House Democrats' gov't health plan would offer premiums 20%-25%...

[Patrick]

Leroy Jenkins wrote:

I ain't no expert in insurance, but I can tell you a few things...
1. Gubment can't do nothing right
2. Gubment is not an insurance company
3. They will give you 20 percent discount and turn around and raise taxes to cover the difference, cause the gubment ain't go no money to be given no discounts.

First, learn how to spell "government", then maybe you can learn something about the subject.
I will assume you don't drive on highways or expressways, never use the post office, don't use the internet -- oops, I guess you do -- and have no faith or confidence in our military. After all, those are all run by the government.

[Just Steve]

chicagoguy wrote:

Medicare is already doing a good job at providing low cost health coverage.
I think not having to worry about keeping a job to provide health insurance for the family will reduce risk and costs in people starting their own companies, and will increase entrepreneurship and improve our economy...

Sorry, but Medicare is NOT doing a good job. Less than half MDs accept it, and even those that do will only accept Medicare recipients as a fraction of their total patient load. Why? Because the reimbursment rate is not enough to even cover the administrative costs of treating these patients, let alone the actual cost of care.

[Just Steve]

Rick wrote:

I didn't know insurance premiums could be calculated without any knowledge of the group of people that are going to be insured (ie. the health, habits, etc). I don't understand how a large chunk of people who are already considered uninsurable by the industry can all of a sudden get insured for 20% less. Seems fishy to me.
And lets not forget how this is going to be funded. Raising taxes and inventing a NEW TAX (taxing employees' employer sponsored health insurance plans). I can't wait to pay for everyone's insurance. Let's hope the American people aren't dumb enough to swallow this line of **** the gov't is force feeding us.
This type of gov't spending is unsustainable and our country is in deep deep trouble.

Actually, only the Republican plan recommends taxing employer based health insurance to help pay for the program.

Supposedly, the plan is to pay for it in two ways. First, there is the reduction in some of the costs currently being thrown at health care now (about 2/3 by the Administration reporting). The other 1/3 comes from an increase in maximum level of withholding tax, which only affects that top 2 % of earners.

The other piece of it, and where you start off, I kind of agree with. How does one know where premiums ought to be when we don't know the risk involved in insuring them?

Since you won't have pre-existing conditions any more (which shouldn't be needed anyway if everyone is theoretically covered), how does the decision about what gets covered and what does not get made? What's cosmetic or elective surgery? How many MRI's CAN I have each year? Who monitors the decision tree of treatments?

Certainly not the hospitals themselves.

[Springfield]

Class envy and Obama-nomics = Patrick

Too bad your class envy lead you to the Obama campaign trough. It is uderstandable for an Obamabot to be happy with less service for more money. You voted for a community organizer with no history of accomplishment what so ever.

Oh the EVIL Capitalist America is going to get you Patrick, you and your cradle to grave, government dependant leaches.

Patrick wrote:

This is horribly unfair to insurance companies! How can they possibly make a profit if they have to compete with a government plan that doesn't have a CEO it needs to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to every year, because CEOs like that are so very necessary to the people who are paying the premiums? How can they return value to their shareholders if there is a competing plan that doesn't have shareholders to pay dividends to? Anyone who wants to pay $2500 less a year in premiums is clearly selfish and unAmerican because they are unwilling to sacrifice for the capitalism system that CEOs depend upon for their hundreds of millions of dollars a year that they work very hard to earn by finding new ways to deny life-saving procedures to people who pay the premiums! I say NO to this socialist plan that might put the silly needs of people who are in danger of dying ahead of the legitimate rights of CEOs to earn their hundreds of millions of dollars. After all, they have to buy shoes for their kids too!

[lily boca raton fl]

Leroy Jenkins wrote:

<quoted text>
You ain't so smart, CEO's get paid a lot of money for many reasons, is life fair no, why not write Obama and says to him, please uncle obama spare me a dime cause life isn't fair...I bet you hundred dollars nobody responds.

Ok Einstein

[Huh]

Low and Outside wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah, if you don't mind being a vendor of medicine and not getting paid until six months after the service is provided. And if you do get paid, it's pennies on the dollar of what your costs really were. Then you as a medical provider need to bill your privately insured customers extra to make up for what medicare didn't pay. Not doing so would force you to lock your doors and provide nothing to nobody.
So Medicare is doing what again?

Exactly, and unless the "insurance" is free, the same people who say they can't afford to buy a private plan, still won't be able to find the money. And then what, the government will "pay" their premium. And then the government will pay the medical provider a tenth of what is owed and they will need a bail out. I think I'll stick with BCBS. They may not be cheap but the big picture sounds like it's going to cost me a lot more money.

[Leroy Jenkins]

Patrick wrote:

<quoted text>
Who said employers won't continue to pay? They'll just have less to pay as the premiums will be lower. This will help employers and employees. Everyone wins. Except insurance company fat cats, that is. My heart just bleeds for them after the years they've screwed the rest of us.

Hopium is always nice to be on, but not everyone will win, cause money doesn't come from nowhere..oh wait, unless you print money...doh di I says that?

[Springfield]

Highways? Expressways? Bad shape dude and not the pinnacle of government programs in any case as they simply give money to states to do the work and look how well Illinois Democrats are doing with that!

Postal Service - losing money by the tons every year, yet the cost of stamps and all other postal services increase annually

Internet? is this an Al Gore thing? what does the government have to do with the internet?

Military? you should fall into the "don't ask don't tell" category good fella!

In other words, you're really a dupe and your posts attribute to that description.

Patrick wrote:

<quoted text>
First, learn how to spell "government", then maybe you can learn something about the subject.
I will assume you don't drive on highways or expressways, never use the post office, don't use the internet -- oops, I guess you do -- and have no faith or confidence in our military. After all, those are all run by the government.

