama never explains in detail himself.

The private insurance companies already have to compete with one another.

Thinman
09-30-2009, 05:09 PM
This. I am all for single-payer.

Agreed. As long as the for profit insurance companies are in the picture, reform will never be possible.

ZenBowman
09-30-2009, 05:09 PM
Don't worry. Once it gets bad enough people will revolt. The Constitution works for the people, the people don't work for the Consitution.

As Jesus says, God created the Sabbath for man, not man for the Sabbath. Conservatives seem to have forgotten that.

grup910
09-30-2009, 05:11 PM
Thank you for clearly pointing out that no such plan ACTUALLY EXISTS. Otherwise you would have simply cited the House or Senate Bill number...

How the hell can you support legislation that doesn't exist? Ho can you possibly continue defending something when you have no idea what the final result will be - and when almost everything we have seen on paper is the opposite of what the President has promised?

But, just continue you hate-filled rantings, instead of actually addressing the issues, and the specific questions that have been posed...

Of course it exists. The public option was just voted down yesterday. You should pay more attention instead of filling your head with hate propaganda from the insurance corporations that's killing people.

powerman2000
09-30-2009, 05:11 PM
How can you possibly continue defending something when you have no idea what the final result will be - and when almost everything we have seen on paper is the opposite of what the President has promised?

But, just continue you hate-filled rantings, instead of actually addressing the issues, and the specific questions that have been posed...

He's a naive little girl who believes everything that Obama spoon feeds him.

grup910
09-30-2009, 05:14 PM
He's a naive little girl who believes everything that Obama spoon feeds him.

Says the corporate slave who worships his corporate masters and their profits.

powerman2000
09-30-2009, 05:14 PM
Agreed. As long as the for profit insurance companies are in the picture, reform will never be possible.

Doesn't the government regulate the private insurance industry.

all pro
09-30-2009, 05:17 PM
Doesn't the government regulate the private insurance industry.

If they didn't you would have about SIX THOUSAND plans to choose from. The main impediment to competition is the government.

SDMuscleBuddy
09-30-2009, 05:18 PM
http://bestsmileys.com/doh/1.gif

Explain how a public option will make private insurance companies more competitive.

That is one of many things that Obama never explains in detail himself.

The private insurance companies already have to compete with one another.

They do? Not very hard. Most states have two insurance companies splitting 95% of the business. When there are only two, it doesn't take collusion to work together and set prices. A public option brings a third to the party that is not motivated by profit. The insurance companies will have to spend more per patient on treatment and less on profits and salaries. They will have to be more forthcoming on what patients will have to pay, and they will have to defer more often to doctors to make decisions. And, they'll have to accept new patients with pre-existing conditions. Not doing this will lead to lost market-share, but as long as there's money to be made, and there will always be money in health care, there are going to be companies willing to do what it takes to make it.

powerman2000
09-30-2009, 05:22 PM
They do? Not very hard. Most states have two insurance companies splitting 95% of the business. When there are only two, it doesn't take collusion to work together and set prices. A public option brings a third to the party that is not motivated by profit. The insurance companies will have to spend more per patient on treatment and less on profits and salaries. They will have to be more forthcoming on what patients will have to pay, and they will have to defer more often to doctors to make decisions. And, they'll have to accept new patients with pre-existing conditions. Not doing this will lead to lost market-share, but as long as there's money to be made, and there will always be money in health care, there are going to be companies willing to do what it takes to make it.

What the hell are you talking about. I can choose from dozens of health insurance companies.

Where do you get this, two companies per state nonsense?

You're off your rocker.

The following list of companies offer health insurance plans in Colorado:

Celtic Health Insurance
Anthem Health Insurance
Golden Rule Health Insurance
Humana Health Insurance
Time Insurance Health Insurance
Standard Security Life Health Insurance
World Insurance - Brokerage Health Insurance
ANTEX Health Insurance
John Alden Health Insurance
Kaiser Permanente Colorado Health Insurance
Aetna Health Insurance
WorldIns - ExpressMed Health Insurance
Anthem Senior Health Insurance
UnitedHealthOne Health Insurance
CIGNA Health Insurance
Great American Health Insurance
MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company


Gee, that looks like plenty of competition to me.

nutsy54
09-30-2009, 05:22 PM
Of course it exists. The public option was just voted down yesterday. You should pay more attention instead of filling your head with hate propaganda from the insurance corporations that's killing people.Then, once again...

WHAT legislation actually contains all of Obama's promises? Which one represents his "Plan" that you so consistently reference? Hell, all you just proved in that first statement is that his endless promise/demand of a public option doesn't exist.

Maybe if you put more effort into answering that simple question, you wouldn't need to constantly think up more of your absurd and baseless insults at the end of every post.

all pro
09-30-2009, 05:25 PM
Doesn't the government regulate the private insurance industry.


If they didn't you would have about SIX THOUSAND plans to choose from. The main impediment to competition is the government.


They do? Not very hard. Most states have two insurance companies splitting 95% of the business. When there are only two, it doesn't take collusion to work together and set prices. A public option brings a third to the party that is not motivated by profit. The insurance companies will have to spend more per patient on treatment and less on profits and salaries. They will have to be more forthcoming on what patients will have to pay, and they will have to defer more often to doctors to make decisions. And, they'll have to accept new patients with pre-existing conditions. Not doing this will lead to lost market-share, but as long as there's money to be made, and there will always be money in health care, there are going to be companies willing to do what it takes to make it.


What the hell are you talking about. I can choose from dozens of health insurance companies.

Where do you get this, two companies per state nonsense?

You're off your rocker.

