Quote :

"We could remove the subsidy and allow people to purchase private plans without paying taxes on it. Problem solved. What's wrong with that solution?"

The Republicans should have thought of that while they were in power. They could have saved themselves a lot of whining.

In all seriousness though, I'm still trying to figure out the subsidy. From what I gather, at some point employers decided to give their employees healthcare benefits in lieu of wages. They knew that they could get cheaper group rates than individuals, and they could write it off as a business expense. I'm trying to figure out how how it is a subsidy, and how it is un-American? All I can get from you is that, "the government let them" - as if you thought the government should have gotten involved in private business.

And, again, about the insurance. I think your freemarket ideology is hindering your ability to understand how insurance should work. With public insurance the goal is not to pick people you will never have to pay out to (and thereby maximize profits), the goal is too have a large enough pool so that the healthy people pay for the unheathy ones, until they themselves need services. Yes, you do have some with large expenses, but you have many more with none at all. I realize that you can make more money if you cherry-pick your pool, but who takes up the slack when everyone has been cherry-picked and the people left still need healthcare services? The government will, who else? That is why the CBO says the bill will reduce the deficit by $130 Billion in ten years, and more after that. The government won't end up having to pay for all of the expensive heathcare users, after the insurance industry has cherry-picked the cheap ones to maximize profits.

[Edited on December 24, 2009 at 4:15 PM. Reason : *~<]BO]

12/24/2009 3:53:01 PM

Quote :

"The Republicans should have thought of that while they were in power. They could have saved themselves a lot of whining."

Yeah, they should have. They haven't even figured it out now, they're still thinking that tort reform is going to be enough to bring down costs. Of course, it wouldn't.

Quote :

"In all seriousness though, I'm still trying to figure out the subsidy. From what I gather, at some point employers decided to give their employees healthcare benefits in lieu of wages. They knew that they could get cheaper group rates than individuals, and they could write it off as a business expense. I'm trying to figure out how how it is a subsidy, and how it is un-American? All I can get from you is that, "the government let them" - as if you thought the government should have gotten involved in private business."

It's a subsidy because the money used to buy the health insurance isn't taxed like it would be normally. The government has essentially said, "instead of paying this employee 50000 dollars a year, pay them 40000 a year and give them benefits worth 10,000, but you won't have to pay taxes on that 10,000." The result is that the employer saves money and the employee is duped into thinking they're getting a good deal, especially when his premium seems to be lower than it would be with a private plan. Of course, in most group plans, the employee pays something like 30% of the cost of the plan, and the employer pays 70%, so if you factor in how much the employee is losing in terms of wages, it's not a good deal at all. Personally, I'd rather have the wages and I could shop around and find the best insurance plan for me. I'm not really sure that any of this is un-American, given the kind of government intervention we've had for the past 150 years.

Insurance companies do cherry pick, and they should cherry pick. If you have cancer, you aren't a risk...that's a guaranteed huge cost. There's no gamble, on the part of the insurance company. They will not win. If they let you onto the plan they will be having to pay millions of dollars, so it would essentially be charity. Who would invest in a health insurance company that insures people that already have cancer? That's like a property insurance company that insures houses that have already burned down. It makes no sense. Now, I see your point: let's force insurance companies to take these people onto the plan. I don't think that's fair to the insurance company, though. If you want to take care of those people that are sick, then just have the government pay for their medical bills straight up, and cut out the middleman. We shouldn't be forcing private companies to throw away money in a free society, though.

12/24/2009 4:25:18 PM

Quote :

"You, and many other people, don’t seem to realize that if you currently have insurance, very little, more than likely nothing, will change for you in a practical sense under the plan (for various reason)."

And that's a lie, because the pre-existing bullshit WILL drive up premiums. there is no way around it.

Quote :

"The thing is, the Republicans had eight years before Obama to do anything"

how many times are you going to trot this bullshit out? WHY DOES IT FUCKING MATTER? If this bill is horrible, it's horrible, NO MATTER WHAT THE REPUBLICANS DID OR DIDN'T DO.

Quote :

"It would be foolish for me personally to do this, and probably almost anyone with employer-provided, pre-tax healthcare, which is the MAJORITY of people. But knock yourself out."

Why? The only risk you are taking is needing a doctor's visit, more or less, because for anything more than that, you can just go sign up for insurance. Any thing less than 750bux and you have won the bet.

Quote :

"That number excludes government assistance, like medicaid, since medicaid is insurance coverage."

Yes. I'm talking about people who qualify but haven't signed up. As in, they don't need this bill.

Quote :

"And while it's true that "not all of those people fit the crocodile tear version," but how many do? You seem to be under the assumption that it's only a few thousand people, but you and I both know that it's bullshit."

And you seem to be under the assumption that it's tens of millions, which is also bullshit. How about you man up and provide some numbers to go with your crocodile tears.

Quote :

"I already told you what the crux of the issue is."

No, you have given two answers. Which one is the "crux."

Quote :

"I didn't answer it because it was already answered for you, but I'll post it for you to read:"

And someone already shredded your quoted post. We can argue in circles if you want, but don't act like you are getting anywhere.

Quote :

"And I guess I'll answer this dumb question. Your hypothetical situation isn't realistic because elected officials rely on getting re-elected. Something like that wouldn't bode well for them."

Considering that we were talking about Constitutionality, your response is irrelevant.

Quote :

"You forgot to quote the rest, which went on to say:"

BULLSHIT. And you know it. That's what you said in that one post. In a previous post, you clearly stated the main problem was that people were uninsured.

Quote :

"Now you get to answer my questions, the ones you avoided last time."

I don't have to answer those questions, because they are the crocodile tears that apply to a fairly insignificant portion of the population. Moreover, solutions I support address those very things, namely getting away from the employer-sponsored system.

Quote :

"Additionally, what you were quoting was a paraphrase of what I had early said, which further expanded to:"

Hey, you've found the quote where you said the main problem is people can't get insurance. Good work! Now, take your pick on what the main problem is.

Quote :

"But what happens if you lose that coverage, like if you lose your job?"

Well, if insurance weren't tied to your employer, as others have suggested, this wouldn't be a problem. Thanks for talking about something we've already discussed.

Quote :

"That IS NOT analogous to your example"

It absolutely is NOW, since with this bullshit bill, pre-existing conditions won't matter. That's the whole fucking point of the analogy, dude. You have a house, you didn't buy insurance; it catches fire, you want insurance as it's burning. It's really simple, here.

Quote :

"I'll repeat this again. With the majority of people with health insurance having their insurance connected to their job, losing their job and insurance is a big issue. Is that not a big issue? Things like severance packages, which are usually around 1 to 3 months, definitely help the issue. But if you're unemployed for a prolonged amount of time, eventually you'll want coverage for yourself. What do you do if you had a pre-existing condition before you were dropped by your companies insurance that WAS previously covered? If you're telling me that this isn't an issue, one that you, or ANYONE else here can find themselves in very easily, then you're lying to yourself. Because it is an issue. But all you've been trying to do is minimize the importance of such an issue."

And guaranteeing pre-existing conditions might solve it, but it does so in a terrible way. The BETTER way to solve it is to continue letting insurance be, well, you know, INSURANCE. And that is done by disconnecting insurance from the employer. Please, GET THIS THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL.

Quote :

"In all seriousness though, I'm still trying to figure out the subsidy. From what I gather, at some point employers decided to give their employees healthcare benefits in lieu of wages. They knew that they could get cheaper group rates than individuals, and they could write it off as a business expense. I'm trying to figure out how how it is a subsidy, and how it is un-American? All I can get from you is that, "the government let them" - as if you thought the government should have gotten involved in private business."

The subsidy is, get ready for it, THE TAX WRITE-OFF FROM THE GOVERNMENT. was that so fucking hard? If they just paid the employees increased wages, well, that money doesn't get the tax deduction.

Quote :

"With public insurance the goal is not to pick people you will never have to pay out to (and thereby maximize profits), the goal is too have a large enough pool so that the healthy people pay for the unheathy ones, until they themselves need services."

That is not at all how insurance works. Insurance isn't based on the premise that "you will eventually need services." It's based on the premise that most people won't ever need the service. That's part of why having health insurance covering every-day things is part of the problem!

Quote :

"That is why the CBO says the bill will reduce the deficit by $130 Billion in ten years, and more after that."

And that's bullshit, AND YOU KNOW IT. it does so through mathematical gimmicks! You can't pay in for 10 years, pay out for 5 years, barely coming out even, and call that revenue neutral![quote]

12/24/2009 4:28:45 PM

Quote :

"And that's a lie, because the pre-existing bullshit WILL drive up premiums. there is no way around it."

Denying needy people health coverage keeps prices down

12/24/2009 4:33:12 PM

yes. it keeps prices for INSURANCE down. Insurance isn't insurance if the company is forced to give it to everyone, no matter what. As someone else said, it's charity. And a bad effort at it, at that.


By the way, it's fucking HILARIOUS that the Dear Leader referenced Social Security and Medicare as he trumpeted the passage of this bullshit legislation, considering that those two programs alone will bankrupt the nation. At's a shame that the things liberals are most proud of are going to destroy the nation's well-being.

12/24/2009 4:36:06 PM

I love to see these freemarket capitalists decrying the effects of the free market. Companies have always been able to write off business expenses, and if they choose to spend that money on heath insurance to entice and retain employees that is their business. These freemarket capitalists are now calling it a subsidy "from the government" - like not paying taxes on business expenses is a government subsidy. John Locke must be rolling over in his grave. d357r0y3r even went as far as to call it "government intervention". Please. It's government non-intervention. The businesses are deciding what to spend their money on. I agree that the outcome may have unintentional consequences, but that can be changed only by government intervention.

Now they say that Insurance companies should be able cherry-pick their clients to the detriment of the federal goverment - the payer of last resort.

Quote :

"Insurance isn't based on the premise that "you will eventually need services." It's based on the premise that most people won't ever need the service."

Never ever need heathcare services? During their entire lifetime? I think not. Everyone will eventually use healthcare services. It's just a matter of at what point in their lifecycle. I'll admit though, if you can collect money from people before they get sick, and then drop them after, it is good for the bottom line. It's just not good for the public trough.

P.S. - I do love hammering on about the Republican's unwillingness to do anthing about healthcare because, by listening to them now, you get the impression that they've always been concerned, and it's only this program they're against. History hasn't born them out, but it's fun to watch them become all brand-new.

[Edited on December 24, 2009 at 5:35 PM. Reason : *~<]BO]

12/24/2009 5:14:43 PM

Quote :

"I love to see these freemarket capitalists decrying the effects of the free market. Companies have always been able to write off business expenses, and if they choose to spend that money on heath insurance to entice and retain employees that is their business. These freemarket capitalists are now calling it a subsidy "from the government" - like not paying taxes on business expenses is a government subsidy. John Locke must be rolling over in his grave. d357r0y3r even went as far as to call it "government intervention". Please. It's government non-intervention. The businesses are deciding what to spend their money on. I agree that the outcome may have unintentional consequences, but that can be changed only by government intervention."

The government intervention is the original taxation itself. When they come in at some later point and apply that taxation unequally in an attempt to encourage one expenditure over the other, that's the second intervention. In a truly free market with, say, a small consumption tax instead of the complex tax code we have today, there would be no reason to provide healthcare in lieu of wages. Absolutely none at all. It would just be extra hassle for the company. But, because the government has agreed to let them right off these particular expenses, employers started doing it.

Think about a company with 100,000 employees. If they're saving 1000 bucks in taxes (and a lot of the time, it's more than that) by providing healthcare for each one of those employees, that's 100 million that they don't have to spend. You guys constantly demonize these huge companies like Wal-Mart, but do you not realize that they're the ones benefiting the most by continuing this current system that you endorse?

12/24/2009 5:28:04 PM

You seem to have a lot of ideas that only work in an ideologically ideal world. I know that businesses, or individuals for that matter, shouldn't have to pay taxes, but they do beulah, they do ...

Maybe you should come back when we have an ideal world. Then maybe we can implement some of your ideas ....

12/24/2009 5:33:52 PM

Quote :

"how many times are you going to trot this bullshit out? WHY DOES IT FUCKING MATTER? If this bill is horrible, it's horrible, NO MATTER WHAT THE REPUBLICANS DID OR DIDN'T DO."

Because the same people who are in power who are bitching about this bill are the same people who had 8 years to do something about it.

Quote :

"Yes. I'm talking about people who qualify but haven't signed up. As in, they don't need this bill."

Not everyone who "qualifies" can afford to sign up. Did you ever think of that? That's why this bill provides subsidies for people making between 133% and 400% above the poverty line, so that more people who DO qualify CAN sign up.

I'm going to put these next two quotes together, because the response is pretty much the same:

Quote :

"And you seem to be under the assumption that it's tens of millions, which is also bullshit. How about you man up and provide some numbers to go with your crocodile tears."

Quote :

"I don't have to answer those questions, because they are the crocodile tears that apply to a fairly insignificant portion of the population."

How about you MAN up and provide some numbers to YOUR initial claim? You want to keep claiming that they're "crocodile tears for an insignificant number of people," how about you back up how many of these people there are, who are "insignificant?" You think it's 1 million people who are "insignificant?" 10 million? When does the number become "significant."

Quote :

"No, you have given two answers. Which one is the "crux.""

Why do you keep asking the same fucking question when I keep providing the same fucking answer. It's not a one line answer as you keep trying to make it. You tried to pick ONE sentence out of my multi-sentence and multi-post response and identify it as what I said that it is what I said was the crux. THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID. That is misleading, so knock of the bullshit.

So, I'll re-quote both my paraphrase and my longer response.

Quote :

"The "basic," or "vital" or "pivotal point" as to why the issue of health care reform has been brought up is because people can't afford health care without insurance. It's not necessarily the fact that insurance pays for the majority of healthcare in the US. We don't have to get rid of private insurance to make insurance more affordable."

Quote :

"The crux of the issue is people who want to get insurance are unable to, either because it's too expensive and their employer doesn't offer a group plan (which is common in small businesses, especially as plans keep getting more and more expensive), or the companies who do offer group plans are having to keep raise the premiums for their employees because the companies are taking too big a hit. Also, people who have pre-existing conditions are finding themselves laid off, and after having their severance package run out, they find themselves on unemployment, unable to get insurance on their own, because insurance companies won't take the risk."

I know in my paraphrase I left out the "uninsurable," that is still a part of the crux of the issue. You can have more than one issue be the "crux." They are all major contributing factors to the current problems with health care that we have today. If you don't like my answer, tough shit. I'm not changing it and you're not going to change my mind on it.

Quote :

"And someone already shredded your quoted post"

He didn't "shred" it up. He disagreed with. You only consider it "shredded" up because you agree with the person who did the "shredding." Funny how that works out.

Quote :

"Considering that we were talking about Constitutionality, your response is irrelevant."

Then your question was irrelevant.

Quote :

"Well, if insurance weren't tied to your employer, as others have suggested, this wouldn't be a problem. Thanks for talking about something we've already discussed."

And who said it was a smart idea to untie insurance to the employer? YOU? The reason why most people who have insurance can afford it, is because the large group rates that they get make it affordable for many Americans. Get rid of those rates and make it so that people have to "fend" for themselves, and the issue will just get worse. Sure, rates might come down a little bit, but there will still be millions of working poor people who will not be able to afford it. Also, people who lose their income will still be at risk of losing their insurance, because they won't be able to afford it over paying for food, utility bills, car payments, ect. Getting rid of employer based health insurance doesn't fix any of the issues previously mentioned. The same ones would still be present.

Quote :

"It absolutely is NOW, since with this bullshit bill, pre-existing conditions won't matter. That's the whole fucking point of the analogy, dude. You have a house, you didn't buy insurance; it catches fire, you want insurance as it's burning. It's really simple, here."

The Bill hasn't been signed by the President yet. There still has to be a joint session of Congress to work out the differences between the House and Senate bills. Additionally, when you posted the analogy, the senate bill had not passed.

If you want to go into a hypothetical situation in which the bill has been passed by the President, and assuming that it's only the senate version that passes, then it STILL isn't valid, because at that point, the government doesn't subsidize home-owners insurance, now does it? The senate bill will provide subsidies. You're trying to simplify the situation to the point where the simplified situation is no longer valid, and therefore, you comparison isn't valid. Simply put, you're trying to compare apples to oranges. Both systems work differently.

From CNN:

Quote :

"Under the Senate plan, with subsidies, premiums for a family of four at 133 percent of poverty would be a maximum of $821.14, while premiums for a family making the highest amount eligible would be a maximum of $8,643.60."

So, if that family of 4 doesn't have a plan, then they get hit with a 750 dollar fine. Meanwhile, insurance will only cost an extra $71.14. Additionally, for the maximum with subsidies, they would be paying something like 1-3 thousand dollars (depending on state and plan) out of their own pocket for coverage. meanwhile, the penalty for non-compliance IS NOT 750 dollars, it's 2% of their income (under the senate bill), which is $1764.

Now, while a person is free to go without health insurance, they would be idiots to. But I venture to guess that the same people who will try to "play" the system under the old system will also be the same ones who will try to play the system under the "new," hypothetical one. The only difference is that if they do get sick, they won't be financially boned, and unlike now, they won't be making out very "big" in the long run.

But I don't predict that there will be rampant abuse like you try to imply that there will be.

12/24/2009 5:36:40 PM

(Can we stop with the point-by-point rebutals? They take up a lot of room and add very little that is new, besides "did too", "did not" ...)

12/24/2009 5:48:36 PM

Quote :

"Under the Senate plan, with subsidies, premiums for a family of four at 133 percent of poverty would be a maximum of $821.14, while premiums for a family making the highest amount eligible would be a maximum of $8,643.60."

So WITH subsidies, we're looking at premiums of $720 / month, and that's just for now.

For reference, BCBS has plans for families of 4 between $400 and $1300 including dental, depending on options chosen. Cigna has them from $260 - $680 without dental. So glad we're lowering the costs of health care.

Quote :

"(Can we stop with the point-by-point rebutals? They take up a lot of room and add very little that is new, besides "did too", "did not" ...)"

As soon as you stop with the "But but but the REPUBLICANS!!!! ONE!!!!!". Besides, it's kind of funny to me how this only became a country bankrupting problem that needed to be solve "NOW PASS ANYTHING NOW NOW NOW" in the last year or so. Before then, the democrats weren't all that interested either.

Someone asked earlier how my idea of continued coverage would help people who lose their insurance if they can't afford it or get dropped. They don't have to "afford it" as the coverage would continue, regardless of whether you are a customer (and therefore whether or not you are paying) until you are cured or die. This provides an incentive for insurance companies to keep you are a customer (as if you aren't paying premiums, you're a bigger loss) and gives them an incentive not to hike your rates. Since they'll be paying for your pre-existing conditions, other companies will have no problem insuring you, giving you the viable option to switch if they decide to jack your rates.

Admittedly it doesn't solve the instance of someone being between insurance, and developing a chronic condition during the transition, but I imagine that the number of people who will find themselves in that position would be much much smaller and than that specific situation can be handled, rather than trying to kill flies with bazookas.

