US/Obama Healthcare Plan Consolidated MEGA-THREAD

[KiloMikeAlpha]

Now, do we have an accord, or shall I consider you ignored?

Ignoring Jocabia for things I said would be kind of pointless.

Here's my advice. Go back through the post, read it slowly, and reply to the actual comments Jocabia made.

If you ALSO want to reply to the post I made, it would be a good idea to do it separately.

I apologize, but the most recent post that you made regarding me was about an immovable object. Please restate your post or refer me back it the one in question.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

Time for bold questions.

Will my tax dollars go to pay for someone else's abortion?

If I have to pay for your abortion, will you pay for my obesity surgery?

Or my plastic surgery?

Or my Lasic surgery?

Or my Viagra (God forbid)?

Wow, it looks like FREE healthcare for everyone will be nice.

Tax dollars? Or premiums?

If you are talking about this one. I'll address it.

My premiums go to provide healthcare to me. My tax dollar go to provide halthcare to others.

So, since my private insurance premiums have nothing to do with anyone else, then if I am paying for thier abortions, glasses, Viagra etc, AND the government is providing it to them, it is coming out of my tax dollars.

[Jocabia]

3% is 3%. It's a thin margin. Microsoft makes 27% or so.

So?

If I kill 3% of the people I meet, and you kill 27% of the people you meet... do we both kill a lot of people?

Or, am I absolved just because you're this generations Gacy?

We both get the death penalty. I was just using Microsoft as an example of how much money people elsewhere are making. Suppose we wanted to cut costs (we do) and we made insurers become not for profits, we'd cut premiums by 3%? That is a joke.

No, we wouldn't. In a not-for-profit, you'd not get away with the money they're paying their board and people at the highest levels of management. Those people are paid so much because their goal is to generate a profit. When that goal goes away so does the need for them.

Also, a 3% cut would make us only 94% more costly than the next most expensive country. I would call that a good start. Just 16 more ideas like that one and we're in business.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

3% is 3%. It's a thin margin. Microsoft makes 27% or so.

So?

If I kill 3% of the people I meet, and you kill 27% of the people you meet... do we both kill a lot of people?

Or, am I absolved just because you're this generations Gacy?

We both get the death penalty. I was just using Microsoft as an example of how much money people elsewhere are making. Suppose we wanted to cut costs (we do) and we made insurers become not for profits, we'd cut premiums by 3%? That is a joke.

Insurance companies are not charities, they are for profit businesses. Making them non-profit will drive them out of the market. Which then makes the single payer system the only option. If that is what you are advocating, then advocate that.

[Sibirsky]

Suppose we wanted to cut costs (we do) and we made insurers become not for profits, we'd cut premiums by 3%? That is a joke.

So, you think malpractise reform is a joke?

No, your president does. Nothing in any of the bills addressing it. Not a thing. Malpractice reform would be closer to 12% anyway. This thread is filled with my suggestions, and that is one of them.

[Jocabia]

3% is 3%. It's a thin margin. Microsoft makes 27% or so.

So?

If I kill 3% of the people I meet, and you kill 27% of the people you meet... do we both kill a lot of people?

Or, am I absolved just because you're this generations Gacy?

We both get the death penalty. I was just using Microsoft as an example of how much money people elsewhere are making. Suppose we wanted to cut costs (we do) and we made insurers become not for profits, we'd cut premiums by 3%? That is a joke.

Insurance companies are not charities, they are for profit businesses. Making them non-profit will drive them out of the market. Which then makes the single payer system the only option. If that is what you are advocating, then advocate that.

You do realize that not-for-profit doesn't mean you don't make enough to survive. It means you don't make more than that. It wouldn't drive them out of the market. It would reduce their costs. That doesn't mean it's a good idea, but it's not a given that not-for-profits go out of business. If you think there is a reason why a not-for-profit would be driven out of the market say so.

[Grave_n_idle]

Suppose we wanted to cut costs (we do) and we made insurers become not for profits, we'd cut premiums by 3%? That is a joke.

So, you think malpractise reform is a joke?

We most certainly need malpractice reform. It is one of the major factors in reducing the cost of healthcare.

No, it isn't - if anything, it will contribute a tiny fraction.

Which is why it's often written-off as a waste of time even addressing.

[Sibirsky]

3% is 3%. It's a thin margin. Microsoft makes 27% or so.

So?

If I kill 3% of the people I meet, and you kill 27% of the people you meet... do we both kill a lot of people?

