ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[Titanic]

I really don't understand why you say this. The current bill does require the insurance companies to offer minimum levels of insurance. The public plan is offered as a "baseline" minimum policy. Most people will pay premiums for that policy, if they select it, but those who are below certain income levels will be subsidized or get it free.

Actually, this is exactly where the public option will eventually drive private insurance out of business. The bill sets forth a health panel that will decide what the minimum coverage would be. Nothing is set in place to stop the panel from slowly ratcheting up the amount of items that are considered minimal requirements. Since the public option won't have to run for a profit, they can continue providing these minimums while fining insurance companies who do not have the capital to provide the funding for more minimums. This year the basics could include primary care, neo-natal care, mammograms, prostate exams, and outpatient minor surgeries. 3 years from now the minimum could require genetic testing, advanced cancer care, and abortion. There are no caps on what the panel can set as a minimum.

That won't happen. There will always be a market for the private companies. Look at the UK, we have universal healthcare but the private compannies still have 15% of the market. The USA is not going to have universal healthcare, and there is no way the public option will ever be nearly as big as the NHS due to the way it is going to be structured.

[SultanOfSurreal]

That really is the major point of a public-option plan, to insure the uninsured and underinsured (like medicare does for senior citizens and medicaid does for the officially disabled).

Minor points to the public options and reforms in general were written to help make the plan viable, as in, affordable; measures that can save the private insurance companies some money, too; and measures that give employers a little more credit than they currently get, for providing a group insurance plan for their employees.

I don't think that is the point of the currently proposed public option plan. I think that's one of the points. However, as I've indicated on any number of occasions, there are simpler and more effective ways to insure the uninsured and underinsured than to have a public option plan. For example, the federal government could simply insure those who cannot afford health insurance and then provide regulations describing the minimum insurance that insurance providers must offer. However, there is no bill that calls for these types of measures. I really do believe that the reason there is no bill covering these types of measures is because Congress and the president would like to eventually control health insurance. I guess that makes me cynical, but when there are easier and more effective options out there to meet the goal of universal healthcare, and Congress does not propose such options, I get cynical.

you are retarded, straight-up. support for a public option from obama since he's been in office has wavered between barely-tepid and nonexistent, because he is a wholly owned subsidiary of the health insurance lobby. he would never in a million years actually try to force them out of business, they funnel too much money to him. and the same goes for almost all of congress, too.

the bill that eventually passes will not include a public option (or only an incredibly weak one), and therefore amount to little more than a gigantic handout to private insurance interests, and therefore be completely useless. that conservative stains like you think the major problem with this bill is that it's SOCIALISM or whatever the f*ck, is baffling, but ultimately expected seeing as you're all ignorant trash

[thegreekdog]

you are retarded, straight-up. support for a public option from obama since he's been in office has wavered between barely-tepid and nonexistent, because he is a wholly owned subsidiary of the health insurance lobby. he would never in a million years actually try to force them out of business, they funnel too much money to him. and the same goes for almost all of congress, too.

the bill that eventually passes will not include a public option (or only an incredibly weak one), and therefore amount to little more than a gigantic handout to private insurance interests, and therefore be completely useless. that conservative stains like you think the major problem with this bill is that it's SOCIALISM or whatever the f*ck, is baffling, but ultimately expected seeing as you're all ignorant trash

Sniffle... you made me cry Sultan. I suggest you do a few things: (1) take your left hand out of your asshole (it's gotta hurt by now right?); (2) go borrow an English-language thesaurus from one of your college buddies and look up some new words (you know, like synonyms for "retarded," "ignorant," and "trash." They've lost their luster; and (3) read the healthcare bill (I know it's tough.. no cliff notes or anything; much longer than the Communist Manifesto so you may have some trouble, but stick with it and you'll be done in a few weeks). If there are some big words in there, that's okay. I heard President Obama is going to talk to your school and he'll be able to explain what those big words mean.

