|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 520
All Pro
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 520 |
My view on health care changes daily as it's so complex there doesn't seem to be one fix. Or at least nobody has proposed anything yet I deem as a fix. My biggest problem is with Health Insurance and drug companies. They seem to be the bad seeds thats causing most of these problems. Docs get kickbacks from them... there plans are too complex and you never know whats coverered or not. etc...
Instead of universal health care (cover everybody and anybody)... I think we should just cut administrative costs with a universal health IT system, create a universal cost chart for prescriptions/ops/visits/etc, and make some sort of regulations and tax incentives on the drug and insurance companies in the patients interest... The health industry is a business like no other... the customers have no choice but to comsume what they are spewing... because of this they can not be treated like any other business. We need to set rules for them to follow or we'll continue being raked over coals.
"I'm a mog. Half man, half dog. I'm my own best friend."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,144
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,144 |
Quote:
I can't stand Obama and think he is putting us on a much faster trac to hitting bottom (and maybe thats actually not a bad thing ... cause when we finally do bottom out we'll be FORCED TO FACE REALITY and maybe come up with some "real" solutions) ...
Obama actually slowed the fast trac to hitting bottom.....now we're going to hit it with over a trillion in debt.  We should have just let it run it's course without the bailouts.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,663
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,663 |
The big problem with that is that if they didn't do anything, everyone would be up in arms because they didn't help and would be saying "well, that's what the government is for". Not that I agree with that, but you and I both know that's what would be said.
KeysDawg
The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. - Carl Sagan
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
Quote:
My main beef with what GM said is about "flip-flopping" and that it's something to be abhorred.
Oh come on you see less flip-flops on a crowded beach. 
Witty, but what's your point?
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 323
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 323 |
 finally something with substance. i can't wait to become a tax cheat.... 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,144
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,144 |
Quote:
The big problem with that is that if they didn't do anything, everyone would be up in arms because they didn't help and would be saying "well, that's what the government is for". Not that I agree with that, but you and I both know that's what would be said.
There were a lot of people, dems included, that were against these bailouts. McCain did not have the guts to let things play out during an election campaign. I really think the election would have been much closer had he not supported the giveaway. Anyone with half a brain had to know that dumping massive sums of money at the problem would only make the end result worse....as we're seeing right now.
Does anyone at all think this country's going to be better off for spending this trillion plus?
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Does anyone at all think this country's going to be better off for spending this trillion plus?
The private institutions that receive the money? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,366
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,366 |
Quote:
and GM ,, I do not call it flip flopping .. I call it LYING
I know that, you know that, anybody with two working eyes or ears knows that. I'm just gentley trying to rub some salt into the wounds of all those who voted for B.O. because he was going to be different, he was going to make a change. I prefer to slowly rub the salt into the wounds rather than to throw it in all at once 
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 449
1st String
|
|
OP
1st String
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 449 |
Quote:
Quote:
but to bash him for what every politician has done over the last 25 - 30 years is just piling on ...
Anyone who couldn't see he was F.O.S. during his campaign is BLIND. It's not Obama I blame, it's the people that voted for him. I'm about ready to sign an impeachment petition...
I'll sign that sheet.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Anyone who couldn't see he was F.O.S. during his campaign is BLIND.
Anyone who can't see that everyone is F.O.S. in their campaign is blind...
United States federal elections are marketing campaigns...Coke v. Pepsi...no more, no less.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 449
1st String
|
|
OP
1st String
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 449 |
Quote:
My view on health care changes daily as it's so complex there doesn't seem to be one fix. Or at least nobody has proposed anything yet I deem as a fix. My biggest problem is with Health Insurance and drug companies. They seem to be the bad seeds thats causing most of these problems. Docs get kickbacks from them... there plans are too complex and you never know whats coverered or not. etc...
Instead of universal health care (cover everybody and anybody)... I think we should just cut administrative costs with a universal health IT system, create a universal cost chart for prescriptions/ops/visits/etc, and make some sort of regulations and tax incentives on the drug and insurance companies in the patients interest... The health industry is a business like no other... the customers have no choice but to comsume what they are spewing... because of this they can not be treated like any other business. We need to set rules for them to follow or we'll continue being raked over coals.