Or, am I absolved just because you're this generations Gacy?

We both get the death penalty. I was just using Microsoft as an example of how much money people elsewhere are making. Suppose we wanted to cut costs (we do) and we made insurers become not for profits, we'd cut premiums by 3%? That is a joke.

Insurance companies are not charities, they are for profit businesses. Making them non-profit will drive them out of the market. Which then makes the single payer system the only option. If that is what you are advocating, then advocate that.

I was pointing out that their profit margins are thin.

[Sibirsky]

Suppose we wanted to cut costs (we do) and we made insurers become not for profits, we'd cut premiums by 3%? That is a joke.

So, you think malpractise reform is a joke?

We most certainly need malpractice reform. It is one of the major factors in reducing the cost of healthcare.

No, it isn't - if anything, it will contribute a tiny fraction.

Which is why it's often written-off as a waste of time even addressing.

12% is significant.

[Grave_n_idle]

Suppose we wanted to cut costs (we do) and we made insurers become not for profits, we'd cut premiums by 3%? That is a joke.

So, you think malpractise reform is a joke?

No, your president does. Nothing in any of the bills addressing it. Not a thing. Malpractice reform would be closer to 12% anyway. This thread is filled with my suggestions, and that is one of them.

My president, but not yours?

Partisanship has no place in debate.

You're saying it's not worth cutting the costs by a tiny fraction - well, then you should oppose malpractise reform.

[Sibirsky]

Suppose we wanted to cut costs (we do) and we made insurers become not for profits, we'd cut premiums by 3%? That is a joke.

So, you think malpractise reform is a joke?

No, your president does. Nothing in any of the bills addressing it. Not a thing. Malpractice reform would be closer to 12% anyway. This thread is filled with my suggestions, and that is one of them.

My president, but not yours?

Partisanship has no place in debate.

You're saying it's not worth cutting the costs by a tiny fraction - well, then you should oppose malpractise reform.

Again, I said if we cut only the profit margin out, that would be a joke. But malpractice reform, is significant. The costs are 12% of our healthcare costs. Now this does include economic costs.

[Grave_n_idle]

Suppose we wanted to cut costs (we do) and we made insurers become not for profits, we'd cut premiums by 3%? That is a joke.

So, you think malpractise reform is a joke?

We most certainly need malpractice reform. It is one of the major factors in reducing the cost of healthcare.

No, it isn't - if anything, it will contribute a tiny fraction.

Which is why it's often written-off as a waste of time even addressing.

12% is significant.

And irrelevant. The CBO said a mere $11 billion per year. That's not even close to 12% - maybe .5%

[Grave_n_idle]

Time for bold questions.

Will my tax dollars go to pay for someone else's abortion?

If I have to pay for your abortion, will you pay for my obesity surgery?

Or my plastic surgery?

Or my Lasic surgery?

Or my Viagra (God forbid)?

Wow, it looks like FREE healthcare for everyone will be nice.

Tax dollars? Or premiums?

If you are talking about this one. I'll address it.

My premiums go to provide healthcare to me. My tax dollar go to provide halthcare to others.

So, since my private insurance premiums have nothing to do with anyone else, then if I am paying for thier abortions, glasses, Viagra etc, AND the government is providing it to them, it is coming out of my tax dollars.

Do you believe in homeopathy?

Do you believe that one atom of a chemical, dissolved in millions of gallons of a solvent, has a real and noticable medicinal effect?

I ask - because that's what you're talking about - your tiny tax contribution in the millions of gallons of solvent we call the budget. YOUR taxes don't pay for shit.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

3% is 3%. It's a thin margin. Microsoft makes 27% or so.

So?

If I kill 3% of the people I meet, and you kill 27% of the people you meet... do we both kill a lot of people?

Or, am I absolved just because you're this generations Gacy?

We both get the death penalty. I was just using Microsoft as an example of how much money people elsewhere are making. Suppose we wanted to cut costs (we do) and we made insurers become not for profits, we'd cut premiums by 3%? That is a joke.

Insurance companies are not charities, they are for profit businesses. Making them non-profit will drive them out of the market. Which then makes the single payer system the only option. If that is what you are advocating, then advocate that.

You do realize that not-for-profit doesn't mean you don't make enough to survive. It means you don't make more than that. It wouldn't drive them out of the market. It would reduce their costs. That doesn't mean it's a good idea, but it's not a given that not-for-profits go out of business. If you think there is a reason why a not-for-profit would be driven out of the market say so.

