Universal Healthcare

Remove all ads!

Perhaps you can explain this to me so that it makes sense: The government gives taxpayer money to ATT for benefits towards employees who retire. Is that true?

These employees no longer work at ATT, but they get a "benefit" from ATT, which is not entirely from ATT, but in part paid for from the government - outside of what that retired person would receive from Medicare. If the worker is 65 he/she would qualify for benefits directly from the government. Is that true? Am I missing anything here?

It makes more sense to me that it would be easier just to get these benefits directly to people from the government in the first place. Of course, I suspect that many who are impacted at these corporations are retiring before 65, so they can't get Medicare benefits. That means that those of us who are still working are really paying for someone else to retire early just because they work for a corporation. Isn't that sweet for them?

Well, yes of course. That is something that everyone knew from the start, that dropping restrictions would cost more.

Before, health care was rationed by the client's employer or insurance company. That changed to some extent with the new laws. Lifetime caps went away.

So maybe you can explain to me, Snook, why I am paying for the health care of ATT and other corporate employees?

I wanted to provide an update on a person I know who I've mentioned before. The person was suffering from cancer and was treated by a local hospital. She underwent the surgery, which went very well. But afterwards, developed some sort of infection. During this time that person was out of work because how serious the disease was - I think about 2 months. The hospital kept her for several weeks after she was feeling better, but still undergoing treatment.

Suddenly, she was informed that she would have to leave the hospital immedaitely because her employer benefit cap had been reached. The hospital essentially threw her out onto the street after sucking up all her benefits. Isn't this a "lovely" system?

The problem was that she was still under the Kemo treatments. She still had benefits for the medicine, but no hospital care left. So the hospital told her that she could come and pickup her kemo and take it home a administer it herself (they would not even give her the shots). How thoughtful.

With the help of her family, she was able to do this, but the reaction to the kemo made her ill, so she continued to stay home and miss work. Fortunately, I know her boss as well, who had shown her the consideration during her illness that our "world class" health care system failed to give her. Her employer contacted the insurance company to see if there was anything that could be done to get her some help. To that, the insurance company informed them that the patient still had some coverage left, and that the hospital must have been "mistaken."

That turned out to be true, because low and behold, the hospital soon called her and asked her to return promptly so that she could receive the "proper" care that she needed to return to normal. She was able to finish her treatment at the hospital and is now doing well and back at work (although on the verge of bankruptcy, despite the over one million dollars already paid by the insurance company).

BTW, I asked my own doctor about health care reform, and it turns out that I will be losing him and that he is moving to another city. He said:

"All I can say is that I no longer wish to work for a large provider. Because of health care reform they are making changes, but they are using health care reform as a scapegoat to get what they want."

But maybe I just have a liberal, socialist doctor.

I don't remember this debate, since I was ill and had to post less during this time (I've since had a change in meds).

1. I'm sarcastic about pretty much everything.

2. I don't support the mandate, so I could not care less if it was removed.

3. I do support an expansion of Medicare - for anyone who needs or wants it.

4. Yes, I'm for a government takeover of health care.

5. As far as my "sarcasim" is concerned, mind you, I really just don't give a damn what you think of it, NOG. But maybe I'm just being sarcasitic again. Sometimes I'm serious, and sometimes I'm not (really). Go figure.

 

I can try, but without fully understanding the details I can only guess.

From Wikipedia

I have to assume that Medicare decided that it would be easier to allow corporations that already had their retirees on a prescription plan to keep it and just subsidize it rather then having the corporation dissolve the plan and then sending the subsidy to an insurance company. I don't see anything nefarious about this, it actually probably makes good sense to do it this way as these big companies probably had better plans.

I think the money quote from the article I spoilered is

Aren't you dying to know if the CBO has calculated the cost of this bill once the corporations start dropping coverage and "Let the governement handle it"?