In the current government insurance programs...health plans are complex and always changing. Trust me, that problem is not going to go away by switching from the private sector to the government sector. I work in the aging population, over 60, and many times I get phone calls regarding medications that are no longer being covered unless they switch to the generic because Medicare does not want to foot that expensive bill any longer. And often times I get these calls is because the generic isn't working, and their diabetes is unstable. They call Medicare and Medicare says..."we're sorry, but we don't cover the medication you need any longer".
In the private sector, this can happen as well, but there is still the option to upgrade your insurance plan or start looking for another insurance. With Universal Health Care...there is no other option. The private sector will sieze to exist if there is a Universal system.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
So if this happens: Why on Earth would I keep my company's insurance policy and pay for it; when I can opt out, pay nothing, and let the government pay my bill for free?
And that is the 25 thousand dollar question. The problem with socialism (and there are many) or marxism or wealth redistribution or whatever you want to call it is simple.. it looks good on paper. However it starts with some faulty assumptions, primarily that people are going to work just as hard and be just as productive even if you continue to rape them with higher and higher taxes to support those who will not provide for themselves. Secondly, that companies are going to take great risks even if there is no great reward. And lastly, that the government can run ANYTHING as efficiently as a profit making enterprise can.
All are faulty assumptions because they go against everything we know about human nature, yet the lie persists that somehow it CAN work, if only we implement it correctly.. 
I don't honestly know at what point I would stop working Saturdays, stop working late, stop traveling for business because it becomes not financially worth it to keep busting my butt because so much of my money is being sucked away to pay for people who refuse to work like that..... but I'm sure there is a point at which I would do it and I hope we never get there.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
I wouldn't be surprised to see the "barter" system become a promising form of trade in such a case, where I use my talents and skills to provide you something you need in exchange that you provide some of equal or agreed upon value. I repair a car shops computer network, in exchange for them repairing my car. Otherwise, if I get all the same pay and benefits as the guy down the street who just sits on his front porch drinking beer and farting, I'm going to stay home, sit on the front porch and fart right along with him. 
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 520
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 520 |
Yeah .. things like that are kind of why I've changed my view.... and I don't think any longer a "universal health care" system would be good for the "customer". It would in a sense be a monopoly. Reducing costs and not allowing some of these drug and insurance tactics through regulations/fines/incentives would go a long way in making it better.
"I'm a mog. Half man, half dog. I'm my own best friend."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,366
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,366 |
Quote:
Otherwise, if I get all the same pay and benefits as the guy down the street who just sits on his front porch drinking beer and farting, I'm going to stay home, sit on the front porch and fart right along with him.
I will save you a seat
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
Health-Care Bill Is the Ball Game More competition, not less. More market discipline, not less. By Mona Charen You might suppose that President Obama has his hands full running two wars, administering General Motors, “rescuing” the banking system, attempting to empower unions over management, hushing up whispers about hypocrisy regarding Guantanamo detainees, managing the mortgage crisis, imposing “clean energy” on the nation, handling nuclear North Korea and nearly nuclear Iran, “stimulating” the economy, reviving the “peace process” between Palestinians and Israelis, inaugurating a new relationship with Russia and with the Muslim world, and reversing the rise of the world’s oceans, but no, he has one more agenda item — overhauling U.S. health care. The administration is hoping that a health bill will be voted on by early August, which may be overly optimistic but still means that this summer will be dominated by the health-care debate. Its outcome will determine the overall success or failure of Obama’s effort to torque America toward the European model of statism. It isn’t just that the health-care sector accounts for 17 percent of the U.S. economy. It is also the case that, if enacted, a nationalized health service — no matter how crushingly expensive or bureaucratic — will vitiate arguments about the proper scope of government. All future pleas for reducing the size of the state will run into the accusation that the small-government advocate is eager to take antibiotics from the mouth of a child or insulin from a diabetic. Whereas the Clinton administration advertised the overhaul of American health care primarily as a means of covering the uninsured, President Obama is making the bolder claim that revamping health care is a way to save money. Really? Medicare is already the program that ate the government, scheduled to go into bankruptcy itself in 2019. As the trustees' report put it, “While Medicare’s annual costs were 3.2 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2008, or about three quarters of Social Security’s, they are projected to surpass Social Security expenditures in 2028 