One more time, the lack of competition is due to government regulation.

SDMuscleBuddy
09-30-2009, 05:26 PM
Of course it exists. The public option was just voted down yesterday. You should pay more attention instead of filling your head with hate propaganda from the insurance corporations that's killing people.

Slight correction, only the public option amendments proposed for the Baucus bill were voted down. It's not out of the picture yet. Besides, the Baucus bill has little chance of going to a vote.

And this is the point: There is no bill, yet, but this is the process of legislation. Something of this magnatude is debated in bits and pieces and we're adding or subtracting language until we have a fully developed bill.

At that point, congress, the president, and we will have 72 hours to read it before it goes to a vote. By then, all members should have read it or most of it's 1500 pages or so as it has gone through this process, so it's not as daunting as it sounds.

Thinman
09-30-2009, 05:36 PM
What the hell are you talking about. I can choose from dozens of health insurance companies.

Where do you get this, two companies per state nonsense?

You're off your rocker.

The following list of companies offer health insurance plans in Colorado:

Celtic Health Insurance
Anthem Health Insurance
Golden Rule Health Insurance
Humana Health Insurance
Time Insurance Health Insurance
Standard Security Life Health Insurance
World Insurance - Brokerage Health Insurance
ANTEX Health Insurance
John Alden Health Insurance
Kaiser Permanente Colorado Health Insurance
Aetna Health Insurance
WorldIns - ExpressMed Health Insurance
Anthem Senior Health Insurance
UnitedHealthOne Health Insurance
CIGNA Health Insurance
Great American Health Insurance
MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company


Gee, that looks like plenty of competition to me.

Competition for the young and healthy. Try getting a individual policy at any of these companies, if you have any type of health condition, disabled or are elderly. You might be able to get a policy, but the cost would be so high that most people wouldn't be able to afford it.

powerman2000
09-30-2009, 05:39 PM
Slight correction, only the public option amendments proposed for the Baucus bill were voted down. It's not out of the picture yet. Besides, the Baucus bill has little chance of going to a vote.

And this is the point: There is no bill, yet, but this is the process of legislation. Something of this magnatude is debated in bits and pieces and we're adding or subtracting language until we have a fully developed bill.

At that point, congress, the president, and we will have 72 hours to read it before it goes to a vote. By then, all members should have read it or most of it's 1500 pages or so as it has gone through this process, so it's not as daunting as it sounds.

Slight correction? http://bestsmileys.com/lol/1.gif

Then why would Baucus consider the vote a victory?

You'd better go back to the OP and read it again.


The two votes marked a victory for Montana Democrat Max Baucus,

Baucus does not have a public option in his proposal.

all pro
09-30-2009, 05:43 PM
Clinton health care plan of 1993

In 2004, as a U.S. senator from New York, Hillary Clinton argued in the The New York Times that the current health care system is unsustainable, and she offered several solutions.[27] Her article also mentioned areas of agreement with one-time opponent Newt Gingrich, and likewise Gingrich has expressed agreement with Senator Clinton on some aspects of health care, including a bill to modernize medical record keeping.[28][29]

In 2005, referring to her previous efforts at health care reform, Hillary Clinton said "I learned some valuable lessons about the legislative process, the importance of bipartisan cooperation and the wisdom of taking small steps to get a big job done." [25] Again in 2007, she reflected on her role in 1993-1994: "I think that both the process and the plan were flawed. We were trying to do something that was very hard to do, and we made a lot of mistakes."[30]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan_of_1993

SDMuscleBuddy
09-30-2009, 05:43 PM
What the hell are you talking about. I can choose from dozens of health insurance companies.

Where do you get this, two companies per state nonsense?

You're off your rocker.

The following list of companies offer health insurance plans in Colorado:

Celtic Health Insurance
Anthem Health Insurance
Golden Rule Health Insurance
Humana Health Insurance
Time Insurance Health Insurance
Standard Security Life Health Insurance
World Insurance - Brokerage Health Insurance
ANTEX Health Insurance
John Alden Health Insurance
Kaiser Permanente Colorado Health Insurance
Aetna Health Insurance
WorldIns - ExpressMed Health Insurance
Anthem Senior Health Insurance
UnitedHealthOne Health Insurance
CIGNA Health Insurance
Great American Health Insurance
MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company


Gee, that looks like plenty of competition to me.

Colorado is one of the better states. Maybe we should look at what they're doing. You have 44 carriers and the top five only get 57.9% of the business, so there apparently is good competition there. In Alabama, they're not so lucky. Ten carriers with one controlling 87% of the market; or North Dakota where one carrier out of twelve controls 88.8%.

powerman2000
09-30-2009, 05:51 PM
Colorado is one of the better states. Maybe we should look at what they're doing. You have 44 carriers and the top five only get 57.9% of the business, so there apparently is good competition there. In Alabama, they're not so lucky. Ten carriers with one controlling 87% of the market; or North Dakota where one carrier out of twelve controls 88.8%.

I think you make up most of the schit as you go in this thread.

SDMuscleBuddy
09-30-2009, 05:53 PM
Slight correction? http://bestsmileys.com/lol/1.gif

Then why would Baucus consider the vote a victory?

You'd better go back to the OP and read it again.



Baucus does not have a public option in his proposal.

Correct. Baucus, clearly a corporatist, never wanted the public option which is why it wasn't in his bill, and why he's happy the amendments failed. Again, the point is that this doesn't put the public option out to pasture.

