Healthcare Plan Misinformation Video-induced Debate

Remove all ads!

Yes NOG, some light regulation is needed. Personally, I don't think we will ever have a system implemented that is fully under the Government's control. There are still enough Republicans in office to stop that from ever happening. What will we see, hopefully sooner than later, is an incomplete, compromised system, that will have just enough in it to make America happy or at least, mostly satisfied. But I do like the idea of a low-cost Government option, but only if it doesn't handcuff the private sector. I would rather see some regulations against the private sector, to better protect the American people, but not too much as to put them out of business. Competition keeps and creates jobs.

 

I wasn't being serious, T2. Does anyone really expect ANY congressman or senator to give up a sterling plan for a public plan for the unemployed? It's just as much a pipe dream.

 

That's another problem. I don't want to pay for that much coverage for everyone. They get it because they're leading the nation and (arguably) their health is important enough to protect significantly (especially since most of them are old). Plus, they're almost the Board of Directors of the country, so they get nice plans (like it or not, it's one of the perks). We don't need that much coverage for everyone, but at the same time I don't think that much coverage should be denied to people who earn it (either through service or income).

Actually, as I understand it, there aren't. I believe Al Franken got cinched as Senator, giving the Dems a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, a majority in the House, and the presidency. It'd take Democrat objections to kill anything. Of course, there are a number of so-called 'blue-dog' democrats in Congress at the moment, so I don't think anything radical will pass, but the point is the Dems have the numbers to pass anything they can agree on at the moment.

We need to preserve the private industry, if only to make sure any public option has to actually stay competitive (and thus efficient). At the same time, we need some regulation on the private industry to ensure fair business practices. I'm concerned we'll end up with either far too much regulation or a public option that's too expensive and/or mismanaged to maintain. We'll see what we end up with, though.

 

The Dems have the numbers for a vote, but there are enough Republicans to "keep them honest", for the lack of a better term. As the process of Healthcare Reform is sorted out by Congress, we can definitely rely on the minority to let the public, via the media, know about what the changes are before Congress votes them through. If the changes are insanely biased toward Governmental control, the people will be able to speak out against it.

 

OK, so that's something completely different than what you were previously suggesting:

So now I'm not sure what your point is. Personally, I didn't think the point had much of anything to do with health care reform, but I was just trying my best to follow along with where you were going with this.

The point is, whether it's a government option or a private option, all those "big mouths" out there (and I don't mean anyone on this board), better think about shutting them and getting off their butts and start doing something, because the system is about to go bankrupt. That's what's at the root of this debate despite all the useless chatter about death panels, Nazis and socialism. I believe a public option will prevent an economic trainwreck. But if I was Obama, I would NOT pass a bad plan just to "save face." Because when the trainwreck comes, those who didn't try to prevent it will be, as typical, pointing at the "bad reform" as what caused the problem, rather than taking the blame themselves for preventing it. It's high time Obama got some "backbone" in him.

 

Blades, what do you think is happening now? Of course, things are being blown out of proportion, but for each claim there's a legitimate basis that people may legitimately object to. So far, it's had at least a little effect.

Chandos, the public system is going bankrupt, with nothing in the current budget to continue to fund it (and projected costs exploding beyond control in the future). The private system is a matter of much debate, but I don't think it's half as bad as some people claim (nor half as good as others). My point is that the government can easily make things worse rather than better, and that people should pay close attention to what the government is trying to do.

 

...And so who's going to pay? The seniors themselves? their families? the employers? the insurance companies? You've already acknowledged that costs are "exploding," by your own admission. So, explain to me, who is going to pay these exploding costs?

Please don't bother to say this again. Really, 108 times is enough. And I can only acknowledge the same comment so many times. There's no need to keep repeating what we all agree on.

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but it is only the public system that is broken and going bankrupt. The insurance companies seem to be doing just fine. Simple logic would tell you that if a public option is made available and is cheaper then what the insurance companies offer the insurance companies will disappear as very few consumers are willing to spend more then they have to. So then we have everyone on a public system that is going bankrupt with no foreseeable way to pay for itself. I see this as a problem.

 

TGS - The reason Medicare is going broke is because of the rising cost of care and the amount of people who are about to retire (baby boomers). Thusly, the system is going to overload in the next 5-7 years with seniors. I find your comments strange - the insurance companies seem to be "doing just fine." I have to take that to mean that all the seniors from Medicare are going to go onto private insurance? Is that what you are suggesting? Do you have any idea what the cost for care is for an elderly person on private insurance?

Of course, many of these seniors have health conditions already, thusly, the private insurers won't take them because they have pre-existing conditions. Again, I'm not interested in how the insurance companies are doing (eveyone knows they are doing fine, because they are charging everyone out the kazoo), but I'm wondering what your solution is for all those millions of people who are retring in the next few years, who are going to overload Medicare.