Educate me please? What is the purpose of profit in a company?

[Grave_n_idle]

Now, do we have an accord, or shall I consider you ignored?

Ignoring Jocabia for things I said would be kind of pointless.

Here's my advice. Go back through the post, read it slowly, and reply to the actual comments Jocabia made.

If you ALSO want to reply to the post I made, it would be a good idea to do it separately.

I apologize, but the most recent post that you made regarding me was about an immovable object. Please restate your post or refer me back it the one in question.

The post I was referring to was the one that said:

Your appeals to emotion are irrelevant.

I have no idea who Buxtahatche is in the real world (the beauty of an anonymous forum), and I don't care - because it doesn't affect the quality of his/her arguments.

Being a veteran, even if true, does not give you a better or more valid opinion.

To address what you said, Buxtahatche is just one more of a long line of people complaining about the decay of our nation, while trying to destroy all the things that made this nation great in the first place. Being a veteran doesn't change that.

And don't even get me started on how veterans of CURRENT wars are doing not a damn thing to protect my right to say anything.

You made a dismissive response to that psot, when I made it... but when Jocabia referred to it (because he was quoting YOUR post) - you started accusing Jocabia of flaming, flamebaiting, etc.

Jocabia didn't make the post - I did. So riding his ass for it is non-productive.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

Jocabia didn't make the post - I did. So riding his ass for it is non-productive.

I see that. I was mistaken. I apologize. Now you on the other hand....

[KiloMikeAlpha]

Time for bold questions.

Will my tax dollars go to pay for someone else's abortion?

If I have to pay for your abortion, will you pay for my obesity surgery?

Or my plastic surgery?

Or my Lasic surgery?

Or my Viagra (God forbid)?

Wow, it looks like FREE healthcare for everyone will be nice.

Tax dollars? Or premiums?

If you are talking about this one. I'll address it.

My premiums go to provide healthcare to me. My tax dollar go to provide halthcare to others.

So, since my private insurance premiums have nothing to do with anyone else, then if I am paying for thier abortions, glasses, Viagra etc, AND the government is providing it to them, it is coming out of my tax dollars.

Do you believe in homeopathy?

Do you believe that one atom of a chemical, dissolved in millions of gallons of a solvent, has a real and noticable medicinal effect?

I ask - because that's what you're talking about - your tiny tax contribution in the millions of gallons of solvent we call the budget. YOUR taxes don't pay for shit.

I agree. Totally. That is why Medicare/aide is a compromise in the Conservative view. Conservatives are not for ZERO taxes, just lower taxes. We realize that taxes are necessary for certain things. I support Medicare/aide because of thier specific charter. I understand that my portion of the tax bill for Medicare/Aide is miniscule and I am willing to pay it. That does not mean that I dont have the right to reduce my contribution even more, while still supporting the charter.

What I do oppose is supporting those who WONT support themselves. On that I am resolute. All other cases are open to compromise. I have stated my views in previous threads.

[Grave_n_idle]

Jocabia didn't make the post - I did. So riding his ass for it is non-productive.

I see that. I was mistaken. I apologize. Now you on the other hand....

Sure, if you want to repost it addressing me, I'll happily rip it to pieces for you.

I just don't want to see my comments used as attacks on other people.

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

Just an option? Funded by taxing health insurers? And they run charities and will not pass that cost along to the consumers. The public option will become the only option for an overwhelming majority over time.

I always love the free market guys. They somehow just ignore the economics. I assume you know what price elasticity is, right? They can pass it on if they like, but it will make it more difficult to compete. Somehow you can never touch the profits of corporations because they'll just raise prices, as if consumers have no power whatsoever. So do you believe in the market or don't you? Because I have yet to see one of the free market guys who actually believe the consumer has any say in the situation at all.

Meanwhile, if insurers who have been making money hand over fist in a devestating economy suddenly can't compete with this "awful" public option then they don't deserve to compete. If consumers choose the government option over the private option it's because the government option is more affordable and provides more quality. I'm okay with that.

More affordable because of taxpayer subsidies. That is not fair competition.

3% is hand over fist?

