don't throw the baby out with the bath water please
Exactly! Why would we change the entire health care system when 85% of the population is fine the way it is?
Focus on fixing the 15% that don't have it.
don't throw the baby out with the bath water please
• Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)
How would any insurance plan in 2009 not have some type of id card? There are already food stamp cards, medicare cards and driver's licenses.• Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard. (this is going to be a form of world ID something many countries are fighting against)
False - that's only if an employee wants to be part of the government plan.• Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives. (disturbing because you won't have much of a choice, this is the way the government strong arms you into it)
:error:• Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends.
• Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient's health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT.
• Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life.
Those last ones are really there, they would force you basically to see a counselor at least every 5 years to determine how much health care you can get. If your worth it that is.
Demographically, the elderly are the richest segment of the population, and arguably the group that needs the least financial assistance. I got that from a friend who does that sort of stat work for a living.let the old die in the streets!!
True that, but the majority of them don't know how to use computers, and refuse to learn. I went around the floor at Affiliate Summit expressing this point, and pushed the virtues of offline advertising. There was a lot of agreement, but no plans for action.Demographically, the elderly are the richest segment of the population, and arguably the group that needs the least financial assistance. I got that from a friend who does that sort of stat work for a living.
In fact, as marketers, we should all be gearing up for selling stuff to old people.
Um... I think you mean Medicare, which is government-run health insurance for those 65+. In contrast, millions of the uninsured are children. Applying your logic, we can let the kiddies die in the streets.thunderlips said:If we are talking about no Gov run healthcare then what about medicaid period?
let the old die in the streets!!
I will cackle gleefully the day you become old.regardless of the kiddies we really need to let the old die in the streets.
I will cackle gleefully the day you become old.
Sell your organs first.Well, i wont see it, because ill be starving in the streets.
False - that's only if an employee wants to be part of the government plan.
"(2) OPT-OUT.—In no case may an employer automatically enroll an employee in a plan under paragraph (1) if such employee makes an affirmative election to opt out of such plan or to elect coverage under an employment-based health benefits plan offered by such employer."
With Obamacare, my tax dollars would go to pay for the consequences of his lifestyle. Please tell me why I should pay for him and tens of thousands more just like him?
So the private insurance companies won't be able to compete with a public entity that would delivery more services at a lower cost (which is probably why they're fighting it). If the private companies are so cutting edge let's give them a chance to show their competitive chops. Or is real competition such a horrible thing?The point you're missing in all of this is no matter what the bill says about allowing private health entities to compete, they really won't be able to compete against the government plan because the government can run them out of business while burning through our tax money.
That's not what was said at all.So the private insurance companies won't be able to compete with a public entity that would delivery more services at a lower cost (which is probably why they're fighting it). If the private companies are so cutting edge let's give them a chance to show their competitive chops. Or is real competition such a horrible thing?
Fine, let's protect them from competition and disallow it. They have a right to survive, too, even if we have to sell blood to pay them.
You already pay mandatory taxes for other people's health care: Medicaid, Medicare and health care services made available to veterans via the VA (which is an exceptionally well run government service, btw). A public option would simply be another choice that people could have to deliver their health care. People choosing the public plan would have to pay premiums like any other insurance.That's not what was said at all.
They won't be able to compete because they lack the ability to tax, which the US government can. The government can be as wasteful as they like, spending at a deficit and just taxing the difference(or just adding it to the national deficit).
You can't call it competition when paying for the government program is mandatory.
Good try though.
You already pay mandatory taxes for other people's health care: Medicaid, Medicare and health care services made available to veterans via the VA (which is an exceptionally well run government service, btw). A public option would simply be another choice that people could have to deliver their health care. People choosing the public plan would have to pay premiums like any other insurance.
I don't see why would nixing the public option, and extending protectionism toward private companies, is desirable. If a public plan is expected to be so lame and wasteful, why are private insurance companies afraid of it?
I know what you said: You argue from the perspective that he's pushing this because he's a POS liar trying to wrest control. I was arguing the plan based on its merits, assuming that he wants to reform the system because it needs to be done, we have a crisis and that there is no nefarious conspiracy afoot.You're totally missing the point here.
To summarize:
-Obama (a statist) wants total control and will use health care as one of his methods.
-He makes it sound all rosy and good saying we can keep our insurance, we want healthy competition, etc, etc.
-He passes this POS and instantly tries to stifle competition by using our tax dollars to subsidize his little empire building soon crushing all of the private insurance companies.
-Now we have no options and Obama gets his control.
-I've said this 3 times now, Obama is a liar and this is not about getting quality health care to the people. The simplest proof of that is the constant shooting down of any other alternate ideas no matter how great or money saving they sound.
I was arguing the plan based on its merits
we have a crisis