SDMuscleBuddy
09-30-2009, 05:54 PM
I think you make up most of the schit as you go in this thread.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02536r.pdf

reyalp
09-30-2009, 05:56 PM
Thank you for clearly pointing out that no such plan ACTUALLY EXISTS. Otherwise you would have simply cited the House or Senate Bill number...

How the hell can you support legislation that doesn't exist? How can you possibly continue defending something when you have no idea what the final result will be - and when almost everything we have seen on paper is the opposite of what the President has promised?

But, just continue your endless insults and hate-filled rantings, instead of actually addressing the issues, and the specific questions that have been posed...

In the case of the Waxman Markley bill, grup910 asserts that the Senators and Congressmen have read it and are well versed in it...

...even though it has blank pages.

Just letting you know who you're dealing with there.

powerman2000
09-30-2009, 06:00 PM
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02536r.pdf

You do realize that you just succeeded that discrediting yourself when you said in a previous post that states only have 2 insurance companies and the public option would allow for a 3rd competitor.

SDMuscleBuddy
09-30-2009, 06:03 PM
In the case of the Waxman Markley bill, grup910 asserts that the Senators and Congressmen have read it and are well versed in it...

...even though it has blank pages.

Just letting you know who you're dealing with there.

What do you mean by blank pages? You mean they voted on a bill that wasn't ready yet? I've just scanned the thing and didn't find any blank pages.

http://www.govtrack.us/data/us/bills.text/111/h/h2454pcs.pdf

(Long download on slow connections.)

tts0lid
09-30-2009, 06:03 PM
81% of Democrat Voters support it.

19M in Insurance Indudstry money to the 5 dems who voted against it doesn't.

Guess who wins? The best 19 million that industry ever spent.

SDMuscleBuddy
09-30-2009, 06:04 PM
You do realize that you just succeeded that discrediting yourself when you said in a previous post that states only have 2 insurance companies and the public option would allow for a 3rd competitor.

Not quite. I said that there were states where two companies controlled more than 90% of the business, and this is very true. I suppose I should have said a public option brings a third viable competitor.

Havawk
09-30-2009, 06:07 PM
That's total bull, just like the imaginary right-wing "death panels" they tried to scare you with. Under the Obama plan, if you like the insurance you have, YOU KEEP IT. No one forces you to do anything. And no one drops you from your insurance merely at the whim of some corporate insurance industry bean counter. Oh yeah, that's such a bad thing: preventing insurance corporations from dropping people from their rolls. :rolleyes:

And if you don't have insurance, the plan provides multiple options to help you get it so you don't end up costing us way more later, when you have to go to the ER with no coverage.

Are you too challenged to understand that, or just too brainwashed by your right wing masters to have a clue? :rolleyes:
Except pay into it whether you want to use it or not....

SDMuscleBuddy
09-30-2009, 06:11 PM
Except pay into it whether you want to use it or not....

That's true. Whatever bill gets sent to Obama, it will probably require everyone pay for insurance or pay a fine. Without the public option, this is nothing more than Christmas for the insurance companies. Even with the public option, those bastards are still going to make out.

reyalp
09-30-2009, 06:31 PM
What do you mean by blank pages? You mean they voted on a bill that wasn't ready yet? I've just scanned the thing and didn't find any blank pages.

http://www.govtrack.us/data/us/bills.text/111/h/h2454pcs.pdf

(Long download on slow connections.)

http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2009/09/waxmanmarkeys_senate_sibling_m.shtml

They're just now releasing the finished version of the bill to be voted on.

SDMuscleBuddy
09-30-2009, 06:34 PM
http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2009/09/waxmanmarkeys_senate_sibling_m.shtml

They're just now releasing the finished version of the bill to be voted on.

OK. I get the point. There isn't one.

powerman2000
09-30-2009, 06:36 PM
Not quite. I said that there were states where two companies controlled more than 90% of the business, and this is very true. I suppose I should have said a public option brings a third viable competitor.

Most states do not have only 2 companies getting 95% of the business. And your post is misleading, like Obama, because no state has only 2 companies. If a state with 12 companies has 1 company getting 88% of all the business, it's still a free market competition and adding a public option does little to enhance that. It only opens the door to government mandates and control that will lessen healthcare quality and do nothing to reduce anyone's costs.

reyalp
09-30-2009, 06:41 PM
OK. I get the point. There isn't one.

Sharp as a brick.

SDMuscleBuddy
09-30-2009, 07:16 PM
Most states do not have only 2 companies getting 95% of the business. And your post is misleading, like Obama, because no state has only 2 companies. If a state with 12 companies has 1 company getting 88% of all the business, it's still a free market competition and adding a public option does little to enhance that. It only opens the door to government mandates and control that will lessen healthcare quality and do nothing to reduce anyone's costs.

OK. I'll admit it. I was parrotting something I heard which turned out to be an exaggeration, and I repeated it without proper fact-checking. My apologies. The point is that a public option will add new competition to the market, and a competitor that is not putting profits ahead of business has got to be a benefit to consumers. The mandates are there in the bills whether there's a public option or not. If I am going to be forced to have insurance, which I'm not happy about, I demand a non-profit option. I can choose non-profit banks, grocery stores, even non-profit medical centers. Millions of Americans and I want non-profit health insurance now too.

SDMuscleBuddy
09-30-2009, 07:18 PM
Sharp as a brick.

Oh I get the point. You were trying to create an ad hominem against someone else, and failed. It was stupid to even try.

Melkor
09-30-2009, 07:24 PM
Colorado is one of the better states. Maybe we should look at what they're doing. You have 44 carriers and the top five only get 57.9% of the business, so there apparently is good competition there. In Alabama, they're not so lucky. Ten carriers with one controlling 87% of the market; or North Dakota where one carrier out of twelve controls 88.8%.