As to the person you posted about, I'm sorry to hear about it. Mistakes happen, and this one seemed like a big one. I don't know why you (or anyone else) assumes the government will do a better job. Maybe I'm the foolish one, but I don't believe the government will run health as a "blank check" for everyone to do what they want.

As to your doctor, I'm sure there is a lot more to the story that he didn't tell you. I have a lot of physicians for clients and they all universally agree that Medicare/Medicaid patients are the worst patients to have as the reimbursement for services is the lowest and the slowest. If any physician thinks that once health care reform drives the private insurers out of business (and it will, see a couple of paragraphs up) and we go to a "single payer", that the reimbursements will go up they need to be reported to their medical board.

 

So....

Documents reveal AT&T, Verizon, others, thought about dropping employer-sponsored benefits

That's not good.

 

So what?

This is why we wanted a public option. Now that corporations are having to pony up their share, they are doing exactly what some of us thought, which is dropping their employees (or at least making noise about it). This is typical of how they operate. I would take away all their government welfare they are now receiving and give it straight to the employees they are trying to screw. Let them try to get by without all those government hand-outs.

From your article:

 

Yeah, but if they do that, all the employees will be on the government plan, which will skyrocket gov't costs for healthcare. Didn't we do all this to lower cost? And wasn't Obama's idea that it would especially lower government spending? Fat chance of that happening now. I agree with the article that this would be good for employers and employees alike, but it'll be bad, really bad, for the government.

 

I don't think we have enough information to make that determination. As for all types of insurance, some people pay more than they receive in benefits, and others receive more in benefits than they pay into the system. The only way we could determine that lumping a given group of employees onto a government health care plan would cause costs to skyrocket was if we had a means of determining that a good chunk of these people would require more health care than they pay towards receiving health care.

To use myself as an example, every year I have been employed I have paid more into the system than I received in benefits except 2007 - which was the year my son was born. Overall, I'd say I have definitely paid more than I have received.

So you might be entirely correct - it's just that there's nothing I saw in the article that allows that conclusion to be drawn from the data given.

 

Here's the problem: they wouldn't be on a government healthcare plan. They'd be on a government subsidized regular plan bought through an exchange. The government would pay something like 30% of the premium every month. Now, sure, people in better health will probably get better premiums, but the government is still paying.

 

The subsidies the government was paying was to their former employer. I do not know if the government would pass that subsidy onto the individuals once they get on a government plan. The current health care bill, as it is currently written, only provides subsidies to people of certain incomes. For example, to be eligible for a subsidy, a family of four would have to earn less than $54,000 per year.

Certainly, some of the people working for AT&T, Verizon, et al, make less than that. Fresh hires out of college likely do, and certainly the cleaning staff, janitors, and the like. But the subsidies are based on household income, and there may very well be a second income in those families. So I don't think it's fair to say that the government would be subsidizing all those workers - in fact, I think the subsidies would be to minority of them.

 

The biggest problem isn't a mandate to buy insurance which is probably not legal. However, it is ironic that the first black president flagrantly violates the 13th amendment. The problems with the system that was passed are more than just political or philosophical; they are economic.

There are three major problems with the system.

The first big problem is that insurance premiums will skyrocket as Congress has intentionally refused to address drug costs, tort reform or anything else that would reduce the price of health care. This will have very damaging effects on the economy as it will reduce consumer spending and increase debt.

The second problem is "free" health care for the poor, whom will abuse it by seeking treatment for minor things that typically would not require a doctor's visit. Many nations that have universal health care do NOT offer it for free, instead it is at a very low price to eliminate this behavior. Also those nation's people are more responsible than many Americans about using such services.

The third problem is Medicaid. To save all these billions, the program uses Medicaid, not Medicare. This makes the FEDERAL budget look great, but shifts the financial burden to the states, whom are already cash-strapped. The problem is Medicaid is famous for taking up to two years to pay doctors, in addition to loads of bureaucracy and strong limits on what services doctors can provide. This will require ALL states to increase taxation, further harming the economy by effectively reducing incomes.

