Page 4 of 143 FirstFirst 1234567891454104 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 2855
  1. anthillmob's Avatar
    Posts
    8 Posts
    Global Posts
    11 Global Posts
    #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    So this is about wage envy?
    Close.... it is about the socialist ideal...... that it is better to have somebody do a poor job out of the "goodness" of their heart than to have the best person do a superior job for money. Have a guess which I would prefer when it comes to my health?
  2. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    This mentality is what differentiates citizens of the USA from many/most democratic industrialized countries. As such, the USA has the system it does.
    You're absolutely correct. The fact that our system is based on individual rights (and states rights) DOES differentiate us from many/most democratic industrialized countries.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  3. #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by zhackwyatt View Post
    The idea isn't criminal. Its about personal accountability.
    So you would like to privatize fire fighters? Maybe by KBR? They come out to your burning house with a bill to be pre-paid before they turn on their hoses, cause it is all about personal accountability.

  4. anthillmob's Avatar
    Posts
    8 Posts
    Global Posts
    11 Global Posts
    #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Why not have the choice?
    The point is that you don't end up with a choice. The state will basically undercut the private sector using vast amount of taxpayers money. Totally inefficient, but to the "it doesn't matter how much it costs in taxpayer money, as long as it seems cheap to me" brigade it is very appealing. Is it sustainable? Ask France, UK, Germany etc. The answer is no. But in the short term, it can seem appealing.
  5. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Why not have the choice?
    He told you why the choice doesn't work. It becomes the "only" choice, eventually.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  6. Jaer57's Avatar
    Posts
    160 Posts
    Global Posts
    165 Global Posts
    #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Why not have the choice?
    I think it's rather unrealistic to think choice will still exist after the implementation of a government system. Why would employers subsidize private health care options when they can just let the government take over. Then why would people pay unsubsidized rates to private insurance when they can get the "free" government healthcare?

    I'm sure private insurance will coexist for a while, but a government system will run them out of business for the majority of us who aren't wealthy, and then we will all be left with one choice.

    Healthcare is already a huge cost to employers. Many would jump at the chance to dump these costs. Of course, the taxation that will follow government healthcare will just replace the healthcare costs to these businesses' balance sheets. No viable business that employs people makes under $250k a year, so it's already a known that your employer is going to see a tax hike. Let's just hope they don't solve the tax hike by ending your employment!
    Current device: Palm Pre
    Former devices: Treo 755p, Treo 650
  7. #67  
    Quote Originally Posted by anthillmob View Post
    The point is that you don't end up with a choice. The state will basically undercut the private sector using vast amount of taxpayers money. Totally inefficient, but to the "it doesn't matter how much it costs in taxpayer money, as long as it seems cheap to me" brigade it is very appealing. Is it sustainable? Ask France, UK, Germany etc. The answer is no. But in the short term, it can seem appealing.
    You're telling me the private sector can't compete?!?!?

    So to provide the most essential of base human needs, healthcare, I can either pay into a private less efficient system in which parasites sit between me and my healthcare scraping off money for themselves or I can go with a gov't run system which is more efficient and lowers overall healthcare costs?

    Hmmmmmmm.

    No wonder every other industrialized democracy on the planet does it the smart way.
  8. #68  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    You're absolutely correct. The fact that our system is based on individual rights (and states rights) DOES differentiate us from many/most democratic industrialized countries.
    And thus the American system is the way it is. Individual rights are considered more important than the collective health/well being/condition of the society as a whole. I'm not saying that's wrong, just not the way I would choose it to be.

    Clearly the majority of the populations feels okay with the direction of health care over the last 100 years or we would have not arrived at this point.
  9. #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I work for one of these evil healthcare insurance companies. It's not for profit. I can assure you that this company takes the health of its customers as it's number one priority.

    And yes, I'm serious. As for your seeing and hearing "stories about how people are denied coverage", it's nothing compared to the denials that will come once the government is deciding what's best for an entire country.
    Here's an interesting article regarding health care management testifying before Congress this week:

    Commentary: Health care outrage goes uncovered - CNN.com

    One telling exerpt:

    "Peggy Raddatz, whose brother Otto Raddatz lost his insurance coverage right before he was scheduled to receive an expensive stem-cell transplant to treat his lymphoma. Why? Because Fortis Insurance Company discovered his doctor had found gall stones and an aneurysm on a CT scan -- conditions that had nothing to do with his cancer, that never bothered him and that he wasn't even aware of. And Jennifer Wittney Horton of Los Angeles, California, whose coverage was canceled because she had been taking a drug for irregular menstruation. Now, she can't get coverage anywhere else. 'Since my rescission, I have had to take jobs that I do not want, and put my career goals on hold to ensure that I can find health insurance,' she told the subcommittee.