The problem with your argument is that government almost exclusively causes monopolies. Without regulation those states would open up to FAR more competition bro.

SDMuscleBuddy
09-30-2009, 07:31 PM
The problem with your argument is that government almost exclusively causes monopolies. Without regulation those states would open up to FAR more competition bro.

Maybe, but I doubt it. Look at what happened to AT&T. They broke that up, and opened the market to everyone. At first there were hundreds of phone companies competing for business in addition to the handful of "Baby Bells". Over time, less than twenty years, that has been reduced to something like six companies, like most industries. Is there really a choice between AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint. Do you think we benefit from competition between them? I think in some ways it would be better to give a monopoly to the lowest bidder that meets the requirements, like the old days.

Still, for many of us, profiting from people getting sick is not right. Immoral even. Anything we can do to cut into their profits is a good thing. If you don't feel this way, you'll always have other options.

Again, if the public option sucks, then the insurance companies have nothing to worry about. If it's great, then what's the problem?

Melkor
09-30-2009, 07:44 PM
Maybe, but I doubt it. Look at what happened to AT&T. They broke that up, and opened the market to everyone. At first there were hundreds of phone companies competing for business in addition to the handful of "Baby Bells". Over time, less than twenty years, that has been reduced to something like six companies, like most industries. Is there really a choice between AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint. Do you think we benefit from competition between them? I think in some ways it would be better to give a monopoly to the lowest bidder that meets the requirements, like the old days.

Still, for many of us, profiting from people getting sick is not right. Immoral even. Anything we can do to cut into their profits is a good thing. If you don't feel this way, you'll always have other options.

Again, if the public option sucks, then the insurance companies have nothing to worry about. If it's great, then what's the problem?

AT&T was a monopoly thanks to Mr. Gubmint. There is currently a huge amount of competition in the phone industry, many of which are smaller local companies. I can choose from probably 10 in my area, not including cell phones.

People profiting from people getting sick is no more immoral than people profiting from people getting hungry and buying food, or getting cold and buying a home, or getting naked and buying clothes, or a huge number of similar examples. Profit motive has been responsible for a VAST array of beneficial treatment and technology advancements, and there is nothing wrong with people expecting an income for treating others sicknesses. The key is merely making sure that people are able to access health care if they have some circumstance that doesn't allow them to pay for it, and that would be the variety of charities imo. If we could get health care costs to a realistic range they would be able to cover anyone that couldn't cover themselves.

I don't understand why, all of a sudden, health care is a right. Housing isn't a right, clothing isn't a right, there are all kinds of comparable needs that are not rights, why would health care be a right?

Melkor
09-30-2009, 07:46 PM
Again, if the public option sucks, then the insurance companies have nothing to worry about. If it's great, then what's the problem?

If it sucks we will be dumping trillions into a hole, if it doesn't we will all end up on Medicaid.

SDMuscleBuddy
09-30-2009, 07:57 PM
AT&T was a monopoly thanks to Mr. Gubmint. There is currently a huge amount of competition in the phone industry, many of which are smaller local companies. I can choose from probably 10 in my area, not including cell phones.

People profiting from people getting sick is no more immoral than people profiting from people getting hungry and buying food, or getting cold and buying a home, or getting naked and buying clothes, or a huge number of similar examples. Profit motive has been responsible for a VAST array of beneficial treatment and technology advancements, and there is nothing wrong with people expecting an income for treating others sicknesses. The key is merely making sure that people are able to access health care if they have some circumstance that doesn't allow them to pay for it, and that would be the variety of charities imo. If we could get health care costs to a realistic range they would be able to cover anyone that couldn't cover themselves.

I don't understand why, all of a sudden, health care is a right. Housing isn't a right, clothing isn't a right, there are all kinds of comparable needs that are not rights, why would health care be a right?

Health insurance companies don't treat illness. Nobody said people who treat illness shouldn't get paid to do what they do. All health insurance companies do is hold on to your money until someone needs it to pay a medical bill, then it is their job to pay as little of that bill as they can, keeping the rest as profit. Significantly more profit than a simple transaction fee, which when you get down to it is all that it is. In addition to this, each insurer has their own set of rules and schedules of fees, and health care facilities have to pay entire staffs to handle the paperwork and negotiate with insurance companies. A single-payer system would eliminate all of this but that's not going to happen any time soon.

I don't want to have to live with this model. Not on something that is a necessity. Whether you consider it a right or not, health insurance is indeed a necessity, especially if we are to be forced to have it. If that is the case, I want a non-profit option. Millions of Americans do. How can you possibly object to this?

Melkor
09-30-2009, 07:58 PM
Health insurance companies don't treat illness. Nobody said people who treat illness shouldn't get paid to do what they do. All health insurance companies do is hold on to your money until someone needs it to pay a medical bill, then it is their job to pay as little of that bill as they can, keeping the rest as profit. Significantly more profit than a simple transaction fee, which when you get down to it is all that it is. In addition to this, each insurer has their own set of rules and schedules of fees, and health care facilities have to pay entire staffs to handle the paperwork and negotiate with insurance companies. A single-payer system would eliminate all of this but that's not going to happen any time soon.

I don't want to have to live with this model. Not on something that is a necessity. Whether you consider it a right or not, health insurance is indeed a necessity, especially if we are to be forced to have it. If that is the case, I want a non-profit option. Millions of Americans do. How can you possibly object to this?

My wife just went through neurosurgery that saved her life. I could not have afforded it had I not had insurance. How is that wrong?