[Rob]

How stupid are you?

The US postal service is losing revenue to email and the internet.

What percentage of highways have been closed as they are unusable? I'll wait.

I see you didnt respond to the military question, so I can only assume you belive they are doing a poor job.

Springfield wrote:

Highways? Expressways? Bad shape dude and not the pinnacle of government programs in any case as they simply give money to states to do the work and look how well Illinois Democrats are doing with that!
Postal Service - losing money by the tons every year, yet the cost of stamps and all other postal services increase annually
Internet? is this an Al Gore thing? what does the government have to do with the internet?
Military? you should fall into the "don't ask don't tell" category good fella!
In other words, you're really a dupe and your posts attribute to that description.
<quoted text>

[Rob]

Should a person working 60 hours per week with a low wage deserve to die for a treatable issue?

Springfield wrote:

Class envy and Obama-nomics = Patrick
Too bad your class envy lead you to the Obama campaign trough. It is uderstandable for an Obamabot to be happy with less service for more money. You voted for a community organizer with no history of accomplishment what so ever.
Oh the EVIL Capitalist America is going to get you Patrick, you and your cradle to grave, government dependant leaches.
<quoted text>

[Hmmm]

Patrick wrote:

<quoted text>
Who said employers won't continue to pay? They'll just have less to pay as the premiums will be lower. This will help employers and employees. Everyone wins. Except insurance company fat cats, that is. My heart just bleeds for them after the years they've screwed the rest of us.

Insurance companies employ a lot of people .... but we are worried about unemployment ..... are we??

[moreofthesame]

I'd rather pay regular premiums for the current healthcare instead of 25% less for substandard care. I guess if you don't have any insurance it's better than nothing, but to sell out the majority to save the non productive part of society is mindless. It's like electing a community organizer to ........
The comedy continues

[Patrick]

Why are repugs so afraid of public health care? Maybe because they know they will never win another election if the Democratic Party is successful in finally giving the American people what we want? Guaranteed public health care like every single industrialized country in the world except the U.S. already has? More proof repugs care about themselves, not about America or the American people.

[Rick]

Patrick wrote:

Why are repugs so afraid of public health care? Maybe because they know they will never win another election if the Democratic Party is successful in finally giving the American people what we want? Guaranteed public health care like every single industrialized country in the world except the U.S. already has? More proof repugs care about themselves, not about America or the American people.

But it WON'T be successful. Just 2 months ago the govt announced that both Medicare and SS will both be bankrupt sooner that was thought. So now Osama Barama wants to add a 3rd program that will bankrupt before we know it. As soon as the program is put in place our Congress-scum will be adding/deleting/changing what is covered and how much is paid to generate votes for themselves. It cannot possiblly succeed.

And just look at those other countries' programs. The only ones that are not insolvent are those that strictly ration health care or have very young populations (at least for now).

[moreofthesame]

Patrick wrote:

Why are repugs so afraid of public health care? Maybe because they know they will never win another election if the Democratic Party is successful in finally giving the American people what we want? Guaranteed public health care like every single industrialized country in the world except the U.S. already has? More proof repugs care about themselves, not about America or the American people.

These other countries don't have to deal with all the lawsuits, and your boy barry is afraid of the ABA and won't take on tort reform, which is one of the biggest costs in healthcare. Seems you're misunderstand who is afraid and who is just tired of paying higher and higher taxes for nothing in return.

[Mark in Chicago]

When do the people in the inner city communities get their free coverage?
Some are not liking the wait.
I keep telling them Obama has their back.
I know he will not let us down.

[Springfield]

Rob wrote:

Should a person working 60 hours per week with a low wage deserve to die for a treatable issue?
<quoted text>

Thata happens on a regular basis in Canada and England. You want that here too?

[Patrick]

Springfield wrote:

<quoted text>
Thata happens on a regular basis in Canada and England. You want that here too?

Uh, it's already happening here, Sparky. HMOs routinely deny care claiming it's "experimental" when it's not. Employees are required to decline a certain percentage of claims, and get bonuses for beating the percentage. Is that how you want health care run? Obviously it is, since you are so vigorously defending the status quo. But then, you're a knee-jerk right-wing-nut who would defend anything the Republican'ts support no matter how destructive.

[Rick]

Patrick wrote:

<quoted text>
Uh, it's already happening here, Sparky. HMOs routinely deny care claiming it's "experimental" when it's not. Employees are required to decline a certain percentage of claims, and get bonuses for beating the percentage. Is that how you want health care run? Obviously it is, since you are so vigorously defending the status quo. But then, you're a knee-jerk right-wing-nut who would defend anything the Republican'ts support no matter how destructive.

And now the Congress-scum will introduce politics. What disease their family and friends have will be what's covered by the government. We have already experienced this when many states mandated what insurance companies must cover. In this case it has driven up cost and prevented them by law from providing a variety of policies that people may want to choose from based upon what the insured thinks they need and can afford. I would rather have to deal with insurance companies than the same people who run the post office and already have two bankrupt social programs on their hands: Medicare and SS. We don't need another.

[lily boca raton fl]

moreofthesame wrote:

I'd rather pay regular premiums for the current healthcare instead of 25% less for substandard care. I guess if you don't have any insurance it's better than nothing, but to sell out the majority to save the non productive part of society is mindless. It's like electing a community organizer to ........
The comedy continues

I heard a man say today that he pays 1200 a month for healthcare and uses only about 2000 a year; that's a over $%12,000 profit for the insurance company. Guess they have to pay that ceo $10 million a year from somewhere, right? But that's okay with you right? In addition, the insurance companies have to pay for advertising, and adminstration (you know, those people that are paid bonuses to deny your care)?