Universal health care is a great thing, if it is done properly. The way it is to be done in America suggests that either the Democrat party is completely incompetent AND closed minded as they have taken action to stop bills to lessen the damage done to the economy, that the Democrat party is a very competent enemy of the United States and is intentionally trying to harm the American economy by crushing the states with health care costs and choking retail by diverting people's money into taxes and insurance costs, or that the Democrats wish to force the entire nation into poverty so they can "represent" them and control them via government handouts.

The Democrat party's preferred method of creating poverty is "shadow taxes", increasing end taxes, such as those on fuel and cigarettes, and various "required" fees, such as licenses, fines, etc. as these are easy to slip into bills and the people tolerate it. The last would be consistent with their normal means of keeping the poor down and requiring "hope and change".

 

The 13th amendment abolished slavery. What does this have to do with healthcare?

The CBO looked at version of the bill with tort reform. In addition to enforement issues, the CBO estimated that sweeping tort reform would reduce premieums by 0.5%. So technically you are correct, it WOULD reduce costs, but only marginally. I agree that it did nothing to big pharma companies. It was more health care insurance reform than health care reform.

I would think, even if the service was free, that most people have better things to do with their time than wait in line at a doctor's office (or an ER!) for very minor ailments.

Well, both Medicare and Medicaid need serious reform - but that's been true for about 20 years now.

 

Tort reform would have been meaningless. It's nothing more than a Republican talking point. Unfortunatley, Obama cut a deal with big pharma, so you are right, there was nothing done on drug prices.

I can certainly agree with that.

That was already happening for a lot of people anyway - even before reform started.

The Dems are only partly incompetent, but the other party is pretty much "completely" incompetent. Unless you believe that problem solving consists of just basically saying, "Hell no."

Actually, it was the opposite. They rehashed a bunch of old Republican ideas on health care (such as mandates), in the false belief that some Republicans would support it.

I can't wait for you to explain that, if you can.

Is that what you mean by "competent enemy?" I guess those stimulus checks all those same states received should have been much fatter....

95 percent of the population received a tax CUT in Obama's first year. I guess you must have missed that.

It was the health care industry, including the insurance companies, that have been "diverting" people's money away from consumer spending (retail) to a much larger degree. Many people were paying far more in premiums to insurance companies than they were paying in federal income tax.

Well, it certainly hasn't worked with all those handouts they have given to corporate America. Instead, it controls them. However, all those government handouts to private companies (along with all those fat government contracts) helps to keep them elected, so I guess they have some sense of what they are doing.

Actually, here in Texas it was the Republicans who dumped huge increases on the public with local taxes, especially cigarette taxes.

Sounds as if you believe we have only had a "one party" system the last 100 years or so....

 

One of my favorite bloggers refers to the two parties as "The evil party" and "The stupid party". I've always thought that was very appropriate as it works no matter which side of the aisle you are on.

 

Depends on which party is which, generally speaking I have rarely seen the Republicans as particularly stupid more as evil and cynic while the democrats really comes off quite stupidly very often.

 

Yeah, I have to disagree with Chandos on that point. The Dems are the wholely incompetent ones and the Reps are the half-way competent ones. It's just a matter of what they're competent at.

All hail the third party candidate. Maybe they can add sleepy in there.

 

The only difference between the Republicans and Democrats is the gender of the person they get caught with....

 

Republicans are smart, not competent (drill baby, drill, or Katrina). There is a difference. Republicans believe that government IS incompetent as a matter of fundamental, political belief, and they like to prove it as often as they can....

 

Obama's largest contributor group was lawyers, like himself, who make big cash off malpractice suits. A large part of the doctor's expenses is malpractice insurance.