 

Interview with a Secret Service agent who doesn't think that bringing weapons to presidential events is a very wise idea. In fact he calls it a foolish stunt that is potentially dangerous. Surprise!

​

He also, and that is quite satisfactory to me, implicitly confirms my research here that the Secret Service could under § 1752(a)(1)(ii) of Title 18 of the United States Code simply expand the security perimeter and - state permit, state shmermit, and most certainly irrespective of how calm the armed persons in question are - arrest anyone met inside with a firearm and have prosecutors charge them with violating federal law, that is, violating the security zone around the president. That very clearly means this: That those armed nut cases weren't arrested is not because they weren't potentially dangerous, but because they Secret Service had decided consciously to not be as heavy handed as they could be (and have been under Bush). That might change.

If that irresponsible 'bring guns to the president' nonsense continues, the threshold for police and federal intervention will sink, and we will perhaps see armed people getting tasered, manhandled and disarmed, which in the context of pistols or assault rifles in crowds might become messy. There are other ways to deal with armed men in crowds, namely snipers, that are also likely to be employed as a precaution, and that will be even messier. All of that won't look pretty.

Of course, a right wing nutter worth his gunpowder it will read that as an obvious sign of Obama being a tyrant, just as he happily overlooked it when they arrested Democrat protesters for 'no blood for oil' signs. For escalation, thank the GOP ...

​

... and their assorted freelance pundits. Obviously they, very cynically, want to make it more difficult for Obama to deal with their opposition to health care (and about anything else), by mixing the issue(s) with the gun rights debate, a traditional GOP wedge issue that is rather reliable to mobilise the gun rights wing of the party base.

And on a more general note on the insanity of bringing weapons to a public protest:

• You are not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theatre, because there are inherent limits (hint: public safety and the health and rights of others) to the first amendment that guarantees free speech. Common sense suggests as much.
• But you are allowed to bring your AR15 to a presidential event, because unlike the first the second amendment is different and not bound to any inherent limitations (like, say: public safety and the health and rights of others)? Is that so?

That outcome doesn't sound reasonable to me.

 

The same costs that are going up are also going up for the insurance companies so it isn't only a medicare issue, and yet the insurance companies continue to make profits. Does Medicare need fixing? The answer is yes. Do I know what the solution is? No. However, I'm pretty sure adding on millions of people who currently have health insurance through their employers is not the answer to fixing medicare.

Make no mistake, if there is a cheaper public option businesses will drop the insurance companies so fast your head will spin.

 

Ragusa,

Good post overall, but it should be pointed out that there ARE limitations on second amendment rights. You cannot go anywhere you'd like with your gun. For example, there are no firearms allowed in schools or courthouses. Heck, I work on an army bases and you are NOT allowed to bring a personal firearm onto the base*. That's right - there are probably thousands of assault rifles on the base, but you cannot bring your handgun from home, even if you have a concealed carry weapon permit. The safety perimeter established around the president is another such limitation.

*There is one exception to this. There is a remote area of the base where they allow hunting during deer season. You are allowed to bring a hunting rifle(s) onto the base provided you keep it in the trunk of your car during transport, and use them in that designated area. You cannot, however, carry a gun in a holster regardless of whether it's hunting season or not, nor can you bring a firearm of any type onto the grounds if it isn't hunting season.

If the public option is cheaper than what you are paying to be on your company's health plan, that might not be such a bad thing. I get my paycheck every two weeks, and a little over $200 comes out of it to be on better of two of the company's offered health care plans. (I'm actually one of the few people who actually have a choice of health plans that my company offers. The cheaper one offers less coverage but is still pretty popular among young, single workers who aren't likely to need much in the way of health care.)

Here's the thing though: Is the public option going to be that much cheaper? I certainly cannot purchase coverage for my entire family from any private insurer for $400 per month. In fact, even if you consider that my employer is paying half of those costs, I doubt I could cover my family for $800 per month. Do you really think the public option would be that much cheaper?

And here's another question: If the public option is cheaper, would that preclude a business of offering the public option as the company's medical plan? I could see a system where you enroll just as you enroll onto a company's medical plan today, and they would pay a portion of the costs of the public plan, and you would pick up the difference.

 

Well, yes it is. Medicare insures most of the old people that are far more cost intensive than younger or middle-aged people. That's what people mean when they say that insurance companies now "cherry pick" their customers. They don't really like to take people who hurt their profits. If you happen to be young or middle-aged and get sick, insurance companies will find a way to drop you, as you may have been hearing from some people at the town hall meetings.

 

I may be coming from a different experience then you. I don't believe I've ever met someone who didn't have insurance through their work. Therefore, they are a part of a group plan and the insurance companies don't get to "cherry pick". In my office we have around 200 people. I would classify maybe 10% of them are over 55 and presumably use much more insurance then our under 30 crowd. However, I don't believe the HMO has any ability to say that the "expensive 10%" isn't covered anymore. I'm sure this is one of the reasons that nobody retires until they are eligible for medicare.

