Has anyone asked this of a lefty, yet?

"If you get the 'public option' and start to cut into the profits of insurance companies, what happens to the people they fire when they start to cut costs to deal with the loss of income?"

I mean, the issue to independents, to most people, actually, is jobs, jobs, jobs. Socialized medicine designed to cut costs WILL cost jobs. It just will.

:shrug:

On a side note, I received an EOB from my insurance company for routine lab work done during a physical. The lab charged $205.00 total. The insurance company paid the "agreed to" amount for each line item which ended up totaling $48 and some odd change. The EOB said "patient was not responsible to cover the difference".

Now here's the deal... if I didn't have insurance, I'd be completely responsible for paying the full $205. If the lab can afford to do it for "$48" as they agreed they could with the insurance company, then why the hell are they charging uninsured Joe-Schmo $205 for the same work?

:burning:

I have, and they skip right over that point, because "insurance companies are the enemy". One liberal friend suggested they adopt a non-profit approach to remain in business.

For the life of me, I keep looking at this issue, and fundamentally, insurance companies are not the cause of the problem. At least not in the sense that health care itself does not follow at all the normal model on which we base "insurance". I've said that in many ways, blaming the insurance companies for the high cost of health care is like blaming the pizza delivery guy for the high cost of pizza. He's not the culprit, although insurance companies contribute to the problem because of the way insurance works.

You know, I keep looking at this problem, and I keep seeing the same sensible solution - if it weren't for the fact that SOME medical procedures are just prohibitively expensive, the BEST way to keep costs down would be to pay out of pocket. There's just no way in hell I ever pay as much for medical care in a year as I pay for insurance - easily 90% of what I pay goes to someone whose costs are huge. If I paid out of pocket, I could a) shop around and b) lower my yearly costs.

The ONLY problem is that when I need surgery or need a hospital stay, I'd have to sell the kids and some body parts to afford it. Hence, the need for insurance. Still, there's very little likelihood that in my lifetime, I will ever need as much medical care as I am paying for with insurance.

So to my mind, the best solution would be to :
1) pay insurance for high cost care, with high deductibles;
2) have or require medical savings accounts
3) have some kind of safety net for extremely expensive care

Any government interference with health care should be explicitly to cut costs and not to run things, because the government has no track record whatsoever of doing things efficiently or inexpensively.

One thing they could do is allow patents on drugs to expire early, to allow faster introduction of generics. They could finally enact meaningful tort reform. They could remove obstacles that allow virtual monopolies for insurance companies.

And if they are involved at all, it could be as the safety net for those with pre-existing conditions. It would be a shame if a person without sufficient medical coverage should die of something curable, because they haven't got enough medical savings to cover it.

This, by the way, is where "health insurance" fails the insurance model. If you buy a house in a flood zone, expect to pay for flood insurance, and to pay a lot for it. That's the cost of the risk. You don't have to buy a house there. If you speed and smash cars, expect to pay more for auto insurance - or not to be able to get any at all. Those consequences are entirely within your hands. But if you wake up one day with colon cancer or a brain tumor, or find you are going blind or deaf through something you couldn't control, it's not your fault - but the normal approach of dealing with such things through insurance is to say, sorry but we're not taking you aboard now that you suddenly discovered you need us.

This is the only instance where the public option makes any sense at all - coverage for extreme care.

On a side note, I received an EOB from my insurance company for routine lab work done during a physical. The lab charged $205.00 total. The insurance company paid the "agreed to" amount for each line item which ended up totaling $48 and some odd change. The EOB said "patient was not responsible to cover the difference".

Now here's the deal... if I didn't have insurance, I'd be completely responsible for paying the full $205. If the lab can afford to do it for "$48" as they agreed they could with the insurance company, then why the hell are they charging uninsured Joe-Schmo $205 for the same work?

:burning:

the BEST way to keep costs down would be to pay out of pocket. There's just no way in hell I ever pay as much for medical care in a year as I pay for insurance - easily 90% of what I pay goes to someone whose costs are huge. If I paid out of pocket, I could a) shop around and b) lower my yearly costs.


What about what I posted... those paying out of pocket are paying triple what the insurance company has to pay for the same things. :tap:

then why the hell are they charging uninsured Joe-Schmo $205 for the same work?

:burning:

I still think THIS is where a lot of needless overhead comes into play. If I totalled all of the totals of lab work done for my family, it would easily come close to the amount I pay per year. And that's because the doctor can order ten tests to be done, checking for any possibility.

And I have a hard time believing that lab work is that damned expensive.

(Of course, I also have a hard time believing that mechanics can charge so much for diagnostic work on a car. For pete's sake, it's pushing a few buttons!)

What about what I posted... those paying out of pocket are paying triple what the insurance company has to pay for the same things. :tap:

True, but if everyone paid out of pocket, it would go down. Insurance companies are able to do that, for the same reason BJ's can sell you a big box of diapers for half price, or that Wal-Mart can beat out McKay's - volume.