12/24/2009 9:57:50 PM

^ I do believe that everything is slated to begin at the beginning of 2014, with it in full effect in 2016. Also, now that I have read what was said again, my original interpretation appears to be incorrect for people at the highest level. It appears that I was wrong in thinking that the 8+ grand was for subsidies, not the price ceiling on premiums.

That's what happens when I miss a few key words.

However, if you think those current rates now will be the same in 6 years, you're crazy.

Quote :

"Someone asked earlier how my idea of continued coverage would help people who lose their insurance if they can't afford it or get dropped. They don't have to "afford it" as the coverage would continue, regardless of whether you are a customer (and therefore whether or not you are paying) until you are cured or die. This provides an incentive for insurance companies to keep you are a customer (as if you aren't paying premiums, you're a bigger loss) and gives them an incentive not to hike your rates. Since they'll be paying for your pre-existing conditions, other companies will have no problem insuring you, giving you the viable option to switch if they decide to jack your rates."

The problem I see with your idea is that you're forcing a company to cover someone until they die. This means that even if you're paying for their insurance, you're forcing them to take a lose. While your idea is better than the current system, I still don't see what makes it better than forcing the insurance people to take people with pre-existing conditions.

After all, what's to stop someone from jumping from the insurance plan for one that is MUCH cheaper? What if a person loses their job and their old insurance company is forced to pay for treatment, while if they get a new job that has a group plan with premiums lower than what the person's old insurance could offer them rates at if they did it individually?

Either way, you're forcing a insurance company to take sick people. If the current plan in the senate and house are done, we will be forcing companies to take sick people. But if we use your plan, then we would be forcing companies to treat sick people they no longer even cover, potentially indefinitely.

[Edited on December 24, 2009 at 10:54 PM. Reason : .]

12/24/2009 10:50:46 PM

Quote :

"So WITH subsidies, we're looking at premiums of $720 / month, and that's just for now. For reference, BCBS has plans for families of 4 between $400 and $1300 including dental, depending on options chosen. Cigna has them from $260 - $680 without dental. So glad we're lowering the costs of health care."

Where is this from? Do you mean, the average American will be paying the same amount of money but the currently uncovered will be covered, the predatory dropping of coverage and denying of coverage will be ended...and this is somehow a bad thing?

Quote :

"By the way, it's fucking HILARIOUS that the Dear Leader referenced Social Security and Medicare as he trumpeted the passage of this bullshit legislation, considering that those two programs alone will bankrupt the nation. At's a shame that the things liberals are most proud of are going to destroy the nation's well-being. "

Whats hilarious is how up in arms (45+ pages worth) you conservatives are over a program that will give insurance and protection to the citzens of this country for less money than has been shoveled at the banking elite to keep their fifedoms in tact. Sure, you rail on the debt and inflation like good little conservatives, but its mostly directed at those damn commies Dodd and Frank for enabling the Wall Street capitalist to go and fuck the country and not actually at the oligarchy that is in control of the banana republic. How it's easier for you to be more pissed off that the poor and altogether less fortunate are getting a handout than the super rich banking elite is really unfathomable.

[Edited on December 24, 2009 at 11:33 PM. Reason : .]

12/24/2009 11:26:49 PM

Quote :

"However, if you think those current rates now will be the same in 6 years, you're crazy."

Oh I'm under no illusions that those rates will remain the same. Never mind that they'll be skyrocketing naturally, but if this "reform" actually gets put into law, they'll climb even faster.

Quote :

" The problem I see with your idea is that you're forcing a company to cover someone until they die. This means that even if you're paying for their insurance, you're forcing them to take a lose. While your idea is better than the current system, I still don't see what makes it better than forcing the insurance people to take people with pre-existing conditions."

First of all, it's not complete coverage. It's only coverage for a condition developed under the insurance. So say you get cancer and then lose your job. Your cancer treatments continue to be covered, but if you break your arm, they don't pay for that. As to what makes it better than simply forcing insurance companies to take people with pre-existing conditions, it's the fact that it doesn't allow people to simply ride without insurance until they need it, but still solves the pre-existing condition problem.

Quote :

"After all, what's to stop someone from jumping from the insurance plan for one that is MUCH cheaper? What if a person loses their job and their old insurance company is forced to pay for treatment, while if they get a new job that has a group plan with premiums lower than what the person's old insurance could offer them rates at if they did it individually?"

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here. I think you're misunderstanding what I'm proposing.

Quote :

"If the current plan in the senate and house are done, we will be forcing companies to take sick people. But if we use your plan, then we would be forcing companies to treat sick people they no longer even cover, potentially indefinitely."

Right, the current proposed plan simply forces companies to take on sick people. By comparison what I'm suggesting forces current companies to continue to treat conditions developed while there were insuring a person. At the same time it provides incentives for the insurance company to keep a sick person as a customer and to keep the rates low. I know it doesn't seem like a significant distinction but it is. It will help decouple insurance from employment because regardless of whether you're employed or not, your current company is going to want to keep you as a customer if they're going to have to keep paying for your cancer.

Quote :

"Do you mean, the average American will be paying the same amount of money but the currently uncovered will be covered, the predatory dropping of coverage and denying of coverage will be ended...and this is somehow a bad thing? "

When the same thing can be accomplished other ways, with less costs, yes, it is a bad thing.

[Edited on December 25, 2009 at 12:52 AM. Reason : sdf]

12/25/2009 12:50:45 AM

^^ Bingo ... (and well said by the way) ....

Quote :

"Before then, the democrats weren't all that interested either."

Huh!? ... I seem to remember during the Clinton administration there was some talk about healthcare reform, before it was derailed and demonized by the Republicans. In lieu of real reform it was decided that market forces could do a better job of reducing costs through expanding something called "Managed Care". Unfortunatly some managed care providers found the best way to reduce costs was by denying services - and still costs went up.

Then again, that was only 16 years ago. I'm not bitter though. This is an epic 16 years in the making. And yes, I do get a kick out of pointing out the insincerity of the crowd that now says (16 years later), "We really did want healthcare reform all along, just not this healthcare reform. We have better much better ideas, we've just been weighing our options."

12/25/2009 1:13:18 AM

^ I understand what your plan proposes.

What I'm asking is what's to stop someone from dumping a plan that is paying for a condition that developed under that insurance companies care to another one that offers lower premiums, or because they simply have to due to a job change.

Your plan partially causes some of the same "extra" costs that the current plan does, just in a different manner. There's nothing to keep a person from dropping an insurance company paying for a condition that developed under their care, leaving them to absorb those expensive costs. Lets be honest, some of those procedures can costs hundreds of thousands of dollars, and it only gets worse as people get older.

Either way, you still potentially have insurance companies paying for expensive medical procedures for people who aren't even paying them. And this is especially problematic for people who develop life long conditions or get diseases that will last them the rest of their life (like diabetes, HIV/AIDS, ect).

Your idea isn't bad, it's different. I don't see anything that makes it worse than the one proposed by the Democrats, but I don't see it really making it better. I also don't see people abusing the system of taking the tax penalty and only getting insurance temporarily. What's to stop insurance companies from only offering contracts that last 2-3 years, like cell phone contracts? I don't know if that's what they do now for individuals looking for care. But it would keep someone from signing up for a contract when they get sick and then just dropping it when they're all better.

And I by no means think that the current bill is "great," or even "good." I think it's OK. I think it's got some things in it that makes it better for people who do play by the rules, instead of damning us.

12/25/2009 1:19:43 AM

Quote :

"Whats hilarious is how up in arms (45+ pages worth) you conservatives are over a program that will give insurance and protection to the citzens of this country for less money than has been shoveled at the banking elite to keep their fifedoms in tact. Sure, you rail on the debt and inflation like good little conservatives, but its mostly directed at those damn commies Dodd and Frank for enabling the Wall Street capitalist to go and fuck the country and not actually at the oligarchy that is in control of the banana republic. How it's easier for you to be more pissed off that the poor and altogether less fortunate are getting a handout than the super rich banking elite is really unfathomable."

I was against bank bailouts, much more so than any kind of health insurance legislation, but there wasn't a 6 month debate on bank bailouts. The government just did it "for the good of the people." So yeah, this entire block of text is just straight up wrong. I rail against Republicans and Democrats for the economic problems that they've caused, and so do a lot of the other people in this thread, so to act like we are just playing partisan games is to reveal that you're either new to the forum or you haven't been reading TSB recently. Bush and the Republican congress (with the help of the Fed) caused this recession, and now Obama is doing the same exact thing, except worse.

12/25/2009 11:35:52 AM

Quote :

""Whats hilarious is how up in arms (45+ pages worth) you conservatives are over a program that will give insurance and protection to the citzens of this country for less money than has been shoveled at the banking elite to keep their fifedoms in tact. Sure, you rail on the debt and inflation like good little conservatives, but its mostly directed at those damn commies Dodd and Frank for enabling the Wall Street capitalist to go and fuck the country and not actually at the oligarchy that is in control of the banana republic. How it's easier for you to be more pissed off that the poor and altogether less fortunate are getting a handout than the super rich banking elite is really unfathomable.""

I dare you to find a single person here who is against the current reform measures that was a supporter of the bail outs. I'll bet you can't.

Quote :

"What I'm asking is what's to stop someone from dumping a plan that is paying for a condition that developed under that insurance companies care to another one that offers lower premiums, or because they simply have to due to a job change."

Nothing. And nothing should. There should be no barriers that prevent competition between companies, and nothing that prevents consumers from jumping insurers for better rates. That's half the problem now.

Quote :

"Your plan partially causes some of the same "extra" costs that the current plan does, just in a different manner. There's nothing to keep a person from dropping an insurance company paying for a condition that developed under their care, leaving them to absorb those expensive costs. Lets be honest, some of those procedures can costs hundreds of thousands of dollars, and it only gets worse as people get older. Either way, you still potentially have insurance companies paying for expensive medical procedures for people who aren't even paying them."

I've assumed there's no way around that. Besides, it's not really insurance if your company can suddenly decide to stop paying by dropping you. I mean, if I get into a wreck while covered by Geico, even if they drop me the very next day, they will be paying for my car repairs until it is repaired. I see no reason why health insurance should be any different. The difference is, while the current proposals do nothing to incentivize companies to lower rates or keep customers, my idea does. Under the current proposals, there is no incentive for BCBS not to drop every high risk customer they have. In fact, they have an incentive to drop them because their competitors will have to cover them by law. By contrast, if you tell BCBS that they will be responsible for their customer's cancer, if they develop it while covered by BCBS, suddenly they have every incentive in the world to keep their cancer patients as some premium is better than no premium.

Quote :

"What's to stop insurance companies from only offering contracts that last 2-3 years, like cell phone contracts? I don't know if that's what they do now for individuals looking for care. But it would keep someone from signing up for a contract when they get sick and then just dropping it when they're all better."

Nothing really, and you'll probably see that in the future to help mitigate risk. But to be honest, are you really prepared for early termination fees for your insurance and multi year contracts? If you think insurance companies suck now, just wait till they can lock you in to a multi year contract, with an ETF, and massive tax penalties if you get out anyway. Again, we should be working to increase competition between insurance companies, not decreasing it.

12/25/2009 2:26:39 PM

Quote :

"I've assumed there's no way around that. Besides, it's not really insurance if your company can suddenly decide to stop paying by dropping you. I mean, if I get into a wreck while covered by Geico, even if they drop me the very next day, they will be paying for my car repairs until it is repaired. I see no reason why health insurance should be any different. The difference is, while the current proposals do nothing to incentivize companies to lower rates or keep customers, my idea does. Under the current proposals, there is no incentive for BCBS not to drop every high risk customer they have. In fact, they have an incentive to drop them because their competitors will have to cover them by law. By contrast, if you tell BCBS that they will be responsible for their customer's cancer, if they develop it while covered by BCBS, suddenly they have every incentive in the world to keep their cancer patients as some premium is better than no premium."

But unlike a car wreck, the fee to fix it is a one time deal. Once it's fixed, and considered fixed, you're done with them. But a person diagnosed with diabetes, or HIV, or what not, can have the condition for the rest of their lives. It's not like your car insurance company is going to have to continue to cover a new quart of oil because your car developed leaky seals while under their plan.

I see this as being potentially troublesome for kids who develop conditions that will require life long medication, or aid, they end up going to college, and they leave their parents health coverage. Are the insurance companies still forced to treat the kid? Are you expecting an insurance company to try to offer rates comparable to that of a group plan, so that the insurance company can continue to insure while losing money on him (granted, not as much money, but still, losing money)? Meanwhile, he can drop his parents health coverage, get on a group plan with a future employer, and pay relatively low premiums while his parents insurance is forced to cover his medication and care indefinitely.

Under your idea, insurance companies are still getting the raw end of the deal. Your forcing companies to offer dirt cheap rates to sick people to keep them on as customers? How is that going to lower rates for healthy individuals? What's the incentive to keep healthy people on as customers? All that will do is jack up rates for healthy individuals so that they can cover people that insurance companies are forced to cover, even if they jumped shipped to another insurance company because the other one can't afford to keep dirt cheap rates for the sick people they're forced to cover.

The only competition I see with your plan is competition to cover the sick.

Conversely, under this plan, the sick people are at least forced to pay SOMETHING to the company who's covering them.

Quote :

"Nothing really, and you'll probably see that in the future to help mitigate risk. But to be honest, are you really prepared for early termination fees for your insurance and multi year contracts? If you think insurance companies suck now, just wait till they can lock you in to a multi year contract, with an ETF, and massive tax penalties if you get out anyway. Again, we should be working to increase competition between insurance companies, not decreasing it."

It works for cell phone companies. How many people do you know who have cell phone contracts and bitch about it? Yeah, if their phone breaks while the contract is still in effect, they're not too happy about having to pay for a new one out of their own pocket.

I don't see how termed contracts would stifle competition. After all, this new regulation would be forced on all insurance companies, and as such, contracts would likely become mandatory for anyone who's buying insurance independently, regardless of health. They would all be competing to offer "cheap" contracts, much like how they compete to offer "cheap" premiums now.

Additionally, there would be nothing stopping companies from offering sick people longer contracts over healthy people. So a healthy person with no pre-existing condition might only have to sign a 1 year contract, while a sick person might be forced to take on a 5 year contract, even if their treatment might only be a temporary one. That way, over the 5 years, the company can recoup the cost of the treatment, and the person who signed up for it would be locked in at whatever rates that are specified in the contract.

12/25/2009 3:11:47 PM

Quote :

"I see this as being potentially troublesome for kids who develop conditions that will require life long medication, or aid, they end up going to college, and they leave their parents health coverage. Are the insurance companies still forced to treat the kid? Are you expecting an insurance company to try to offer rates comparable to that of a group plan, so that the insurance company can continue to insure while losing money on him (granted, not as much money, but still, losing money)? Meanwhile, he can drop his parents health coverage, get on a group plan with a future employer, and pay relatively low premiums while his parents insurance is forced to cover his medication and care indefinitely."

Again, the effective result when it comes to lost money for the insurance company is about the same between the current proposal and my idea. The difference comes in the incentives provided to the company. Under the current proposal, the insurance company has no incentive to keep the sick kid on as a patient. They can drop him and their competitors are forced to pick up the tab. Under my proposal, they have an incentive to keep the customer on. Either way the insurance companies are going to pay (since we seem to be hell bent on making insurance companies into charities), so if we're going to do that, we might as well make sure the incentives are aligned to increase competition not decrease it.

Quote :

". Your forcing companies to offer dirt cheap rates to sick people to keep them on as customers? How is that going to lower rates for healthy individuals? What's the incentive to keep healthy people on as customers?"

Simple, if they don't offer low enough rates for the healthy people, they will quickly find themselves insuring only sick people and bleeding money. They NEED healthy people to survive and they have incentives to keep their sick people.

Quote :

"All that will do is jack up rates for healthy individuals so that they can cover people that insurance companies are forced to cover, even if they jumped shipped to another insurance company because the other one can't afford to keep dirt cheap rates for the sick people they're forced to cover."

Now you're starting to get it. Forcing insurance companies to cover the uninsurable will jack up rates for everyone. Whether it's the current proposal or mine, healthy people are about to see sky rocketing rates. The only difference is my plan provides counter incentives to keep rates down.

Quote :

"The only competition I see with your plan is competition to cover the sick."

As opposed to now where there's no competition for the sick, and under the proposed plan, where there still isn't any competition for the sick. Isn't that one of the problems we're trying to solve?

Quote :

"Conversely, under this plan, the sick people are at least forced to pay SOMETHING to the company who's covering them. "

It's a loss either way. A patient with cancer or diabetes or other lifelong chronic condition have the normal costs of a person + the additional costs. Since we're trying to make it illegal off set those costs, the insurance companies are getting no money to cover the chronic condition anyway.

Quote :

"It works for cell phone companies. How many people do you know who have cell phone contracts and bitch about it? "

Pretty much everyone. Why do you think short and no contract plans are starting to become more popular?

Quote :

"I don't see how termed contracts would stifle competition. "

Then you don't understand why companies offer lock in contracts. AT&T doesn't offer you a contract to make sure you have the lowest rate possible locked in. They do it to ensure that if someone comes a long with a better deal for you, you can't take that deal. It's also the same reason why they're more than happy to let you sign a new contract for a more expensive plan 2 months in, but if you want a cheaper plan, they'll tell you you need to wait till the end of your current contract. Time warner's "price lock guarantee" isn't for your benefit.

Quote :

"So a healthy person with no pre-existing condition might only have to sign a 1 year contract, while a sick person might be forced to take on a 5 year contract, even if their treatment might only be a temporary one. That way, over the 5 years, the company can recoup the cost of the treatment, and the person who signed up for it would be locked in at whatever rates that are specified in the contract."

I thought we were trying to reduce the costs of insurance? What happens if you wind up on a crappy insurance plan? Are we really kosher with locking cancer patients into insurance plans? What incentive does the insurance company then have to treat them well? I can just see it now, cancer patients have to get prior authorizations for every treatment because the insurance company knows they're locked in for 5 years.

12/25/2009 5:02:07 PM

Quote :

"Again, the effective result when it comes to lost money for the insurance company is about the same between the current proposal and my idea. The difference comes in the incentives provided to the company. Under the current proposal, the insurance company has no incentive to keep the sick kid on as a patient. They can drop him and their competitors are forced to pick up the tab. Under my proposal, they have an incentive to keep the customer on. Either way the insurance companies are going to pay (since we seem to be hell bent on making insurance companies into charities), so if we're going to do that, we might as well make sure the incentives are aligned to increase competition not decrease it."

Is there anything to back up the idea that the "effective result" will be the same?

While they might have an incentive to keep them off, they sick people are simply just going to get lower rates than what us normal, healthy, people will get.

I know 3 summers ago when I was working on a Golf Course, the group rates had just gone from 21 bucks a month to 47 bucks a month. Now, granted, this was 2 and a half years ago, so even if it's double what it was then, it's still A HELL of a lot cheaper than your BCBS minimum rate of 400 dollars. And the whole reason why it's that cheap is due to the employer paying for a good portion of that rate. My point is that if your plan was to go through, insurance companies would be unable to compete at those LOW group rates that individuals end up paying after the company chips in.

