- Add a Comment
-
- The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
If they are really saying that, then why aren't they out there campaigning against Medicare?
What you wrote is insane. Most people who don't have healthcare are working hard but getting paid little money, so people who make a lot more money can pay less for their goods and services.
You have no clue and just repeat the same garbage that got us into this mess...namely, have the middle class fight against the poor in hopes of becoming rich. That's the root of our problems!
We all pissed at each other and I think we ought to ask why? (agree).
Are we thinking through these issues our selves?, or are we simply drinking up whatever cool-aid we happen to listen to on the drive into/outof work.
We're talking about serious issues facing AMERICA and our minds our being manipulated by the MEDIA and/or whatever is MANIPULATING the media.
I am a staunch independant. I argue RESPECTFULLY with liberals and conservatives friends and we all grow from the process. WHY does a forum such as this have to degrade to nothing short of hate mongering.
I tell ya, if the future of our country is TRULY in the hands of the sorts of people making comments here tonight, then we might as well pack it in and go back to the beginning of the food chain.
Insurance companies are in bed with the dems and the whitehouse. If you do not believe me then watch the stocks prices on the evil health insurance company once its passed and signed.
This is from an article at www.cato.org:
As it turns out, "universal coverage" may not be so inevitable after all.
Much to the chagrin (and apparent surprise) of President Obama and
congressional Democrats, squabbling has erupted in earnest over who
will spring for the exorbitant cost.
Fortunately, Obama has an exit strategy: "If there is a way of getting
this done where we're driving down costs and people are getting health
insurance at an affordable rate, and have choice of doctor, have flexibility
in terms of their plans, and we could do that entirely through the market,
I'd be happy to do it that way."
Well, there is a way: Let individuals control their health care dollars,
and free them to choose from a wide variety of health plans and providers.
If Congress takes those steps, innovation and market competition will make
health care better, more affordable and more secure.
Experts suggest that one-third of U.S. health care spending, or about 6% of
GDP, is pure waste. The reason is simple: Government controls half of our
nation's health care dollars, and lets employers control an additional quarter.
And nobody spends other people's money as carefully as they spend their own.
Office of Management and Budget director Peter Orszag told Congress last year:
"Imagine what the world would be like if workers (understood) that today it was
costing them $10,000 a year in take-home-pay for their employer-sponsored insurance,
and that could be $7,000 and they could have $3,000 more in their pockets today
if we could relieve these inefficiencies out of the health system." Nothing
will increase consumers' understanding like giving them that $10,000 directly.
Letting consumers control the money requires two steps.
First, Congress should give Medicare enrollees a voucher, let them choose
any health plan on the market, and let them keep the savings if they choose an
economical plan. Medicare could even give larger vouchers to the poor and
sick to ensure they could afford coverage.
Second, Congress needs to give consumers who purchase their own coverage the
same tax break as workers with job-based coverage.
Leveling the playing field ? whether with tax credits, a standard deduction for
health insurance or "large" health savings accounts ? would boost purchases of
non-job-based coverage, which is critical to cutting the overall number of uninsured.
As important, it would give workers control over the entire $10,000 Orszag mentioned,
for a total effective tax cut of $532 billion each year. Consumers would eliminate
wasteful spending quickly, because they would keep the $3,000 in savings.
We should also eliminate harmful regulation. State health insurance regulations
prevent people from purchasing health plans available in other states, and increase
premiums by 15%. Similar regulations block competition from more efficient health
plans and providers by preventing doctors from taking their licenses from state to state.
Americans deserve the freedom to purchase coverage across state lines. One study
estimated that that move alone could cover 17 million uninsured Americans without
costing taxpayers a dime. Compare that with Sen. Ted Kennedy's reform bill, which
spends $1 trillion and covers just 16 million uninsured.
Giving clinicians the freedom to practice medicine across state lines would eliminate
barriers for retail clinics and economical health plans like Kaiser Permanente,
which leads the market in electronic medical records and coordinated care. If we
did that, Congress wouldn't need to throw $30 billion at ineffective pilot
programs that try to coordinate care.
Critics fear that market-based reforms would leave sick workers unable to obtain
coverage. Yet that is already happening as employers drop coverage or eliminate
jobs. In reality, these reforms would relieve, if not erase, that problem.
Leveling the playing field will force employers to give sicker workers more than
the average $9,000 or $10,000 "cash-out," which will help them purchase coverage.
When workers buy coverage directly from an insurer, far fewer will end up
uninsured when they lose a job.
Finally, large HSAs would provide a tax relief even to those who are too sick
to obtain coverage at all.
Perfection is not possible, of course. Former Senate Majority Leader and would-be
Obama adviser Tom Daschle acknowledges, "Even if we achieve 'universal' coverage,
there will be some percentage of people who still fall through the cracks."
The same is true of a free market. The advantage of markets is that innovation and
competition fill in those cracks. A government-run, "universal" system makes them wider.
Right now as this Health Care Bill is written, there are 34 states that have filed legal opposition to comply. Might be interesting if so many states feel this bill is so poorly written and rammed through a Congressional process by a chosen few.
Obama & Pelosi should swallow a bit of pride and work on a more popular Bipartisan approach with an overwhelming majority in favor.
I think we will see some legality challenges if this unpopular version passes. My opinion only.
Then we have the issue of where members in Congress end up when America realizes its mistake.
I could support a better bill & have many concerns right now.
Seldom if ever, is "Faster" better than "Correct" we all have had exams to prove this....
cost the same & stay the same ?
JAB
With the bill, things will be pretty much the same, maybe a bit better and maybe a bit worse, depending on your circumstances.