It it true that under the House Bill, the Health Choices Commissioner will choose our Health Care Benefits for us. Is it true that we will have no choice?

It it true that under the House Bill, the Health Choices Commissioner will choose our Health Care Benefits for us. Is it true that we will have no choice?

He or she determines minimum requirements. We MUST have (under penalty of fines/tax) at least what he determines to be the minimum coverage. We can't pick and chose between deductibles, catastrophic care, or prescription costs..

He also determines the cost to us, again without any choice. We must have minimum coverage, and we must pay a set amount into the gov't fund ALL determine by him/them.

In that regard, we have NO choice.

He or she determines minimum requirements. We MUST have (under penalty of fines/tax) at least what he determines to be the minimum coverage. We can't pick and chose between deductibles, catastrophic care, or prescription costs..

He also determines the cost to us, again without any choice. We must have minimum coverage, and we must pay a set amount into the gov't fund ALL determine by him/them.

In that regard, we have NO choice.

And there's the key to killiing off private plans. All they have to do is set the bar too high, use tax dollars to allow the public plan to meet it - and everyone is screwed. And there are certainly those in this administration who would prefer something like that.

He or she determines minimum requirements. Minimum requirements for what, exactly?

We MUST have (under penalty of fines/tax) at least what he determines to be the minimum coverage. What if I'm so rich I don't need health insurance? How will I be punished if I don't buy the minimum coverage.

We can't pick and chose between deductibles, catastrophic care, or prescription costs. Why can't we?

He also determines the cost to us, again without any choice.
He's going to set the price at which the private insurance companies sell us our health insurance?

We must have minimum coverage What happens if one doesn't have minimum coverage? Does one go to jail?

we must pay a set amount into the gov't fund ALL determine by him/them. What will the fund be used for?

And there's the key to killing off private plans. All they have to do is set the bar too high...

Set the bar for what too high?

Good gracious! Can we just do some kind of mega-merge on all these healthcare threads? I mean how many do we need?

Minimum requirements for what, exactly?

What if I'm so rich I don't need health insurance? How will I be punished if I don't buy the minimum coverage.

Why can't we?

He's going to set the price at which the private insurance companies sell us our health insurance?

What happens if one doesn't have minimum coverage? Does one go to jail?

What will the fund be used for?

You've said you've read the bill in it's entirety, so you already know the answers to these questions.

I'm not going to quote chapter and verse to you, nor am I going to give your stupid pissant arguments any credibility.

All I say is EVERYONE should at least glance through the bill.. and actually read as much as they can. They'll realize you are not what you appear to be, but some kind of hack that is serving a purpose or a "master".

Set the bar for what too high?

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

All that is needed is to set minimum requirements to be too much for a private plan to meet.

Off the top of my head, maximum premiums - cover people with pre-existing conditions - stuff like that. The government has deep pockets, but insurance companies can get squeezed with Uncle Sam setting the rules but in an obvious conflict of interest, "competing" under rules it makes.

It's like playing a game with a 6 year old who makes up the rules as he goes along. You learn early on that the first rule is going to be "I win".

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

All that is needed is to set minimum requirements to be too much for a private plan to meet.

Off the top of my head, maximum premiums - cover people with pre-existing conditions - stuff like that. The government has deep pockets, but insurance companies can get squeezed with Uncle Sam setting the rules but in an obvious conflict of interest, "competing" under rules it makes.

It's like playing a game with a 6 year old who makes up the rules as he goes along. You learn early on that the first rule is going to be "I win".

It's a sham.. He's being fed lines, he posts them, awaits our reply, than turns the page to see what he's supposed to say.

IF he's a lawyer (which i doubt) he probably works for Acorn (which I don't doubt whether he's a lawyer or not!)

It's a sham.. He's being fed lines, he posts them, awaits our reply, than turns the page to see what he's supposed to say.

IF he's a lawyer (which i doubt) he probably works for Acorn (which I don't doubt whether he's a lawyer or not!)

:lol: if you google most of his posts, you will find the same words posted by other people on other forums.

All that is needed is to set minimum requirements to be too much for a private plan to meet. If the public health insurance option can provide a better benefits package at a better price that what the private insurance companies can provide, why is that a bad thing?

Off the top of my head, maximum premiums
Are you sure the government is going to regulate the price that private insurance companies can charge for their health care plans? What section grants such power to the government.

cover people with pre-existing conditions - stuff like that.
The House Bill prohibits any "qualified" plan, whether offered by a private insurance company or by the public health insurance option, from imposing any pre-existing condition exclusion. See Section 111 of the Bill.

Private insurance companies are allowed to offer, outside of the Exchange, non-qualified plans which may include a pre-existing condition clause. However, who would want such a plan?

The government has deep pockets, but insurance companies can get squeezed with Uncle Sam setting the rules but in an obvious conflict of interest, "competing" under rules it makes. I want the public non profit option to offer such good plans at such good prices that the private for profit health insurance companies can't compete. That will mean a great reduction in our nation's total medical expenses.

It's like playing a game with a 6 year old who makes up the rules as he goes along. You learn early on that the first rule is going to be "I win". If the not for profit six year old can provide us better health care plans than the for profit private health insurance companies, I say let him make the rules, as long as they apply to his and the for profit private health insurance companies.

I want the public non profit option to offer such good plans at such good prices that the private for profit health insurance companies can't compete. That will mean a great reduction in our nation's total medical expenses.

(Oddly enough, this is exactly what the Democrats deny will happen).

It will result in a monopoly which never results in lowered expenses. And it will come from the government, the institution that brought us 500 dollar toilet seats.

And it of course, will eliminate any choices we have in the matter. So much for "you get to keep your insurance" because the unspoken snicker afterwards is "...as long as it's in business".

If the public health insurance option can provide a better benefits package at a better price that what the private insurance companies can provide, why is that a bad thing?

It's disingenuous to offer a "better plan" when it rests on the backs of taxpayers bankrolling it. Private companies must rely on a business model that balances the cost of premiums against what it can pay out for care. A public plan can just keep taking money in taxes - so while it has deep pockets, it absolutely guarantees it will be wasteful.

It's kind of like selling me something for 100 bucks less than a competitor but only AFTER taking 200 out of my back pocket.

If the public health insurance option can provide a better benefits package at a better price that what the private insurance companies can provide, why is that a bad thing?


Because you're an ass and I really don't want to be forced to pay for your sex change operation, your flu shot or your abortion.

It will result in a monopoly which never results in lowered expenses. And it will come from the government, the institution that brought us 500 dollar toilet seats.

How is an institution that pays $500 for a toilet seat going to be able to provide health insurance products of such outstanding quality and price that the private insurance companies won't be able to compete with them?

It's disingenuous to offer a "better plan" when it rests on the backs of taxpayers bankrolling it.
Show us where the House Bill says that the taxpayers will be bankrolling a "better plan."

PS: On the subject of illegal aliens: Section 246 provides that nothing in Subtitle C - which covers "Individual Affordability Credits" - shall allow Federal payments for "affordability credits" (subsidies) on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

How is an institution that pays $500 for a toilet seat going to be able to provide health insurance products of such outstanding quality that the private insurance companies won't be able to compete with them?The same way they pay $500 for a toilet seat.


They'll charge you directly next to nothing for your insurance, which will drive out the private companies. They'll afford the $30 worth of care through $500 worth of inefficiencies that you, the "consumer", won't directly see, but we, the taxpayers, will see through higher taxes/deficit/debt.

Any questions?