NOT without lowering the rates FOR SICK PEOPLE ONLY to incredibly low rates, while jacking up the price on healthy people to cover for the sick people MORE THAN WHAT THEY DO NOW.

Your plan will do nothing but cause premiums to skyrocket for the healthy and drop to near nothing for the sick.

Under the current proposal, while demand for sick people won't be higher than it is now, they won't be discriminated against when purchasing health insurance. Lets face it, you can't create a "demand" for the sick without hurting the insurance companies. They are, and always will, represent a loss for these companies. You can't make a diabetic profitable, and that's what's wrong with how it is now. Basically, people are being punished for being unprofitable, and that's not how a healthcare system should be run.

Quote :

"Simple, if they don't offer low enough rates for the healthy people, they will quickly find themselves insuring only sick people and bleeding money. They NEED healthy people to survive and they have incentives to keep their sick people."

And they NEED to cover the costs of the sick as well. Your proposal spreads the sick out to all the insurance companies. Your plan forces them to jack the rates up for all healthy individuals so that they can cover the forced burden. The CURRENT proposal does the same thing. Which is better? I don't know, and neither do you. But what I can tell you is that under your proposal, the sick will pay less than under the current proposal. At least under the current proposal, everyone's kind of "in it together," so to speak.

Quote :

"Then you don't understand why companies offer lock in contracts. AT&T doesn't offer you a contract to make sure you have the lowest rate possible locked in. They do it to ensure that if someone comes a long with a better deal for you, you can't take that deal. It's also the same reason why they're more than happy to let you sign a new contract for a more expensive plan 2 months in, but if you want a cheaper plan, they'll tell you you need to wait till the end of your current contract. Time warner's "price lock guarantee" isn't for your benefit."

You don't see the difference between the cell phone contract and the hypothetical health insurance contracts. Unlike cell phone contracts, health care premiums are inflating, whereas cell phones keep getting cheaper and cheaper. So while a contract locks you into a rate that in a years time is likely to decrease a few dollars, I can guarantee you that under this current system, premiums are going to sky rocket. So in this case, I do think that a contract will be better, as it locks you into a current rate. Yes, at the end of the contract, premiums are going to go up if you're outside the 400% over the poverty line. If you're within that range (133% to 400% of the poverty line), then your rates that YOU'LL pay will have a ceiling. Something that would also be different from cell phone contracts.

My point is that by locking people in, it keeps people from dropping their insurance once care is given. And contracts can potentially keep premiums from inflating as well.

12/25/2009 5:52:54 PM

Quote :

"Is there anything to back up the idea that the "effective result" will be the same?"

It's pretty simple. What makes these people uninsurable is that the represent a net loss for the companies in question. Under the proposed plan, when company A drops a sick person, company B by law will have to pick up that loss. Under my proposal, when company A drops a sick person, they continue to pick up that loss, while company B does not. Either way, some insurance company is picking up the loss. The only difference is the incentive to keep your customers.

Quote :

"And the whole reason why it's that cheap is due to the employer paying for a good portion of that rate. My point is that if your plan was to go through, insurance companies would be unable to compete at those LOW group rates that individuals end up paying after the company chips in."

Point of order, the rates I quoted were for individuals purchasing, not group plans. And to be perfectly honest, group plans are not some magically cheaper plan. They really aren't. If you ever get the opportunity to look at what your company really pays for insurance, unless you work for a major national corporation, there's a good chance it's very similar to what you would pay as an individual.

Quote :

"Your plan will do nothing but cause premiums to skyrocket for the healthy and drop to near nothing for the sick."

Not at all. Sick people will still represent a risk, so you can't drop their rates too low. In fact, I doubt that under my proposal sick people would get any better of a rate than healthy people will, because sick people still represent a risk. The whole goal here though is to increase competition and provide incentives to keep rates down and to not drop customers.

Quote :

"They are, and always will, represent a loss for these companies. You can't make a diabetic profitable, and that's what's wrong with how it is now. Basically, people are being punished for being unprofitable, and that's not how a healthcare system should be run."

Yes, now make the final connection here. If you force insurance companies to pay for these losses, they will do it the only way they can, which is jacking up the rates on healthy people. They'll do the exact same thing under my proposal. The only difference is they have an incentive to keep their own sick people and to keep the rates for those sick people low, which in turn provides an incentive to keep the rates for healthy people low, lest they become a magnet for sick people only.

You and I both agree that no matter what, the insurance companies are about to jack up the rates of healthy people all over. The only thing I'm trying to do with my proposal is to provide an incentive to push those rates down.

Quote :

"But what I can tell you is that under your proposal, the sick will pay less than under the current proposal. At least under the current proposal, everyone's kind of "in it together," so to speak."

I thought that was a good thing. Aren't we trying to keep costs down here?

Quote :

"So in this case, I do think that a contract will be better, as it locks you into a current rate. Yes, at the end of the contract, premiums are going to go up if you're outside the 400% over the poverty line. If you're within that range (133% to 400% of the poverty line), then your rates that YOU'LL pay will have a ceiling. Something that would also be different from cell phone contracts. "

Ah, even better. So we'll have situations like when colleges do tuition freezes for years. Despite the fact that costs keep rising, we'll pretend its not happening, until 5 or 6 years down the line when you'll need to pay not only the last 5 or 6 years of increases, but also the next couple years of increases to help make things break even during the next contract. Somehow I don't see many Americans being able to afford 5 years worth of insurance hikes all at once. Hell, they can barely afford yearly hikes, and just look at what happened when their mortgage rates went up a percentage point or two.

Quote :

"My point is that by locking people in, it keeps people from dropping their insurance once care is given. And contracts can potentially keep premiums from inflating as well."

It also keeps them from being able to drop their company if the company sucks or if a better deal comes along. And I assure you it will do nothing to keep premiums from inflating, because everyone who didn't get locked in this year is going to need to pay more next year to cover the next 3 or 4 years of increased that the people who have a contract wont be paying, and so on and so forth.


I think finally you're starting to realize why I've been saying that the focus on getting people insured is the wrong focus. The cost of insurance is a symptom not the main problem, and as you can see, no matter what we try and do with the insurance, nothing is actually going to lower the real costs of the system, at best we're just going to shift who pays them, and at worst we're going to increase the costs even more. What we need to address is the actual costs of health CARE not health INSURANCE. Then and only then will the costs of insurance come down.

12/25/2009 8:21:13 PM

Quote :

"The only difference is the incentive to keep your customers."

The incentive is to keep the loss. That's all. When a person goes from being a risk to being a loss, they don't see you as a customer they want.

Quote :

"Point of order, the rates I quoted were for individuals purchasing, not group plans. And to be perfectly honest, group plans are not some magically cheaper plan. They really aren't. If you ever get the opportunity to look at what your company really pays for insurance, unless you work for a major national corporation, there's a good chance it's very similar to what you would pay as an individual."

I didn't work at a national corporation. I worked at a local golf course owned by some Japanese guy. Insurance for the workers was 47 bucks a month two and a half years ago, and I highly doubt it inflated by a factor of 10 in 2.5 years. An insurance company isn't going to be able to compete with that, without someone picking up part of the tab. Remember, many of the people started out at 8 bucks an hour and weren't making much more over that after raises.

Quote :

"Not at all. Sick people will still represent a risk, so you can't drop their rates too low. In fact, I doubt that under my proposal sick people would get any better of a rate than healthy people will, because sick people still represent a risk. The whole goal here though is to increase competition and provide incentives to keep rates down and to not drop customers. "

Sick people don't represent a risk for the company that's paying for their expenses. They represent a loss. Every customer who's not sick represents a risk.

Quote :

"Yes, now make the final connection here. If you force insurance companies to pay for these losses, they will do it the only way they can, which is jacking up the rates on healthy people. They'll do the exact same thing under my proposal. The only difference is they have an incentive to keep their own sick people and to keep the rates for those sick people low, which in turn provides an incentive to keep the rates for healthy people low, lest they become a magnet for sick people only."

There is no "final connection here" for me. Where your logic falls a part here, and why the "final connection" can't be made, is that you haven't explained how keeping the sick people's rates low translates to keeping the healthy people's rates low. Healthy people's rates won't be kept low, they'll sky rocket.

The ONLY incentive you offer to keep rates down is for sick people, and basically, you're forcing them to offer the sick people lower rates than the healthy people, and that's bullshit.

If sick person A is covered by insurance company B under a group plan and person A pays 300 bucks a month for a family of 4 ends up leaving the company. The company paid for 25% of the premiums, making total payout to the insurance company 400 bucks a month. Insurance B is FORCED to pay for their expenses, even if they're not with them. Because they're forced to pay them, why not keep them on as a customer? Correct? So, Person A's rates go up to 400 bucks, a competitive number.

Now, lets say person A gets another job that offers a group plan with insurance company C. Company's C's total premium cost shared by the employer and employee is the same 400 bucks. However, the employer now covers 50% of the cost, meaning the employee's premiums goes down to 200 bucks a month. How is company B supposed to compete with this? By going below 200 bucks? You're forgetting that company C would be making the total 400 bucks a month, while Company B would be making less than half off the person than what they previously did.

Now? What does this mean on a wide scale? Premiums for HEALTHY people ONLY would go up. NOTHING would change competition wise for HEALTHY PEOPLE. There is no incentive to keep the premiums of healthy people down.

Quote :

"I thought that was a good thing. Aren't we trying to keep costs down here?"

We're trying to keep costs down for everyone, not just a select few. Under the current proposal, I see the rates of healthy and sick people going up equal. In other words, the sick people are sharing the same burden as they would with the healthy people.

Quote :

" Somehow I don't see many Americans being able to afford 5 years worth of insurance hikes all at once."

Did you miss where people within the 133% and 400% range above the poverty line are going effectively have a rates ceiling?

I know you saw this:

Quote :

"Under the Senate plan, with subsidies, premiums for a family of four at 133 percent of poverty would be a maximum of $821.14, while premiums for a family making the highest amount eligible would be a maximum of $8,643.60."

Your plan doesn't put a ceilling on anything. While your plan makes it better for sick people, it completely ignores the fact that you'll end up forcing premiums to a level where corporations are going to push more of the premium cost onto their employees, making it more unaffordable, as well as screwing people who pay for their own now.

Your plan does nothing to address the fact that some people simply can't afford health insurance, and it seems that your plan will just make it worse for them, and put it even further out of reach.

Quote :

"It also keeps them from being able to drop their company if the company sucks or if a better deal comes along."

That's why you do your research. If people sign on for 2 year contracts with a company, and they suck balls, do you think that when it comes time to renew, that people will? No, people will drop them like a fly, and as such, they'll be hurt.

And as long as the current insurance system is profit driven, rates are going to go up.

I would much rather have a national insurance system, kind of like Canada. We're taxed on it, everyone's taken care of. You don't have to worry about being dropped, or anything like that. And of course you can always get supplementary health insurance to cover whatever a national insurance system doesn't.

[Edited on December 25, 2009 at 11:05 PM. Reason : wording]

12/25/2009 11:02:31 PM

Quote :

"is that you haven't explained how keeping the sick people's rates low translates to keeping the healthy people's rates low. Healthy people's rates won't be kept low, they'll sky rocket."

Because if you can't keep the rates for healthy people low, pretty soon, the only customers you have will be sick people.

Quote :

"The ONLY incentive you offer to keep rates down is for sick people, and basically, you're forcing them to offer the sick people lower rates than the healthy people, and that's bullshit."

Which is exactly what the current proposal will do too, or do you seriously think that the majority of the people receiving subsidies will be healthy people.

Quote :

"If sick person A is covered by insurance company B under a group plan and person A pays 300 bucks a month for a family of 4 ends up leaving the company. The company paid for 25% of the premiums, making total payout to the insurance company 400 bucks a month. Insurance B is FORCED to pay for their expenses, even if they're not with them. Because they're forced to pay them, why not keep them on as a customer? Correct? So, Person A's rates go up to 400 bucks, a competitive number. Now, lets say person A gets another job that offers a group plan with insurance company C. Company's C's total premium cost shared by the employer and employee is the same 400 bucks. However, the employer now covers 50% of the cost, meaning the employee's premiums goes down to 200 bucks a month. How is company B supposed to compete with this? By going below 200 bucks? You're forgetting that company C would be making the total 400 bucks a month, while Company B would be making less than half off the person than what they previously did."

Well ideally what we would do would implement a bring your own insurance system for employer paid insurance, thus opening competition even more. Instead of the employer paying for a predefined insurance plan, they would pay whatever company you have directly, or via something like an HSA account. That way the company can still realize the tax benefits of providing health benefits to you, while you have the freedom to pick and choose the insurance that suits you best.

Quote :

"Did you miss where people within the 133% and 400% range above the poverty line are going effectively have a rates ceiling? "

And that ceiling will be implemented courtesy of the tax payers. So your choice is pay $600/ month in insurance or $500 / month and $100 in taxes. Huzzah for low insurance. Oh, and by the way, guess who will be footing that tax hike? Healthy people. 30% of Americans have no or negative tax liability, leaving 60% to subsidize other's health insurance on top of their own.

Quote :

"While your the currently proposed plan makes it better for sick people, it completely ignores the fact that you'll end up forcing premiums to a level where corporations are going to push more of the premium cost onto their employees, making it more unaffordable, as well as screwing people who pay for their own now."

Fixed it for you. Subsidies simply make it harder for those that can afford it to continue to afford it by taking more of their money and transferring it to others. Again, we're not actually solving the problem here, we're just polishing a turd.

Quote :

"That's why you do your research. If people sign on for 2 year contracts with a company, and they suck balls, do you think that when it comes time to renew, that people will? No, people will drop them like a fly, and as such, they'll be hurt."

In the mean time they're screwed for two years. Longer if they're sick. I mean you're talking about 5 year contracts for people with cancer. Tell me, how long after your cancer diagnosis are your going to spend researching which company you should commit to for 5 years before you get treatment?

Quote :

"And as long as the current insurance system is profit driven, rates are going to go up."

Rates are going to continue to go up, profit or no (BCBSNC is non profit by the way). The rates will continue to climb because we're not doing anything to address the actual costs of care, insurance is paying for everything, and because we demand the best damn care money can buy, and that shit is expensive.

I would also like to mention once again that Massachusetts, who's system we're modeling on, is still having rate hikes despite mandatory insurance and all the other fluffy feel good crap. Until we address the actual costs of care, the costs of insurance means nothing.

Quote :

"And of course you can always get supplementary health insurance to cover whatever a national insurance system doesn't."

So we'd still have a system where your access to money is what determines the quality and level of care you'll get? Besides, we already have a system like that in place for our military / veterans , and one of the first things Obama wanted to do was get private insurance companies to pick up the tab. If we can't even provide such a system for the people whom we arguably owe medical care to, how in the world would you expect us to provide such a system for the whole nation?


Look, you seem to be under the mistaken idea that just because someone doesn't like the current reform proposals that they don't want the system to change. That just isn't true. I have every incentive in the world to see the system reformed because it's fucking expensive, especially when even when you have insurance, they won't cover your treatments because they're non standard. But I want real change and real reform. I want things done right, even if it's more painful now. It's like if you broke your ankle. The current proposals are a lot like if we just wrapped it with an ace bandage and loaded you up with pain killers until it was numb. Sure, it's better than leaving things broken, and feels better in the short term, but it's not solving the underlying problem, and can really make things worse in the future, never mind the damage that such a large amount of pain killers might be doing to your body. What needs to be done is for the underlying problem to be addressed. That means pulling and pushing and rotating the bones into place, and splinting and casting it up. Yes it's painful and hurts like hell in the short term, but by solving the underlying issue, you make things better in the long run. Our politicians aren't interested in a long term solution, and the proposed plan is not a long term solution.

[Edited on December 26, 2009 at 12:13 AM. Reason : adf]

12/26/2009 12:02:16 AM

Quote :

"Because if you can't keep the rates for healthy people low, pretty soon, the only customers you have will be sick people."

Not true. Do you think that only a few companies will be affected by your plan? Hell no. It will be ALL of them. Prices as a whole will be driven up, while prices for sick people will be pushed down. A sick person's premiums shouldn't be lower than a healthy person.

Quote :

"Which is exactly what the current proposal will do too, or do you seriously think that the majority of the people receiving subsidies will be healthy people."

And exactly how exactly will the current proposal drive up the premiums of healthy people while driving down the premiums for sick people? Please, explain, because I don't see it.

Because subsidies will go towards sick and healthy people so that the premiums for people within the 133% to 400% bracket will end up with the same premiums. So regardless of whether your sick or healthy, your premiums are effectively capped. This is done through subsidies.

While the sick people may get more subsidies and the healthy people may get less subsidies, at least there will be a cap.

Quote :

"And that ceiling will be implemented courtesy of the tax payers. So your choice is pay $600/ month in insurance or $500 / month and $100 in taxes. Huzzah for low insurance. Oh, and by the way, guess who will be footing that tax hike?"

I'll take it over your proposal, which, from what I can tell, offers absolutely no solution for people who can't currently afford insurance now.

By the way, you may want to have a look:

Quote :

"How will this be paid for? The House plan imposes a 5.4 percent income tax surcharge on individuals with annual incomes over $500,000, as well as families earning more than $1 million. The Senate plan increases the Medicare payroll tax on individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples earning more than $250,000 from the current 1.45 percent to 2.35 percent. The Senate bill also imposes a new tax on insurers that provide so-called "Cadillac" health plans valued at more than $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for families. The 40 percent tax would be on the value of the plan. In addition, it imposes a 10 percent tax on indoor tanning salon treatments. Both bills call for cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare and Medicaid. Republicans say that those cuts will impair Medicare coverage, but Democrats say the savings will come from eliminating waste and fraud. The House and Senate bills also call for fees on medical device manufacturers."

Yeah, it's a tax on the wealthy and insurers offering expensive health plans. I don't see were it's transferring the costs from those in the 133% to 400% range (a cap of 88,200 USD).

Quote :

"In the mean time they're screwed for two years. Longer if they're sick. I mean you're talking about 5 year contracts for people with cancer. Tell me, how long after your cancer diagnosis are your going to spend researching which company you should commit to for 5 years before you get treatment?"

First of all, I never proposed that contracts would be a good solution for insurance companies. Conversely, I wouldn't have much of a problem with it.

Not only that, I expect for someone who's been diagnosed with cancer to swallow the "burden" of doing research for what's the best insurance company for them. If people can do it for cell phone companies, satellite companies, or whatever else that offers a contract, then I expect them to not bitch about having to research insurance companies. If you think that's an actual reason to negate health insurance contracts, then I guess contracts in general should just be gotten rid of. After all, people might actually have to READ them.

Quote :

"The rates will continue to climb because we're not doing anything to address the actual costs of care"

I agree. I consider this more of a health insurance reform, than a health care reform, since we're not actually fixing the cost of health care, we're just taking it.

Quote :

"So we'd still have a system where your access to money is what determines the quality and level of care you'll get?"

The entire purpose of a national health insurance system isn't to pay for EVERYTHING. It's to pay for essentials. I don't consider dental and eye insurance essentials. I don't consider optional cosmetic surgery to be essential either. Yet you can get health insurance plans that cover them. I'm not against people paying for such plans, but I wouldn't expect it to be in a nation plan, nor should it be.