and reach 11.4 percent of GDP in 2083.” Or consider the Massachusetts health-care reform introduced by Gov. Mitt Romney. Like every other government health-care program, Romney’s has vastly exceeded cost projections. Initially projected at $125 million per year, the program actually cost taxpayers $133 million in 2007, $647 million in 2008, and $869 million in 2009, and could top $1.1 billion next year. “Health-care costs,” President Obama intoned as he kicked off a summit on the subject, are “causing a bankruptcy every 30 seconds.” Cord Blomquist on Openmarket.org observed that in 2008, a big year for bankruptcies, there were a total of 1.1 million bankruptcies. Adding up Obama’s numbers — 120 bankruptcies per hour times 24 hours in a day and 365 days in a year equals 1,051,200 bankruptcies per year — would suggest that only 100,000 of those were for non-medical expenses. Does that make sense in the midst of a collapsing housing market? The study Obama based his numbers on was flawed in other ways as well, as ABC’s Gary Langer noted on the ABC News website. Beware of politicians bearing statistics. But what is even more galling than misleading (or outright false) statistics is to watch politicians rail about the expense of health insurance without once acknowledging their own role in jacking up the price. Health care is expensive, of course — though it also delivers value by improving the quality and length of life. But our jerry-built system has made buying insurance much more expensive than it should be. State mandates require insurance companies to cover a variety of specialized medical services (usually at the behest of lobbyists for the relevant service providers) including: in vitro fertilization, marriage therapy, smoking-cessation classes, hormone-replacement therapy, chiropractor visits, and so on. That makes it impossible for companies to offer cheap, no-frills, high-deductible plans for the young and healthy. As Sally Pipes notes in The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care, there were only 252 mandates in force 30 years ago. Today there are 1,901, an average of 38 per state. Government involvement in the health-care system, through mandates, has reduced competition (such as forbidding shopping for insurance across state lines). A skewed tax deduction that permits only employers and not employees to deduct the cost of health coverage has made health care more expensive than it ought to be. Yet President Obama proposes that a hair of the dog — vastly more government involvement — will bring down costs and improve quality. If he follows the lead of Great Britain, Canada, or other countries whose systems he admires, he can definitely bring down costs. He can do it the way they have, by rationing care. But Americans should bear in mind this summer that when the president promises to get health-care costs under control he is really promising less care. There is a better way. More competition, not less. More market discipline, not less. This will affect every American for generations to come. The stakes could hardly be higher. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=M2UwOWZiYjUzZjU5NjlmZjRjNDc2MDc3MGM4ZmQ5NjQ=
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 449
1st String
|
|
OP
1st String
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 449 |
"Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics"
Pretty good book. It illustrates how often statistics are used that are not accurate. Also illustrates how those misguided statistics are often the statistics that people remember and reuse.
Good job Obama, thanks for helping to make the American people a little bit dumber. Many people will read that and not think twice about it, and believe and preach the inaccuracy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
Many people will read that and not think twice about it, and believe and preach the inaccuracy.
Your assuming the majority of Americans read anything that hasn't got a celebrity on the cover, or is about some woman giving birth to an alien or something.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
If he follows the lead of Great Britain, Canada, or other countries whose systems he admires, he can definitely bring down costs. He can do it the way they have, by rationing care. But Americans should bear in mind this summer that when the president promises to get health-care costs under control he is really promising less care.
Here's what bothers me about the health care debate...
Even if we all agree that a national system is a far cry from an answer...the above description is exactly what we have now. Exactly. Except it's a private health care institution rationing the care, and there's really no price break.
As broken as you can envision a gov't system...what we have now is miserably broken.
So if national care isn't the answer...what is?
And there really isn't an answer...because it's fairly easy to pinpoint the problems -- insurance companies, pharm companies and lawyers....and they're all Teflon in D.C. Nothing happens without their say-so.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 410
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 410 |
Quote:
Just clicking. . .
I am a health insurance broker. HC reform has nothing to do with helping the little guy. If politicians were truly interested in helping the little guy, democrats would have accomplished a whole hell of a lot more to bring the poor up to the middle class while they had control of Congress for 45 years prior to '94. This is and always will be about CONTROL. This ties into the Carbon Trading and other controls and taxes on business and individuals. These people simply believe they are smarter than you and that someone needs to make the decisions for your dumb a$$. They want to be able to control everything from income to who receives the medical care in order to stay alive (and thus population and political control).
