First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“Not an Obumble Voter!”

Since: Dec 08

Bar Harbor, ME

#1 Nov 11, 2012
I recall that liberals thought the magic money unicorn would fly over us all and drop 100 dollar bills from the sky to pay for Obumble's massive new entitlement program.

Guess not.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/11/11/ceo-papa...
Shirley

East Stroudsburg, PA

#2 Nov 11, 2012
Jeff Woehrle wrote:
I recall that liberals thought the magic money unicorn would fly over us all and drop 100 dollar bills from the sky to pay for Obumble's massive new entitlement program.
Guess not.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/11/11/ceo-papa...
Maybe it's time for employers to stop paying health insurance on their employees.The world is changing,they can no longer afford it.Each person should pay for their own,if they can't afford it there's entitlements to help them.I pay for my own!

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#3 Nov 11, 2012
Shirley wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe it's time for employers to stop paying health insurance on their employees.The world is changing,they can no longer afford it.Each person should pay for their own,if they can't afford it there's entitlements to help them.I pay for my own!
It is called compensation. You work, you get paid. Part of that payment my be in the form of benefits, which can include vacation, sick days, personal days and insurance coverage. Many don't pay full premiums, workers pay a share. So who is going to pay for the entitlements? The workers who get gypped out of insurance coverage???

“Not an Obumble Voter!”

Since: Dec 08

Bar Harbor, ME

#4 Nov 11, 2012
Whenever a third party gets involved, service suffers. If the individual is paying, that individual is more concerned about the cost and quality of service. Employee-paid arrangements put a wall between who is paying and who gets the benefits. If an insurance company is not responsible to the person receiving the service, it is easier to pass over the concerns of that person. After all, that person isn't paying the bill.

Auto insurance works well...and you don't see too many employers offering to pay employees' car insurance. The individual pays, and is free to go to a competitor if they don't like the service they receive.
LeftWingLiberal

Bloomsburg, PA

#5 Nov 11, 2012
it saves money
Shirley

East Stroudsburg, PA

#6 Nov 11, 2012
Jeff Woehrle wrote:
Whenever a third party gets involved, service suffers. If the individual is paying, that individual is more concerned about the cost and quality of service. Employee-paid arrangements put a wall between who is paying and who gets the benefits. If an insurance company is not responsible to the person receiving the service, it is easier to pass over the concerns of that person. After all, that person isn't paying the bill.
Auto insurance works well...and you don't see too many employers offering to pay employees' car insurance. The individual pays, and is free to go to a competitor if they don't like the service they receive.
Your response surprised me,if people would pay attention to what they're paying themselves maybe hospital cost wouldn't get away with charging $20 a pill,after all if the employer is paying the bill why should they care?Also make the freeloaders that are getting free insurance when they retire take care of it themselves,why should the taxpayers pay for it.

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#7 Nov 11, 2012
Truly an enigma.
Shirley

East Stroudsburg, PA

#8 Nov 11, 2012
hennypennyhag wrote:
Truly an enigma.
Truly an A@@hole!

“Not an Obumble Voter!”

Since: Dec 08

Bar Harbor, ME

#9 Nov 11, 2012
Shirley wrote:
<quoted text>
Your response surprised me,if people would pay attention to what they're paying themselves maybe hospital cost wouldn't get away with charging $20 a pill,after all if the employer is paying the bill why should they care?Also make the freeloaders that are getting free insurance when they retire take care of it themselves,why should the taxpayers pay for it.
America's healthcare system has problems, no doubt. However, a government takeover of an innovative and thriving industry is not the answer. And 'saving money' is not something the government is terribly concerned about.

For all the hot air over ObumbleCare's alleged ability to insure those who could not get insurance, that problem could have been simply and effectively solved with a voucher system. Flawed as such an approach may be, it is clearly more efficient than allowing government (and its bureaucracy) to take over something that isn't broken.

People sometimes cannot buy insurance. I get that. The solution is to target those with that problem, not to draw everyone into a black hole of government morass that solves nothing.
how about some facts

East Stroudsburg, PA

#10 Nov 11, 2012
Obamacare is not a government takeover. To even have to state that, after so many months of intense debate, makes me wonder about your ability to comprehend any facts about any subject that do not originate from Uncle Rupert's Misinformation Workshop.

If you don't understand that simple fact, then everything else you have to say about the health care is meaningless. Your party seems to be stepping back and preparing to reinvent itself, in order to survive. You might consider a similar tactic.

Learn something about the Act, and then come back...

“Not an Obumble Voter!”

Since: Dec 08

Bar Harbor, ME

#11 Nov 11, 2012
how about some facts wrote:
Obamacare is not a government takeover. To even have to state that, after so many months of intense debate, makes me wonder about your ability to comprehend any facts about any subject that do not originate from Uncle Rupert's Misinformation Workshop.
If you don't understand that simple fact, then everything else you have to say about the health care is meaningless. Your party seems to be stepping back and preparing to reinvent itself, in order to survive. You might consider a similar tactic.
Learn something about the Act, and then come back...
Here's the skinny.

When companies opt out of providing health insurance to their employees, they are thrown on to a government program. That's the bottom line. As more and more employers opt out, government's role (and money collected) gets larger.

Can you comprehend that?

The creeping effect of the health care takeover is to do just that: Eliminate private insurance and replace it with government run, government paid insurance.