A mandate that requires people to purchase a product from a private party would most likely violate the 13th Amendment. The only exemption (other than as punishment for a crime as stated within the text of the Amendment) that has been allowed so far has been conscription for either jury duty or military service, both of which are compensated (albeit poorly for jury duty), temporary, and to fill a government function.

The fact that the Democrat party consistently refused to accept any Republican input into the bill would indicate closed minded. During the debate for the House vote, Jesse Jackson Jr. and a Rep. from Colorado, acting as Speakers, did their best to ensure Republicans can not get a straight answer that the House version they were going to vote on was in fact the Senate version. The House disapproved of some of the language dealing with abortion in the Senate version and the Slaughter was trying to trick the House into voting on it by claiming a second bill would be voted on after it passed to patch it. Jackson refused to keep the House in order while Republicans were speaking, refused to refund time as required when the House becomes out of order while someone is speaking, and dodged numerous questions as to the legality of the bill.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the stimulus) was nothing more than a truckload of Democrat pet projects and some line about it being what FDR did. Most of the jobs created were unskilled temporary jobs in construction. The roads they resurfaced here in Illinois are actually worse since the materials allow water to stagnate and freeze during winter. The major difference was that the ARRA was a litany of pet projects (a building dedicated to Ted Kennedy, a Maglev train from Vegas to Disneyland, or a fish hatchery for Pelosi's favorite fish) and it was reliant on the economy to create jobs during a time when job loss was the norm (whereas FDR"s CCC directly hired the people and they worked for the government).

Democrats do use government handouts to control the population. As long as they are in office, the welfare programs are safe and those who depend on them are leashed to them with arcane provisions that make it impossible to get off them. One such provision bars college students from getting food stamps in Illinois unless they work 20+ hrs/wk and have a form signed by their employer guaranteeing such, something that will not happen at a part time job. Obama changed the TARP regulations to give him more control over banks, many banks have accelerated TARP repayment to avoid such control. GM is another example, the sales of its marques and the development of the Volt, a Democrat pet project, and a completely unwanted vehicle due to it's price. The Toyota recalls received more than normal Congressional attention, of course Toyota beat GM for #1 car-maker in the world and has no union locations due to good treatment of labor.

The idea that the Democrats are an enemy is due to the actions being consistent with a person who wishes to destroy America from within.

The Medicare is an unfunded mandate, except Nebraska, which was a deal done to get the Jr. Senator to vote for the bill.

 

Ah yes, the enemy within ... who wants to control the population through socialism ... in brief: The Liberals ... the Democrats. Riiight. And consistently refuse Republican input as in adding 161 amendments and key GOP planks while soft-pedaling the public option. And that just for starters. This will be fun.

Welcome

 

No, actually it isn't. It is only a small percentage of health care cost. In Texas the law makers helped out the insurance companies by limiting patient rights, and guess what? My premiums did not go down. Are you surprised? Also, can you provide the data that shows that lawyers are his biggest contributors? I have not seen that data.

I'm not buying that. Republicans cut themselves out of the picture once they knew they could not stop reform.

Neither did the Democrats in the House, many of whom opposed the Senate bill. You don't bother to mention that many Democrats in the House opposed the insurance mandate. The mandate was just a give away to the big insurance companies.

Forcing a woman to be a breeder is a violation of the 13th Amendment - forced involuntary servitude by class of citizen.

As for your other points, you can find numerous threads we have already had on welfare, corporate welfare, abortion, the bailouts, Obama the Marxist, which party sucks the most, etc. Feel free to activate them...and you can craft some new ones if that would be easier for you.

 

1st off, regulation is not "control" and it is not "Obama's", it's much needed regulation by the US government because of abuse of the system by the banks to try and fill their own pockets at the expense of the nation. If McCain was elected, do you really think some sort of Regulation wouldn't of been implemented to stop the banks? They are out of control, hence the whole economic meltdown. I guess that is the fault of the Dems as well, not Bush's administration and their spending sprees?

I think you just made Ragusa's day with that post BTW....