Mark my words, they are going to get Universal HC in steps. They know the American people will never go for it all in one shot. They like to label themselves 'Progressives' for a reason. They implement their changes over the long term. Once they get the 'free' government run option available to those who don't have private insurance available to them, they will start labeling those who do have private insurance as rich and unamerican. They will never make the 'free' plan all that rich in benefits (did you know as a State Licensed Life and Health Insurance agent it is illegal for me to discuss the benefit automatically afforded to Americans under Medicare because the benefits are so poor that it is considered a 'Scare Tactic' to inform people how poor the benefits are so they understand they need to buy Medicare supplemets?). The reason - to continue and create envy for the others who have better private insurance, and thus another tool of class warfare to gain more control - in steps.
I'm going to stop ranting now, but remember, it is about CONTROL - not helping people, not money - POWER and CONTROL. What provides stronger strings for the puppets then controling the strings that directly affect health and life and death?
Good to hear a fellow Group Benefits Broker is on Dawg Talkers! Healthcare Reform has me scared, I won't lie. I have been in this industry for 12 years and I have NO clue what I would do to support my family if I was forced to another career.
Does the Obama Administration have a clue how many 10's of Thousand's of people would be displaced from their long careers (and hard earned incomes I might add) thanks to a Universal Health Plan???
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,346
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,346 |
Quote:
As broken as you can envision a gov't system...what we have now is miserably broken.
Is it? A real number that I would be interested in is how many jobs with some form of employer provided health care are available. Then perhaps compare that to those not insured.
I am a simple man with a work ethic. It has served me well.........
When I was in my early 20's I was working 3 jobs at about 60 hours a week because I could not find full time during the Reagan recession. I finally landed a modest salaried job with an insurance company as a bookkeeper. This provided me with HMO coverage of which I paid 10% of the premium. So there you have a someone with only a high school diploma (and a crappy GPA) that found health care during a rather considerable downturn in the economy.
If I can do it, so can others.
I am not against legislation to help fellow Americans from catastrophic expenses or those denied due to preexisting conditions. I am for practices that can assist to reduce the cost of health care, including co-oping smaller group polices into larger ones that reduces the cost per insured. I am for proper care of our seniors and I tend to think the majority of those retiring now and in the future have more than adequately prepaid via Social Security taxes.
I am obviously not for health care as an entitlement. Personal responsibility is a obligation for all Americans.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Is it?
Absolutely it is.
Quote:
A real number that I would be interested in is how many jobs with some form of employer provided health care are available. Then perhaps compare that to those not insured.
A more real number would be how many people with insurance are denied viable claims because the system operates on providing as little care as possible while maintaining maximum profit numbers.
Quote:
I am a simple man with a work ethic. It has served me well.........
When I was in my early 20's I was working 3 jobs at about 60 hours a week because I could not find full time during the Reagan recession. I finally landed a modest salaried job with an insurance company as a bookkeeper. This provided me with HMO coverage of which I paid 10% of the premium. So there you have a someone with only a high school diploma (and a crappy GPA) that found health care during a rather considerable downturn in the economy.
If I can do it, so can others.
That's good for you...but it speaks nothing about the problems facing our broken health care system -- insurance companies doing all they can to deny claims under 'pre-existing conditions' or any other method they can (i.e. - rationing care)...it does nothing to address the outrageous medical malpractice suits that bog down the industry...it makes no point regarding pharm companies giving doctors payola to dole out expensive medication that costs pocket change in other areas of the world.
It's not about having health care...it's about having health care that won't screw you over if it finds a loophole that allows it to.
The problem in this country isn't the uninsured as much as it is the insured who are getting screwed.
Quote:
I am not against legislation to help fellow Americans from catastrophic expenses or those denied due to preexisting conditions.
Those are two ridiculously large cracks in our broken system...how could you insinuate that it's not broken and then point out two catastrophic flaws?
Quote:
I am for practices that can assist to reduce the cost of health care, including co-oping smaller group polices into larger ones that reduces the cost per insured.
But this still ignores the larger problem that our current structure calls for providing as little care as possible while maintaining maximum profit numbers...say what you will about profits and business -- but the system will never work as long as that's in place.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,366
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,366 |
Quote:
A more real number would be how many people with insurance are denied viable claims because the system operates on providing as little care as possible while maintaining maximum profit numbers.
While I agree that this IS a problem, it can be avoided by knowing your own insurance plan. To many people are to lazy and stupid to take the time to learn just what their plan covers. I had had claims denied myself, but once I got ahold of the insurance company and told them why the claim should be covered (and showed them proof) bingo the claims got paid.