    "The subcommittee's chairman, Democrat Bart Stupak of Michigan, called the hearing to highlight the obnoxious and unethical practice called rescission. His researchers produced performance reviews of insurance company bureaucrats who were praised and rewarded for kicking people off their coverage.

    "Then Stupak asked three health insurance executives the big question: Will your company pledge to end the practice of rescission except in cases of intentional fraud?

    "All three health insurance executives said no."
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  10. #70  
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaer57 View Post
    I think it's rather unrealistic to think choice will still exist after the implementation of a government system. Why would employers subsidize private health care options when they can just let the government take over. Then why would people pay unsubsidized rates to private insurance when they can get the "free" government healthcare?

    I'm sure private insurance will coexist for a while, but a government system will run them out of business for the majority of us who aren't wealthy, and then we will all be left with one choice.

    Healthcare is already a huge cost to employers. Many would jump at the chance to dump these costs. Of course, the taxation that will follow government healthcare will just replace the healthcare costs to these businesses' balance sheets. No viable business that employs people makes under $250k a year, so it's already a known that your employer is going to see a tax hike. Let's just hope they don't solve the tax hike by ending your employment!
    Regardless of a gov't run plan or not, the time is well here to start taxing employee health benefits for what they are, part of their income.

    To not do so is a sort of back-door gov't fund assisted healthcare program, no?
  11. #71  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    So this is about wage envy?
    Nope. The CEO of any company is entitled to make as much as he/she can get their hands on. What I'm saying is don't try and feed me a line about how much your caring, altruistic, put people first, non profit is when there are people within it making millions of dollars .

    And on an other note....what is with Firefox spell check insisting that Healthcare is two words??
  12. #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Here's an interesting article regarding health care management testifying before Congress this week:

    Commentary: Health care outrage goes uncovered - CNN.com
    Good information. I would also like to point to the following FrontLine episode, Sick Around America . What nearly made me cry was the Insurance Company Executives who can no longer get coverage due to "pre-existing" conditions.
  13. anthillmob's Avatar
    Posts
    8 Posts
    Global Posts
    11 Global Posts
    #73  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    You're telling me the private sector can't compete?!?!?

    So to provide the most essential of base human needs, healthcare, I can either pay into a private less efficient system in which parasites sit between me and my healthcare scraping off money for themselves or I can go with a gov't run system which is more efficient and lowers overall healthcare costs?

    Hmmmmmmm.

    No wonder every other industrialized democracy on the planet does it the smart way.
    "You're telling me the private sector can't compete?!?!?"

    With a government that has forced access to the assets of every individual in the richest country in the world (i.e. you and me)? Of course not, talk sense.

    Your choices are as follows. You can either pay into a MORE efficient private system which provides a significantly higher level of patient care or you can opt for an hugely inefficient state run system where you don't as readily see the cost (but it is there) and you have to settle for a lower level of care.

    Finally: When it comes to my healthcare, my priorties are the quality and the cost. Note, not just the cost to me. I don't expect others to take responsibility for me, although I believe strongly in helping others. So do I care if somebody makes large amounts of money providing a good service at a reasonable price? No! And I certainly don't want to pay more so that somebodies can make lots of money providing me with poor service!
  14. Jaer57's Avatar
    Posts
    160 Posts
    Global Posts
    165 Global Posts
    #74  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    You're telling me the private sector can't compete?!?!?

    So to provide the most essential of base human needs, healthcare, I can either pay into a private less efficient system in which parasites sit between me and my healthcare scraping off money for themselves or I can go with a gov't run system which is more efficient and lowers overall healthcare costs?

    Hmmmmmmm.

    No wonder every other industrialized democracy on the planet does it the smart way.
    I admire your passion, but you're leaving out that private insurance plans are almost always subsidized by an employer. Taxes are going to increase for employers to pay for government healthcare, and the availability of a government healthcare plan will motivate these companies to dump those costs.

    No matter what we do, if we reduce costs we will pay for it somewhere else. Whether it is in a loss of quality or quantity, the cost will come from somewhere. Other countries certainly have better healthcare systems for the collective, sure, but they do pay for it by other means, whether it is rationing, waiting, or reduced malpractice options. I am in favor of well though-out, tested, and proved government intervention, but not this take it our leave it method, nor at this magnitude and speed. I'd love to see individual states tackle these issues, and see what works and what doesn't. We've already seen California and Massachusetts fail miserably in this regard.

    We're looking at this from a yes/no, my way/your way, polarizing point of view, and I blame the partisan nature of our political system for that, but the answer to this complex issue is going to be smart people in the industry; practitioners, administrators, and patients, figuring this out. I don't assume those in DC will solve this. I also don't want to see them implement a system that they don't even have mapped out yet outside of happy rhetoric. I would love to see it reviewed by the industry, MBA's, and financial experts and hear what they have to say. Something so big that it will effect everyone of us is too important to just assume it will work.