True, but if everyone paid out of pocket, it would go down. Insurance companies are able to do that, for the same reason BJ's can sell you a big box of diapers for half price, or that Wal-Mart can beat out McKay's - volume.
See... I disagree that the prices in the medical industry will go down. If everyone was paying out of pocket, there would be less demand for services. The only industry I see that lowers prices to drum up business is retail. And they only lower key products in order to draw the consumer... raising prices of other products to compensate knowing that once the consumer is in their store, they are most likely do all their purchasing at one time.

I do not have faith that the medical industry would lower prices. There are only a certain number of blood labs in this country. I see them agreeing to "fixed pricing" amongst themselves and then the consumer would be SOL and there would be no one to negotiate a better price.

What about what I posted... those paying out of pocket are paying triple what the insurance company has to pay for the same things. :tap:

I'm not sure that is true. Sure your insurance company didn't pay that much, but maybe that's because of your particular insurance company (HMOs get discount rates at doctors in their network...that's how they work). Other insurance companies may pay the full $205. And an individual (if they ask/say they are paying cash) may get the discounted rate that your insurance company paid. The individual may pay even less. And I stress MAY. Really, there are many possibilities, none of which are supported nor discounted based on the information you have.

See... I disagree that the prices in the medical industry will go down. If everyone was paying out of pocket, there would be less demand for services. The only industry I see that lowers prices to drum up business is retail. And they only lower key products in order to draw the consumer... raising prices of other products to compensate knowing that once the consumer is in their store, they are most likely do all their purchasing at one time. Supply stays the same, demand goes down = prices come down.

I do not have faith that the medical industry would lower prices. There are only a certain number of blood labs in this country. I see them agreeing to "fixed pricing" amongst themselves and then the consumer would be SOL and there would be no one to negotiate a better price.
Until someone opens a new lab with much lower rates and takes all the business. Welcome to the free market. It doesn't like price fixing.

Supply stays the same, demand goes down = prices come down.
I liken it to the oil industry where the recent spike in oil prices have now raised the bar as to what they are now willing to accept as their "happy minimum". Prior to the hike fiasco, they were estatic to see $50 a barrel! Now they are saying they can't "afford" less than $70 a barrel.

Until someone opens a new lab with much lower rates and takes all the business. Welcome to the free market. It doesn't like price fixing.
I do see your point... kinda like what is going on with the credit card industry now that the new legislation has been put in place. Some credit cards want to raise the cost of using their line of credit in order to protect their profit margins, but they are leary to do so because other creditr card companies have vowed not to do that in order to draw the masses.

I'm just a doubting Thomas because the medical industry has successfully lobbied political protection for so long. I see the gov't stepping in and forcing "fixed pricing" like they do at gas stations.

Has anyone asked this of a lefty, yet?

"If you get the 'public option' and start to cut into the profits of insurance companies, what happens to the people they fire when they start to cut costs to deal with the loss of income?"

I mean, the issue to independents, to most people, actually, is jobs, jobs, jobs. Socialized medicine designed to cut costs WILL cost jobs. It just will.

:shrug:

They'll be rehired by big government to help remove the rails before the Government healthcare train goes over the mountain! :starcat:

They'll be rehired by big government to help remove the rails before the Government healthcare train goes over the mountain! :starcat:

I would like to at least get them on record as having said that.

Has anyone asked this of a lefty, yet?

"If you get the 'public option' and start to cut into the profits of insurance companies, what happens to the people they fire when they start to cut costs to deal with the loss of income?"

I mean, the issue to independents, to most people, actually, is jobs, jobs, jobs. Socialized medicine designed to cut costs WILL cost jobs. It just will.

:shrug:

I would counter with why it is your so sure that the insurance companies would go under. Other countries have a public and private options also. The insurance companies are doing fine. I would point you to the German model as a case study. If the model is followed, then insurance companies will be just fine.

As to jobs, it weighs on everyone's mind no matter what party affiliation. The scrutiny needs to be put to overall industries that have outsourced American jobs to other countries. Innovation, something this country use to be great at, is something we need to move back to.

Change is something that is inevitable and jobs will be lost. we can't hold ourselves back from progress. We just need to be conscious of it and work to ensure that our country men are covered, be it training for a new line of work or another job in which skills can be put to good use.

I liked the idea and it made sense when we were told that green technology would bring many unemployed back to the work force. Factories were going to be converted for the projects. Rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure seems to have gone out to the wayside also. I am very dismayed that it hasn't happened yet. The sense of urgency seems to be missing from government overall when it comes to main street America. The stimulus would be great for that. The money will have to be spent anyway if we are to keep our infrastructure going and updated.

On a side note, I received an EOB from my insurance company for routine lab work done during a physical. The lab charged $205.00 total. The insurance company paid the "agreed to" amount for each line item which ended up totaling $48 and some odd change. The EOB said "patient was not responsible to cover the difference".