There's no reason why life saving medical care should put someone in debt for a person's entire life. There's no reason why this shouldn't be a basic service that every citizen gets.

[Edited on December 26, 2009 at 2:48 AM. Reason : .]

12/26/2009 2:47:47 AM

Quote :

"A sick person's premiums shouldn't be lower than a healthy person. "

Why not? We've already established that they don't represent a risk, they represent a loss. Do you really think that $300 / month makes that big of a difference? Or are you suggesting that if you get sick, your premiums should increase? In which case, that's exactly what happens under our current system, and exactly what the government is trying to stop.

Quote :

"And exactly how exactly will the current proposal drive up the premiums of healthy people while driving down the premiums for sick people? Please, explain, because I don't see it."

Simple. Someone has to pay for all the losses the new law is going to force on the insurance companies. That will come in the form of higher premiums, which everyone will pay. Except that the lower income classes who represent a larger pool of sick people, will have those premiums capped and the rest subsidized. Ergo, higher premiums for all, except a vast swath of the sick and some portion of the healthy people.

Quote :

"I'll take it over your proposal, which, from what I can tell, offers absolutely no solution for people who can't currently afford insurance now."

Of course not, because the proposal was only a proposal of how to deal with the "pre-existing conditions" problem, not a proposal designed to solve the whole system. If you want to see ideas and proposals to help those who can't afford health insurance already, I suggest you start on page 1 and keep reading until you get back here.

Quote :

"If you think that's an actual reason to negate health insurance contracts, then I guess contracts in general should just be gotten rid of. After all, people might actually have to READ them."

If people want to lock themselves into contracts and chain themselves to a company, that's their own prerogative. Me personally, I'd rather not see the government implement a system which pretty much encourages insurance companies to try and lock me in. I want to see a proposal that encourages more not less competition.

Quote :

"I agree. I consider this more of a health insurance reform, than a health care reform, since we're not actually fixing the cost of health care, we're just taking it."

You can't fix the insurance problem until you fix the cost problem. All we're doing is shifting money around and not solving anything. In 5 years, when premiums have sky rocketed even further, we'll be right back here again, asking ourselves who we can tax now.

Quote :

"The entire purpose of a national health insurance system isn't to pay for EVERYTHING. It's to pay for essentials. I don't consider dental and eye insurance essentials. I don't consider optional cosmetic surgery to be essential either."

Do you consider "faith based healing" to be an essential? And somehow, I get the feeling that my definition of essential, your definition of essential and our politician's definitions of essential are all vastly different. I would rather the government not be defining what is essential services.

Quote :

"There's no reason why life saving medical care should put someone in debt for a person's entire life. There's no reason why this shouldn't be a basic service that every citizen gets. "

Life saving medical care is a basic service that every citizen gets, regardless of their ability to pay.

12/26/2009 11:14:54 AM

Quote :

"Why not? We've already established that they don't represent a risk, they represent a loss. Do you really think that $300 / month makes that big of a difference? Or are you suggesting that if you get sick, your premiums should increase? In which case, that's exactly what happens under our current system, and exactly what the government is trying to stop."

I am not suggesting that sick people should pay more. Don't try to put words in my mouth. I think that they should be the same.

Quote :

"Simple. Someone has to pay for all the losses the new law is going to force on the insurance companies. That will come in the form of higher premiums, which everyone will pay. Except that the lower income classes who represent a larger pool of sick people, will have those premiums capped and the rest subsidized. Ergo, higher premiums for all, except a vast swath of the sick and some portion of the healthy people"

You my want to re-read what this bill will do for people who are at the $88,200 mark. There premiums are capped as well, just higher than that of people at the 133% above poverty line mark (about ten times higher).

Quote :

"Of course not, because the proposal was only a proposal of how to deal with the "pre-existing conditions" problem, not a proposal designed to solve the whole system"

Then your idea is pointless, as it only deals with one aspect, and does not take in other aspects.

Quote :

" If you want to see ideas and proposals to help those who can't afford health insurance already, I suggest you start on page 1 and keep reading until you get back here."

Those ideas aren't being discussed on the senate or house floor, so I don't see much of a point for me to re-read through hundreds of posts on ideas that won't be implemented in this bill.

Quote :

"You can't fix the insurance problem until you fix the cost problem. All we're doing is shifting money around and not solving anything. In 5 years, when premiums have sky rocketed even further, we'll be right back here again, asking ourselves who we can tax now."

In 5 years is when most of these taxes and subsidies are set to kick in...

Quote :

"Do you consider "faith based healing" to be an essential? And somehow, I get the feeling that my definition of essential, your definition of essential and our politician's definitions of essential are all vastly different. I would rather the government not be defining what is essential services."

While there certainly will be a discrepancy on what we do or don't find essential. But if other countries are able to do it, I don't see why we wouldn't be able to.

Quote :

"Life saving medical care is a basic service that every citizen gets, regardless of their ability to pay."

I never said that they're not able to. But is there a reason why it has to put people in debt for the rest of their life? As long as people who don't have medical insurance, those people will often be hesitant or resist going to the hospital, often making their chance of survival worse, or they die. As long as that's a possibility, I don't see them as having life saving medical care as a basic service, not on the same scale that insured people do. You can argue that technically they do, but realistically, they do not.

[Edited on December 26, 2009 at 3:58 PM. Reason : .]

12/26/2009 3:53:57 PM

Quote :

"I am not suggesting that sick people should pay more. Don't try to put words in my mouth. I think that they should be the same."

Why should they be the same? The represent a higher cost and a larger risk to the company. They should be higher than a healthy person.

Quote :

" You my want to re-read what this bill will do for people who are at the $88,200 mark. There premiums are capped as well, just higher than that of people at the 133% above poverty line mark (about ten times higher)."

Like I said, healthy people will pay more than poor people. Health generally correlates to socio economic status, so as you just said, the wealthier you are (and therefore, the more likely to be healthy) the more you will pay.

Quote :

"Then your idea is pointless, as it only deals with one aspect, and does not take in other aspects."

And the current proposal of forcing companies to take people regardless of their pre-existing conditions is pointless. Oh wait, no it's not because the single idea doesn't encompass the entire plan.

Quote :

"Those ideas aren't being discussed on the senate or house floor, so I don't see much of a point for me to re-read through hundreds of posts on ideas that won't be implemented in this bill."

That's because our politicians aren't interested in discussing ideas that fix the problem, they're interested in ideas that make everyone feel warm and fuzzy in the short term and passing the problem on to future generations. But if you aren't going to read and consider the alternatives that other people have suggested, regardless of whether our overlords in congress are discussing them, then you have no standing to say that what our politicians are doing is a good idea or even the best of ideas and you have no standing to say that the opponents of the reform aren't suggesting any real solutions. How can you support the current proposals if you don't even know what the alternatives are? How can you tell your congressman that there are other, better alternatives if you won't pay attention to anything that isn't already being discussed by your congressmen?

By the way, if you aren't going to read the alternatives and proposals that other people have provided, you have no right to say shit like this:

Quote :

"Because so far I've seen nothing from opponents of health care reform that goes beyond allowing the purchasing of health insurance across state lines that addresses how to help parts of that 46.3 million people.""

Quote :

" But is there a reason why it has to put people in debt for the rest of their life? [quote] Well aside from the fact that treatment costs money (which this bill doesn't address), there's also the fact that the costs of health care are ridiculous (which this bill doesn't address), the fact that insurance is used to pay for everything (which this bill doesn't address) and so on and so forth. In fact, the only thing this bill does is put the entire nation into debt for the rest of their lives to pay for other people's medical procedures. I mean, we're seriously going to force people to buy insurance or tax them if they don't, in order to pay for these debts. [quote]I don't see them as having life saving medical care as a basic service, not on the same scale that insured people do. You can argue that technically they do, but realistically, they do not."

And a national insurance system wouldn't change that. Yes, they would be more likely to use the service, but they still wouldn't have that access on the same scale that privately insured people would.

Again and again and again, you are trying to fix the wrong problem. Until you see and understand that, every "solution" you have will at best maintain the status quo and at worst make things worse.

[Edited on December 26, 2009 at 4:38 PM. Reason : sdf]

12/26/2009 4:36:05 PM

Quote :

"Never ever need heathcare services? During their entire lifetime? I think not."

Insurance. Not healthcare services. that you can't separate the two is part of why you don't understand the issue.

Quote :

"Companies have always been able to write off business expenses"

Is that true? I don't think so...

Quote :

"I do love hammering on about the Republican's unwillingness to do anthing about healthcare because, by listening to them now, you get the impression that they've always been concerned, and it's only this program they're against. History hasn't born them out, but it's fun to watch them become all brand-new. "

No, you just love being a partisan prick.

Quote :

"Because the same people who are in power who are bitching about this bill are the same people who had 8 years to do something about it."

You must love saying the exact same fucking thing and not addressing anything.

Quote :

"Not everyone who "qualifies" can afford to sign up. Did you ever think of that?"

IT'S FREE!!! YOU DON'T PAY SHIT IN PREMIUMS FOR MEDICARE OR MEDICAID, YOU FUCKING IDIOT.

Quote :

"How about you MAN up and provide some numbers to YOUR initial claim?"

You are the one claiming it's a lot of people. You made the claim, now YOU prove it. That's how debate works.

Quote :

"Why do you keep asking the same fucking question when I keep providing the same fucking answer."

Because you haven't always provided the same answer, durr.

Quote :

"He didn't "shred" it up. He disagreed with."

Either way, you didn't refute him. So you are just repeating yourself ad nauseum.

Quote :

"Then your question was irrelevant."

Bullshit. The question is whether THIS BILL is Constitutional. Jesus.

Quote :

"And who said it was a smart idea to untie insurance to the employer? YOU?"

Plenty of people.

Quote :

"The reason why most people who have insurance can afford it, is because the large group rates that they get make it affordable for many Americans."

And you don't think that a new market with 200 million Americans that is actually competing for each person's dollar will also have low rates? You are in a fantasy world.

Quote :

"Additionally, when you posted the analogy, the senate bill had not passed."

You have GOT to be trolling now. It was OBVIOUS I was posting about pre-existing conditions, fucktard. Whether or not the bill passed the Senate is not relevant.

Quote :

"Now, while a person is free to go without health insurance, they would be idiots to."

Yes, right now, when you can be fucked for not having coverage and then getting sick. With this bill, though, that will no longer be the case.

Quote :

"The problem I see with your idea is that you're forcing a company to cover someone until they die."

THAT'S INSURANCE!!! Jesus, dude. That's how it ought to be. How in the fuck is it fair for them to say "hey we'll cover you if you get cancer" and then drop you a year after you get cancer? They lost the bet, they should pay up.

Quote :

"I still don't see what makes it better than forcing the insurance people to take people with pre-existing conditions."

1) It first incentivises people to get insurance, even when they are not sick, so as to be covered if something happens.
2) Those people pay into the pool, lowering every one else's premiums.
3) These people, when not sick, are helping the company cover other people, as opposed to the sick people coming in on a free ride and driving everyone else's costs up.

Quote :

"Whats hilarious is how up in arms (45+ pages worth) you conservatives are over a program that will give insurance and protection to the citzens of this country for less money than has been shoveled at the banking elite to keep their fifedoms in tact."

It's funny that I am pissed off about both programs? What?

Quote :

"What I'm asking is what's to stop someone from dumping a plan that is paying for a condition that developed under that insurance companies care to another one that offers lower premiums, or because they simply have to due to a job change."

If they could have gotten that in the first place, why didn't they?

Quote :

"Is there anything to back up the idea that the "effective result" will be the same?"

Yes. It's a simple exercise to see that premiums must rise in both scenarios.

Quote :

"While they might have an incentive to keep them off, they sick people are simply just going to get lower rates than what us normal, healthy, people will get."

Why? What about a sick person makes them less able to pay than anyone else? The company will be fighting to keep everyone, not just the sick.

Quote :

"My point is that if your plan was to go through, insurance companies would be unable to compete at those LOW group rates that individuals end up paying after the company chips in."

And you don't think it's going to be the same when companies have to take people, no matter how sick they are, and "insure them?" Come on...

Quote :

"Basically, people are being punished for being unprofitable, and that's not how a healthcare system should be run."

Healthcare != Health Insurance. learn the difference.

Quote :

"And they NEED to cover the costs of the sick as well. Your proposal spreads the sick out to all the insurance companies."

And the Senate bill doesn't? Do you think the sick are all just gonna flock to one company once pre-existing conditions are covered?

Quote :

"Your plan forces them to jack the rates up for all healthy individuals so that they can cover the forced burden."

And this doesn't happen once pre-existing conditions are covered?

Quote :

"The incentive is to keep the loss. That's all. When a person goes from being a risk to being a loss, they don't see you as a customer they want."

Losing 50 bux is preferable to losing 100 bux.

Quote :

"The ONLY incentive you offer to keep rates down is for sick people, and basically, you're forcing them to offer the sick people lower rates than the healthy people"

How? I'll again ask, what about a sick person makes them need a lower rate than a healthy person?

Quote :

"Did you miss where people within the 133% and 400% range above the poverty line are going effectively have a rates ceiling?"

Who do you think will pay for this? Or do you think no one will make up the difference?

Quote :

"I would also like to mention once again that Massachusetts, who's system we're modeling on, is still having rate hikes despite mandatory insurance and all the other fluffy feel good crap."

Isn't it great that we are modeling a national insurance system on a failing state insurance system? Isn't the pure fucking brilliance? But, I know, BoBo, the Republicans can't complain about the lunacy inherent in that, because they "didn't do anything the last 8 years," right?

Quote :

"Not true. Do you think that only a few companies will be affected by your plan? Hell no. It will be ALL of them. Prices as a whole will be driven up..."

And that doesn't happen with the Senate bill?

Quote :

"while prices for sick people will be pushed down"

WHY? Please, explain why the premiums for the sick will be lower...

Quote :

"And exactly how exactly will the current proposal drive up the premiums of healthy people while driving down the premiums for sick people? Please, explain, because I don't see it."

You don't see it because he's not saying sick people's premiums will go down.

Quote :

"While the sick people may get more subsidies and the healthy people may get less subsidies, at least there will be a cap."

A cap for some, not all.

Quote :

"I agree. I consider this more of a health insurance reform, than a health care reform, since we're not actually fixing the cost of health care, we're just taking it."

Why not fix the problem, instead of the symptoms?

Quote :

"The entire purpose of a national health insurance system isn't to pay for EVERYTHING. It's to pay for essentials."

What if we could fix the system so that we didn't need a national health insurance system to pay for essentials?

Quote :

"You my want to re-read what this bill will do for people who are at the $88,200 mark."

What about people above that mark? You know, he did say "someone has to pay for all the losses..."

Quote :

"Then your idea is pointless, as it only deals with one aspect, and does not take in other aspects."

He just fucking said that his idea didn't cover everything that needed to be done. Are you that fucking dense?

Quote :

"Those ideas aren't being discussed on the senate or house floor, so I don't see much of a point for me to re-read through hundreds of posts on ideas that won't be implemented in this bill."

1) Well, you bitched that his proposal didn't fix everything, then you bitch that you don't want to read his other ideas? WTF
2) There's a reason the ideas aren't being discussed on the senate or house floor. And it's Democrats who don't want to listen to anything other than more government control.

Quote :

"In 5 years is when most of these taxes and subsidies are set to kick in... "

I could be wrong, but I thought the taxes started immediately. That is part of why it's a big sham to say this billshit will "reduce the deficit."

Quote :

"But if other countries are able to do it, I don't see why we wouldn't be able to."

Who says other countries are able to do it as well as we do? Have you seen the waiting lines in other countries?

12/26/2009 8:05:32 PM

Quote :

"Why should they be the same? They represent a higher cost and a larger risk to the company. They should be higher than a healthy person."

Fixed that for you.

So why should sick people have lower premiums, as what would happen under your plan?

Under this plan, people within the 133 to 400% would pay the same rates (assuming they are a family for 4 and they have the same income).

I suppose that a person outside that 400% would pay more than a healthy person, but that's not really too much of a problem.

Quote :

"What about people above that mark? You know, he did say "someone has to pay for all the losses...""

What about them? They're not the ones who have problems paying for health insurance.

Quote :

"He just fucking said that his idea didn't cover everything that needed to be done. Are you that fucking dense?"

And I fucking said that his idea is fucking pointless then. Are you that fucking stupid? While everyone can come up with ideas that can fix one problem of a series of problems, making them all work together is a whole separate thing.

And, since your stupid ass missed this in the beginning, I said that his idea, while not bad, it too, wasn't great, and I didn't see it being any better than the senate/house's idea for fixing the issue with people with pre-existing conditions.

Quote :

"Well, you bitched that his proposal didn't fix everything, then you bitch that you don't want to read his other ideas? WTF"

He's free to repost them. Believe it or not, I don't have all the fucking time in the world to re-read some 40+ pages of drivel and bitching, with a few ideas intertwined in it all.

Quote :

"I could be wrong, but I thought the taxes started immediately. That is part of why it's a big sham to say this billshit will "reduce the deficit.""

Some of the taxes and penalties start to kick in 2014 and won't be in full effect until 2016.

Quote :

"Who says other countries are able to do it as well as we do? Have you seen the waiting lines in other countries?"

Have you seen the waiting lines in our country? Sure, go to a rich hospital and it's not much of an issue. Then go to the Bronx and tell me how it goes getting into the emergency room.

Additionally, unless you're actually speaking from a lot of personal experience, then perhaps you should shut the fuck up in regards to how conditions are in other countries? Because while you can find someone who says it sucks, I can find someone who says it doesn't.

Quote :

"Healthy generally correlates to socio economic status, so as you just said, the wealthier you are (and therefore, the more likely to be healthy) the more you will pay."

The problem isn't health as a whole, the problem is more specifically pre-existing conditions. The last time I checked, diabetes, AIDS, cancer, ect, hit people of all economic status. While wealthy people may be less likely to catch the flu, that's not really the issue.

Quote :

"But if you aren't going to read and consider the alternatives that other people have suggested, regardless of whether our overlords in congress are discussing them, then you have no standing to say that what our politicians are doing is a good idea or even the best of ideas and you have no standing to say that the opponents of the reform aren't suggesting any real solutions."

Exactly who are you to tell me what I can and can't say where I have standing in. You're just mad because I'm dumping all over your plan. Additionally, where did I say that the politicians ideas are the best, where did I say they were great ideas? I think some of the ideas presented in the bill are good ideas, and nobody has to read other people's ideas to say that an idea is good. Did I ever say that compared to the ideas presented in this thread, that congresses ideas are the best? Fuck no. So don't try to imply that I'm even suggesting that they are.

In fact, in another thread, I said this:

Quote :

"There's no way to make everyone happy. In my opinion, if you go the GOP route, you save people who have health insurance now, while not really fixing the crux of the issue. But if you go strictly the Democrat route, you get to the crux of the issue (to some extent), but costs potentially increase, which pisses off people who have insurance now. With both sides bickering the way that they are, I prefer it to be an all Democrat bill than an all GOP bill, but I would MUCH rather have an equal contribution on the bill in which both sides are taken in account for. I think that would yield the best bill."