    What happened to Obama's promise of allowing the voters to review legislation for 5 days before it's passed? When can I review this legislation? The sad reality is that like all politicians before him, they tell us what we want to hear and then implement their agenda. Change was a nice slogan; sad to see it was only that.
    Current device: Palm Pre
    Former devices: Treo 755p, Treo 650
  15. #75  
    Quote Originally Posted by anthillmob View Post
    The point is that you don't end up with a choice. The state will basically undercut the private sector using vast amount of taxpayers money.
    Germany, Sweden, and France are examples in which public insurance exists and has not replaced or forced out private insurance. That argument is simply a scare tactic with no basis in fact. Conservatives always argue that competition is a good thing.

    Ask France, UK, Germany etc. The answer is no. But in the short term, it can seem appealing.
    65% of French citizens are satisfied with their health care, as compared to 40% of Americans: The French Lesson In Health Care

    55% of Canadians are satisfied: http://www.who.int/patientsafety/news/2006_hcic.pdf

    66% of Germans were satisfied: Health Care in France and Germany

    So, if you ask them, you get far better responses than you get here. Just because it's American, doesn't by definition make it the best.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  16. #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    the time is well here to start taxing employee health benefits for what they are, part of their income.
    I can tell you that some people living in the USA already are paying tax on all parts of a healthcare plan.

    My wife and I are non resident legal aliens. Her health plan from Washington University in STL is fully taxed. Both the part we pay and the part the university pays. I think this is changing when she starts as an attending in the fall but for the last 2 years we have been paying tax on aprox 12k of heath benefits every year.

    If some of that money went to help the many poor impoverished people in this city obtain proper healthcare that will only improve the community.
  17. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    "All three health insurance executives said no."
    Again, I'm not interested in playing who can post the most links with you. Begala is just a wee bit biased.... you don't think those quotes were picked for a political reason, do ya?

    How would the government's plan be any different, or more humane, Bujin? It won't. I know that because its from the Presidents mouth. Please go back to the first posting in this thread for verification.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  18. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #78  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    Nope. The CEO of any company is entitled to make as much as he/she can get their hands on. What I'm saying is don't try and feed me a line about how much your caring, altruistic, put people first, non profit is when there are people within it making millions of dollars .
    Ain't capitalism grand? I do love it so! All those rich greedy uncaring for the little people CEOs!
    And on an other note....what is with Firefox spell check insisting that Healthcare is two words??
    Lol. I dunno. As you can probably tell, I never speel check!
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  19. #79  
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaer57 View Post
    I admire your passion, but you're leaving out that private insurance plans are almost always subsidized by an employer. Taxes are going to increase for employers to pay for government healthcare, and the availability of a government healthcare plan will motivate these companies to dump those costs.

    No matter what we do, if we reduce costs we will pay for it somewhere else. Whether it is in a loss of quality or quantity, the cost will come from somewhere. Other countries certainly have better healthcare systems for the collective, sure, but they do pay for it by other means, whether it is rationing, waiting, or reduced malpractice options. I am in favor of well though-out, tested, and proved government intervention, but not this take it our leave it method, nor at this magnitude and speed. I'd love to see individual states tackle these issues, and see what works and what doesn't. We've already seen California and Massachusetts fail miserably in this regard.

    We're looking at this from a yes/no, my way/your way, polarizing point of view, and I blame the partisan nature of our political system for that, but the answer to this complex issue is going to be smart people in the industry; practitioners and administrators, figuring this out. I don't assume those in DC will solve this. I also don't want to see them implement a system that they don't even have mapped out yet outside of happy rhetoric. I would love to see it reviewed by the industry, MBA's, and financial experts and hear what they have to say. Something so big that it will effect everyone of us is too important to just assume it will work.

    What happened to Obama's promise of allowing the voters to review legislation for 5 days before it's passed? When can I review this legislation? The sad reality is that like all politicians before him, they tell us what we want to hear and then implement their agenda. Change was a nice slogan; sad to see it was only that.
    Your argument boils down to, "we either accept the method of healthcare delivery in which people profit from illness (which is the one that's failing by the way)" or "allow a gov't run CHOICE which you say will drive private insurers off the cliffs leaving nothing but gov't run healthcare". paraphrasing of course.

    I challenge you that if the gov't can provide healthcare at a cheaper rate than private insurers, ALL THE BETTER. If the private insurers can't compete then perhaps illness is not a viable thing to profit from.
  20. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #80  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Regardless of a gov't run plan or not, the time is well here to start taxing employee health benefits for what they are, part of their income.

    To not do so is a sort of back-door gov't fund assisted healthcare program, no?
    I call it a tax break. You're actually for more taxes? Wow! That'll stimulate the economy!!
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.

Posting Permissions