Anyway, my major problems with the bill are that (1) it could lead to government-run healthcare (we already have socialism in healthcare so whether the bill provides for that or not is a moot point), and (2) it does more than what the supporters of a health insurance bill want it to do. All the government needs to do to solve the problem of health insurance in the US is (1) place greater restrictions on what private health insurers have to cover and (2) provide health insurance for those that cannot afford private health insurance. It would be a short bill. So, when the bill does more than it needs to do, of course I question the wisdom of such a bill, the collective intelligence of supporters of the bill (especially those, like you, who have not read it), and the impetus behind such a bill.

I doubt the US government will do any of these things. I sort of agree with Sultan that Congress will want to help out their buddies in the health insurance industry, mores the pity. See, the problem with people like you Sultan is that you stick to these tired tropes of political parties and you love your government (well, you love your government if the leadership is Democrat). Perhaps once you finish school you'll begin to have an appreciation for the idea that our government, no matter who is in power, works for the interests of whomever helps get them elected (usually a corporation, union, or non-profit group).

[SultanOfSurreal]

I question the wisdom of such a bill, the collective intelligence of supporters of the bill (especially those, like you

uh what

See, the problem with people like you Sultan is that you stick to these tired tropes of political parties and you love your government (well, you love your government if the leadership is Democrat).

...

what

Perhaps once you finish school you'll begin to have an appreciation for the idea that our government, no matter who is in power, works for the interests of whomever helps get them elected (usually a corporation, union, or non-profit group).

did i not just get through saying that? what part of "obama is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the health insurance lobby (and so is congress)" did you not fucking understand, you impossibly obtuse fake lawyer

[thegreekdog]

See, the problem with people like you Sultan is that you stick to these tired tropes of political parties and you love your government (well, you love your government if the leadership is Democrat).

uh what

Perhaps once you finish school you'll begin to have an appreciation for the idea that our government, no matter who is in power, works for the interests of whomever helps get them elected (usually a corporation, union, or non-profit group).

did i not just get through saying that? what part of "obama is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the health insurance lobby (and so is congress)" did you not fucking understand, you impossibly obtuse fake lawyer

I shall rephrase:

You are as conservative regarding this issue as I am. So, before going into your tired "Republicans are white trailer trash" ridiculousness, you should read what I typed. Man, I feel like I say that a lot to you. Do you just seem some usernames and blackout? When you wake up do you see that you posted some ridiculous anti-conservative rant? Do you later find it makes no sense and ignore any responses to said anti-conservative rant so that you can preserve your already fragile dignity? Do you think maybe the soul of some evil spirit inhabits your body? I believe the answer to those questions is "yes."

[thegreekdog]

you impossibly obtuse fake lawyer

As an aside, the fact that I'm obtuse is fairly substantial proof that I'm a real lawyer.

[SultanOfSurreal]

See, the problem with people like you Sultan is that you stick to these tired tropes of political parties and you love your government (well, you love your government if the leadership is Democrat).

uh what

Perhaps once you finish school you'll begin to have an appreciation for the idea that our government, no matter who is in power, works for the interests of whomever helps get them elected (usually a corporation, union, or non-profit group).

did i not just get through saying that? what part of "obama is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the health insurance lobby (and so is congress)" did you not fucking understand, you impossibly obtuse fake lawyer

I shall rephrase:

You are as conservative regarding this issue as I am. So, before going into your tired "Republicans are white trailer trash" ridiculousness, you should read what I typed. Man, I feel like I say that a lot to you. Do you just seem some usernames and blackout? When you wake up do you see that you posted some ridiculous anti-conservative rant? Do you later find it makes no sense and ignore any responses to said anti-conservative rant so that you can preserve your already fragile dignity? Do you think maybe the soul of some evil spirit inhabits your body? I believe the answer to those questions is "yes."

the only question i have is what the f*ck are you talking about, because you seem to be holding a conversation with a mirror universe version of me where i support the healthcare "reform" bill as-is and think the democrats are anything but a marginally less horrendous alternative to the deranged fascists who run the opposing party, just as given to spineless pandering to corporate interests as the worst the republican caucus has to offer

[thegreekdog]

the only question i have is what the f*ck are you talking about, because you seem to be holding a conversation with a mirror universe version of me where i support the healthcare "reform" bill as-is and think the democrats are anything but a marginally less horrendous alternative to the deranged fascists who run the opposing party, just as given to spineless pandering to corporate interests as the worst the republican caucus has to offer

So apparently we agree.