HMMMMmmm.... It doesn't appear that I'm saying anything of the sorts that the ideas that the politicians, Republican or Democrat, are the best. I just said that when it comes to the choice between having ONLY the GOP's ideas or ONLY the Democrat's ideas in a bill, I'll take the Democrats.

Quote :

"By the way, if you aren't going to read the alternatives and proposals that other people have provided, you have no right to say shit like this"

I will say whatever the fuck I want, first of all. But what I meant by opponents, I meant strictly the GOP. Sorry if that wasn't any more clearer.

Quote :

"Yes, they would be more likely to use the service, but they still wouldn't have that access on the same scale that privately insured people would."

Bullshit. People on medicaid don't seem to have a problem getting access to life saving treatments, now do they?

Quote :

"Again and again and again, you are trying to fix the wrong problem. Until you see and understand that, every "solution" you have will at best maintain the status quo and at worst make things worse."

What problems have I been trying to fix? Have I proposed any ideas on how to fix the issues of health care providers, like Hospitals and private practice doctors, continuously charging more and more money? I didn't think so. Ultimately, health care providers and pharmaceutical companies are the reason why costs keep being driven up. And why? Because there's nothing to stop them from charging what they do.

Quote :

"IT'S FREE!!! YOU DON'T PAY SHIT IN PREMIUMS FOR MEDICARE OR MEDICAID, YOU FUCKING IDIOT. "

NOT EVERYONE IS ELIGIBLE FOR MEDICAID AND MEDICARE, YOU FUCKING IDIOT. AND THOSE THAT AREN'T ELIGIBLE ARE CAPABLE OF PAYING FOR INSURANCE ON THEIR OWN, YOU FUCKING CUNT.

Quote :

"You are the one claiming it's a lot of people. You made the claim, now YOU prove it. That's how debate works."

Fucking moron, you made the initial claim:

Quote :

"you sure do like to cry crocodile tears over a vast minority of people. Do those people exist? Sure. Do they exist in significant enough numbers to warrant a major government takeover? No, not at all. Do they exist in significant enough numbers to justify this piece of legislation? Hell no."

NOW BACKUP THE INITIAL CLAIM THAT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO CANNOT AFFORD HEALTH INSURANCE AND WHO ARE INELIGIBLE FOR MEDICAID/MEDICARE ARE NOT SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY THE LEGISLATION!

You cannot. So unless you can provide some numbers, shut the fuck up. I've provided more numbers than you have

Quote :

"Either way, you didn't refute him. So you are just repeating yourself ad nauseum."

Somebody else did. And just because he disagreed with him, doesn't suddenly make what was said wrong.

Quote :

"Plenty of people."

Doesn't make it a good idea.

Quote :

"And you don't think that a new market with 200 million Americans that is actually competing for each person's dollar will also have low rates? You are in a fantasy world."

And that's nothing but speculation on your part, and many other people's part. You're in a fantasy world if you think that your "theory" will work exactly how you think it will.

Quote :

"You have GOT to be trolling now. It was OBVIOUS I was posting about pre-existing conditions, fucktard. Whether or not the bill passed the Senate is not relevant."

AND YOU HAVE GOT TO BE A FUCKING MORON NOW. Why? Because it doesn't take a genius to know that your analogy was NOT FUCKING APPLICABLE!

Your analogy only covered the instance in which a person went without insurance, and they get sick, and then they want cover. Your example does NOT cover the instance when a person WHO HAS insurance, they GET DROPPED, and they cannot get insurance again without joining a large group rate.

Your analogy only COVERED one scenario that can lead to a person not qualifying for insurance, you dumb cunt. You compared apples and oranges. Now go sit in the corner and think of another analogy.

Quote :

"THAT'S INSURANCE!!! Jesus, dude. That's how it ought to be. How in the fuck is it fair for them to say "hey we'll cover you if you get cancer" and then drop you a year after you get cancer? They lost the bet, they should pay up."

There is no other type of insurance in the world that has long lasting costs like health insurance. The idea works with a car, but if you force that shit on companies, you're just going to hike up costs for the healthy even faster.

12/26/2009 9:12:35 PM

Quote :

"It first incentivises people to get insurance, even when they are not sick, so as to be covered if something happens."

If the current system doesn't give people an incentive to get insurance, then neither will that one.

Quote :

"Those people pay into the pool, lowering every one else's premiums."

It won't lower premiums! Those people who are sick can leave the insurance company! Then what? They're not paying in the pool any more, now are they? Nope. And with employer based health insurance, it's a VERY real possibility.

Quote :

"These people, when not sick, are helping the company cover other people, as opposed to the sick people coming in on a free ride and driving everyone else's costs up."

Not everyone gets better! A diabetic doesn't get better. A person with AIDS, doesn't get better. There are many conditions that are much more money that NEVER GET BETTER!

Quote :

"Why? What about a sick person makes them less able to pay than anyone else? The company will be fighting to keep everyone, not just the sick."

I already provided an example of what can and will happen under 1337 b4k4's plan. You go find it.

Quote :

"And you don't think it's going to be the same when companies have to take people, no matter how sick they are, and "insure them?" Come on..."

This happens now under the current system. Sick people get jobs with large corporations with large group plans that they're able to buy into.

Quote :

"Healthcare != Health Insurance. learn the difference."

I meant health insurance you dumb fuck.

Quote :

"And this doesn't happen once pre-existing conditions are covered?"

It will do it to healthy and sick. My problem with his plan is that sick people's premiums are going to go lower than that of healthy people, which in turn, means that the healthy people will have a larger contribution to the "pool" than the sick people. I am not in favor of it, and there is nothing you can say that would make me in favor of such an act.

Quote :

"How? I'll again ask, what about a sick person makes them need a lower rate than a healthy person?"

I'll repost this, because you obviously missed it:

If sick person A is covered by insurance company B under a group plan and person A pays 300 bucks a month for a family of 4 ends up leaving the company. The company paid for 25% of the premiums, making total payout to the insurance company 400 bucks a month. Insurance B is FORCED to pay for their expenses, even if they're not with them. Because they're forced to pay them, why not keep them on as a customer? Correct? So, Person A's rates go up to 400 bucks, a competitive number.

Now, lets say person A gets another job that offers a group plan with insurance company C. Company's C's total premium cost shared by the employer and employee is the same 400 bucks. However, the employer now covers 50% of the cost, meaning the employee's premiums goes down to 200 bucks a month. How is company B supposed to compete with this? By going below 200 bucks? You're forgetting that company C would be making the total 400 bucks a month, while Company B would be making less than half off the person than what they previously did.

So, in effect, Company B will offer the sick person 150 bucks a month, 50 bucks cheaper than Company C, to keep them on as a customer. That 150 bucks a month would be a rate CHEAPER than what any of the healthy people would get. Is it not? So, why is a sick person paying less than a healthy person in this case? Seems fucked up to me.

Quote :

"Who do you think will pay for this? Or do you think no one will make up the difference?"

Already posted it, go find it, bitch.

Quote :

"And that doesn't happen with the Senate bill?"

Bitch, I already said that it would, or do you choose to only see what you want to see? There's no way to insure sick people without premiums going up.

Quote :

"Why not fix the problem, instead of the symptoms?"

That's not on the table right now. Until it is, there's not much that we can do about it.

Quote :

"What if we could fix the system so that we didn't need a national health insurance system to pay for essentials?"

Whether it's "needed" or not, I still want to see one. What you don't understand is that all those irresponsible people ARE affecting this economy in a negative impact. Every time a house is foreclosed because a person doesn't want to get health insurance and they get sick, you're affected negatively! Not directly of course. But another house is on the market and another bank is going to probably take a loss.

12/26/2009 9:13:13 PM

Quote :

"Who says other countries are able to do it as well as we do? Have you seen the waiting lines in other countries?"

If the masses in these countries were truly bothered by what you think are horrible waiting lines, don't you think they would have moved away from the socialized model? Not even Thatcher could touch the NHS, and she didn't even try to. If it was as bad as people here seem to think, surely it could be used as an election-winning issue by the right in Europe.

So I ask, why are the overwhelming majority of Canadians, Brits, etc more satisfied with their systems than we are? Stupidity? Cunning government trickery? What?

I lived briefly in a country w/ a system that can be described as "single payer" (public insurace, private hospital) and the only real popular anger in the news I ever saw was against private hospitals? Where was this? Why, Ireland, during the Celtic Tiger years. A booming economy and nat. health insurance are not adversaries.

And since I'm sure you'll bring up people going elsewhere for treatments, I'll go ahead and direct you to the growing trend of people who can afford to getting treatment in India or wherever. Feel free to vote with your feet, as libertarians would say. Or secede. Some of use choose egalitarianism. Let us fail if you're so sure of yourself. Go Galt.

12/26/2009 9:14:52 PM

I think people are talking with thier feet. Its why you are seeing a decrease in population (taxpayers) in many liberal havens. They HAVE to force people to pay on the federal level, instead of growing up and saying NO for once. Like a bunch of children. " But I want it, give it to me.. i NEED it".

While some people are leaving for another state, businesses have been leaving the country for years now. But Im sure this will help lure them back. LOL

12/26/2009 10:10:02 PM

Quote :

"What about them? They're not the ones who have problems paying for health insurance."

*carlface*
He said the costs would be passed along to someone. You said they wouldn't, cause the people in the <400% poverty level wouldn't pay them. I pointed out someone would pay those costs, as he said

Quote :

"And I fucking said that his idea is fucking pointless then."

Why? HE WASN'T TRYING TO SOLVE THE WHOLE PROBLEM WITH THAT ONE IDEA. There is no magic bullet to fix everything.

Quote :

"Have you seen the waiting lines in our country? Sure, go to a rich hospital and it's not much of an issue. Then go to the Bronx and tell me how it goes getting into the emergency room."

Have you been to Massachusetts, you know, the place whose health insurance system this bill is modeled on? You don't want to answer that. By the way, waiting a while at the ER for a cold is nothing compared to waiting two years for a specialist, like is routine in other nations.

Quote :

"Additionally, unless you're actually speaking from a lot of personal experience, then perhaps you should shut the fuck up in regards to how conditions are in other countries?"

Aren't you the one who said it works great in other nations?

Quote :

"The last time I checked, diabetes, AIDS, cancer, ect, hit people of all economic status."

Yes. But they are highly correlated to socio-economic status. Like he said.

Quote :

"Bullshit. People on medicaid don't seem to have a problem getting access to life saving treatments, now do they?"

Given that medicaid is driving up the prices for everyone else and is bankrupting the nation, I don't think you really want to be pointing to that as a shining success. Moreover, those people only get the access because other people are footing the increased bill.

Quote :

"What problems have I been trying to fix?"

Mainly people not having insurance.

Quote :

"Have I proposed any ideas on how to fix the issues of health care providers, like Hospitals and private practice doctors, continuously charging more and more money?"

There is a reason that they are charging more and more money, and I'll give you a hint: it's not entirely greed, nor is it mostly greed.

Quote :

"NOT EVERYONE IS ELIGIBLE FOR MEDICAID AND MEDICARE, YOU FUCKING IDIOT. AND THOSE THAT AREN'T ELIGIBLE ARE CAPABLE OF PAYING FOR INSURANCE ON THEIR OWN, YOU FUCKING CUNT."

Too bad I was talking about people that, you know, QUALIFIED FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID, YOU FUCKING CUNT. It was blatantly obvious in what I posted, too. Jesus. If you can't fucking read and comprehend what someone is posting, then shut the fuck up and learn how to read.

Quote :

"Fucking moron, you made the initial claim:"

Bullshit. I made that claim in RESPONSE to you claiming it was a large number of people.

Quote :

"Somebody else did. And just because he disagreed with him, doesn't suddenly make what was said wrong."

Yeah, but it also doesn't mean that you need to say the exact same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Quote :

"And that's nothing but speculation on your part, and many other people's part."

And there is equal amount of speculation on your part. What is your fucking point?

Quote :

"AND YOU HAVE GOT TO BE A FUCKING MORON NOW. Why? Because it doesn't take a genius to know that your analogy was NOT FUCKING APPLICABLE! Your analogy only covered the instance in which a person went without insurance, and they get sick, and then they want cover. Your example does NOT cover the instance when a person WHO HAS insurance, they GET DROPPED, and they cannot get insurance again without joining a large group rate. Your analogy only COVERED one scenario that can lead to a person not qualifying for insurance, you dumb cunt. You compared apples and oranges. Now go sit in the corner and think of another analogy. "

Bullshit, again. As NOW people no longer need to have insurance to be protected against pre-existing conditions. WHICH IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE ANALOGY. Stop stalling, and address it.

Quote :

"There is no other type of insurance in the world that has long lasting costs like health insurance. The idea works with a car, but if you force that shit on companies, you're just going to hike up costs for the healthy even faster. "

There is also no other type of insurance in the world that is forced to take on a known loss like pre-existing conditions. And yet you think THAT wouldn't drive up the costs?

Quote :

"If the current system doesn't give people an incentive to get insurance, then neither will that one."

Really? Knowing that I can have a condition covered forever as opposed to just a couple months before the company drops me isn't an incentive to get the insurance? Really? Really?

Quote :

"It won't lower premiums!"

It must, on some level. Yes, it will also raise premiums, but by definition, the final product will be lower than if healthy people weren't drawn in to the pool who otherwise would have remained out of it. Moreover, how does this monstrosity in the Senate or House lower premiums?

Quote :

"Those people who are sick can leave the insurance company!"

SO CAN THE HEALTHY. As was said before. Saying it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again doesn't make it any less false, dude.

Quote :

"Not everyone gets better! A diabetic doesn't get better. A person with AIDS, doesn't get better. There are many conditions that are much more money that NEVER GET BETTER!"

Welcome to the world of "risk" in the insurance industry.

Quote :

"I already provided an example of what can and will happen under 1337 b4k4's plan. You go find it."

Please quote it again. Everything I am reading from you says they will jack up the rates on the healthy while keeping the rates the same or lower for the sick, which makes no sense. The rates should rise for both. Why jack the rates up only for the healthy when you can bleed the sick the same amount?

[continued]

12/26/2009 10:48:38 PM

If you are talking about this asinine scenario [and you are, as you posted later. thanks]:

Quote :

"If sick person A is covered by insurance company B under a group plan and person A pays 300 bucks a month for a family of 4 ends up leaving the company. The company paid for 25% of the premiums, making total payout to the insurance company 400 bucks a month. Insurance B is FORCED to pay for their expenses, even if they're not with them. Because they're forced to pay them, why not keep them on as a customer? Correct? So, Person A's rates go up to 400 bucks, a competitive number. Now, lets say person A gets another job that offers a group plan with insurance company C. Company's C's total premium cost shared by the employer and employee is the same 400 bucks. However, the employer now covers 50% of the cost, meaning the employee's premiums goes down to 200 bucks a month. How is company B supposed to compete with this? By going below 200 bucks? You're forgetting that company C would be making the total 400 bucks a month, while Company B would be making less than half off the person than what they previously did. Now? What does this mean on a wide scale? Premiums for HEALTHY people ONLY would go up. NOTHING would change competition wise for HEALTHY PEOPLE. There is no incentive to keep the premiums of healthy people down."

That's a hell of an assumption that every sick person is going to fit in to that bill. Every sick person changes jobs? Every sick person gets more paid by their next job? Come on, dude. That's absurd, and you know it. it might happen that way for some people, but for every one of those, it'll go the opposite, where the sick person stays at the same job. Hell, there would likely be more people in the latter category, as sick people might not be as likely to make a life-altering decision like changing jobs, especially if their current employer is being understanding about the situation. Besides, if we go further with what b4k4 wanted and decouple insurance from healthcare, then the job changing situation becomes less important anyway. Finally, as I just said, and as b4k4 has said, the emphasis would be on the company keeping the rates of healthy people and sick people about the same, otherwise the healthy people would just switch over to the lower priced companies anyway.

Quote :

"This happens now under the current system. Sick people get jobs with large corporations with large group plans that they're able to buy into."

Yes, and your point? Not everyone works for a large corporation. To be fair, though, I'm not sure if under those plans people can be denied for having a PEC.

Quote :

"I meant health insurance you dumb fuck."

And I am supposed to read your mind now? Other people here have conflated the two. Why should I expect you to be any different? In fact, the conflation of the two is part of the problem, as some people are dumb enough to think that fixing one fixes the other.

Quote :

"Already posted it, go find it, bitch."

That's not how debate works, dude. You've pulled this copout more than once, and it just leads to confusion. If you are saying you said it before, then man up, embarrass me, and prove it.

Quote :

"That's not on the table right now. Until it is, there's not much that we can do about it."

Why not put it on the table? Why not argue for it? Why support something that does little more than treat the symptoms? More often than not, treating the symptoms just lets the underlying problem get worse and worse, festering and ruining everything.

Quote :

"Whether it's "needed" or not, I still want to see one."

So, you want something, even if it's not needed and even if it will not be as good as other options? Really? Really?

Quote :

"If the masses in these countries were truly bothered by what you think are horrible waiting lines, don't you think they would have moved away from the socialized model? Not even Thatcher could touch the NHS, and she didn't even try to. If it was as bad as people here seem to think, surely it could be used as an election-winning issue by the right in Europe."

Are you one of those people who truly thinks that Social Security is working really well right now? Just because there is not the political will or ability to tackle a problem doesn't mean that the problem doesn't exist.

Quote :

"What you don't understand is that all those irresponsible people ARE affecting this economy in a negative impact. Every time a house is foreclosed because a person doesn't want to get health insurance and they get sick, you're affected negatively! Not directly of course. But another house is on the market and another bank is going to probably take a loss."

That's a bullshit argument and you know it. The medical bankruptcies pale in comparison to the people who just bought too much house. Does it hurt? Sure, but it's a drop in the bucket, especially compared to the other things the government did to fuck things up.

12/26/2009 10:49:01 PM

Quote :

"*carlface* He said the costs would be passed along to someone. You said they wouldn't, cause the people in the <400% poverty level wouldn't pay them. I pointed out someone would pay those costs, as he said"

WHERE THE FUCK DID I SAY THAT THE COSTS WOULDN'T BE PASSED TO SOMEONE ELSE? WHERE? WHY THE FUCK DO YOU THINK I POSTED THE TAX RATES ON THE WEALTHY? BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO FUCKING PAY IT!

Quote :

"Have you been to Massachusetts, you know, the place whose health insurance system this bill is modeled on? You don't want to answer that. By the way, waiting a while at the ER for a cold is nothing compared to waiting two years for a specialist, like is routine in other nations."

Have YOU ever been to Massachusetts for medical care? Besides, where did I say that I was for Massachusetts plan? That's right, I didn't. Now go sit in the corner, dumbass, and stop watching Fox News. Just as they're able to find people who don't like the system over in Canada and Britain, I can also find people who do, and who also don't have any problems finding specialists.

Quote :

"Aren't you the one who said it works great in other nations?"

Where the fuck did I say that? I said that it works in other nations. I never said "great."

Quote :

"Yes. But they are highly correlated to socio-economic status. Like he said."

And I said that he's wrong. If you're telling me that type 1 diabetes is correlated to socio-economic status, then I'd have to say that you're a bigger idiot than what I think of you now.