Now here's the deal... if I didn't have insurance, I'd be completely responsible for paying the full $205. If the lab can afford to do it for "$48" as they agreed they could with the insurance company, then why the hell are they charging uninsured Joe-Schmo $205 for the same work?

:burning:

It is the same reason you spend ten dollars on one Tylenol in a hospital that you can buy at the corner drug store cents. It's ridiculous.

Has anyone asked this of a lefty, yet?

"If you get the 'public option' and start to cut into the profits of insurance companies, what happens to the people they fire when they start to cut costs to deal with the loss of income?"

I mean, the issue to independents, to most people, actually, is jobs, jobs, jobs. Socialized medicine designed to cut costs WILL cost jobs. It just will.

:shrug:

Where did you ever get the idea they care about jobs? The only way they can make their agenda work is for people to be out of work, desperate, and have no choice but to look to the government to fix their problem.

Remember: "Never let a crisis go to waste".

But first they must create a crisis.

I would counter with why it is your so sure that the insurance companies would go under. Other countries have a public and private options also. The insurance companies are doing fine. I would point you to the German model as a case study. If the model is followed, then insurance companies will be just fine.

Okay. So you’re an employer. Your employees are paying $200 per month and you are matching that at $200 per employee for health insurance. You have 50 employees. Suddenly the government comes along and says “Hey Alexa, you can stop paying that supplement we are able to cover it now. Besides, as a business owner your taxes are going up by 10% to cover the 'Public Option', so it would be destroy your profit margin to have to keep paying that premium as well as have to take on a higher tax rate.” So, you (the employer), in an effort to save $120,000 per year, on the next round of benefits renewals, announce to your employees that you are no longer providing healthcare insurance and that your employees will have to pay out-of-pocket or go on the “Public Option”. In the mean time, the 10% hike in taxes is far more than you can afford to keep 50 employees so you have to lay off 10 of your employees.

Couple this with workers whose company keeps their insurance benefits, but most of those employees realize they can better afford the "Public Option" than pay $200 per month, so they jump off the private insurance to save money.

Now tell me what employer wouldn’t do this? Are you telling me this wont result in insurance companies going out of business? Loss of jobs? Plus the jobs lost due to small businesses having their taxes hiked due to the "Public Option". I mean the math is pretty simple if you ask me.

Okay. So you’re an employer. Your employees are paying $200 per month and you are matching that at $200 per employee for health insurance. You have 50 employees. Suddenly the government comes along and says “Hey Alexa, you can stop paying that supplement we are able to cover it now. Besides, as a business owner your taxes are going up by 10% to cover the 'Public Option', so it would be destroy your profit margin to have to keep paying that premium as well as have to take on a higher tax rate.” So, you (the employer), in an effort to save $120,000 per year, on the next round of benefits renewals, announce to your employees that you are no longer providing healthcare insurance and that your employees will have to pay out-of-pocket or go on the “Public Option”. In the mean time, the 10% hike in taxes is far more than you can afford to keep 50 employees so you have to lay off 10 of your employees.

Couple this with workers whose company keeps their insurance benefits, but most of those employees realize they can better afford the "Public Option" than pay $200 per month, so they jump off the private insurance to save money.

Now tell me what employer wouldn’t do this? Are you telling me this wont result in insurance companies going out of business? Loss of jobs? Plus the jobs lost due to small businesses having their taxes hiked due to the "Public Option". I mean the math is pretty simple if you ask me.

Good post. Most here already understood those facts, having actually worked and paid into various systems. I wouldn't have taken the time to lead the ignorant around by the nose. It seems to be needed lately for those blindly trying to defend the indefensible.

I can't remember whose signature this was, but it's so true now: "Common sense isn't so common".

Where did you ever get the idea they care about jobs? The only way they can make their agenda work is for people to be out of work, desperate, and have no choice but to look to the government to fix their problem.

Remember: "Never let a crisis go to waste".

But first they must create a crisis.

There is no requirement to be a mind reader to point out the flaws in someones argument. On the contrary, I don't have to do any thinking for Obama or Nancy, at all. I don't have to look into their hearts, analyze their friends, examine their DNA or read their diaries.

All I have to do is look at what they argue for and debate on those merits. All they have to do is argue back with me on the same grounds; common sense and logic.

What you say may be 100% true but, it is not as provable or knowable as debating the ideas themselves. We do far too much worrying about peoples true, deep motives, what's in their heart, looking into their eyes, and far too little arguing of the merits themselves and that is why, I think, our politics have become so acrimonious, angry and frustrating; we make it personal, we don't debate the merits enough.

I would counter with why it is your so sure that the insurance companies would go under.

Why would I argue that the goal of the left, their stated goal, of getting rid of private insurance, would work via their policies? Is that what you are asking me?

Well, you got me there.

Couple thoughts here.
1)
is it possible that as the socialist plan grows, those numbers that are lost from the current insurance payrolls will be needed to fill positions created by the new plan? Maybe they figure that the loss in jobs in one industry, will be offset by government jobs.
If so, we are trading private run jobs for government dependency, and its also very possible that this could create a shift in the demographics of the work force in that industry.
Trading jobs if you will.