Oh ffs, we're back to 3% again? The way earnings are calculated don't actually reflect how profitable a company is, they're calculated to result in the least amount of income taxes that need to be paid. Take an accounting class if you don't believe me. Try looking at their EBITDA, or more importantly their gross margin during sometime before the world started ending. Pick any major health insurance company. United in 2006 had a GM of 25.5%, EBITDA 8.8% of revenue. In 2007 a GM of 26.5%, EBITDA of 9.4%. Compare that to a regular company like Amazon. They deliver physical goods to people, rather than transferring money from one bank account to another. GM of 22.9% in 06, 22.6% in 07. EBITDA of something like 3.6% and 4.4% of revenue in 06 and 07 respectively.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

Jocabia didn't make the post - I did. So riding his ass for it is non-productive.

I see that. I was mistaken. I apologize. Now you on the other hand....

Sure, if you want to repost it addressing me, I'll happily rip it to pieces for you.

I just don't want to see my comments used as attacks on other people.

This is neither the time nor the place for that discussion. Plus, I dont think, given my passion for returning vets, that I will be able to have an objective argument with you. I also dont think I would be able to restrain that passion either. I have too much more to say, and can not say it if I am banned.

[Grave_n_idle]

What I do oppose is supporting those who WONT support themselves. On that I am resolute. All other cases are open to compromise. I have stated my views in previous threads.

I'm not sure there's anyone who is actually saying "You know what, what I really want to do, is support people who WON'T support themselves".

Now, I'm a realist - I understand that people screw the system. I also understand that some people really need the system. I also HOPE that the powers that be do all they can to stop those who DO screw the system, from doing so.

What this means is - I have to reach an accomodation with reality. I want to help people that NEED help, and I'm going to - inevitably - help some people who don't.

That, apparently, is the price of helping those that do. So I suck it up.



As an aside - until I am a citizen, I don't get any help. When I was supporting my wife and kid on my video-store wage, the state wouldn't do a thing for me. When we were expecting a child, the state's advice was for me and my wife to divorce, so she could claim.

I'm in favour of putting money into a system that fucked me - because it's the right thing to do.

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

Suppose we wanted to cut costs (we do) and we made insurers become not for profits, we'd cut premiums by 3%? That is a joke.

So, you think malpractise reform is a joke?

We most certainly need malpractice reform. It is one of the major factors in reducing the cost of healthcare.

No, it isn't - if anything, it will contribute a tiny fraction.

Which is why it's often written-off as a waste of time even addressing.

12% is significant.

Made up number.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

You know, 45% of people make up statistics on the spot.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

What I do oppose is supporting those who WONT support themselves. On that I am resolute. All other cases are open to compromise. I have stated my views in previous threads.

I'm not sure there's anyone who is actually saying "You know what, what I really want to do, is support people who WON'T support themselves".

Now, I'm a realist - I understand that people screw the system. I also understand that some people really need the system. I also HOPE that the powers that be do all they can to stop those who DO screw the system, from doing so.

What this means is - I have to reach an accomodation with reality. I want to help people that NEED help, and I'm going to - inevitably - help some people who don't.

That, apparently, is the price of helping those that do. So I suck it up.



As an aside - until I am a citizen, I don't get any help. When I was supporting my wife and kid on my video-store wage, the state wouldn't do a thing for me. When we were expecting a child, the state's advice was for me and my wife to divorce, so she could claim.

I'm in favour of putting money into a system that fucked me - because it's the right thing to do.

So, just for clarification, you are not a citizen of the US?

I agree with you. I do. The only place I think we disagree is what to do with those who WONT help themselves. I haven't heard your position on how to handle illegal immigrants.

My position on those who wont is simple.They will rely on private charities for thier alms.

Incidentally, for different reasons, illegals would be in the same boat. The Govmt gives them nothing. Because they are not citizens, they are not entitled to anything from our Govmt. Let thier govmt support them as expatriates (not sure if that is the right word).

[Grave_n_idle]

So, just for clarification, you are not a citizen of the US?

No. I'm a permanent resident, but not a citizen yet.

I agree with you. I do. The only place I think we disagree is what to do with those who WONT help themselves. I haven't heard your position on how to handle illegal immigrants.

Illegals are a different argument.

Other people that won't help themselves - I don't really see a problem with - it's the fraud that's the problem.

My position on those who wont is simple.They will rely on private charities for thier alms.

How do you identify them?

Incidentally, for different reasons, illegals would be in the same boat. The Govmt gives them nothing. Because they are not citizens, they are not entitled to anything from our Govmt. Let thier govmt support them as expatriates (not sure if that is the right word).

What about those that pay taxes, social security, and/or have a positive net effect on the ecconomy. Why do they have to put in, but not have access to take out - so to speak.