How is it any more wrong than a doctor providing care, and charging for it?

SDMuscleBuddy
09-30-2009, 08:06 PM
If it sucks we will be dumping trillions into a hole, if it doesn't we will all end up on Medicaid.

I don't agree on the former and I don't disagree on the latter. The key will be to get as many people paying into it as possible.

SDMuscleBuddy
09-30-2009, 08:20 PM
My wife just went through neurosurgery that saved her life. I could not have afforded it had I not had insurance. How is that wrong?

How is it any more wrong than a doctor providing care, and charging for it?

If you wish to buy insurance from a for-profit company, you should. There may be a lot of advantages for you to do so, and there will always be that option, even if we do create a single-payer system. One disadvantage is that a lot of what we pay every month goes to the company's profits, and that is one place that we can cut costs to create a less expensive option and make it possible to put more Americans in the "Insured" column. If they are going to be taking money out of the general fund to pay for some of these currently uninsured people, and that is pretty much a foregone conclusion at this point, at least we can do it without the middleman.

Hope all is well with your wife.

Melkor
09-30-2009, 08:27 PM
If you wish to buy insurance from a for-profit company, you should. There may be a lot of advantages for you to do so, and there will always be that option, even if we do create a single-payer system. One disadvantage is that a lot of what we pay every month goes to the company's profits, and that is one place that we can cut costs to create a less expensive option and make it possible to put more Americans in the "Insured" column. If they are going to be taking money out of the general fund to pay for some of these currently uninsured people, and that is pretty much a foregone conclusion at this point, at least we can do it without the middleman.

Hope all is well with your wife.

She's doing great, thanks.

The thing is, health insurance CAN work. It's just a matter of finding the things that are broken with it and fixing them. Many of them are caused by the government. For example, linking insurance to employment is caused by tax law. Huge portions of the cost are caused by government regulations causing insurance companies to have to have headquarters in every state they operate in, instead of being able to create economy of scale by competing in each state using one set of overhead costs. There are lots of other ways as well.

The other part of this argument that is so often left out of the equation is that people have a responsibility for their own health. In Utah health care costs are about 33% below the national average. We have very low drinking, smoking, and drug rates, as well as various other things. Imagine if health care costs were cut by 33% across the nation. problem solved, right there. It's not intelligent or rational to place the entire onus on the insurance companies, do you agree?

SDMuscleBuddy
09-30-2009, 08:35 PM
She's doing great, thanks.

The thing is, health insurance CAN work. It's just a matter of finding the things that are broken with it and fixing them. Many of them are caused by the government. For example, linking insurance to employment is caused by tax law. Huge portions of the cost are caused by government regulations causing insurance companies to have to have headquarters in every state they operate in, instead of being able to create economy of scale by competing in each state using one set of overhead costs. There are lots of other ways as well.

The other part of this argument that is so often left out of the equation is that people have a responsibility for their own health. In Utah health care costs are about 33% below the national average. We have very low drinking, smoking, and drug rates, as well as various other things. Imagine if health care costs were cut by 33% across the nation. problem solved, right there. It's not intelligent or rational to place the entire onus on the insurance companies, do you agree?

Of course I agree, but the thread is about the public option, which incidentally would benefit equally by a higher rate of customers who have healthy lifestyles. I don't know that you can coerce people to always do the right things with their health, but if you have ideas I'm all ears. I think maybe showing improvement from physical to physical should result in lower premiums. I can also see where allowing companies to work across state lines can reduce the overhead of the insurance company, but will that result in lower premiums? Will it not result in contraction within the industry?

But yes, since insurance company profits are around 33%, I can indeed imagine cutting health care costs by that much.

By the way, having insurance companies working across state lines is exactly what you don't want. Do you want to be in the same risk-pool as people from, say, Mississippi? Your premiums would go up.

Melkor
09-30-2009, 08:41 PM
Of course I agree, but the thread is about the public option, which incidentally would benefit equally by a higher rate of customers who have healthy lifestyles. I don't know that you can coerce people to always do the right things with their health, but if you have ideas I'm all ears. I think maybe showing improvement from physical to physical should result in lower premiums. I can also see where allowing companies to work across state lines can reduce the overhead of the insurance company, but will that result in lower premiums? Will it not result in contraction within the industry?

But yes, since insurance company profits are around 33%, I can indeed imagine cutting health care costs by that much.

By the way, having insurance companies working across state lines is exactly what you don't want. Do you want to be in the same risk-pool as people from, say, Mississippi? Your premiums would go up.

Linking health care cost to individual health is the key part of getting people to accept responsibility for their own health bro. If I know I have to pay more for my insurance policy if I'm obese, a smoker, drink excessively etc, then I will take that decision more seriously. If I know someone else pays the cost, why would I care? That's where the public option comes in. It is the concept of saying "you pay for it!" It won't work, because there is no cost for the individual with unlimited access to care. I can drink myself sick daily and have no economic cost to me. I can get obese, get diabetes and cost the system hundreds of thousands with very little cost to myself. That type of system is destined to fail.

Utah has excellent insurance, and yet we are about 33% lower than the national average. It can clearly be done within the current system.

Melkor
09-30-2009, 08:43 PM
By the way, having insurance companies working across state lines is exactly what you don't want. Do you want to be in the same risk-pool as people from, say, Mississippi? Your premiums would go up.

My premiums won't go up, because I'm not in a similar risk pool. I don't drink, smoke, do drugs, I'm not overweight, I exercise daily, etc etc. If the government allowed it, I would pay much less than average for my insurance.