2)
In response to Kwillas question about the cost of care. Although, I do not have an answer to the question as to why you pay 10 bucks for that aspirin, I did have the opportunity to speak with someone a while back that was very adamant about this issue.
He was a landscaping customer of mine when I had the business, He was a federal judge that had been appointed by Clinton in the early days. His concern, or more like ire over the subject was that the insurance companies were able to negotiate the payments, but the single individual paying on their own did not have that power to do so. I do know that at the time he was very interested in why, and what could be done to fix the issue. Not really enough room here to go into the whole conversation, but in short, it has to do with the insurance companies size and ability to force the hospitals/doctors to be more realistic.
The over charging is in part due to the number of unpaid patients that go through the system.
If that is true, then it is possible that by having everyone insured, there will be no shifting of cost to others to cover the uninsured.

3)
why do we think the insurance companies will go under?
Why did GM go under? Toyota's advertising lead people to believe that the cars they were building were far superior to the American counter parts, (I've owned both and honestly cant say that one is better than the other)
While GM tried to play by the rules and keep as many jobs as the could in the states, companies like Ford moved more and more into Mexico where they could avoid the union pay scale. Toyota and the rest used pre made parts from their own countries, they avoided union pay in the production of the components.

If the same basic principal holds for the insurance companies, then it is likely that they will fail when they can not compete with the governments plan to run the issue without profit.
Even with an option, people are NOT going to be able to afford to pay the new taxes/fees that will be mandatory deductions from their pay, and still pay for their own insurance, so the idea that you have a choice is going to end up only for the rich.
Insurance companies will see profits drop sharply as the government encroaches on their business.

of course when they fail, it will be due to poor management, will have nothing to do with the governments monopoly of the industry.

Couple thoughts here.
1)
is it possible that as the socialist plan grows, those numbers that are lost from the current insurance payrolls will be needed to fill positions created by the new plan? Maybe they figure that the loss in jobs in one industry, will be offset by government jobs.
If so, we are trading private run jobs for government dependency, and its also very possible that this could create a shift in the demographics of the work force in that industry.
Trading jobs if you will.


If you are a socialist, that wouldn't just be possible, that would be the goal.

The critical thing that MUST be understood to grasp what we're really talking about here is the fundamental difference between government and free market. The government has ZERO requirement to earn business and all the efficiencies and innovations and shear effort that go into making a private enterprise go.

This segues into your judge and his concerns; monopoly.

Okay. So you’re an employer. Your employees are paying $200 per month and you are matching that at $200 per employee for health insurance. You have 50 employees. Suddenly the government comes along and says “Hey Alexa, you can stop paying that supplement we are able to cover it now. Besides, as a business owner your taxes are going up by 10% to cover the 'Public Option', so it would be destroy your profit margin to have to keep paying that premium as well as have to take on a higher tax rate.” So, you (the employer), in an effort to save $120,000 per year, on the next round of benefits renewals, announce to your employees that you are no longer providing healthcare insurance and that your employees will have to pay out-of-pocket or go on the “Public Option”. In the mean time, the 10% hike in taxes is far more than you can afford to keep 50 employees so you have to lay off 10 of your employees.

Couple this with workers whose company keeps their insurance benefits, but most of those employees realize they can better afford the "Public Option" than pay $200 per month, so they jump off the private insurance to save money.

Now tell me what employer wouldn’t do this? Are you telling me this wont result in insurance companies going out of business? Loss of jobs? Plus the jobs lost due to small businesses having their taxes hiked due to the "Public Option". I mean the math is pretty simple if you ask me.

My employer has already stated that this will happen when the Health Care bill public option takes place. This will impact about 10,000 workers.

2)
In response to Kwillas question about the cost of care. Although, I do not have an answer to the question as to why you pay 10 bucks for that aspirin, I did have the opportunity to speak with someone a while back that was very adamant about this issue.
He was a landscaping customer of mine when I had the business, He was a federal judge that had been appointed by Clinton in the early days. His concern, or more like ire over the subject was that the insurance companies were able to negotiate the payments, but the single individual paying on their own did not have that power to do so. I do know that at the time he was very interested in why, and what could be done to fix the issue. Not really enough room here to go into the whole conversation, but in short, it has to do with the insurance companies size and ability to force the hospitals/doctors to be more realistic.
The over charging is in part due to the number of unpaid patients that go through the system.
If that is true, then it is possible that by having everyone insured, there will be no shifting of cost to others to cover the uninsured.




The individual has ALL the power in the world to walk into Target or WalMart or the local shop or on line or what have you. And all the power in the world to walk right back out.

Now, imagine if there was ONLY WalMart or only Target or only the local shop or only ONE outlet on line; monopoly.

Insurance companies build a business and, as part of that business, get help within their state to limit and/or eliminate competition. That's what your judge was trying to figure out, why the consumer is so powerless.

We've already established why government insurance is not the solution.