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,346
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,346 |
Phil.....
Despite the fact that I would not say it's broken, I think we're on a similar page.
The personal experience I shared was not a comment on how coverage works, but a reply to "have...have not".
GM has a good point. Health coverage, like any other insurance, is a contract. Knowledge is power.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Lets also keep in mind that the unrealistic expectaions on the users end too. There are far too many people out there that expect to pay a $10-$50 co pay and then receive tens of thousands of dollars worth of treatment....Or many receive far more in treatment and medications than their premiums they pay....Well that money has to come from some where ...it is not free.
Now I am not saying that the Insurance companies don't make money or are overly burdened....And I am not saying that this process can't be done better....but there definitely can be an attitude adjustment on ourside as well. There seem to be many that just think that the Insurance Companies should not be allowed to make money(though their attitude) and be forced to take a loss on anything and everything and that they should just take it and not complain. The attitude seems to be that well I pay my premium every month....but who cares that I am taking out 10 times what I am paying in....
Last edited by PETE314; 06/11/09 03:28 PM.
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Insurance companies, doctors, and hospitals, need to work together to come up with a standardized price list for services. More often than not, the medical personnel charge for a service, then the insurance company reviews it and says "we will only pay for this much"
Why is this crap not prefigured up front? So both parties know what they can charge and what they will be reimbursed for?
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
Four of Top Five U.S. Newspapers Buried Story on Obama’s Call for Government-Owned Health Insurance Company Thursday, June 11, 2009 By Marie Magleby When President Obama said last week that he wants a government-run, government-owned health insurance provision to be included in the health-care reform bill being readied by Congress, only one of the nation’s top five, large-circulation newspapers thought it was worthy of front-page coverage. The Los Angeles Times, which has the fourth highest newspaper circulation in the country, reported the story on its front page last Thursday. The 933-word article, titled “Insurance mandate on the table; Obama indicates he’s now open to idea in healthcare overhaul,” said that Obama “signaled new openness to the idea of the government requiring that most Americans get medical insurance.” In the text of the story, the Times added: "At the same time, the president, who rejected such a mandate during the campaign, reaffirmed in strong terms his determination to offer a government-run healthcare plan as an alternative to private insurance." The letter that Obama wrote to Sens. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Max Baucus (D-Mont.) expressed support for a so-called “public option” for health insurance – codewords for government-owned, government-run health insurance. The letter followed a meeting last Tuesday in which Obama met with senior Democratic senators to discuss health-care reform last Tuesday. “I strongly believe that Americans should have the choice of a public health insurance option operating alongside private plans,” Obama’s letter said. “This will give them a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive, and keep insurance companies honest.” The other top-five circulating newspapers ran the story about Obama’s letter on page four or deeper within the paper. USA Today, which has the largest circulation in the nation, placed an AP-wire version of the story on page four. Called “Obama plan would provide health care for all,” the 724-word article said: “In providing the first real details on how he wants to reshape the nation’s health care system, the president urged Congress on Wednesday toward a sweeping overhaul that would allow Americans to buy into a government insurance plan.” The Wall Street Journal, the second most widely circulated U.S. paper, reported the story on page four in an article titled “Obama Shifts on Coverage Mandate.” The article, also published last Thursday, noted how Obama’s letter to the two senators contradicted the stance he took during his campaign against presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in 2008. “During his presidential campaign last year, Mr. Obama opposed then-Sen. Hillary Cliton’s idea of a health-insurance mandate on individuals,” the article said. “He argued it would put too much burden on low-income families.” Near the end of the story, the Journal reported: ‘The big remaining issues are how to pay for expanded coverage and whether to include a public-insurance option alongside private plans. In his letter, Mr. Obama reiterated his backing for a public plan, saying it would give Americans "a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive, and keep insurance companies honest." The WSJ added: "Several committee proposals have broad support and are expected to make it to the final Senate legislation. Thy include creating new exchanges that allow consumers to comparison-shop among insurance plans, having the government take a greater role in preventing chronic illnesses, giving low-income Americans tax credits to buy health insurance and creating incentives to increase the nation's supply of primary-care doctors." The most “buried” story was an 804-word piece, headlined “Obama Urges Quick Action By Senators On Insurance,” that ran on page 16 of The New York Times. "President Obama on Tuesday affirmed his support for the creation of a government-sponsored health insurance plan, but he acknowledged that such a plan would sharply reduce the chances for Republican support of legislation to overhaul the health care system, Democratic senators said," the newspaper's lead paragraph said. The Washington Post placed its 606-word story on page four of the A-section. The article, titled “A Move Toward Requiring Health Coverage; In Letter to Senate Democrats, Obama Suggests Hardship Waiver for the Poor,” described Obama’s “fresh willingness to consider taxing employer-sponsored health insurance” and “a new openness toward a nationwide requirement that every American have health coverage.” Toward the end of the story, the Post mentioned government-run health insurance: "'Do we feel a responsibility to help our employees afford health care? Yes, we do,' Freddy Castiblanco, owner of La Terraza Cafe in Queens, N.Y., said in congressional testimony yesterday. 