This topic contains 41 replies, has 19 voices, and was last updated by 
Braid Beards Gang 15 years, 8 months ago.
-
Posts
-
There are lots of ideas being shared in the “Thread Stealers Thread” about the new health care legislations that was just passed. Since many people seem to want share their opinions on this, feel free to do so here. Just keep it civil, and remember that pro or con on the health care plan, WE ALL LOVE GOECACHING!
While I agree something had to be done, the way this was done is wrong. I should not be made to pay for someone else while still paying for mine. Everyone should pay their way. And how many small buisness will go under, the news said busisness had to provide it. My father can’t afford to. While he only now has three people working for him, that will put him out of buisness. How cool would that be, The chimney sweep of the White House put out of buisness by the White House Policies. This ( and I am going to piss people off) was the Democrats saying “you (the country) will do things our way whether you (the country) like it or not!” I believe alot of people forgot they are working for the people that voted for them and not the Democratic Party!
I didn’t mean to start this with an innocuous statement last evening.
But, here are my thoughts after a night’s sleep.
Last night I heard Rep. Nancy Pelosi stand up in front of congress and state “we are “endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” This legislation will lead to healthier lives, more liberty to pursue hopes and dreams and happiness for the American people. This is an American proposal that honors the traditions of our country.”
I believe in a country of advanced citizenship. Meaning that if you want a right, you have to be willing to stand up fight and earn it. The government’s role should be to ensure its citizens the ability to fight for their unalienable rights. This healthcare legislation seems to me to punish a segment of society that is willing to fight for their rights to try to give it to those that are unwilling.
Healthcare legislation is needed for those unable, not for those unwilling.
Local angle:
This morning I heard Sen Feingold praising the bill, because it requires an 80% return from your premiums to your care. He stated it will be nice to see that instead of seeing glass skyscrapers in the center of cities with insurance companies names on them. I just wanted to ask Sen. Feingold what happens to the jobs and the lives of the people who work in those buildings. Cutting costs = cutting jobs.
My two cents, who is John Gault?
@Braid Beard’s Gang wrote:
Healthcare legislation is needed for those unable, not for those unwilling.
Local angle:
This morning I heard Sen Feingold praising the bill, because it requires an 80% return from your premiums to your care. He stated it will be nice to see that instead of seeing glass skyscrapers in the center of cities with insurance companies names on them. I just wanted to ask Sen. Feingold what happens to the jobs and the lives of the people who work in those buildings. Cutting costs = cutting jobs.
My two cents, who is John Gault?
I agree except I think this is going toraise our premiums, whatever is said. A company is not just going to cut its profits to cover all for an unlimited amount. They are going to make up what ever the government makes them lose by making us pay! We lose twice over. 👿
Just wondering out loud …
I’m aware of some people (I’m not one of them) that currently have a third option … NOT Health Care INSURANCE and NOT going without “protection” against Health Care costs. There are these “shared cost” programs … the one I’m thinking of is a Christian-based non-profit organization (can’t think of the name) where you buy “shares” sort of. Everyone pays in a set amount of money … those in “medical need” get their medical needs paid for … sort of a statistical sharing the load, good samaratian sort of thing. I think there is even an option for those that are “better off” to donate extra to help keep the cost down to the average person on the program.
What happens to these people? Since they don’t have a true INSURANCE plan that they are under … are they forced to get one, or pay the fine … or will what they are on count, since it’s protecting their risk?
I really wish and hope that this new plan can work for the better of our country as a whole. But there’s just so many things, at least from my uneducated point of view, that just don’t make sense.
The one that comes to mind right now, that I heard being debated: If you force insurers to cover pre-existing conditions (which for a “normal” scenario would be great), what happens when someone decides to go without insurance because they’re healthy (paying the smaller “fine” for doing so), then when they get sick they quick purchase the coverage. If a large amount of people start doing this … they won’t be feeding money into the system when they’re health, but they be collecting assistance when they’re sick. Doesn’t this create a stastical guarantee of failure or at the very least upward spiraling participation fees? Or create the need to make the “fine” as big as the premiums?
@Braid Beard’s Gang wrote:
My two cents, who is John Gault?
Yes, the parallels are striking.
Ignoring the Big Question of whether government should even be involved in this, and commenting on the specific legislation itself per the topic, my observations are–
The legislation prohibits exclusions for preexisting conditions and bans lifetime coverage limits, which MUST have the effect of raising premiums in a market-driven industry. If government caps premium increases along with this prohibition, companies will go out of business because they will lose money, and only the government can continue to lose money but keep doing what it is doing without change. (My cynical side says, perhaps that is the objective.)