3)
why do we think the insurance companies will go under?
Why did GM go under? Toyota's advertising lead people to believe that the cars they were building were far superior to the American counter parts, (I've owned both and honestly cant say that one is better than the other)
While GM tried to play by the rules and keep as many jobs as the could in the states, companies like Ford moved more and more into Mexico where they could avoid the union pay scale. Toyota and the rest used pre made parts from their own countries, they avoided union pay in the production of the components.

If the same basic principal holds for the insurance companies, then it is likely that they will fail when they can not compete with the governments plan to run the issue without profit.
Even with an option, people are NOT going to be able to afford to pay the new taxes/fees that will be mandatory deductions from their pay, and still pay for their own insurance, so the idea that you have a choice is going to end up only for the rich.
Insurance companies will see profits drop sharply as the government encroaches on their business.

of course when they fail, it will be due to poor management, will have nothing to do with the governments monopoly of the industry.

I can only assume you haven't been paying attention. Anthony Weiner of NY has gone on record, publicly, that that is absolutely the goal, to eliminate private insurance.

I can only assume you haven't been paying attention. Anthony Weiner of NY has gone on record, publicly, that that is absolutely the goal, to eliminate private insurance.
I've been paying attention, believe me.
The only thing I can say about Weiner is that he is at least honest about what he desires to see in the future of insurance.
Others however, like to pretend that this plan is nothing more than the government creating another insurance "company" that will have greater ability to negotiate payment due to its size.

I see a major failure.

And, most employers that provide insurance, consider the cost as part of the workers salary, or more accurately, the cost to employ a worker.
When that company drops is coverage for workers, do you think that the company is going to raise the pay of those workers, or is it going to pocket as much as it can to try and offset its new taxes?
This is going to leave the worker with the same pay, but a new extremely expensive payment each month to cover their own insurance.

you think the bad loans make over the last 20 years caused a financial crisis? just wait till you see the number of foreclosures as people have to decide on health care or mortgage payments.

Im already trying to figure out how I going to do it when all this hits. Only thing I can figure is that, if its as bad as I suspect it will be, my hope for retirement is gone, Ill need to use my retirement fund to supplement my living expenses.

I've been paying attention, believe me.
The only thing I can say about Weiner is that he is at least honest about what he desires to see in the future of insurance.
Others however, like to pretend that this plan is nothing more than the government creating another insurance "company" that will have greater ability to negotiate payment due to its size.



Yup. I credit Weiner for being honest. However, 'others' can pretend all they like but, the long standing battle cry over health care ha been grounded on one simple idea; government provided health care for all.

Period.

The story of the last two years is part that, as the goal, and part the opposite, the GOP damn near failing, completely, to make that clear.

I see a major failure.

And, most employers that provide insurance, consider the cost as part of the workers salary, or more accurately, the cost to employ a worker.
When that company drops is coverage for workers, do you think that the company is going to raise the pay of those workers, or is it going to pocket as much as it can to try and offset its new taxes?
This is going to leave the worker with the same pay, but a new extremely expensive payment each month to cover their own insurance.

I PROMISE you, just as soon as Obama care is available, I WILL drop coverage for my people. I don't wanna pay for their groceries. I don't wanna pay them for their beer or cloths or rent or insurance. I wanna pay them for the work they do and let them go d as they see fit with THEIR money.

The ONLY way a free market works is if you, me, my people, whomever, is in direct commerce with the seller of good and providers of services.

I PROMISE you, just as soon as Obama care is available, I WILL drop coverage for my people. I don't wanna pay for their groceries. I don't wanna pay them for their beer or cloths or rent or insurance. I wanna pay them for the work they do and let them go d as they see fit with THEIR money.

The ONLY way a free market works is if you, me, my people, whomever, is in direct commerce with the seller of good and providers of services.
Having run a business, I cant blame you, I would do the same.
But, do you now consider the cost of their health care package as part of the equation when it comes to having that employee?

And I assume that I am correct in my guessing that their pay wont be going up to offset your savings. actually, you still might not realize any savings once the taxes hit you.

Having run a business, I cant blame you, I would do the same.
But, do you now consider the cost of their health care package as part of the equation when it comes to having that employee? ABSOLUTELY. Along with FUI, SUI and my 'share' of their payroll taxes

And I assume that I am correct in my guessing that their pay wont be going up to offset your savings. actually, you still might not realize any savings once the taxes hit you.

:bs: I am good to my folks. I'll give them what I am paying now. In fact, I offer people more per hour if they opt out of me covering them. Thing is, I am small low turnover. The people that need to be being held up as THE WAY is Safeway and neither party wants to talk about them, at all.

They are doing it right.

Does anyone who works for the Government now and has their insurance subsidised , really believe that if that government has it's own insurance, that they will continue to subsidise your policy with a private company.

If you do you are crazy.

When the Government institutes their own policies, you as a government employee will be on that policy. you can bet your ass on that one.

The Government option will be the only option, count on it.