If I understand your beef with this thread, it's that you don't find that the bill we've been discussing will result in government-run health insurance. I think it will, and I've typed out my arguments on at least 4 occasions in various threads on this forum; I've supported my determination with language from the bill and my interpretation. So, when you post some gibberish about how the bill isn't socialist, you must excuse me if I become confused and/or assume you've read all the other threads where this has been discussed. You must also excuse me if I don't take what you type as truth just because someone as intelligent as you types it. We've had this discussion before too - just because you believe something, doesn't make it true.

[PLAYER57832]

I really don't understand why you say this. The current bill does require the insurance companies to offer minimum levels of insurance. The public plan is offered as a "baseline" minimum policy. Most people will pay premiums for that policy, if they select it, but those who are below certain income levels will be subsidized or get it free.

Actually, this is exactly where the public option will eventually drive private insurance out of business. The bill sets forth a health panel that will decide what the minimum coverage would be. Nothing is set in place to stop the panel from slowly ratcheting up the amount of items that are considered minimal requirements. Since the public option won't have to run for a profit, they can continue providing these minimums while fining insurance companies who do not have the capital to provide the funding for more minimums. This year the basics could include primary care, neo-natal care, mammograms, prostate exams, and outpatient minor surgeries. 3 years from now the minimum could require genetic testing, advanced cancer care, and abortion. There are no caps on what the panel can set as a minimum.

That won't happen. There will always be a market for the private companies. Look at the UK, we have universal healthcare but the private compannies still have 15% of the market. The USA is not going to have universal healthcare, and there is no way the public option will ever be nearly as big as the NHS due to the way it is going to be structured.

The reason the public policy won't keep ratcheting up offering is pure and plain expense. We will have to pay for whatever policy, whatever care is offered. Just like with private insurance, if more things are offered, the premiums will go up.

[Snorri1234]

I really don't understand why you say this. The current bill does require the insurance companies to offer minimum levels of insurance. The public plan is offered as a "baseline" minimum policy. Most people will pay premiums for that policy, if they select it, but those who are below certain income levels will be subsidized or get it free.

Actually, this is exactly where the public option will eventually drive private insurance out of business. The bill sets forth a health panel that will decide what the minimum coverage would be. Nothing is set in place to stop the panel from slowly ratcheting up the amount of items that are considered minimal requirements. Since the public option won't have to run for a profit, they can continue providing these minimums while fining insurance companies who do not have the capital to provide the funding for more minimums. This year the basics could include primary care, neo-natal care, mammograms, prostate exams, and outpatient minor surgeries. 3 years from now the minimum could require genetic testing, advanced cancer care, and abortion. There are no caps on what the panel can set as a minimum.

So why didn't this happen in all the countries which do have private and public options?

[Timminz]

I really don't understand why you say this. The current bill does require the insurance companies to offer minimum levels of insurance. The public plan is offered as a "baseline" minimum policy. Most people will pay premiums for that policy, if they select it, but those who are below certain income levels will be subsidized or get it free.

Actually, this is exactly where the public option will eventually drive private insurance out of business. The bill sets forth a health panel that will decide what the minimum coverage would be. Nothing is set in place to stop the panel from slowly ratcheting up the amount of items that are considered minimal requirements. Since the public option won't have to run for a profit, they can continue providing these minimums while fining insurance companies who do not have the capital to provide the funding for more minimums. This year the basics could include primary care, neo-natal care, mammograms, prostate exams, and outpatient minor surgeries. 3 years from now the minimum could require genetic testing, advanced cancer care, and abortion. There are no caps on what the panel can set as a minimum.

So why didn't this happen in all the countries which do have private and public options?

Aren't you paying attention? It's because the American government can't do ANYTHING right.

[Night Strike]

That won't happen. There will always be a market for the private companies. Look at the UK, we have universal healthcare but the private compannies still have 15% of the market. The USA is not going to have universal healthcare, and there is no way the public option will ever be nearly as big as the NHS due to the way it is going to be structured.