SDMuscleBuddy
09-30-2009, 09:12 PM
Linking health care cost to individual health is the key part of getting people to accept responsibility for their own health bro. If I know I have to pay more for my insurance policy if I'm obese, a smoker, drink excessively etc, then I will take that decision more seriously. If I know someone else pays the cost, why would I care? That's where the public option comes in. It is the concept of saying "you pay for it!" It won't work, because there is no cost for the individual with unlimited access to care. I can drink myself sick daily and have no economic cost to me. I can get obese, get diabetes and cost the system hundreds of thousands with very little cost to myself. That type of system is destined to fail.

Utah has excellent insurance, and yet we are about 33% lower than the national average. It can clearly be done within the current system.

These things don't change between public and private insurance. Somebody healthier than you is paying your medical bills. That's how it works.

Now, are you thinking that if there is a public option that it will be one risk pool? Because I don't think that is necessarily the case. I believe they will be using the same tables and formulae as private insurers. At least that's how I interpreted the Schumer amendment.

ElMariachi
10-01-2009, 01:03 AM
The Baucus plan would probably be a lot worse, if that is possible.



lol.......I agree. I've been arm in arm with my openly Communist buddies when it comes to the idiotic monstrosity that Baucus has been pushing. Instead of finding a happy middle, his plan basically hands over even more control to the private insurance industry and leaves the individual screwed 5 times over.

Insane Clown
10-01-2009, 02:20 AM
These things don't change between public and private insurance. Somebody healthier than you is paying your medical bills. That's how it works. This times a billion!

Do people actually think that we can avoid paying for eachother's health in one way or another? You can't avoid it, it comes part and parcel with living in a society!

Current health insurance practices are really socialist in nature... you collect everybody's money into a pot and then dole it to whoever 'needs' it most. Socialism in action... only this time the guy who holds onto the money gets to take third of it himself for holding on the money for you.

But wait, I can opt out of that system, right? I don't have to pay for someone else's health care if I choose not to get insurance, right? Wrong! The health care of uninsured Americans currently costs taxpayers and private corporations about $125 billion a year... and of course, this only considers the direct, easy to measure to cost.

In reality, the cost to the country is doubtless billions upon billions more in lost hours of work productivity, increased crime rate, homelessness, and the list goes on and on.


The plain and simple truth is that whether you like it or not, you are paying a price for the health of your fellow citizens. A public option merely means that you are doing so consciously, in a more directed, positive fashion.

reyalp
10-01-2009, 03:57 AM
Oh I get the point. You were trying to create an ad hominem against someone else, and failed. It was stupid to even try.

Keep defending your dad, grupjr. He's the one asserting that Congress doesn't need to even see the bill before voting on it.

SkinnyDip
10-01-2009, 06:17 AM
+1

Consumer/business health insurance costs have gone up astronomically in the past decade, with insurance corporation profits going up over 400% in that same time.

Why do they need to make so much profit in the face of so much sickness, suffering, death, people getting dropped from insurance just so the corporations can make more money, and people being denied for "pre-existing conditions" just so the corporations can make more money?

Oh yeah - because people like nutso fight against the people of the US and support politicians who want to benefit the corporations instead of the people.

Rep. Grayson had it right today: the republican plan is A) don't get sick, or B) if you do, die quickly. That's all they've got. Finally, someone with the guts to expose these republicans and dinos for what they are: greedy b4stards who care more about corporate profits than the health and well-being of their fellow citizens. Pretty pathetic.


First off, the republican plan that has been offered isn't anything close to don't get sick or die quickly. You're marginalizing any credibility by saying an elected group of officials would give such a ridiculous answer.

The most sensible plan is to implement tort reform, which will directly lower costs by allowing doctors not to have to preform unnecessary tests. Also, allow insurance to be sold across state lines, which will allow for more competition. Next, give tax credits to instead of taxing people, how does it make sense to take more money out of the system? They've also suggested having HSA's to help with people that are more responsible with money. Allowing them to choose who they would like to visit and keep money in a tax free account specifically for health care.

Health care is too expensive? How about not include illegal immigrants into the bill? That takes 8-10 million out of the pool right there.

Problem is that people don't understand the hardships of life anymore, that every time the need something to look toward government. If health care is important to someone they can fore go cable TV, IPhones, internet.

You talk about greed, but do you have a job? If so, do you take a paycheck home? That's greedy. You shouldn't get paid for your labor or your knowledge. It takes studying and time to become a doctor or a nurse, it also costs a lot of money. Why don't they deserve to get paid for their knowledge or hard work towards accomplishing a degree?


All in all your argument is moot. It has absolutely no substance. It is based on an ideology that we are all share the same intentions on bettering ourselves daily, taking care of our responsibilities, and prioritizing the most important issues in our lives. Which I consider having some sort of insurance to be one of them.

It is tough to fathom people believe the government is going to take the same amount of money that funds Medicare/Medicaid and add 20 million people and give better and quicker service. It is impossible. Take five dollars and feed two people tonight, then take five dollars and feed 100 tomorrow and tell me if the food is the same quality as it was for two.

SkinnyDip
10-01-2009, 06:20 AM
That's total bull, just like the imaginary right-wing "death panels" they tried to scare you with. Under the Obama plan, if you like the insurance you have, YOU KEEP IT. No one forces you to do anything. And no one drops you from your insurance merely at the whim of some corporate insurance industry bean counter. Oh yeah, that's such a bad thing: preventing insurance corporations from dropping people from their rolls. :rolleyes:

And if you don't have insurance, the plan provides multiple options to help you get it so you don't end up costing us way more later, when you have to go to the ER with no coverage.