Wirelessly posted (Change we can believe in!: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 7.7) 320x240; VZW; Motorola-Q9c; Windows Mobile 6.0 Standard)

There are two big reasons that you pay $10 for an aspirin.

1. You aren't only paying for the aspirin, you are paying for the nurse who gives it to you and documents it, storage, tracking, billing, janitorial services, HVAC, HIPAA compliance, OSHA compliance, HAZMAT compliance, securtiy, and more.

2. If the real cost of everything above is $5, they charge $10 in hopes that they get an average of $5 in payment.

Nothing in any current proposals adresses any of this. The politicians on both side do not really care about healthcare - it is all about power and furthering their agenda.

The scariest thing is when that agenda is redistribution of wealth and the destruction of the Constitution.

Does anyone who works for the Government now and has their insurance subsidised , really believe that if that government has it's own insurance, that they will continue to subsidise your policy with a private company.

If you do you are crazy.

When the Government institutes their own policies, you as a government employee will be on that policy. you can bet your ass on that one.

The Government option will be the only option, count on it.
Excluding congress... let's not forget they specifically excluded themselves from having to use their own healthcare plan.

Does anyone who works for the Government now and has their insurance subsidised , really believe that if that government has it's own insurance, that they will continue to subsidise your policy with a private company.

If you do you are crazy.

When the Government institutes their own policies, you as a government employee will be on that policy. you can bet your ass on that one.

The Government option will be the only option, count on it.

This also worries me because I am on TriCare. I am certain TriCare recipients will be the first forced on the "Public Option".

My employer has already stated that this will happen when the Health Care bill public option takes place. This will impact about 10,000 workers.

It seems to be a no-brainer to me. It's what I'd do. Why would I keep paying into something that I know someone else will provide, at my expense? Why should I have my taxes go up to pay for something, while and the same time subsidizing it in the private sector?

This also worries me because I am on TriCare. I am certain TriCare recipients will be the first forced on the "Public Option".
What worries me is that as soon as the government gets ahold of it, affirmative action is going to go into hyperdrive when it comes to who gets to be a doctor.

Just cant wait till they tell me my new doctors name is Jamal Saddam Mohommad Khaddafi.

What worries me is that as soon as the government gets ahold of it, affirmative action is going to go into hyperdrive when it comes to who gets to be a doctor.

Just cant wait till they tell me my new doctors name is Jamal Saddam Mohommad Khaddafi.

I doubt Affirmative action will have much to do with Doctors , However it will have a lot to do with the people hired to push the Death button at the place where the government screens your application for medical aid.

What worries me is that as soon as the government gets ahold of it, affirmative action is going to go into hyperdrive when it comes to who gets to be a doctor.

The whole thing could turn bad on a bunch of different levels. It makes my head spin.

Just cant wait till they tell me my new doctors name is Jamal Saddam Mohommad Khaddafi.

You mean that's not already his name? :lol:

You mean that's not already his name? :lol:I don't think my grandmother has been able to correctly pronounce her primary's name for 20 years. :lol:

I don't think my grandmother has been able to correctly pronounce her primary's name for 20 years. :lol:

And I bet she hasn't understood a word her Dr has said either.

Okay. So you’re an employer. Your employees are paying $200 per month and you are matching that at $200 per employee for health insurance. You have 50 employees. Suddenly the government comes along and says “Hey Alexa, you can stop paying that supplement we are able to cover it now. Besides, as a business owner your taxes are going up by 10% to cover the 'Public Option', so it would be destroy your profit margin to have to keep paying that premium as well as have to take on a higher tax rate.” So, you (the employer), in an effort to save $120,000 per year, on the next round of benefits renewals, announce to your employees that you are no longer providing healthcare insurance and that your employees will have to pay out-of-pocket or go on the “Public Option”. In the mean time, the 10% hike in taxes is far more than you can afford to keep 50 employees so you have to lay off 10 of your employees.

Couple this with workers whose company keeps their insurance benefits, but most of those employees realize they can better afford the "Public Option" than pay $200 per month, so they jump off the private insurance to save money.

Now tell me what employer wouldn’t do this? Are you telling me this wont result in insurance companies going out of business? Loss of jobs? Plus the jobs lost due to small businesses having their taxes hiked due to the "Public Option". I mean the math is pretty simple if you ask me.

It all depends on the health care reform bill that finally passes law. However, if they do set it up in the way other industrialized nations have, then yes, insurance companies will thrive.

I am against the Canadian and England models in which health care is wholly government run. However, I do support the model many European countries such as Germany and France have. These models have base coverage subsidized by the government. Everyone is covered by the bare necessities. Private insurance comes in after this and sells supplemental insurance based on what the customer can afford. Employers pay into health care based on the size of the company/number of employees they have.

The insurance industries are doing fine in the countries in which government and private insurance work hand in hand. The quality of health care isn't shabby either. Doctors are still making house calls in some of these countries. It's coverage I have had and isn't any better or worse than what one has here.