You think having only 15% of the market counts as private? There's only that much to avoid the (correct) label of communism. The numbers should be flipped, at minimum, to actually be considered a private market: 85% private and 15% government. You're right, if this health care bill passes, the US will not have universal health care. But it's virtually guaranteed to happen in 10-20 years; the proponents of this bill even go as far as stating this is the first step toward that goal. It's much easier to not go down a road than it is to stop and turn around.

[PopeBenXVI]

Why don't we let Micheal Vic head up the humane society to maintain quality of care for dogs?

Congratulations. That is officially the most retarded argument I've ever seen.

I have a better one - Lets let Gov run more healthcare because they are more honest.

Compared to Blue Cross and Blue Shield, that IS the absolute truth. To claim otherwise means you have NO real experience with anything but the highest tiers of Blue Cross insurance. They have an absolute policy of denying people care simply to delay treatments until it is too late, etc. The standard claim "we don't limit your care... we just are not going to pay" is one of the most dishonest and plain evil statements in any industry.

I have had BCBS (I believe now know as Anthum) and there is more out there than that even though it seems to be the only company in your vocabulary. The difference here is I am not claiming the insurance companies are Innocent in the sense that you seem to think the Gov is innocent and trustworthy. That is a joke.

[Symmetry]

That won't happen. There will always be a market for the private companies. Look at the UK, we have universal healthcare but the private compannies still have 15% of the market. The USA is not going to have universal healthcare, and there is no way the public option will ever be nearly as big as the NHS due to the way it is going to be structured.

You think having only 15% of the market counts as private? There's only that much to avoid the (correct) label of communism. The numbers should be flipped, at minimum, to actually be considered a private market: 85% private and 15% government. You're right, if this health care bill passes, the US will not have universal health care. But it's virtually guaranteed to happen in 10-20 years; the proponents of this bill even go as far as stating this is the first step toward that goal. It's much easier to not go down a road than it is to stop and turn around.

I'm not sure you read his post right. I don't think he said that the market was a private one, but that there are private companies in the market. I might be reading your post badly, but you seem to be suggesting that the 15% share is just being tolerated by the British gov't so they don't get accused of communism. Can you clarify?

[Phatscotty]

Debate, bottom line. He is pushing for more goverment, less private. The people know better....

[Frigidus]

The people know better....

Since when have the people ever had a cohesive grasp of the situation in which they are in, let alone had the collective intelligence to make a reasonable decision for the way in which the country is run?

[stahrgazer]

Actually, this is exactly where the public option will eventually drive private insurance out of business.

yeah yeah yeah just like having public education and state-funded schools has driven private institutions out of busines.

[stahrgazer]

The people know better....

Since when have the people ever had a cohesive grasp of the situation in which they are in, let alone had the collective intelligence to make a reasonable decision for the way in which the country is run?

Um, let's see.. 1776...1787...
and 2008 when they OVERWHELMINGLY voted in someone who had "universal health care and health care reform" as a main platform

[Phatscotty]

Actually, this is exactly where the public option will eventually drive private insurance out of business.

yeah yeah yeah just like having public education and state-funded schools has driven private institutions out of busines.

not at all, it just costs more and more for worse and worse results. Homeschooled children dominate ACT scores nationally, Private school kids ace it at 3,000/student/yr, and the public system is the worst at a whopping 9,000/student. Somehow the facts seem to lead to the point you are missing.....hmm

[Symmetry]

Actually, this is exactly where the public option will eventually drive private insurance out of business.

yeah yeah yeah just like having public education and state-funded schools has driven private institutions out of busines.

not at all, it just costs more and more for worse and worse results. Homeschooled children dominate ACT scores nationally, Private school kids ace it at 3,000/student/yr, and the public system is the worst at a whopping 9,000/student. Somehow the facts seem to lead to the point you are missing.....hmm

Huh, so you don't believe in a public option for education then? Home school and private school only?

[Phatscotty]

im saying, in black and white, the results speak for themselves. I point out these clarities once

[Symmetry]

im saying, in black and white, the results speak for themselves. I point out these clarities once

Results never speak for themselves, but let's go along with your argument symmetrically. Everyone has the right to education. The public system being the most basic, but everyone has it. Those who can afford it get better education, but, yeah, at a cost.