The legislation caps the expense ratio of an insurer (this is the combination of salaries, benefits, utilities, taxes on those fancy glass buildings, etc.) at 15 percent for large plans and 20 percent for other plans. (i.e., the inverse of the 85/80 percent payout rule.) Actually, since insurers exist to make a profit (I know, it’s a dirty word these days), their expense ratio probably has to be even less.
The legislation does not lower the cost of health insurance. In fact, the reports I’ve seen of the CBO analysis says that small businesses will see little to no decrease in their monthly premiums and individuals will see an increase of about 10%. Additionally, the legislation includes a new Medicare surtax that would be imposed on some individuals and small businesses, and new tax on non-wage income, such as dividends and annuities.
The legislation offers SUBSIDIES for premium payments for individuals under certain wage thresholds; however, subsidies do NOT lower net costs—they only SHIFT costs to someone else.
That’s my 2 cents.
On the Left Side of the Road...And don’t forget the 10% tax on tanning bed sessions!
8)
(I’m not kidding)John Galt? He’s the mysterious third, the second rate accountant no one knows.
Really strange story. Been reading it for over a year, and still have some 250 pages to go!
@marc_54140 wrote:
Been reading it for over a year, and still have some 250 pages to go!
I will admit to skipping the entire John Galt soliloquy at the end…
Ah…does that mean I shortcut the novel? 😯
Whoops! I now return you to your regularly scheduled healthcare thread.
On the Left Side of the Road...We decided some time ago that so much misinformation and outright lies were being tossed about that it became almost impossible to figure out what the truth really is regarding healthcare reform. We’ll leave the “awfulizing” to others and adopt a wait-and-see attitude as to how this all shakes out. Besides, Mr. Limbaugh recently said he’d leave the country if the legislation passed. One can only hope he’s a man of his word. 🙄
@marc_54140 wrote:
John Galt? He’s the mysterious third, the second rate accountant no one knows.
Really strange story. Been reading it for over a year, and still have some 250 pages to go!
Slightly off topic – but I do most of my books in the car (on CD) while driving. Just looked this one up – 38 CD’s which is longer than my longest book of 28 CD’s (Non-Fiction – Collapse: how societies choose to fail or succeed – Diamond, Jared) which would also be appropriate to the discussion however.
@codejunkie wrote:
@marc_54140 wrote:
John Galt? He’s the mysterious third, the second rate accountant no one knows.
Really strange story. Been reading it for over a year, and still have some 250 pages to go!
Slightly off topic – but I do most of my books in the car (on CD) while driving. Just looked this one up – 38 CD’s which is longer than my longest book of 28 CD’s (Non-Fiction – Collapse: how societies choose to fail or succeed – Diamond, Jared) which would also be appropriate to the discussion however.
I just put a copy on hold at the library. Thanks for the title.
13 States sueing the federal government over this.
He says the federal government cannot constitutionally require people to get health coverage and argues the bill will cause “substantial harm and financial burden” to the states.
The lawsuit claims the bill violates the 10th Amendment, which says the federal government has no authority beyond the powers granted to it under the Constitution, by forcing the states to carry out its provisions but not reimbursing them for the costs.
“This is the first time in American history where American citizens will be forced to buy a particular good or service,” said Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning, explaining why his state joined the lawsuit.[/i]
@Braid Beard’s Gang wrote:
I didn’t mean to start this with an innocuous statement last evening.
But, here are my thoughts after a night’s sleep.
Last night I heard Rep. Nancy Pelosi stand up in front of congress and state “we are “endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” This legislation will lead to healthier lives, more liberty to pursue hopes and dreams and happiness for the American people. This is an American proposal that honors the traditions of our country.”
I believe in a country of advanced citizenship. Meaning that if you want a right, you have to be willing to stand up fight and earn it. The government’s role should be to ensure its citizens the ability to fight for their unalienable rights. This healthcare legislation seems to me to punish a segment of society that is willing to fight for their rights to try to give it to those that are unwilling.
Healthcare legislation is needed for those unable, not for those unwilling.
Local angle:
This morning I heard Sen Feingold praising the bill, because it requires an 80% return from your premiums to your care. He stated it will be nice to see that instead of seeing glass skyscrapers in the center of cities with insurance companies names on them. I just wanted to ask Sen. Feingold what happens to the jobs and the lives of the people who work in those buildings. Cutting costs = cutting jobs.
My two cents, who is John Gault?
No where does the Constitution guarantee the right to charity. Which is exactly what this Health Care crap is. Forced charity by few for all.
*shakes head at the disgraceful nature of this country’s supposed representatives* (Yes, that includes both sides of the aisle!)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.