Quote :

"Given that medicaid is driving up the prices for everyone else and is bankrupting the nation, I don't think you really want to be pointing to that as a shining success. Moreover, those people only get the access because other people are footing the increased bill."

I didn't point to it as a successful model for paying for health care, did I? No. I didn't. How about you read what I said? I said that people on medicaid don't have problems accessing health care. And as far as what would be covered under national insurance, I don't see a problem as using what's covered under medicaid as a model of would be covered under national insurance.

Quote :

"Yeah, but it also doesn't mean that you need to say the exact same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again."

Then don't ask the same questions that will give the exact same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Quote :

"And there is equal amount of speculation on your part. What is your fucking point?"

Yup. Did I exclude myself you dumb shit? Nope.

Quote :

"Bullshit, again. As NOW people no longer need to have insurance to be protected against pre-existing conditions. WHICH IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE ANALOGY. Stop stalling, and address it."

I already did. Did you miss my speculation on insurance companies offering contracts to sick and healthy people so they get their money back.

Besides, weren't you the one who said:

Quote :

"Losing 50 bux is preferable to losing 100 bux."

By God, I think you were. After saying that, what problem do you have with letting sick people onto health insurance? After all, "50 bux is preferable to losing 100 bux."

Quote :

"There is also no other type of insurance in the world that is forced to take on a known loss like pre-existing conditions. And yet you think THAT wouldn't drive up the costs?"

Where did I say that costs wouldn't be driven up? Don't put words in my mouth you dumb cunt.

Quote :

"Really? Knowing that I can have a condition covered forever as opposed to just a couple months before the company drops me isn't an incentive to get the insurance? Really? Really?"

To me, it doesn't look like it's any more of a an incentive to get insurance. People aren't opting to not get insurance because they'll only be covered until they're no longer employed there. They're opting to not get covered because they want to keep the money and spend it on other stuff.

Of course you're welcome to think it's an incentive. But you're not going to change my mind. After all, it's only your opinion that you think it will give an incentive, and it's only my opinion that it won't.

Quote :

"SO CAN THE HEALTHY. As was said before. Saying it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again doesn't make it any less false, dude."

Fine. Then I guess you'll agree after saying this:

Quote :

"Those people pay into the pool, lowering every one else's premiums."

That under a national health insurance plan that if you increase the pool to everyone, that the cost to cover each individual will go lower. Glad to get that out of the way. And if you disagree with that, then you, yourself, just falsified your own statement.

Quote :

"That's a hell of an assumption that every sick person is going to fit in to that bill. Every sick person changes jobs? Every sick person gets more paid by their next job? Come on, dude. That's absurd, and you know it. it might happen that way for some people, but for every one of those, it'll go the opposite, where the sick person stays at the same job. Hell, there would likely be more people in the latter category, as sick people might not be as likely to make a life-altering decision like changing jobs, especially if their current employer is being understanding about the situation. Besides, if we go further with what b4k4 wanted and decouple insurance from healthcare, then the job changing situation becomes less important anyway. Finally, as I just said, and as b4k4 has said, the emphasis would be on the company keeping the rates of healthy people and sick people about the same, otherwise the healthy people would just switch over to the lower priced companies anyway."

That's not "one hell of an assumption." It's you not wanting to address it. Even still. I'll modify it to a much more likely scenario.

From Wikipedia:

Quote :

"In 2008 the average employee contribution was 16% of the cost of single coverage and 27% of the cost of family coverage. These percentages have been stable since 1999."

So, it follows:

If sick person A is covered by insurance company B under a group plan and person A pays 300 bucks a month for a family of 4 ends up leaving the company. The company paid for 15% of the premiums, making total payout to the insurance company 353 bucks a month. Insurance B is FORCED to pay for their expenses, even if they're not with them. Because they're forced to pay them, why not keep them on as a customer? Correct? So, Person A's rates go up to 400 bucks, a competitive number.

Now, lets say person A gets another job that offers a group plan with insurance company C. Company's C's total premium cost shared by the employer and employee is the same 353 bucks. However, the employer also covers 15% of the cost, meaning the employee's premiums will go down to 300 bucks a month. How is insurance company B supposed to compete with this? By going below 300 bucks? You're forgetting that company C would be making the total 353 bucks a month, while Company B would be making 85% of what they previously did, AT BEST.

Now? What does this mean on a wide scale? Premiums for HEALTHY people ONLY would go up. NOTHING would change competition wise for HEALTHY PEOPLE. There is no incentive to keep the premiums of healthy people down.

And if you want to decouple insurance from employer, then you're still not really going to see much of an increase in competition. After all, you don't think that these companies compete for the lowest rates for group plans? And you don't think that they compete even for individual people? If this was true, then you wouldn't be seeing BCBS of NC ads on TV, now would you? I doubt that rates would come down much for individual rates, and the rates paid for people who were covered by employers would either stay the same or go up.



[Edited on December 27, 2009 at 12:25 AM. Reason : .]

12/27/2009 12:22:54 AM

[continued]

Quote :

"Yes, and your point? Not everyone works for a large corporation. To be fair, though, I'm not sure if under those plans people can be denied for having a PEC."

My point being that under the current proposal and how things work, not much will change. Afterall, 60% of Americans get insurance through their employer and only 9% purchase it directly.

Quote :

"That's not how debate works, dude. You've pulled this copout more than once, and it just leads to confusion. If you are saying you said it before, then man up, embarrass me, and prove it."

Fine.

From CNN:

Quote :

""How will this be paid for? The House plan imposes a 5.4 percent income tax surcharge on individuals with annual incomes over $500,000, as well as families earning more than $1 million. The Senate plan increases the Medicare payroll tax on individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples earning more than $250,000 from the current 1.45 percent to 2.35 percent. The Senate bill also imposes a new tax on insurers that provide so-called "Cadillac" health plans valued at more than $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for families. The 40 percent tax would be on the value of the plan. In addition, it imposes a 10 percent tax on indoor tanning salon treatments. Both bills call for cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare and Medicaid. Republicans say that those cuts will impair Medicare coverage, but Democrats say the savings will come from eliminating waste and fraud. The House and Senate bills also call for fees on medical device manufacturers.""

I posted it up at the top of the page. It details how it will be paid for and BY WHO.

Quote :

"Why not put it on the table? Why not argue for it?"

Because I'm not in power and neither are you. As far as fixing the problem with people with pre-existing conditions, it addresses it and fixes it in a decent way. While I would prefer it if they made it illegal to ask for people's medical history and for pre-existing conditions, it leaves open the problem of information they already know about.

And part of the reason why I'm not too up in arms over areas that I see lacking the senate bill, is BECAUSE THAT'S NOT THE ONE GOING TO THE PRESIDENT! My big issue is with the absence of a government run option, that's in the House bill.

Quote :

"So, you want something, even if it's not needed and even if it will not be as good as other options? Really? Really?"

I think national health insurance would be the best option, similar to Canada and other countries, in which everyone pays a tax on it.

Quote :

"That's a bullshit argument and you know it. The medical bankruptcies pale in comparison to the people who just bought too much house. Does it hurt? Sure, but it's a drop in the bucket, especially compared to the other things the government did to fuck things up."

How's it bullshit?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/05/bankruptcy.medical.bills/

Quote :

"This year, an estimated 1.5 million Americans will declare bankruptcy. Many people may chalk up that misfortune to overspending or a lavish lifestyle, but a new study suggests that more than 60 percent of people who go bankrupt are actually capsized by medical bills."

60% seems like a large amount to me. Now, how much of it is due to people buying an expensive house over health insurance, I don't know, and neither do you. But it CERTAINLY don't "pale in comparison," as you suggest.

Quote :

"Bullshit. I made that claim in RESPONSE to you claiming it was a large number of people."

You can scream and yell bullshit all you want, but the fact of the matter is that I never claimed initially that "it was a large number of people."

Just to remind you, I SAID:

Quote :

"And what if you fucking can't get insurance? You seem to be under the illusion that EVERYONE can afford health insurance, and that those who can't afford health insurance, have medicaid. If you are under such illusion, then you're fucking wrong. NOT everyone can get insurance. Not everyone has a job that offers group insurance and not everyone can afford it individually. But I guess you just say, "eh, Fuck em." If that's your attitude, I hope for your sake that you're never in that position, because you'll be lucky if I tell you to fuck off."

AND THEN YOU SAID:

Quote :

"you sure do like to cry crocodile tears over a vast minority of people. Do those people exist? Sure. Do they exist in significant enough numbers to warrant a major government takeover? No, not at all. Do they exist in significant enough numbers to justify this piece of legislation? Hell no."

Now backup what you said!

When I replied to you minimizing the number of people who are uninsured because they can't afford it, I even MADE A SPECIAL MENTION OF THE FOLLOWING:

Quote :

"If 15% of the population isn't enough, then what is enough? And while I can't tell you what percentage of that 15% is due in part from people who don't WANT insurance, neither can you (but you'll try)."

If you don't think I looked for a number, you're crazy. I really did. So if you CAN find a number that backs up YOUR INITIAL statement, then be my guest. Throw it in my face and humiliate me.

12/27/2009 12:23:19 AM

Quote :

"So why should sick people have lower premiums, as what would happen under your plan? Under this plan, people within the 133 to 400% would pay the same rates (assuming they are a family for 4 and they have the same income). "

I don't really care what premium they have, because ultimately, it's the healthy people that will be paying for their care. It doesn't matter whether their premium is $200, $500 or $Texas, unless their premium covers the costs of their care, healthy people will be paying for it by way if increased premiums.

Quote :

" And I fucking said that his idea is fucking pointless then. Are you that fucking stupid? While everyone can come up with ideas that can fix one problem of a series of problems, making them all work together is a whole separate thing."

Start at page 1.

Quote :

"He's free to repost them. Believe it or not, I don't have all the fucking time in the world to re-read some 40+ pages of drivel and bitching, with a few ideas intertwined in it all. "

Believe it or not, I don't have all the fucking time in the world to re-post some 40+ pages of proposals and ideas for someone too lazy to have a real conversation about them.

Quote :

"I just said that when it comes to the choice between having ONLY the GOP's ideas or ONLY the Democrat's ideas in a bill, I'll take the Democrats."

The only people here who seem to think that the choice is ONLY the GOP or ONLY the Democrats are you and the rest of the supporters.

Quote :

"I will say whatever the fuck I want, first of all. But what I meant by opponents, I meant strictly the GOP. Sorry if that wasn't any more clearer."

Engage your brain before your mouth (or fingers in this case). It will help keep you from looking like an idiot.

Quote :

"Because there's nothing to stop them from charging what they do. "

And there's nothing in the current proposals to do that either. Like I said, we're polishing turds here.

Quote :

"NOW BACKUP THE INITIAL CLAIM THAT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO CANNOT AFFORD HEALTH INSURANCE AND WHO ARE INELIGIBLE FOR MEDICAID/MEDICARE ARE NOT SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY THE LEGISLATION!"

http://risch.senate.gov/public/?p=BreakdownoftheUninsured

Quote :

"There is no other type of insurance in the world that has long lasting costs like health insurance. The idea works with a car, but if you force that shit on companies, you're just going to hike up costs for the healthy even faster."

Again and again "that shit" is being forced on them, whether it is my proposal or the current senate proposal. I really don't get how you cant see that.

Quote :

"It won't lower premiums! Those people who are sick can leave the insurance company! Then what? They're not paying in the pool any more, now are they? Nope. And with employer based health insurance, it's a VERY real possibility."

And under the current proposals they can do the exact same damn thing. The only difference is that under my proposal, if they break their leg while not insured, they're SOL. Under the current proposal, they just need to sign up for a new plan before they check into the emergency room and the company has to cover them.

Quote :

"I already provided an example of what can and will happen under 1337 b4k4's plan. You go find it."

Funny how when I tell you to go find shit you ask for, you're a very busy person who can't be bothered, yet you expect everyone else to do the same.

Quote :

"I meant health insurance you dumb fuck. "

You know, you might want to do a bit more thinking before you post. There seems to be a lot of ambiguous and mis posting that you're doing. It would help the debate along if you would actually say what you mean and stop assuming everyone else is telepathic.

Quote :

" If sick person A ... blah blah blah "

As was pointed out, for every person this applies to, there's at least a half dozen more who don't change jobs, or who's new job pays the same percentage as their old job, or who's new job pays a smaller percentage. IOW it all evens out in the end.

Quote :

"That's not on the table right now. Until it is, there's not much that we can do about it."

Why support something that is on the table if it doesn't fix the problem? Doesn't it seem like a complete waste of political capital, money and energy to past a wasteful bill that will do nothing to solve the problems which make the desire for such a bill exist in the first place?

Quote :

"Besides, where did I say that I was for Massachusetts plan? That's right, I didn't. "

You did though. You support the current proposal which is modeled off the Massachusetts plan.

Quote :

"And I said that he's wrong. If you're telling me that type 1 diabetes is correlated to socio-economic status, then I'd have to say that you're a bigger idiot than what I think of you now. "

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1618393/

Quote :

"And if you want to decouple insurance from employer, then you're still not really going to see much of an increase in competition. After all, you don't think that these companies compete for the lowest rates for group plans? And you don't think that they compete even for individual people? If this was true, then you wouldn't be seeing BCBS of NC ads on TV, now would you? I doubt that rates would come down much for individual rates, and the rates paid for people who were covered by employers would either stay the same or go up. "

So you think a market of a few thousand buyers will produce better results than a market of a few million buyers?

Quote :

"If you don't think I looked for a number, you're crazy. I really did. So if you CAN find a number that backs up YOUR INITIAL statement, then be my guest. Throw it in my face and humiliate me."

You must not have looked that hard, because the link above which breaks down the numbers is the third or fourth hit on google for "47 million uninsured"

12/27/2009 1:52:30 AM

Quote :

"Have YOU ever been to Massachusetts for medical care? Besides, where did I say that I was for Massachusetts plan? That's right, I didn't."

This plan is modeled after the Mass. plan and has many of the same elements.

Quote :

"Where the fuck did I say that? I said that it works in other nations. I never said "great.""

Ok, take out the word "great." It doesn't change one bit what I was saying. Jesus.

Quote :

"And I said that he's wrong."

Do you have any data to support that assertion? Because he sure has hell a lot of data to back him up.

Quote :

"If you're telling me that type 1 diabetes is correlated to socio-economic status, then I'd have to say that you're a bigger idiot than what I think of you now."

You said "diabetes," not "type 1." You also said "AIDS," which most certainly is correllated. You talked out your ass. Now shut up.

Quote :

"Then don't ask the same questions that will give the exact same thing over and over..."

I'm not asking you the same questions. You are just repeating yourself ad nauseum.

Quote :

"I already did."

No, you haven't. You've just evaded the point with random shit. You've never explained why a home-owner's policy shouldn't have to accept someone whose house is on fire but a health insurance company should have to accept someone who has cancer. You've tried to claim the analogy is not relevant, and every time, I've shot down your argument.

Quote :

"By God, I think you were. After saying that, what problem do you have with letting sick people onto health insurance? After all, "50 bux is preferable to losing 100 bux." "

Yes, that was to a completely different point. nice try, though.

Quote :

"Where did I say that costs wouldn't be driven up?"

At least you now admit this plan will drive costs up. massively.

Quote :

"To me, it doesn't look like it's any more of a an incentive to get insurance."

You said that, in response to my explanation of WHY it is an incentive.

Quote :

"They're opting to not get covered because they want to keep the money and spend it on other stuff."

So, then, we let them be FUCKED by their stupid decisions this way. That's the incentive. Other people see them suffer for making a dumb mistake, and fewer people make that dumb mistake.

Quote :

"That under a national health insurance plan that if you increase the pool to everyone, that the cost to cover each individual will go lower. Glad to get that out of the way. And if you disagree with that, then you, yourself, just falsified your own statement."

There's one key difference: in one, companies aren't forced to accept definite losses. In the other, companies are paying off on the risks the lost on. You know, the distinction that someone else already made.

Quote :

"That's not "one hell of an assumption.""

How the fuck do you figure? EVERY SICK PERSON WILL CHANGE JOBS? That's a damned big assumption dude.

Quote :

"How is insurance company B supposed to compete with this?"

Because in your example, there is no one going from C to B. If that is effectively happening in your big-ass assumption, then the net result is the same. Both rates go up, for sick and healthy. You see, someone from the second job, person D, switches over to the first job, and is now paying the same rate as a healthy person in plan B, while plan C is paying their expenses. Person A moves to plan C and pays the higher rates for person D, while plan B is paying their expenses.

Quote :

"And if you want to decouple insurance from employer, then you're still not really going to see much of an increase in competition."

Really? Changing the environment from, liberally, 10 million companies to 200 million individual Americans isn't going to change the competitive environment? Really?

Quote :

"And you don't think that they compete even for individual people?"

Oh, they do. But not for every single American.

Quote :

"Because I'm not in power and neither are you."

That's a copout and you know it.

Quote :

"As far as fixing the problem with people with pre-existing conditions, it addresses it and fixes it in a decent way."

There's nothing decent about making insurance act as something other than insurance. it's part of the problem we have today!

Quote :

"I think national health insurance would be the best option, similar to Canada and other countries, in which everyone pays a tax on it."

You've already said this. I then said "what if that isn't what is needed." You then said, "I don't care if it's needed, I want it." To which I responded with what you quoted. Thanks for the circle.

Quote :

"How's it bullshit?"

It's bullshit because it's not the reason the housing market is in the shape it is in. It's a drop in the bucket, like I said.

Quote :

"You can scream and yell bullshit all you want, but the fact of the matter is that I never claimed initially that "it was a large number of people.""

But, it's clearly a significant enough portion of the population to warrant this bullshit legislation, right?
By the way, you've said the following:

Quote :

"There's still the issue of a lot of uninsured people"

is "a lot" not a "large number of people"
Moreover, when I referenced the "minority of people," you then shot back with, and I'll quote:

Quote :

"Roughly 15.4% of the population is uninsured, that's about 46.3 million people. Is that not significant?"

Sounds like "a large number of people" to me...

As for the "15%", that's already been debunked hard. By NPR, no less. They showed that, and I'm repeating myself from earlier, 5million of that is illegal immigrants. Another large percentage qualified for Medicare and medicaid but didn't sign up. You know, the programs you said they qualified for but couldn't afford earlier. Then we were left with at least another 9 million that could afford it but didn't want to pay for it. So, it aint 15%. And, hell, I'm throwing out the 9 million for ya. Do I have a link? Nope. But it was on NPR, IIRC.

12/27/2009 2:19:05 AM

Quote :

"This plan is modeled after the Mass. plan and has many of the same elements."

Yet they're still pretty damn different. You should check out some of the differences sometime, but I'll let you to do that research on your own, as I don't feel like debating Massachusetts health care reform, since I don't really have a vested interest in the state.

Quote :

"Ok, take out the word "great." It doesn't change one bit what I was saying. Jesus."

Actually it DOES, otherwise, you wouldn't have said what you had said that I said.

Quote :

"Do you have any data to support that assertion? Because he sure has hell a lot of data to back him up."