At the moment this amounts to the proposed idea: everyone having the right to healthcare. The public system being the most basic, but everyone has it. Those who can afford it get better healthcare, but, yeah, at a cost.

In black and white then, why should there be universal education or universal healthcare?

You seem to have slipped a bit here. Just because you can't have the best doesn't equal having nothing at all.

[PLAYER57832]

Actually, this is exactly where the public option will eventually drive private insurance out of business.

yeah yeah yeah just like having public education and state-funded schools has driven private institutions out of busines.

not at all, it just costs more and more for worse and worse results. Homeschooled children dominate ACT scores nationally, Private school kids ace it at 3,000/student/yr, and the public system is the worst at a whopping 9,000/student. Somehow the facts seem to lead to the point you are missing.....hmm

Homeschooled kids who want to get into college often do score better on the ACT. For one thing, parents who could care less just don't homeschool their kids, but they do send them to public schools. That is not a measure of the success or failure of either system. Furthermore, while many home-schooled kids receive an excellent education, that is not universally true. In many cases, they are decidedly short on science knowledge, for example.

Similarly, private schools don't start with the same kids, either. They pick and choose who they take. Any average score will be lower in public schools simply because they get everyone.

If you want a FAIR comparision between the public and private schools, you have to look at the top students in each. What you will find is that in any major university, any arena of note, public school-educated kids sit right beside the others. Further, public school often offers a much more rounded education, the ability to deal with different kinds of people in different circumstances. Not always, no. I am certainly not happy with my son's school. However, I got a superb education in my public school. Alumni from my school graduated from the Navel Academy, all of the US campuses then around, a few overseas institutions, etc. Folks out west tend more to Berkeley and Stanford than Harvard and Yale, but alumni from my high school have attended those universities as well. And yes, we also had a few drug addicts, a few who joined communes, a few who became hermit-type missionaries, and one who got her senior picture with her baby.... etc... etc... etc. (not that those are equivalent... just trying to pick from the spectrum of divirsity).

[Phatscotty]

Actually, this is exactly where the public option will eventually drive private insurance out of business.

yeah yeah yeah just like having public education and state-funded schools has driven private institutions out of busines.

not at all, it just costs more and more for worse and worse results. Homeschooled children dominate ACT scores nationally, Private school kids ace it at 3,000/student/yr, and the public system is the worst at a whopping 9,000/student. Somehow the facts seem to lead to the point you are missing.....hmm

Homeschooled kids who want to get into college often do score better on the ACT. For one thing, parents who could care less just don't homeschool their kids, but they do send them to public schools. That is not a measure of the success or failure of either system. Furthermore, while many home-schooled kids receive an excellent education, that is not universally true. In many cases, they are decidedly short on science knowledge, for example.

Similarly, private schools don't start with the same kids, either. They pick and choose who they take. Any average score will be lower in public schools simply because they get everyone.

If you want a FAIR comparision between the public and private schools, you have to look at the top students in each. What you will find is that in any major university, any arena of note, public school-educated kids sit right beside the others. Further, public school often offers a much more rounded education, the ability to deal with different kinds of people in different circumstances. Not always, no. I am certainly not happy with my son's school. However, I got a superb education in my public school. Alumni from my school graduated from the Navel Academy, all of the US campuses then around, a few overseas institutions, etc. Folks out west tend more to Berkeley and Stanford than Harvard and Yale, but alumni from my high school have attended those universities as well. And yes, we also had a few drug addicts, a few who joined communes, a few who became hermit-type missionaries, and one who got her senior picture with her baby.... etc... etc... etc. (not that those are equivalent... just trying to pick from the spectrum of divirsity).

not necesarily disputing your claims cuz they are pretty good ones, except I need to inject the ratio in population of private students/public

[thegreekdog]

Actually, this is exactly where the public option will eventually drive private insurance out of business.

yeah yeah yeah just like having public education and state-funded schools has driven private institutions out of busines.

The difference is that we are permitted to use private schools. This healthcare bill (which, by the way, is going to be done soon... we'll have something else to argue about in a few months) arguably does not permit the use of private health insurance. A better analogy would be government-run driver's licensing versus private driver's licensing (I know, not the best analogy... it's still early for me).