'Are we willing to contribute? Yes.' “Castiblanco, who employs 11 people, said any health-care overhaul should include the option of a government-sponsored insurance policy for people having trouble buying coverage on the private market. “That idea got a boost from Obama, who said in the letter that he 'strongly' believes in giving Americans the choice of a public option." The story – like Obama’s original letter -- also advocated a “hardship waiver” for low-income households, as well as an exemption for small businesses to provide health care benefits. The president’s attempt to rally support “so that Congress can complete health-care reform by October,” meanwhile, gives lawmakers less than four months to consider legislation to fundamentally revamp a health-care system that has existed in the U.S. for generations. According to the Audit Bureau of Circulation, which maintains an electronic database of newspaper circulation around the country, USA Today leads U.S. newspapers with a weekday circulation of 2,113,725 as of March 2009. The Wall Street Journal follows with a circulation of 2,082,189, and The New York Times circulation stands at 1,039,031 newspapers daily. The Los Angeles Times comes in fourth with 723,181 weekday papers, and The Washington Post has the fifth highest circulation with 665,383. http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=49446
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
“I strongly believe that Americans should have the choice of a public health insurance option operating alongside private plans,” Obama’s letter said. “This will give them a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive, and keep insurance companies honest.”
While having a "public option" alongside private options is much better than just a Universal Health Care/No Private option, but since when has anything government run been efficient and non-corrupt to "keep insurance companies honest"?
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,936
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,936 |
Quote:
While having a "public option" alongside private options is much better than just a Universal Health Care/No Private option, but since when has anything government run been efficient and non-corrupt to "keep insurance companies honest"?
Given the existing inefficiencies and corruption in the private insurance industry, I wonder just who would be keeping who honest? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
Quote:
While having a "public option" alongside private options is much better than just a Universal Health Care/No Private option, but since when has anything government run been efficient and non-corrupt to "keep insurance companies honest"?
Given the existing inefficiencies and corruption in the private insurance industry, I wonder just who would be keeping who honest?
yeah, that was kind of my point, it would just become a way for politicians to line their pockets even more with money from pharmaceutical companies.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
Quote:
For those who think health care isn't broken or just don't feel like they understand our health care problems... watch...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundamerica/view/
I've worked in healthcare for 20 years, there is nothing you have that will "school" me. And certainly not from the sources you will probably use.....gonna show us Michael Moore's opinion next?
Not a soul here has said that healthcare does not have issues that need fixed. Some of you just don't like the answers because they do not involve freebies from the govwernment or mooching off your fellow citizens.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 520
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 520 |
Can you tell me what you disagree with in that video? I know its PBS which leans "liberal"... but I thought it was spot on and showed many that don't have the chance to "work" in the field to see what is going on. If you don't feel like watching it I understand... basically it says;
1. We pay far too much for healthcare... we do so because docs make too much... insurance co. make to much... we consumers expect too much... etc. Also its estimated 24% of health care costs are due to administrative costs. While other countries like Taiwan and Canada are far less. If we were to cut down to thier levels in this category we could afford to give all the poor in the US free health care.
2. Massachusetts tried the everybody must buy-in system and its working sort of, but there are problems with that too... as they have 97% coverage in Mass. now, but middle income families are left struggling while lower income are subsidized.
3. It paints a picture of some people your leaving out of the equation who do not have health care benifits... people who just can't get any because they have "pre-existing" conditions... or people who have health care "recinded" after it was found out they were sick... These are people who do not want free anything. What do you say about them?
Sorry if I upset you by having your name in the reply portion. I forgot the just clicking part... as it was not a direct comment toward you.