Are you too challenged to understand that, or just too brainwashed by your right wing masters to have a clue? :rolleyes:

Under the Obama plan you only keep your health insurance as long as you stick to the current plan you're under. Many americans are under an employee plan. Meaning, once you quit or lose you job, you are forced to go to the public option. That doesn't sound like choice to me. If you chose not to have insurance, you get penalized with upto 25k fine and/or 1 year in jail. Furthermore, your company can enroll employees to from their plan to the government option anywhere from 750-1000 dollars per employee.

thepointman
10-01-2009, 06:28 AM
Under the Obama plan you only keep your health insurance as long as you stick to the current plan you're under. Many americans are under an employee plan. Meaning, once you quit or lose you job, you are forced to go to the public option. That doesn't sound like choice to me. If you chose not to have insurance, you get penalized with upto 25k fine and/or 1 year in jail. Furthermore, your company can enroll employees to from their plan to the government option anywhere from 750-1000 dollars per employee.

Except that you can also buy private insurance if you'd like (and get ass****ed nicely).

Can I ask what options you have now if you lose your job? Oh yeah. Get ass****ed without any option.

SDMuscleBuddy
10-01-2009, 07:28 AM
First off, the republican plan that has been offered isn't anything close to don't get sick or die quickly. You're marginalizing any credibility by saying an elected group of officials would give such a ridiculous answer.

The most sensible plan is to implement tort reform, which will directly lower costs by allowing doctors not to have to preform unnecessary tests. Also, allow insurance to be sold across state lines, which will allow for more competition. Next, give tax credits to instead of taxing people, how does it make sense to take more money out of the system? They've also suggested having HSA's to help with people that are more responsible with money. Allowing them to choose who they would like to visit and keep money in a tax free account specifically for health care.

Health care is too expensive? How about not include illegal immigrants into the bill? That takes 8-10 million out of the pool right there.

Problem is that people don't understand the hardships of life anymore, that every time the need something to look toward government. If health care is important to someone they can fore go cable TV, IPhones, internet.

You talk about greed, but do you have a job? If so, do you take a paycheck home? That's greedy. You shouldn't get paid for your labor or your knowledge. It takes studying and time to become a doctor or a nurse, it also costs a lot of money. Why don't they deserve to get paid for their knowledge or hard work towards accomplishing a degree?


All in all your argument is moot. It has absolutely no substance. It is based on an ideology that we are all share the same intentions on bettering ourselves daily, taking care of our responsibilities, and prioritizing the most important issues in our lives. Which I consider having some sort of insurance to be one of them.

It is tough to fathom people believe the government is going to take the same amount of money that funds Medicare/Medicaid and add 20 million people and give better and quicker service. It is impossible. Take five dollars and feed two people tonight, then take five dollars and feed 100 tomorrow and tell me if the food is the same quality as it was for two.

Typical of Republicans to suggest HSA's and Tort Reform as their pet solutions to the health care problem. HSA's do nothing to reduce cost of health care, and in fact will increase costs to those without the resources to have an HSA. Besides, those with the resources can open up a savings account now and use that instead of insurance. Tort reform, which has no place in a health care reform bill, will also do little to lower costs and only provides a benefit to insurance companies. Do your research. The cost of malpractice, including malpractice insurance, legal fees, and settlements, only account for a couple percentage points of the total cost of health care for the country. The CBO estimated that tort reform, would lower malpractice insurance premiums about 25-35%, or about .5% of the total cost of health care.

reyalp
10-01-2009, 07:46 AM
Typical of Republicans to suggest HSA's and Tort Reform as their pet solutions to the health care problem. HSA's do nothing to reduce cost of health care, and in fact will increase costs to those without the resources to have an HSA. Besides, those with the resources can open up a savings account now and use that instead of insurance. Tort reform, which has no place in a health care reform bill, will also do little to lower costs and only provides a benefit to insurance companies. Do your research. The cost of malpractice, including malpractice insurance, legal fees, and settlements, only account for a couple percentage points of the total cost of health care for the country. The CBO estimated that tort reform, would lower malpractice insurance premiums about 25-35%, or about .5% of the total cost of health care.
I see you cited all your research.

SDMuscleBuddy
10-01-2009, 08:04 AM
I see you cited all your research.

This isn't a term paper. If you don't trust the numbers you see, you should confirm them yourself. Besides, you obviously disagree with me. Why would you even trust my sources? In fact, you should confirm everything, even if you trust the source. Can't you do your own research?

Still, here is the report I referenced above:


And based on its own research on the effects of tort restrictions, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the provisions of the Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of 2003 (H.R. 5) would lower premiums nationwide by an average of 25 percent to 30 percent from the levels likely to occur under current law. (The savings in each state would depend in part on the restrictions already in effect there.)

Savings of that magnitude would not have a significant impact on total health care costs, however. Malpractice costs amounted to an estimated $24 billion in 2002, but that figure represents less than 2 percent of overall health care spending. Thus, even a reduction of 25 percent to 30 percent in malpractice costs would lower health care costs by only about 0.4 percent to 0.5 percent, and the likely effect on health insurance premiums would be comparably small.

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4968&type=0

grup910
10-01-2009, 08:10 AM
Under the Obama plan you only keep your health insurance as long as you stick to the current plan you're under. Many americans are under an employee plan. Meaning, once you quit or lose you job, you are forced to go to the public option. That doesn't sound like choice to me. If you chose not to have insurance, you get penalized with upto 25k fine and/or 1 year in jail. Furthermore, your company can enroll employees to from their plan to the government option anywhere from 750-1000 dollars per employee.