And I'm sure that data is based on general health, like the likelihood of getting the flu is higher for a poor person than a rich person. But as far as getting serious medical conditions like Cancer, diabetes (that's more age influenced and related more to a person's diet than it is to socio-economic levels for type 2 diabetes), no, it's not tied up to socio-economic status. And as I've said before, the problems I've had with his proposal HASN'T been with people who have very simple and very easily treated diseases like the flu or a cold.

Quote :

"You said "diabetes," not "type 1." You also said "AIDS," which most certainly is correllated. You talked out your ass. Now shut up."

I know I said diabetes. But type 2 isn't really an issue as that can be treated through diet, and it often develops in the elderly, who can get on medicare.

And perhaps AIDS is related to socio-economic status, as I did not consider that one of the main cause of getting it is through sharing needles.

Regardless of that, you still missed the point that you don't want to address, and that is that not all conditions are related to socio-economic status. Many of them are genetic.

Things like lupus, Huntington's Disease, Addison's disease, many, if not most, cancer's, are either genetically linked or influenced genetically, and are capable of striking anyone.

Quote :

"I'm not asking you the same questions. You are just repeating yourself ad nauseum."

I didn't say that you were asking the same questions again. I said you kept asking questions that prompted me to give the same response over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. If you think I like repeating myself, you're wrong. Why do you think I keep telling you to go back and look at what I had already said.

Quote :

"You've never explained why a home-owner's policy shouldn't have to accept someone whose house is on fire but a health insurance company should have to accept someone who has cancer. You've tried to claim the analogy is not relevant, and every time, I've shot down your argument."

Fine, you want it addressed. Not everyone needs to own a house! You also fail to mention that most, if not ALL banks REQUIRE you to have home owner's insurance if you have a mortgage. Unfortunately, people don't CHOOSE to be sick. Your analogy IS NOT RELEVANT! Ergo, I'm not addressing it.

If you want me to address the fairness in letting people with pre-existing conditions get coverage, fine. I'll do that.

If people with pre-existing conditions don't get coverage, then they're fucked. Regardless of whether it's their own fault, they're fucked. And I don't think it's right that anyone should be fucked in that regard over a bad decision that they may have made or because of something that's out of their own hand. People are idiots. People are short-sighted, and sometimes, they DO need protecting from their own stupidity. That is why I favor national health care.

If you disagree with me, fine. But you're not going to change my mind about it. And you're not going to get me to address your "analogy" any further than I already have. If it isn't apparent to you now, nothing I say will will change your mind about your analogy being relevant, and nothing you say will change my mind about it's relevance.

Quote :

"Yes, that was to a completely different point. nice try, though."

Yup. I know. Still, I used what you said to make another point in order for me to make my point. "50 bux is better than 100 bux." Even if they'll drop them after if they're ever cured, "50 bux is better than 100 bux."

Quote :

"At least you now admit this plan will drive costs up. massively."

I don't know how much it will be driven up, and neither do you. But I've never been denying that costs will go up. Why you needed to hear me say it is beyond me.

Quote :

"You said that, in response to my explanation of WHY it is an incentive."

And like I said, and I'll say it AGAIN, because I love repeating myself. YOUR EXPLANATION DOES NOT SOUND LIKE AN INCENTIVE TO GET INSURANCE! Maybe it does to you. To each his own.

12/27/2009 4:51:55 AM

Quote :

"So, then, we let them be FUCKED by their stupid decisions this way. That's the incentive. Other people see them suffer for making a dumb mistake, and fewer people make that dumb mistake."

They can get FUCKED now for their own stupid decisions. Not everyone is opting to not get health insurance through their employer because they'll lose it if they leave the job. It's young people out of college or high school who figure that they're young and that they don't need coverage at this point in their life. So I'll concede that your reason that it's an incentive MIGHT work for some people, but as to how successful an incentive it will be, count me in as being doubtful.

Quote :

"There's one key difference: in one, companies aren't forced to accept definite losses. In the other, companies are paying off on the risks the lost on. You know, the distinction that someone else already made."

I'm well aware of the distinction. And by now, you're well aware that I don't agree with companies being allowed to deny definite losses.

Quote :

"How the fuck do you figure? EVERY SICK PERSON WILL CHANGE JOBS? That's a damned big assumption dude."

Why not? You're telling me that sick people will stick with the same job the rest of their life, UNLIKE everyone else. You're telling me that sick people are FORCED to stick with the same job the way the system is now? Well, that's not right either. With the average number of jobs that a person holds in their lifetime for people born between 1957 and 1964 being a little over 10, I find it hard to believe that sick people are keeping the same jobs until they retire, unless of course they're FORCED to keep the same job with the way the system works.

Quote :

"Because in your example, there is no one going from C to B. If that is effectively happening in your big-ass assumption, then the net result is the same. Both rates go up, for sick and healthy. You see, someone from the second job, person D, switches over to the first job, and is now paying the same rate as a healthy person in plan B, while plan C is paying their expenses. Person A moves to plan C and pays the higher rates for person D, while plan B is paying their expenses."

Um, no. Not quite. If plan C is paying for their expenses and they left the company, then plan C is GOING to have to offer lower rates to only the sick people to keep them on. And just like plan B, they'll only make 85% of what they were making before on the sick person while the healthy people are charged more on their group plan than the sick person on his private plan.

Not only that, you missed where I was trying to play out the guy's proposed plan, where the companies are supposed to be competing for the sick people.

So how are they going to cover at least that 15% that they lost? They'll have to raise the premiums of healthy people while the sick people get to pay less. I'm not OK with that.

Quote :

"Oh, they do. But not for every single American."

And what makes you think that will change anything? Not only that, in order for them to compete for every single American, the state lines will have to be taken down so that you can buy from companies in other states. Something McCain supported, and something that I favor.

And while I concede that it might drop rates a little bit, I don't think it will do much. But who knows? All we can do is just bullshit about the effectiveness of such plan.

Quote :

"That's a copout and you know it."

That's the truth and you know it. We can bullshit all we want about plans that may or may not be different, but as long as Republicans or Democrats are in charge, those ideas won't be heard anywhere else, except for here.

Quote :

"There's nothing decent about making insurance act as something other than insurance. it's part of the problem we have today!"

And under 1337 b4k4's proposal, they would still be acting as insurance companies?

You know as well as I do that health insurance is the only type of insurance where this is a chance for a life long cost of care. And if you think that FORCING insurance companies to pay for people indefinitely if they're not longer paying them is more decent, then there's nothing for us to really discuss.

Quote :

"It's bullshit because it's not the reason the housing market is in the shape it is in. It's a drop in the bucket, like I said."

But it sure as hell isn't helping, is it? Nope. Don't give me that "drop in the bucket" bullshit.

Quote :

"But, it's clearly a significant enough portion of the population to warrant this bullshit legislation, right?"

Fortunately 1337 b4k4 provided the info just above you. A little over a quarter of the 47 million uninsured people is due to them being unable to afford insurance. It's MORE than the people who are eligible for medicaid, yet they don't sign up.

I don't consider 12 million people insignificant.

Quote :

"is "a lot" not a "large number of people""

I consider "a lot" to be significant enough to warrant the bill. If you consider "a lot" to mean a majority, but a sizable and noticeable amount of people.

Quote :

"you then shot back with"

I also shot back with:

Quote :

"And while I can't tell you what percentage of that 15% is due in part from people who don't WANT insurance, neither can you (but you'll try)."

Right below it. I guess you see what you want to see.

12/27/2009 4:52:20 AM

Quote :

"I don't really care what premium they have, because ultimately, it's the healthy people that will be paying for their care. It doesn't matter whether their premium is $200, $500 or $Texas, unless their premium covers the costs of their care, healthy people will be paying for it by way if increased premiums."

You must not forget about the people who fall outside of that range who are sick as well. They're paying for it too!

That's right, rich people don't get sick.

Quote :

"Believe it or not, I don't have all the fucking time in the world to re-post some 40+ pages of proposals and ideas for someone too lazy to have a real conversation about them."

Then don't tell me to go read them.

If you can't post a simple plan that addresses all the issue in one post, then it's probably not one worth a damn anyway.

Quote :

"The only people here who seem to think that the choice is ONLY the GOP or ONLY the Democrats are you and the rest of the supporters."

No. It's people who's realistic of the fact that YOU aren't someone who's making the decision.

If you want to bitch about the current proposal, fine. If you want to post alternatives, fine as well. Just realize that all we're doing is bullshitting back and forth. But until you can actually do something about the stance that the democrats and GOP take, it will never amount to anything more than just bullshitting around.

Quote :

"And there's nothing in the current proposals to do that either. Like I said, we're polishing turds here."

Glad we're going back and forth on that we agree over the fact that the current proposals are nothing more than health insurance reform and not healthcare reform.

Quote :

"Again and again "that shit" is being forced on them, whether it is my proposal or the current senate proposal. I really don't get how you cant see that."

I never disagreed.

Did you miss this in my very first post to you?

Quote :

"The problem I see with your idea is that you're forcing a company to cover someone until they die. This means that even if you're paying for their insurance, you're forcing them to take a loss. While your idea is better than the current system, I still don't see what makes it better than forcing the insurance people to take people with pre-existing conditions."

I still feel that under your plan you're going to force premiums to go up faster than under the senate/house bill. Whether this will actually be the case, I don't know and neither do you. It's pure speculation on both of our parts.

Quote :

"Funny how when I tell you to go find shit you ask for, you're a very busy person who can't be bothered, yet you expect everyone else to do the same."

Engage your brain before your mouth (or fingers in this case). It will help keep you from looking like an idiot.

I did post it for him. He asked twice, as I figured if he didn't look for it the first time, he wouldn't the second. Not only that, I think I'm a little more justified in telling him to look up what I had said. Why? BECAUSE HE FUCKING QUOTED FROM THE POST WITH THE EXAMPLE!

Quote :

"You know, you might want to do a bit more thinking before you post. There seems to be a lot of ambiguous and mis posting that you're doing. It would help the debate along if you would actually say what you mean and stop assuming everyone else is telepathic."

The difference between using healthcare and health insurance in the post didn't matter on what I was saying. aaron was just being a dick.

Quote :

"Why support something that is on the table if it doesn't fix the problem? Doesn't it seem like a complete waste of political capital, money and energy to past a wasteful bill that will do nothing to solve the problems which make the desire for such a bill exist in the first place? "

And doesn't it seem like a complete waste of time to think of ideas on how to fix the current situation when you can't do shit about it?

And I'm not against it for two reasons.

1) It's not complete
2) It does have somethings that will help the current situation, such as letting people with pre-existing conditions get coverage and providing subsidies to many working poor and middle class families.

Quote :

"You did though. You support the current proposal which is modeled off the Massachusetts plan."

And there are differences between this plan and the Mass. plan.

Quote :

"Through the law, Massachusetts provides free health care for residents earning less than 150% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL)[1], and partially subsidized health care for those earning up to 300% of the FPL, depending on an income-based sliding scale."

^This is not in the bill. First of all, subsidies are provided for people between 133% and 400% above the poverty level. Clearly, the range in the Mass. bill is much narrower.

Additionally, can you please stop with Fox News rhetoric?

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2009/08/05/mass_bashers_take_note_health_reform_is_working/

Quote :

"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1618393/"

And it appears that the outline was only talking about Type 2 diabetes, although, to be fair, I was as general as the article was and only said diabetes.

Additionally, from what I've read is that there is also a correlation between diabetes and education level as well. Just putting that out there as well, if you ever want to get into an education debate.

Quote :

"You must not have looked that hard, because the link above which breaks down the numbers is the third or fourth hit on google for "47 million uninsured""

It didn't strike me to put that into Google. But thank you.

Quote :

"So you think a market of a few thousand buyers will produce better results than a market of a few million buyers?"

Well, currently 60% of people get their insurance through company and 9% get it privately. I hardly think some 27 million people is a "few thousand."

Not only that, do you think that these insurance companies DON'T compete hard to supply insurance for companies that can have hundreds of thousands of employees? I find it hard to believe that they don't.

12/27/2009 5:34:45 AM

Quote :

"Crafting the private-sector mandates such that they fall just a hair short of CBO’s criteria for inclusion in the federal budget does not reduce their cost, nor does it make those mandates any less binding. But it dramatically reduces the apparent cost of the legislation. It is the reason we’re all talking about an $848 billion Reid bill, rather than a $2.1 trillion Reid bill. If someone sold you a house, or a car, or a mutual fund this way, we would put them in jail."

http://reason.com/blog/2009/12/16/how-democrats-made-more-than-1

[Edited on December 27, 2009 at 12:46 PM. Reason : lnk]

12/27/2009 12:45:36 PM

Quote :

"but I'll let you to do that research on your own, as I don't feel like debating Massachusetts health care reform, since I don't really have a vested interest in the state."

I like that copout. You are really good at it, man.

Quote :

"Actually it DOES"

No, it doesn't. You would have then been saying that "Medicaid works," which is not what you said. You said people get healthcare via Medicaid, which is not the same.

Quote :

"Regardless of that, you still missed the point that you don't want to address, and that is that not all conditions are related to socio-economic status. Many of them are genetic. Things like lupus, Huntington's Disease, Addison's disease, many, if not most, cancer's, are either genetically linked or influenced genetically, and are capable of striking anyone."

Moving the goalposts, I see.

Quote :

"I didn't say that you were asking the same questions again."

The fuck you didn't.

Quote :

"Then don't ask the same questions..."

Quote :

"Fine, you want it addressed. Not everyone needs to own a house!"

Not relevant. it's still INSURANCE.

Quote :

"Your analogy IS NOT RELEVANT! Ergo, I'm not addressing it."

I'll translate that for everyone else: "I can't address it, because I don't understand how insurance works, so I'll try to claim insurance is not relevant to insurance."

Quote :

"And I don't think it's right that anyone should be fucked in that regard over a bad decision that they may have made..."

Why shouldn't someone face the consequences of a stupid decision they made? Have you ever heard of a thing called "Moral Hazard?"

Quote :

"I don't know how much it will be driven up, and neither do you."

Actually, we have examples of this already. In Maine, IIRC, the average premium for health insurance is on the order of $1000. They have a system similar to what you propose and what is in the Senate. Guess what the average cost in neighboring NH is? Around $250.

Quote :

"And like I said, and I'll say it AGAIN, because I love repeating myself. YOUR EXPLANATION DOES NOT SOUND LIKE AN INCENTIVE TO GET INSURANCE!"

So, you won't say why it's not an incentive. You'll just keep saying ad nauseum that it's not an incentive. That's not how it works, buddy. If you can't defend you ideas, maybe you should think about why that is.

Quote :

"Why not? You're telling me that sick people will stick with the same job the rest of their life, UNLIKE everyone else."

But you are saying that every sick person will change jobs. THAT'S A HUGE ASSUMPTION. DURRRRRR.

Quote :

"Um, no. Not quite. If plan C is paying for their expenses and they left the company, then plan C is GOING to have to offer lower rates to only the sick people to keep them on."

And this is the part that DOES NOT FOLLOW. Your explanation says that people leave a plan, but that plan continues to pay the cost of the sick person, ostensibly to have the difference paid by healthy people. You example DOES NOT consider that people are going both ways. That's why you end up saying, without support, that plans will charge less to sick people than healthy people. You can keep saying it, but that doesn't make it true.

Quote :

"Not only that, you missed where I was trying to play out the guy's proposed plan, where the companies are supposed to be competing for the sick people."

No, the plans are competing FOR EVERYONE. Including sick people. You can suggest they will only compete for sick people, but that is absurd. What company only competes for the worst segment of the market and ignores the rest? None.

Quote :

"And what makes you think that will change anything?"

Ummm, pure experience with the break-up of monopolies? What the fuck makes you think that a massive change in how companies operate won't lead to a massive change in competition?

Quote :

"Not only that, in order for them to compete for every single American, the state lines will have to be taken down so that you can buy from companies in other states."

Semantics. While I agree that the state-lines stuff is bullshit, it still follows that 10,000 companies competing versus 2 million people is still a dramatic change. Orders of magnitude.

Quote :

"That's the truth and you know it. We can bullshit all we want about plans that may or may not be different, but as long as Republicans or Democrats are in charge, those ideas won't be heard anywhere else, except for here."

So then why are you wasting your breath? It won't make any difference... That's why it's a copout to say that.

Quote :

"And under 1337 b4k4's proposal, they would still be acting as insurance companies? "

Absolutely. More so, even. They would actually have to pay off on the risks they take.

Quote :

"You know as well as I do that health insurance is the only type of insurance where this is a chance for a life long cost of care. And if you think that FORCING insurance companies to pay for people indefinitely if they're not longer paying them is more decent, then there's nothing for us to really discuss."

So, you admit defeat. Cause that's what "there's nothing more to discuss means." It means "I can't support my arguments."

Quote :

"But it sure as hell isn't helping, is it? Nope. Don't give me that "drop in the bucket" bullshit. "

It's not HURTING either, ultimately. That's why it's a "drop in the bucket." Again, you can't support your arguments.

Quote :

"A little over a quarter of the 47 million uninsured people is due to them being unable to afford insurance."

Yes, 12 million out of almost 300 million people. As in, insignificant enough to make such broad sweeping changes such as the ones proposed, especially when these changes don't even address the problem.

Quote :

"I consider "a lot" to be significant enough to warrant the bill."

So now you are flip-flopping. First you said it was a lot. THen you said you never said it was a large number of people. Now it's a lot of people again. please, be fucking consistent, dude.

Quote :

"Then don't tell me to go read them. "

What a fucking copout. Are you going to join the fucking discussion or are you going to play cutesy fucking games. You are just a fucking troll, dude. If you can't be bothered to be marginally informed on the discussion, THEN SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Quote :

"Engage your brain before your mouth"

You could stand to do that. You've said, numerous times for someone to go find something you posted. Then when someone suggests you do the same, you get indignant.

Quote :

"This is not in the bill. First of all, subsidies are provided for people between 133% and 400% above the poverty level. Clearly, the range in the Mass. bill is much narrower."

ooooooooooh, that's a huge difference Too bad a lot of other stuff is the fucking SAME. the level of subsidies is irrelevant when everything else is the same. DURRRRRRRRRRR.

Quote :

"Additionally, from what I've read is that there is also a correlation between diabetes and education level as well."

Education level is also massively correllated to socio-economic status, so you aren't really telling us anything new.

Quote :

"Well, currently 60% of people get their insurance through company and 9% get it privately. I hardly think some 27 million people is a "few thousand.""

Jesus. You don't understand shit, do you. The "few thousand" he was talking about WERE THE FUCKING COMPANIES WHO BUY THEIR EMPLOYEES' PLANS, dipshit.

12/27/2009 4:38:00 PM

Quote :

"No, it doesn't. You would have then been saying that "Medicaid works," which is not what you said. You said people get healthcare via Medicaid, which is not the same."

I know what I said. I said:

Quote :

"People on medicaid don't seem to have a problem getting access to life saving treatments, now do they?"

Something you haven't been able to refute. You're just mad because I caught you putting words in my mouth.

Quote :

"Moving the goalposts, I see."

If by "moving the goalpost," you mean, "I've been saying the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again," then yes. I guess I am moving the goalpost. Regardless, it's still a point you haven't addressed. So instead of addressing the point, you want to get caught up in minor technicalities.