"I'm a mog. Half man, half dog. I'm my own best friend."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
Quote:
Can you tell me what you disagree with in that video? I know its PBS which leans "liberal"... but I thought it was spot on and showed many that don't have the chance to "work" in the field to see what is going on. If you don't feel like watching it I understand... basically it says;
Can't view it where I am, and honestly doubt I would have watched it anyhow, I've seen a million of 'em.
Quote:
1. We pay far too much for healthcare... we do so because docs make too much... insurance co. make to much... we consumers expect too much... etc. Also its estimated 24% of health care costs are due to administrative costs. While other countries like Taiwan and Canada are far less. If we were to cut down to thier levels in this category we could afford to give all the poor in the US free health care.
Quite a few misconceptions here. Doctor's make too much according to whom? Insurance companies make too much according to whom? I don't know that consumers expect too much, they over-utilize their insurance and healthcare institutes as a whole, I will say that. The major reason the administrative costs are so high is to satisfy the demands of the goverment run programs. Without them we could easily cut it in half.
Quote:
2. Massachusetts tried the everybody must buy-in system and its working sort of, but there are problems with that too... as they have 97% coverage in Mass. now, but middle income families are left struggling while lower income are subsidized.
Yes, because they didn't address the true problems.
Quote:
3. It paints a picture of some people your leaving out of the equation who do not have health care benifits... people who just can't get any because they have "pre-existing" conditions... or people who have health care "recinded" after it was found out they were sick... These are people who do not want free anything. What do you say about them?
Again, fix the real problems, which I've gone over on this board so many times that I've given up, and the vast majority of people could afford their own healthcare and we'd end up helping those that can't or won't help themselves per usual.
Quote:
Sorry if I upset you by having your name in the reply portion. I forgot the just clicking part... as it was not a direct comment toward you.
Why do some of you think just because someone disagrees with you that they are in any way upset. You couldn't upset me if you tried. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 683
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 683 |
Ditto. As I have said before, two of the three big problems are the government demanding more and paying less. Half my year as an administrator is preparing for government agency inspections. I just finished my NYSDOH last week, now I'm working on Joint Commission.
Also the fact that your boss buys your insurance, not you. You are not the customer, they don't care about you. It is in their best interest to provide you the least possible services. As long as the bottom line for your boss looks good, their customer is happy.
Add to that lawsuits that drive the price of every single thing you see in the hospital up. And I do mean everything, no exceptions. And you have what we have now.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,663
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,663 |
One problem with that. My boss doesn't pay my insurance. Never has. So my boss isn't the customer, I am. Damn good thing I don't get sick under your pretenses.
KeysDawg
The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. - Carl Sagan
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 683
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 683 |
Even as such, the insurance companies are not geared toward individual accounts. The majority (vast majority) of health insurance is bought in group plans by employers.
Not sure what your other comment meant, or what was incorrect about my statements. If you care to elaborate, I'm sure I could respond more intelligently.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,663
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,663 |
I simply mean that if it is the way you say, that it is set up to give me the least while making the most, it's a good thing I don't get sick.
KeysDawg
The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. - Carl Sagan
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 683
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 683 |
Sorry, I thought you were disputing that fact. But you are correct. It is set up to give you the least possible benefit. By and large, the insurance companies are set up to please the bottom line on companies, very much unlike auto insurance companies. Add to that the standard set by government plans, who set the standard so to speak, and you get what we have. We have a third party system, the payors maintain a bottom line, the payees get screwed and the recipients are an after thought
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,683
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,683 |
Sorry, but I am a "Boss" and buy healthcare.
It is a mess. Hospitals grossly overcharge for services knowing that the insurance company will reduce the claim.
We have uninsured people showing up at ER's for colds, when they should be at an storefront care clinc.
Administration of claims is a fiasco, every company has its arcane rules that are in a constant game of cat and mouse, to see which party can get the best of the other. 24 percent adminstration cost is just sillyness.
Civil libritarianes and conservatives cry foul over the dangers of electronic record keeping, yet complain about the paper nightmare and the lack of electronic records.
Insurance companies don't want to compete with government provided health care and are seeking to remove the government alternative from the bill. But we have a government alternative that is in place and we could make it better.
I think if the rules were fairer, more would participate, but a massive reorganization is needed.
Welcome back, Joe, we missed you!
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Health Insurance "Haves" to pay
for "Have Nots"?
|
|
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/Maddog/PDVD_000Z.jpg)
