New U.S. Healthcare Reform, No New Business for Insurance Co

[Muravyets]

Me personally? That amount varies greatly. Currently, not much at all as I am struggling financially. In 2006, by far my best year, thousands. Before that 2001 was my highest. But I am just a drop in a bucket aren't I?

As a group, in 2002 we (Americans) donated almost $241 billion. Certainly no chump change.

http://www.zambian.com/bethel/orphanage ... stics.html

[/quote]
Yes, you are just a drop in the bucket, as is that $241billion after you finish divvying it up among all the nations of the world and all the different organizations doing different things. Wow, maybe that would explain why charitable organizations are crying out that they cannot meet the demands of the needy.

And I notice you had to rely on 2002 numbers. What's the matter, can't keep up the facade of your "the private sector cures all ills" fiction when the economy is as bad as it is and the rest of the private sector slumps along with you?

I refuse to accept your argument that the private sector can cover all needs as long as we live in a world where millions and millions of people are starving and homeless. All your fantastical notions of how things work are put to the lie by the observable fact that things work differently than what you say. The private sector CANNOT meet the demands of the poor. Period. It cannot in part because it cannot organize resources and income on a large enough scale, as government can. But it also cannot because a significant portion of it WILL NOT. They are perfectly happy to scarf up the benefits of having a common society for themselves, but try to deny those benefits to others. Public sector social safety nets deny the selfish the power to starve others because the government exists to serve ALL citizens out of the common fund of taxes. Thus the public sector is better at providing that safety net for basic human needs than the private sector.

[North Suran]

Half of the people on welfare are just bums who do not want to work but instead get payed by the government to sit around all day.

Or, maybe - and this is a massive maybe - people are just feeling the pinch of an economic Recession caused by mismanagement by the Government, and are unable to find employment or maintain a high enough income to afford health insurance?
God knows, I'm sure most of the people who are on wellfare benefits work a lot harder than the people on this forums who claim that they are "just bums" (usually middle-class and surfing through higher education on the back of their parent's money - and I should know; I'm one of them).

[The_pantless_hero]

I never blamed it on malpractice suits. Are they problem contributing to rapidly rising healthcare costs? Sure. Are they the one and only problem? Far from it. No drug prices, as you point out have nothing to do with malpractice suits. Healthcare costs are more than just drugs however.

I did mention medical supplies, but I left out the fact that out system is not a healthcare system but rather a sick care system - hospitals earn more money the longer a sick person is there and the more tests they run on them. That is why Mayo is losing money and may have to change their system structure so they don't have to shut down.

[The_pantless_hero]

And we have programs to help them. And charities as well. And I would say food is a more urgent need except for cases of emergency.

How much money do you donate to charities?

Me personally? That amount varies greatly. Currently, not much at all as I am struggling financially. In 2006, by far my best year, thousands. Before that 2001 was my highest. But I am just a drop in a bucket aren't I?

As a group, in 2002 we (Americans) donated almost $241 billion. Certainly no chump change.

http://www.zambian.com/bethel/orphanage ... stics.html

I don't think you have any idea how many charities there are or how many different things they do.
And even if every single one of them was a charity for taking care of sick people, that would still be a drop in that bucket.

[Muravyets]

And we have programs to help them. And charities as well. And I would say food is a more urgent need except for cases of emergency.

How much money do you donate to charities?

More than 10% of my yearly income. How much do you donate to charities?

10% of your annual income -- that's a church tithe, isn't it? And how much health care does your church pay for? Do they contribute to services that provide general care, or only to ones that conform to your church's doctrine? Just wondering.

As for me, I give as much as I can, when I can. But I don't pretend that my little checks are sufficient to negate the need for government social programs, or that my charitable donations are going to cover the health care for millions of people without insurance in the US. And I'm not so dishonest as to try to claim that because the US private sector is typically personally generous that means that we have no need to try to lower costs of services so that all that donated money will go further and serve more people. It has been established that nationalized health care systems bring down the costs of basic medicine and treatment procedures, which helps to free up a lot of monetary resources.

[Ashmoria]

Yes, the US wastes billions of $ on welfare a year. Half of the people on welfare are just bums who do not want to work but instead get payed by the government to sit around all day.

even if we elminated all welfare even for the "deserving" it would go no where toward balancing our budget.

and would do massive harm to the country.

[Sibirsky]

Me personally? That amount varies greatly. Currently, not much at all as I am struggling financially. In 2006, by far my best year, thousands. Before that 2001 was my highest. But I am just a drop in a bucket aren't I?

As a group, in 2002 we (Americans) donated almost $241 billion. Certainly no chump change.

http://www.zambian.com/bethel/orphanage ... stics.html

Yes, you are just a drop in the bucket, as is that $241billion after you finish divvying it up among all the nations of the world and all the different organizations doing different things. Wow, maybe that would explain why charitable organizations are crying out that they cannot meet the demands of the needy.

And I notice you had to rely on 2002 numbers. What's the matter, can't keep up the facade of your "the private sector cures all ills" fiction when the economy is as bad as it is and the rest of the private sector slumps along with you?