You should be penalized. If you get sick with no insurance and have to get medical treatment that you can't pay for, MY costs go up.

Scr3w you. Take responsibility for yourself instead of expecting everyone else to pick up your tab for you.

Havawk
10-01-2009, 08:28 AM
You should be penalized. If you get sick with no insurance and have to get medical treatment that you can't pay for, MY costs go up.

Scr3w you. Take responsibility for yourself instead of expecting everyone else to pick up your tab for you.
Irony lulz.

reyalp
10-01-2009, 08:41 AM
This isn't a term paper. If you don't trust the numbers you see, you should confirm them yourself. Besides, you obviously disagree with me. Why would you even trust my sources? In fact, you should confirm everything, even if you trust the source. Can't you do your own research?

Still, here is the report I referenced above:

My point was that if you're going to reference a CBO report or another statistic, link to it. It's not that hard to copy/paste, and you've obviously already looked at it recently to be posting the exact statistics in the thread.

SkinnyDip
10-01-2009, 02:34 PM
Typical of Republicans to suggest HSA's and Tort Reform as their pet solutions to the health care problem. HSA's do nothing to reduce cost of health care, and in fact will increase costs to those without the resources to have an HSA. Besides, those with the resources can open up a savings account now and use that instead of insurance. Tort reform, which has no place in a health care reform bill, will also do little to lower costs and only provides a benefit to insurance companies. Do your research. The cost of malpractice, including malpractice insurance, legal fees, and settlements, only account for a couple percentage points of the total cost of health care for the country. The CBO estimated that tort reform, would lower malpractice insurance premiums about 25-35%, or about .5% of the total cost of health care.


I thought the purpose was to lower costs? That would lower cost, yet isn't included in a bill about reforming healthcare, yet tax funded abortions and covering illegal immigrants is. Don't you see the irony. The latter of the two will raise cost, but if doctors aren't paying as much in premiums for their insurance, they can cut their cost. That is what the purpose is of tort reform, lowering costs to doctors to pass it on to the consumer.

HSA's don't lower the cost, what they do is allow people to put money into an account like an IRA and use it at whatever company they would like. This increases competition, one of Obama's desires in Health care reform. Once a consumer isn't forced to go to certain doctors and are using their own money, they seek out value based purchase. Value is quality and price in this instance.

These both lower cost by forcing the HC industry to become more competitive, they really can't do it all on service, therefore prices get slashed. Do you not under stand economics?

In those two paragraphs I effectively lowered costs and increased competition.

SDMuscleBuddy
10-01-2009, 03:03 PM
I thought the purpose was to lower costs? That would lower cost, yet isn't included in a bill about reforming healthcare, yet tax funded abortions and covering illegal immigrants is. Don't you see the irony. The latter of the two will raise cost, but if doctors aren't paying as much in premiums for their insurance, they can cut their cost. That is what the purpose is of tort reform, lowering costs to doctors to pass it on to the consumer.

HSA's don't lower the cost, what they do is allow people to put money into an account like an IRA and use it at whatever company they would like. This increases competition, one of Obama's desires in Health care reform. Once a consumer isn't forced to go to certain doctors and are using their own money, they seek out value based purchase. Value is quality and price in this instance.

These both lower cost by forcing the HC industry to become more competitive, they really can't do it all on service, therefore prices get slashed. Do you not under stand economics?

In those two paragraphs I effectively lowered costs and increased competition.

It's common to confuse treating illegals and others without ability to pay with offering health insurance to illegals. We are never going to stop treating people who walk into an ER, even if they are here illegally. It is not the job of doctors and hospitals to enforce immigration law. Opening up insurance to illegals, however, adds more dollars to the plus side of the equation, and moves them from the ER to a regular doctor's office. Here we've both cut costs and increased revenue.

The problems with HSA's are: 1. It takes funds out of shared-risk pools, raising the cost of insurance for those in the pool, and 2. The way HSA plans are written now, you are only permitted to deposit annually about 3000.00 for an individual, and about 6000.00 for a family. What's not clear to me on current HSA plans is what happens if your savings account doesn't have enough to cover your medical bills. Seems to me that this is a great option for younger consumers who have less need for preventative medicine, but won't do a great deal to lower costs overall.

Tort reform, as I showed earlier, will cut doctor's premiums 25% or so, which is far more significant to the doctor than his patients, but we have to be very careful here. We don't want to lose the protection patients have against hack doctors. That's why I think tort reform should be considered separately.

nutsy54
10-01-2009, 03:08 PM
Under the Obama plan you only keep your health insurance as long as you stick to the current plan you're under. Many americans are under an employee plan. Meaning, once you quit or lose you job, you are forced to go to the public option. That doesn't sound like choice to me. If you chose not to have insurance, you get penalized with upto 25k fine and/or 1 year in jail. Furthermore, your company can enroll employees to from their plan to the government option anywhere from 750-1000 dollars per employee.But you clearly get plenty of Choice... As long as you do exactly as the Government orders you to do.

That IS Grup's version of "Choice" - Bow down to Pelosi, Reid, and Obama, and give them complete control over your life. Since, obviously, we're all too stupid to make the "Correct" decisions on our own.

Blah Blah Blah, evil corporations, Blah Blah Blah, gimme gimme gimme

powerman2000
10-01-2009, 05:18 PM
That IS Grup's version of "Choice" - Bow down to Pelosi, Reid, and Obama, and give them complete control over your life. Since, obviously, we're all too stupid to make the "Correct" decisions on our own.

Blah Blah Blah, evil corporations, Blah Blah Blah, gimme gimme gimme

X 1 billion :D