I agree that if some random old person tried to get health insurance, they probably wouldn't be able to as the insurance company wouldn't want them. However, if they have a job, the insurance company has no choice.

 

TGS - Yes, that 10 percent, that may become very ill, is what you are mostly paying for. For instance, I pay $5000.00 a year for my portion of health inurance; my employer pays $8000.00 for my family. That's $13,000.00 a year that we pay between the two of us to the insurance companies. When was the last time that I used $13,000.00 a year for insurance? The answer would be never, not even close. But someone who suffers a major illness, would certainlly use that amount, given the high cost.

This is what's happening to Medicare: The amount of workers who are paying into the system is dropping, and the amount of people using it, is going up (because of the baby boomer generation that is retiring). That means Medicare will go bankrupt unless it is funded.

 

I agree with you on both counts. The first is the way insurance works. Do you share the same amount of outrage for car insurance and life insurance? I haven't been in an accident for years (knock on virtual wood) and I'm fairly certain I haven't died yet. The fact that I'm spending more then getting back is the way insurance works.

Yes, Medicare is in big trouble, but like I said before, I just don't see how adding millions of additional people to Medicare will fix the problem. I see it just compounding the problem.

 

No arguement there.

Here's the problem. You assume that protestors who previously obeyed the law and did not violate any security perimeter would change that behavior if that perimeter were expanded. Unless the SS decides to expand their perimeter without telling anyone, without moving crowds, and without any attempt to actually enforce that new perimeter short of arresting anyone inside the new perimeter (essentially, arresting the entire 10 ft or so of the crowd), I don't expect the situation to change any. Any reasonable attempt to secure the safety of the President will likely be met with reasonable compliance by the vast majority of protestors, armed or not, and only those who actually break a security perimeter should be arrested for it.

Here's the problem. You appear to assume that the entire crowd would be caught in this new security perimeter. That would only be evidence of the complete BS and, dare I say it, abuse of power by the SS in the form of changing the law (in this case their established security perimeter) without notifying anyone. It'd be as if you were driving down the road, at the posted speed limit, and were pulled over by a cop for speeding because the City had just changed that speed limit to 15 mph lower, only they didn't change the signs or tell anyone.

Actually, no. You are not allowed to yell Fire in a crowded theater because it's an immediate and obvious threat to the safety of everyone in the theater. The proper analogy would not be to bringing a firearm to a meeting, but rather to waving it madly in the air. Incidentally, waving a firearm madly in the air is illegal, its called brandishing a firearm.

The first and second amendments are both subject to restrictions, but they take different forms. You can't bring a firearm onto school grounds. You can't wave it madly in the air on a public street. You can't bring it into many state and federal buildings. You can't bring it into a security perimeter established by the SS to protect the President.

Ragusa, from all your ranting, it appears to me that your issue isn't with the law, but solely with people carrying guns in public. Let me remind you that this is entirely legal in the US. Your words seem to indicate you want people arrested for not breaking the law. Their actions may be stupid, yes, but they're also legal. I'm not even talking about rights any more, just the actual law. The law says they can carry their firearms to such events, so long as they do not bring them within any security perimeters, they don't brandish them, and they don't conceal them unless they have a concealed carry permit.

As for the actual healthcare debate, I think the question that needs to be answered is WHY costs are ballooning. It isn't doctor pay, since many other nations have similar pay. It isn't the insurance companies gouging people, since Medicare is facing problems, too. Why are costs going so high? Identify and fix that and you'll fix the biggest problem with the system.

 

Because all those people will be paying the government instead of the insurance companies. This is the crux of the argument. Two things:

The government adminstrative costs are 5 percent vs 20 percent for the insurance companies, and second, the government is not a "for profit" business. Thusly, the "claim" is that a government insurance program would be highly competetive in the health insurance market and actually would be cheaper.

That said, should people really trust the government to deliver on this? Many don't trust the government, as in evidence even on this board and some of those at the town hall meetings. But there are a lot of people who don't trust the insurance companies either, and a large portion of those have already had bad experiences with their insurance companies and would like a different option. So that is what's at the center of the argument.

Keep one thing in mind: you will be hearing a lot about co-ops for those who don't have insurance atm. That's 47 million potential new customers for the insurance companies. That's a lot of gravy, which is why the insurance companies are pushing the private co-op option. If Dems do switch from a public option, to a co-op, look for just about all the insurance companies to suddenly get behind the push for health care reform.

Oh, and a part of that co-op will be that all Americans may be required to buy health insurance, just like they do for car insurance. There is nothing in business like a captured client base, espeically when the law of the land is doing the "capturing" for them.