The resistance to change is uncanny. With this mindset Ford would have never gotten anywhere with his automobile. We would still be in horse and buggy and doing the verbal tear down of the Europeans with their socialistic cars. Just the because other countries do something, doesn't make it bad.

Why would I argue that the goal of the left, their stated goal, of getting rid of private insurance, would work via their policies? Is that what you are asking me?

Well, you got me there.

While I do believe there are those that embrace the health care model Canada and England provide, it doesn't mean that the everyone on the left supports it. In fact if you speak to many lefties, you will hear an array of models being put forth as an example. I believe the French model is the most revered. And if anyone right or left looks at those models, then private insurance isn't something that is gotten rid of.

I believe many American's are still confused on the concept of Universal Health Care. I don't believe that many realize that many of these models are one in which private insurance actually thrives in them.

I blame the administration for not being more definitive in presenting the options of health care reform. I think if they had, then much misinformation wouldn't be out there as it is today for the left/right and everyone else in between.

While I do believe there are those that embrace the health care model Canada and England provide, it doesn't mean that the everyone on the left supports it. In fact if you speak to many lefties, you will hear an array of models being put forth as an example. I believe the French model is the most revered. And if anyone right or left looks at those models, then private insurance isn't something that is gotten rid of. .

No, but it is one where the government has a much greater role in determining what they can charge and what they can do. And you are required by law to purchase it. And I've seen a whole range of information that goes either way in its presumed effectiveness. I do concur with the general conservative argument that we have the best health care in the wolrd, despite skewed studies that try to argue the opposite with data that do not compare accurately.


I believe many American's are still confused on the concept of Universal Health Care. I don't believe that many realize that many of these models are one in which private insurance actually thrives in them.


I wouldn't put that positive a spin on them, but it doesn't matter what people think it means, it only matters what they pass on the Hill. Right now they're promising a panacea they cannot deliver on, at least not without enormous tax increases. It doesn't matter if there exists a model such as France's, if they create something that looks lke Britain's.

It galls me a little to think that before too long, fully half of our budget will be paying doctor bills because some politician keeps trying to sell the idea that no one should ever die, that insurance companies are the enemy, that government can actually SAVE money, cut costs, run something as vast as a sixth of our economy MORE efficiently and will improve care and deliver it to everyone.


I blame the administration for not being more definitive in presenting the options of health care reform. I think if they had, then much misinformation wouldn't be out there as it is today for the left/right and everyone else in between.

The misinformation comes from a lot of sources, not the least of which is that until a bill is finalized - which as of this wriitng has just passed with a last minute amendment to halt abortion spending - everything people say about it can only be partially true. You blame Obama for not getting the message out? I'd put it on him and the Democrats in Congress for being deliberately conciliatory about the more unsavory aspects of this, and I sure don't applaud their condescension and insults.

While I do believe there are those that embrace the health care model Canada and England provide, it doesn't mean that the everyone on the left supports it. In fact if you speak to many lefties, you will hear an array of models being put forth as an example. I believe the French model is the most revered. And if anyone right or left looks at those models, then private insurance isn't something that is gotten rid of.

I believe many American's are still confused on the concept of Universal Health Care. I don't believe that many realize that many of these models are one in which private insurance actually thrives in them.

I blame the administration for not being more definitive in presenting the options of health care reform. I think if they had, then much misinformation wouldn't be out there as it is today for the left/right and everyone else in between.

Oh, come on. There's a million little details out there, left, right, etc, however, universal health care, public option, socialism, call it what you will, the primary goal is a government run system with ALL that power. That is NOT a characteristic of a free nation or of free markets.

The fact of the matter is we have, by far, the best medicine in the world. Ain't nobody leaving the US to get better care in France.

Look at what Pelosi and the Dems are celebrating; a goal, they say, that has been pursued, politically, for some 100 freaking years. What goal? Better doctors? More of them? Healthier people?

No.

Power. More government power.

It all depends on the health care reform bill that finally passes law. However, if they do set it up in the way other industrialized nations have, then yes, insurance companies will thrive.

Perhaps you need a reminder of their ultimate goal.

p-bY92mcOdk

The fact of the matter is we have, by far, the best medicine in the world. Ain't nobody leaving the US to get better care in France.


99% true, but some of the European countries do have access to experimental treatments that our laws do not allow, even if the patient may die without it.

I see no evidence that increased government control will make those treatment available in the US. I believe that we are more likely to see a decrease in research as budgets are cut.

On the other hand, the Soviets did develop RK. That led to PRK and LASIK. The efficiency of fixing vision instead of paying for glasses was deemed to benefit the state. It's possible that we could see similar benefits, but if we consider the Soviets we also need to be willing to accept their corruption, graft, endless waits, and substandard conditions.

John Stossel's "Sick in America". Watch all six parts if you want to know what we can come to expect here.

aEXFUbSbg1I

Has anyone asked this of a lefty, yet?

"If you get the 'public option' and start to cut into the profits of insurance companies, what happens to the people they fire when they start to cut costs to deal with the loss of income?"