Don't be a fool. The only companies that are keeping their coverage for employees are ones who made campaign donations to Barry and are requesting and getting waivers.

Wise up.

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#12 Nov 11, 2012
Shirley wrote:
<quoted text>
Truly an A@@hole!
What?

Since: Sep 09

Stroudsburg PA

#13 Nov 11, 2012
I think that if the health insurance industry had truly been reformed that we all could have been better. There is nothing reformed . People who could not afford insurance still cant and will expect their care for free. Those who actually take the responsibility of getting and paying for insurance still do - only at much higher cost( up 60%) for some. "Children " till age 26 get to leach off their parents and even if they get their own through their own job or self - they cannot be taken off. Real reform would not let this happen. So o ama care will bankrupt the country and many many jobs will be lost. This is reform??
LeftWingLiberal

Bloomsburg, PA

#14 Nov 11, 2012
Jeff Woehrle wrote:
<quoted text>
America's healthcare system has problems, no doubt. However, a government takeover of an innovative and thriving industry is not the answer. And 'saving money' is not something the government is terribly concerned about.
For all the hot air over ObumbleCare's alleged ability to insure those who could not get insurance, that problem could have been simply and effectively solved with a voucher system. Flawed as such an approach may be, it is clearly more efficient than allowing government (and its bureaucracy) to take over something that isn't broken.
People sometimes cannot buy insurance. I get that. The solution is to target those with that problem, not to draw everyone into a black hole of government morass that solves nothing.
The only problem with healthcare is that the insurance companies are involved and divert money to profits, shareholders, advertising, lobbyists, fancy buildings, and big executive bonuses. Almost none of this money would be spend if it was administered under the Medicare system that is already in place.

And vouchers would be the WORST solution because actuaries would simply know where the bar was set and lift their sights higher.

“Not an Obumble Voter!”

Since: Dec 08

Bar Harbor, ME

#15 Nov 11, 2012
LeftWingLiberal wrote:
<quoted text>
The only problem with healthcare is that the insurance companies are involved and divert money to profits, shareholders, advertising, lobbyists, fancy buildings, and big executive bonuses. Almost none of this money would be spend if it was administered under the Medicare system that is already in place.
And vouchers would be the WORST solution because actuaries would simply know where the bar was set and lift their sights higher.
The insurance companies and the drug companies were involved in the health care takeover. So whose interests do you think were protected in that process?

The profit motive is both good and necessary to drive innovation and affordability. Government innovates for self-preservation, utilizing their budget so it's not cut next year and making busy work projects to protect departments.

Bureaucracy is not the answer...and the question is not that complex to begin with: Insure the uninsurable. Open markets to competition. Let capitalism work.
LeftWingLiberal

Bloomsburg, PA

#16 Nov 11, 2012
Part of the current business climate is the same as prior the Standard Oil break up. Except that instead of one company, you are dealing with a cartel of companies conspiring with the same goal, fleece the public by creating non-competitive markets. There's a difference between competition and predators. Health insurance is predatory. They want to collect premiums from the young and healthy and reject the rest. Then they hand off the high risks to Medicare.
LeftWingLiberal

Bloomsburg, PA

#17 Nov 11, 2012
You keep saying how inefficient and wasteful government is and that the private sector can do everything better, but it's simply not true. Both have their pluses and minuses, Worldcom, Enron, Health South, Tyco and Adelphia are a few. On the government side they all pale to the U.S. Military which is probably the most wasteful entity on the planet, and ironic also the most powerful and best equipped. Medicaid and welfare are also up there.
LeftWingLiberal

Bloomsburg, PA

#18 Nov 11, 2012
The problem I have with health insurance companies is that you pay a middleman for a manufactured service that you don't get anything in return. It robs the patient and the providers. It's similar to what happened with banks and ed loans. They had no risk because the govt backed the loans and gave the banks money to loan at ridiculously low rates. So Obama took them out of the loop and yes, they are angry about it.

Since: Sep 09

Effort

#19 Nov 11, 2012
LeftWingLiberal wrote:
You keep saying how inefficient and wasteful government is and that the private sector can do everything better, but it's simply not true. Both have their pluses and minuses, Worldcom, Enron, Health South, Tyco and Adelphia are a few. On the government side they all pale to the U.S. Military which is probably the most wasteful entity on the planet, and ironic also the most powerful and best equipped. Medicaid and welfare are also up there.
Pardon ? The military and Tricare are a mixed bag, Back in the 70's there were a large number of military doctors, dentists, nurses, etc. Many on base and off base hospitals, well run ones too, Philadelphia had one, Ft Dix had another one. Now when I go for medical I use mainly my BC/BS and whatever that does not cover tricare does.
As for paid healthcare, prior to WWII there was no such thing, except in the military, paid health care was a way around giving and increasing workers compensation when raises were prohibited in war time which was a no no.
LeftWingLiberal

Bloomsburg, PA

#20 Nov 11, 2012
I'm not sure what you are talking about.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Stroudsburg Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Person of interest Sat Lol 1
City living. May 22 Thomas 1
Shawnee Academy to close (Feb '11) May 21 cash 10
country cottages May 21 Thomas 1
News Social Security disability approvals decline (Dec '13) May 21 racism is wrong 92
Bring back the canape May 20 SlickMick 2
Seniors will need a better form of transportati... May 20 SlickMick 2
More from around the web

Stroudsburg People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]