Quote :

"The fuck you didn't."

The fuck I did. Go read the whole sentence. Taking shit out of context doesn't change what I said. You have been asking the same questions that result in me giving the same answers over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Quote :

"Not relevant. it's still INSURANCE. "

It is relevant. Not everyone needs to own a fucking house! People can CHOOSE not to own a house. Yet people can't CHOOSE to get sick. If that's not relevant to your example, then you're a fucking moron!

Quote :

"I'll translate that for everyone else: "I can't address it, because I don't understand how insurance works, so I'll try to claim insurance is not relevant to insurance.""

No, you're comparing two insurances that work different! But you're just butt-hurt over admitting that you gave a shitty analogy.

Quote :

"Why shouldn't someone face the consequences of a stupid decision they made? Have you ever heard of a thing called "Moral Hazard?""

I'm not going to get into a debate over our beliefs. I believe that a person shouldn't get fucked over financially because they made a bad decision regarding their health insurance. You're not going to change the belief of mine, and probably not other people who have similar beliefs.

Quote :

"Actually, we have examples of this already. In Maine, IIRC, the average premium for health insurance is on the order of $1000. They have a system similar to what you propose and what is in the Senate. Guess what the average cost in neighboring NH is? Around $250."

New Hampshire you say?

http://www.nhpr.org/node/26841

Quote :

"New Hampshire residents pay the third highest health insurance premiums in the U.S. It hasn’t always been this way. Our insurance premiums skyrocketed between 2003 and 2008, growing faster than those of any other state in the nation."

And according to the table on page 8 of http://www.ahipresearch.org/pdfs/2009IndividualMarketSurveyFinalReport.pdf

Maine had an average annual premium cost of $4,061 for a single person. For NH, it was $3,427. For a family, Maine's premiums averaged, $7,260 and for NH, it was $7,672.

Both states are 4th and 6th on the list.

Got any more shit you'd like to pull out of your ass?

Quote :

"So, you won't say why it's not an incentive. You'll just keep saying ad nauseum that it's not an incentive. That's not how it works, buddy. If you can't defend you ideas, maybe you should think about why that is."

I explained it above, but I'll explain it AGAIN.

If a person doesn't find it an incentive to get insurance NOW at risk of being denied coverage for a pre-existing condition, then I don't see where the incentive is for short sighted people who are ALREADY RISKING a denial of coverage. What? You really think that forcing an insurance company to cover a person indefinitely is an incentive to people who don't get coverage because they would rather pocket the cash?

I already conceded to you that it's only an incentive to people who don't choose not to get coverage at fear of being dropped if they lose their job (no matter how dumb a reason that might be, after all, temporary coverage is better than NO coverage).

Quote :

"But you are saying that every sick person will change jobs. THAT'S A HUGE ASSUMPTION. DURRRRRR."

That's a copout and you fucking know it.

Quote :

"You example DOES NOT consider that people are going both ways. That's why you end up saying, without support, that plans will charge less to sick people than healthy people. You can keep saying it, but that doesn't make it true."

That's why I later added this:

Quote :

"Um, no. Not quite. If plan C is paying for their expenses and they left the company, then plan C is GOING to have to offer lower rates to only the sick people to keep them on. And just like plan B, they'll only make 85% of what they were making before on the sick person while the healthy people are charged more on their group plan than the sick person on his private plan."

Where it DOES consider people switching jobs.

And if you don't like my example, then you go ahead and provide one that does prove me false. Go ahead, man up, make me look like an idiot and provide an example.

But what you seem to be missing is NOT that the person is paying what the previously did, but rather that the insurance company is NOT getting as much as they previously did.

But for you, I'll redo my example, because all you'll do is post some copout:

Now, lets say there are 2 people who are sick, person A and person B. They each work at company A and company B. As such, they each are covered by two insurance companies, insurance A and insurance B. Companies A's and B's total premium cost shared by the employer and employee is 400 bucks, with them each covering 20% of the cost, meaning they each pay 320 bucks a month. Now, those two people switch companies. Person A now works at company B and they are now offered coverage through insurance B. HOWEVER, insurance A is stuck covering person A's expenses, so for insurance A to keep person A from getting insurance with insurance B, insurance A needs to offer person A a premium of AT or LOWER than 320 bucks a month. Realistically, in order to get person A to pay for insurance A's insurance, they need to offer coverage LOWER than 320 bucks, or provide more benefits at 320 bucks a month than what insurance B offers. So, realistically, they'll get a better deal than the healthy people. Meanwhile, Insurance A will be taking a loss of at least 20%, probably higher.

Conversely, for person B, insurance B is covering their costs and they now work for company A. So to keep person B with insurance A, insurance B has to offer a price lower than 320 bucks, while the healthy people will be stuck at 320 bucks a month. So, like insurance A, insurance B also at least takes a loss of 320 bucks.

Quote :

"ooooooooooh, that's a huge difference Too bad a lot of other stuff is the fucking SAME. the level of subsidies is irrelevant when everything else is the same. DURRRRRRRRRRR."

Nice copout. Glad you read the article I posted, which doesn't cast Massachusett's problems a bad as you like to think they are.

Quote :

"The facts - according to the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation - are quite different. Its report this spring put the cost to the state taxpayer at about $88 million a year, less than four-tenths of 1 percent of the state budget of $27 billion. Yes, the state recently had to cut benefits for legal immigrants, and safety-net hospital Boston Medical Center has sued for higher state aid. But that is because the recession has cut state revenues, not because universal healthcare is a boondoggle. The main reason costs to the state have been well within expectations? More than half of all the previously uninsured got coverage by buying into their employers’ plans, not by opting for one of the state-subsidized plans."

Quote :

"Fox News host Bill O’Reilly said recently, “You don’t have to look any further than the universal healthcare mess in Massachusetts to see disaster ahead.’’ New York Times columnist Ross Douthat on Monday accused President Obama of “pushing a health plan that looks a lot like the system currently hemorrhaging money in Massachusetts.’’"

Quote :

"he Republican governor of Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty, has also gotten his licks in. Costs in Massachusetts, he wrote in the Washington Post Monday, “have been dramatically higher than expected.’’ Pawlenty’s purpose in attacking this state’s plan might be both to discredit a national plan and to score points against former governor Mitt Romney, one of the architects of what Massachusetts has accomplished. Romney, of course, is a possible rival of Pawlenty for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012."

Quote :

"So, you admit defeat. Cause that's what "there's nothing more to discuss means." It means "I can't support my arguments.""

It means that we're just going round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round, and I'm tired of it. But I'm glad that instead of addressing what I said regarding:

Quote :

"You know as well as I do that health insurance is the only type of insurance where this is a chance for a life long cost of care. And if you think that FORCING insurance companies to pay for people indefinitely if they're not longer paying them is more decent"

you copout and try to "translate" what I said.

12/27/2009 7:23:14 PM

Quote :

"It's not HURTING either, ultimately. That's why it's a "drop in the bucket." Again, you can't support your arguments."

Any little bit hurts. Don't give me the "drop in the bucket" copout.

Quote :

"Yes, 12 million out of almost 300 million people. As in, insignificant enough to make such broad sweeping changes such as the ones proposed, especially when these changes don't even address the problem."

And I don't think 12 million is insignificant. You can give it to me as a percent (roughly 4% of the US population). It still doesn't change the fact that 12 million people IS A LOT of people. Just to give you some perspective, that number is greater than the population of NC. But I guess the needs and wants of NC on a national level are insignificant.

Quote :

"What a fucking copout. Are you going to join the fucking discussion or are you going to play cutesy fucking games. You are just a fucking troll, dude. If you can't be bothered to be marginally informed on the discussion, THEN SHUT THE FUCK UP."

I'm going to just go with "no." I don't need to read the thread to know anything about the current situation and to debate the content of the bill, fucktard. What you haven't seem to have gotten, is that I DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT WHAT OTHER PEOPLE'S PROPOSALS IN THIS THREAD IS! THEY'RE NOT THE ONES BEING DEBATED ON IN CONGRESS, SO IT'S NOTHING MORE THAN JUST BULLSHITTING AROUND, MUCH LIKE WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING!

Quote :

"Education level is also massively correllated to socio-economic status, so you aren't really telling us anything new."

Good job pointing out what I already knew, dipshit. I just threw it out there as an FYI. Go get yourself a cookie as your reward.

Quote :

"Jesus. You don't understand shit, do you. The "few thousand" he was talking about WERE THE FUCKING COMPANIES WHO BUY THEIR EMPLOYEES' PLANS, dipshit."

You know, I think something you said to me is very applicable:

Quote :

"And I am supposed to read your mind now?"

Besides, NO, I don't think it will really change much in insurance premiums as it stands now. Because as it stands now, yeah, they're competing for a few thousand companies, WHO HAVE A FUCKING POOL OF A FEW THOUSAND EMPLOYEES! Whether they're competing for individuals or whether they're competing for companies WITH A FEW THOUSAND PEOPLE as their pool, NO, I don't think think it will make much of a difference in premiums. Not enough so that the 60% of Americans who get insurance through their employers will actually end up saving money.

12/27/2009 7:24:06 PM

Last thing and then I'm done with you because clearly you're not interested in having a real conversation / debate about this:

Quote :

"Whether they're competing for individuals or whether they're competing for companies WITH A FEW THOUSAND PEOPLE as their pool, NO, I don't think think it will make much of a difference in premiums. Not enough so that the 60% of Americans who get insurance through their employers will actually end up saving money. "

How many Americans can afford $500 / month for health insurance? Now ask yourself how many companies can afford that (especially when with tax breaks it works out to less than $500). Do you really think if suddenly companies had to compete for the money that Americans could afford as opposed to the money that corporations could afford that it wouldn't drastically change the landscape of things? American families drive miles out of their way to get to Wal-Mart to save $.50 on sweat pants. Most corporations piss away whole salaries as "petty cash". If you can't see that changing who's actually buying the insurance would make a drastic change to the cost of insurance, then you clearly have no clue how business works.

12/27/2009 7:43:52 PM

Quote :

"Last thing and then I'm done with you because clearly you're not interested in having a real conversation / debate about this:"

I think I'll need aaronburro to translate that for me.

Quote :

"How many Americans can afford $500 / month for health insurance? Now ask yourself how many companies can afford that (especially when with tax breaks it works out to less than $500)."

That's why companies aren't paying for all of the expenses. I posted how much they're covering, on average, for singles and families. They're only paying 15-25% of the expenses.

Quote :

"Do you really think if suddenly companies had to compete for the money that Americans could afford as opposed to the money that corporations could afford that it wouldn't drastically change the landscape of things?"

And again, regardless of whether they're competing for everyone in a state or if they're competing for a company, I doubt you'll see a noticeable drop in savings. And they're STILL competing NOW to add lone people into their pool. You don't think that they want to make their pool as large as possible? You think that companies aren't competing NOW to expand their pool of people, whether they be in group plans or single plans?

I bet you that the competition now to insure companies is pretty damn fierce. You don't think insurance companies don't compete as much as possible to insure a group of 5,000 people who will all almost be GUARANTEED to use their coverage, ALL BECAUSE THE COMPANIES WILL PAY FOR 20% OF IT?

Well, excuse me for being wary of our theories. But I think I've proven myself over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and as to why I am. And YOU haven't offered anything to convince me.

You guys and attack the semantics of my arguments (ie, using diabetes as an example of a life long coverage), but when I correct myself and offer up other examples that you can't attack, you guys (mainly aaronburro) say it's a fucking copout!

Jesus, even when I concede certain points to you guys, YOU STILL FUCKING ARGUE OVER ME CONCEDING SOMETHING OR YOU PRETEND I DID'T FUCKING SAY IT! You guys put words in my mouth to try to make points or make myself look hypocritical. Then you say it's a fucking copout when I PROVE to you that I didn't say something. Excuse me for defending myself against alleged comments that I didn't make.

Hell, I know why you corrected my English in one post. It's because you think that it's a way to easily devalue what was said. Then you get all pissy because I return the fucking favor.

You act that by discussing your plan, you're actually changing something. YOU'RE NOT CHANGING SHIT! Present all the plans you want buddy. Present better ones, present worse ones, present ones that are as effective as what's being presented in DC. BUT IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FUCKING FACT THAT YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING!

I've explained time and fucking time again why I support this bill. I've explained that I don't think that it's the best bill. BUT COMPARED TO THE OPTIONS GIVEN BY PEOPLE WHO ARE IN POWER (NOT YOU, the democrats and the republicans), I SUPPOR THE DEMOCRATS PLAN OVER THE GOP'S!

I don't see what's so hard to understand about that?

Now, 1337 b4k4. I've said time and time again, that the main issue I have with your plan is that the poor will potentially pay less than healthy people. You haven't said anything to erase that issue of mine. I've provided an example and a revised example. I've concede that under your plan, the sick will be spread out amongst the insurance companies, as they would under the current proposal.

Additionally, your proposal does nothing to address people who are damned for making a poor decision in not getting healthcare. Something that the current proposal does address.

Either I disagree with your plan because it fails to satisfy me, or you've failed to explain any misconceptions I've had about it.

12/27/2009 8:29:46 PM

Quote :

"I know what I said. I said:"

Yes, and that is NOT equivalent to "Medicaid works."

Quote :

"The fuck I did. Go read the whole sentence."

dude, I did. How is me posting WHAT YOU SAID "taking it out of context?" You said, and I'll quote, "you are asking the same questions." Is that, not the same as saying "you are asking the same questions"?

Quote :

"It is relevant. Not everyone needs to own a fucking house!"

what people need is not relevant. ARE THEY BOTH INSURANCE? YES!!!

Quote :

"I'm not going to get into a debate over our beliefs"

So, you aren't going to back up what you are fucking saying?

Quote :

"Maine had an average annual premium cost of $4,061 for a single person. For NH, it was $3,427. For a family, Maine's premiums averaged, $7,260 and for NH, it was $7,672."

It must have been Vermont, then. This I KNOW I heard on NPR.

Quote :

"You really think that forcing an insurance company to cover a person indefinitely is an incentive to people who don't get coverage because they would rather pocket the cash?"

Yes, because the potential savings are now massively more. Right now, I potentially save 10,000 bux before they drop me. With the proposal, I potentially save millions because they couldn't "drop me."

Quote :

"That's a copout and you fucking know it."

No it's not. It's pointing out that your example is based on one hell of an assumption.

Quote :

"Where it DOES consider people switching jobs."

Yes, but you HAVEN'T explained why plan C is going to charge person A less simply for being sick. It was all predicated upon the notion that the healthy people in plan B were going to pay more than the sick person in plan C. But, you haven't shown why person A in plan C is paying less than a healthy person IN PLAN C.

Quote :

"Person A now works at company B and they are now offered coverage through insurance B. HOWEVER, insurance A is stuck covering person A's expenses, so for insurance A to keep person A from getting insurance with insurance B"

How does person A keep getting full insurance coverage from plan A after they have switched jobs? We're not talking about full coverage. We're talking about covering the condition that was developed only.

Quote :

"Nice copout. Glad you read the article I posted, which doesn't cast Massachusett's problems a bad as you like to think they are."

Really? It's going so swimmingly that they have stopped letting new people onto the plan, and that's "not [as] bad as [I] like to think"? Really?

Quote :

"Any little bit hurts. Don't give me the "drop in the bucket" copout."

Yes, it hurts a small bit, but it's not breaking the back of the market. What is breaking the market's back is everything else. That's why it's a "drop in the bucket."

Quote :

"I'm going to just go with "no." I don't need to read the thread to know anything about the current situation and to debate the content of the bill, fucktard."

When you are saying that no one else has come up with anything better, then you certainly ought to read the thread when someone says they have posited ideas before. Which is what you have said.

Quote :

"You know, I think something you said to me is very applicable:"

Bullshit. It was OBVIOUS he was talking about employers. He even fucking said so earlier. You were just being "cute" again. Shut up, troll.

Quote :

"Besides, NO, I don't think it will really change much in insurance premiums as it stands now. "

Who is talking exclusively about premiums. I'm talking about competition, which includes far more than merely premiums.

12/27/2009 8:31:27 PM

Quote :

"I think I'll need aaronburro to translate that for me."

Oh, I'll translate it for you. It's "You're being a fucking a troll, so I'm not going to waste my time with you." it's one thing to say "you aren't interested in having a real conversation. It's another to say "you are too stupid to understand."

Quote :

"That's why companies aren't paying for all of the expenses. I posted how much they're covering, on average, for singles and families. They're only paying 15-25% of the expenses."

Right, and they are also getting much better tax-breaks on it than you and I do.

Quote :

"You don't think insurance companies don't compete as much as possible to insure a group of 5,000 people "

Competition is about far more than just prices.

Quote :

"You guys and attack the semantics of my arguments (ie, using diabetes as an example of a life long coverage)"

bullshit. You said diabetes wasn't correlated with socio-economic status. We showed that it was. Then YOU tried to play semantics and say you were talking about one specific type of diabetes. That aint "semantics" on our part. That's you moving the goalposts.

Quote :

"Hell, I know why you corrected my English in one post. It's because you think that it's a way to easily devalue what was said. Then you get all pissy because I return the fucking favor."

No, we corrected your "English" because you did something that plenty of other people do: conflate insurance with health care. That's more than just "English." if anything, it's probably a Freudian slip.

Quote :

"You act that by discussing your plan, you're actually changing something. YOU'RE NOT CHANGING SHIT! Present all the plans you want buddy. Present better ones, present worse ones, present ones that are as effective as what's being presented in DC. BUT IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FUCKING FACT THAT YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING!"

Again, WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU EVEN TALKING ABOUT IT, THEN? If nothing we do affects anything, then shut the fuck up! I feel like I am repeating myself. OH, I AM!!! Why? BECAUSE YOU KEEP SAYING THE SAME FUCKING THING.

Quote :

"I've explained time and fucking time again why I support this bill. I've explained that I don't think that it's the best bill. BUT COMPARED TO THE OPTIONS GIVEN BY PEOPLE WHO ARE IN POWER (NOT YOU, the democrats and the republicans), I SUPPOR THE DEMOCRATS PLAN OVER THE GOP'S! I don't see what's so hard to understand about that?"

What's hard for YOU to understand is that we're saying the plan is bad because there are BETTER WAYS to solve the problem than the plan in congress. Just because some lobbyist-paid shill in DC isn't bringing it up doesn't mean that an idea isn't a good one. And this thread isn't limited to "let's discuss only what people in DC are talking about and not allow introduction of other ideas."

Quote :

"Now, 1337 b4k4. I've said time and time again, that the main issue I have with your plan is that the poor will potentially pay less than healthy people. You haven't said anything to erase that issue of mine"

ANd you've said this over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and never offered one bit of substantial proof that this will occur.

Quote :

"I've provided an example and a revised example."

And both are fatally flawed, which you refuse to admit, despite those flaws being thrust in your face.

Quote :

"Additionally, your proposal does nothing to address people who are damned for making a poor decision in not getting healthcare."

And you have failed to explain why people shouldn't suffer the consequences of their stupid decisions, other than liberal panty-twisting.

12/27/2009 8:42:19 PM