I mean, the issue to independents, to most people, actually, is jobs, jobs, jobs. Socialized medicine designed to cut costs WILL cost jobs. It just will.

:shrug:

I'm still wondering where all the doctors, nurses, and specialists are going to come from for all this new healthcare considering we have major shortfalls in many medical professions. Less supply and costs also go up -- if you start telling people you are going to make less in the same field, I would just imagine that you will have even less people wanting to fill those areas where there are massive shortfalls, such as registered nurses. That is just some more of that dangerous and evil conservative thinking, though.

I did see they will fix some of the problem in this bill by allowing less skilled/trained medical professionals do some of those jobs which required doctors and such to do before. I mean - we were after better healthcare. Whats not better than lowering the educational and other professional requirements of those performing medical services on us under the new system.

I'm still wondering where all the doctors, nurses, and specialists are going to come from for all this new healthcare considering we have major shortfalls in many medical professions.

As many folks right here in the forums have said, the goal is to get SOMETHING passed and, after that, just add on to it.

"Why, we had no idea we were this short of docs/nurses/specialists/infrastructure etc" and cha ching!.

I did see they will fix some of the problem in this bill by allowing less skilled/trained medical professionals do some of those jobs which required doctors and such to do before. I mean - we were after better healthcare. Whats not better than lowering the educational and other professional requirements of those performing medical services on us under the new system.

Light bulb moment! Outsource it;

We'll be on the phone with India having someone talk us through taking our kids appendix out...

'No, no, no. I said vwe[rfvngwq[ernq[erba[fevq[er[afsd'vbkafd'gaietrn'eav"

:jameo:

Light bulb moment! Outsource it;

We'll be on the phone with India having someone talk us through taking our kids appendix out...

'No, no, no. I said vwe[rfvngwq[ernq[erba[fevq[er[afsd'vbkafd'gaietrn'eav"

:jameo:

You: "I can't understand a word you are saying. Can you put me through to someone who speaks english?"

Them "Speaking english to you I am."

You: "I can't understand a word you are saying. Can you put me through to someone who speaks english?"

Them "Speaking english to you I am."

:lol:

We'll be on the phone with India having someone talk us through taking our kids appendix out...Not necessarily.

We could get something like this...



sstCC7T0Do4

Ther are several Nurse Practitioners practicing under Medical Doctors in St. Mary's County right now , and some of them are reported to be excellent. However I dont know that any of them are placed in charge of terminal patients after hospice has been notified as this bill calls for.

Mine gave me colchechine for gout and it worked, but even I could have written that prescription if I were allowed to do it. Some things are pretty easy to diagnose and treat. Somethings arent. This bill was passed allowing Nurse Practitioners without thought being given to malpractice. No tort reform was discussed, will practitioners need Malpractice insurance. I guess this will be worked out after the first couple of thousands law suits.

Other countries have a public and private options also. The insurance companies are doing fine. I would point you to the German model as a case study.


Liberals are real good at comparing Apples to Watermelons..

I just saw a commercial today, a webcast from Panama.. "If a THIRD WORLD COUNTRY" (I'm sure Panama likes being referred to as third world) can afford to insure everyone, why can't we!!??"

Because the US is slightly bigger than Panama!!

Comparing health plans in Germany to the US, would be like comparing the cost of law enforcement in Dameron, MD to the cost of Law Enforcement in NYC.. or saying.. "IF the crime rate in Dameron is close to zero, and there's been ONE murder there in 30 years, why can't NYC do the same?"

It's a stupid argument, and stupid analysis.

And I'm not saying you are stupid, you're just repeating what you've heard from the liberal leadership..

That and I don't want to pay $8 a gallon for gas..

Ther are several Nurse Practitioners practicing under Medical Doctors in St. Mary's County right now , and some of them are reported to be excellent. However I dont know that any of them are placed in charge of terminal patients after hospice has been notified as this bill calls for.

Mine gave me colchechine for gout and it worked, but even I could have written that prescription if I were allowed to do it. Some things are pretty easy to diagnose and treat. Somethings arent. This bill was passed allowing Nurse Practitioners without thought being given to malpractice. No tort reform was discussed, will practitioners need Malpractice insurance. I guess this will be worked out after the first couple of thousands law suits.
the majority of Congressman and Senators are lawyers, got rich being lawyers.. where only one or two or doctors..

That is why they are trying to reform the Medical Practice, and not discussing tort reform..

Light bulb moment! Outsource it;

We'll be on the phone with India having someone talk us through taking our kids appendix out...

'No, no, no. I said vwe[rfvngwq[ernq[erba[fevq[er[afsd'vbkafd'gaietrn'eav"

:jameo:

Doesn't GE make a bunch of medical equipment that could make that a reality? Hmmmmm....

Doesn't GE make a bunch of medical equipment that could make that a reality? Hmmmmm....

You know what, there is an AWFUL lot of basic medical care that could be handled right at home.