I refuse to accept your argument that the private sector can cover all needs as long as we live in a world where millions and millions of people are starving and homeless. All your fantastical notions of how things work are put to the lie by the observable fact that things work differently than what you say. The private sector CANNOT meet the demands of the poor. Period. It cannot in part because it cannot organize resources and income on a large enough scale, as government can. But it also cannot because a significant portion of it WILL NOT. They are perfectly happy to scarf up the benefits of having a common society for themselves, but try to deny those benefits to others. Public sector social safety nets deny the selfish the power to starve others because the government exists to serve ALL citizens out of the common fund of taxes. Thus the public sector is better at providing that safety net for basic human needs than the private sector.[/quote]

2002 data was the first to come up. In 2006 it was $295 billion. Wouldn't that amount be far greater if there was no income tax for instance? I think welfare, here in America is doing more long term harm to the poor than good. Short term, right here, right now, when they cannot afford to buy food for instance, obviously it helps. I am not suggesting that we just eliminate the welfare program. This would have to be a very gradual change. Very slow. Taking, perhaps decades.

Eliminating the income tax would do two things for the poor, it would increase consumer spending, creating low skill jobs (like retail sales people) and it would increase charitable contributions. Whether that would be enough or not I don't know. Again, I am not calling for a complete elimination of the program right away.

[Muravyets]

2002 data was the first to come up. In 2006 it was $295 billion. Wouldn't that amount be far greater if there was no income tax for instance?

What makes you think it would be? It wasn't back when we had no income tax. In those days, the ratio of people starving to death or dying of treatable diseases in US cities versus people living financially stable and physically healthy lives because they could afford housing and medical care was horrifically higher than it is now. Having more money does not make the selfish less selfish. The private sector has proven itself incapable of meeting social needs over and over and over again, and yet we are never free of fantasists who come and tell us how, some day, it will work perfectly. It never has, and it won't.

I think welfare, here in America is doing more long term harm to the poor than good. Short term, right here, right now, when they cannot afford to buy food for instance, obviously it helps. I am not suggesting that we just eliminate the welfare program. This would have to be a very gradual change. Very slow. Taking, perhaps decades.

Eliminating the income tax would do two things for the poor, it would increase consumer spending, creating low skill jobs (like retail sales people) and it would increase charitable contributions. Whether that would be enough or not I don't know. Again, I am not calling for a complete elimination of the program right away.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah, helping the poor only furthers their inevitable degredation, blah. They should just trust the rich to toss them crumbs now and then and maybe, over decades, they'll be able to scrape together the means to get their kids a measles shot, if any of their kids survive birth, blah. Hey, is it 1864 already? My calendar must be printed wrong.

[The_pantless_hero]

2002 data was the first to come up. In 2006 it was $295 billion. Wouldn't that amount be far greater if there was no income tax for instance?

No. Unless you can produce evidence that a person's charitable donations increase proportional to increases in their income. Individually.

I think welfare, here in America is doing more long term harm to the poor than good.

Perhaps so but I wouldn't even put it in the top 10 things in America that are screwing over your average American with government support.

Eliminating the income tax would do two things for the poor, it would increase consumer spending, creating low skill jobs (like retail sales people) and it would increase charitable contributions. Whether that would be enough or not I don't know. Again, I am not calling for a complete elimination of the program right away.

It would also create a very large hole in the amount the government is pulling in. Which would cause them to want to tax something else, probably a national sales tax! Brilliant! Oh wait, people actually have to buy stuff. Damnit! Now it's an even bigger burden on those with the least income, not to mention decreasing consumer spending in a far more direct manner.

[Muravyets]

Also, all this bitching about the evils of welfare is just another dodge. A nationalized health system is not a welfare system. It is no more a welfare system than police, fire fighters, and roads are.

[The_pantless_hero]

Also, all this bitching about the evils of welfare is just another dodge. A nationalized health system is not a welfare system. It is no more a welfare system than police, fire fighters, and roads are.

But.. but.. but.. we would be socialists! If Americans become socialists, the bodies of Stalin, Lenin, and Mao will rise from their graves and walk the earth, raising armies of communist undead to take over America as it relaxes at the benefits of a socialist system and lets its guard down!

[Sibirsky]

2002 data was the first to come up. In 2006 it was $295 billion. Wouldn't that amount be far greater if there was no income tax for instance?

No. Unless you can produce evidence that a person's charitable donations increase proportional to increases in their income. Individually.

I think welfare, here in America is doing more long term harm to the poor than good.

Perhaps so but I wouldn't even put it in the top 10 things in America that are screwing over your average American with government support.

Eliminating the income tax would do two things for the poor, it would increase consumer spending, creating low skill jobs (like retail sales people) and it would increase charitable contributions. Whether that would be enough or not I don't know. Again, I am not calling for a complete elimination of the program right away.

It would also create a very large hole in the amount the government is pulling in. Which would cause them to want to tax something else, probably a national sales tax! Brilliant! Oh wait, people actually have to buy stuff. Damnit! Now it's an even bigger burden on those with the least income, not to mention decreasing consumer spending in a far more direct manner.

And that's a problem with the government. Both parties. We have 5% of the world's population. We are 21% of the world economy. We have 50% of the world's defense budget. We have 700 bases in 130 countries. How about cutting some of the Pentagon's budget? Also, the personal income tax, in normal times (tax revenues are down, the makeup of them may have changed, idk) is only 40% of the government's total revenue.

And seriously, it's Monday morning I have to get some work done. Not that you're stopping me...

Work sucks

[The_pantless_hero]

And that's a problem with the government. Both parties. We have 5% of the world's population. We are 21% of the world economy. We have 50% of the world's defense budget. We have 700 bases in 130 countries. How about cutting some of the Pentagon's budget? Also, the personal income tax, in normal times (tax revenues are down, the makeup of them may have changed, idk) is only 40% of the government's total revenue.

And seriously, it's Monday morning I have to get some work done. Not that you're stopping me...

Work sucks

At risk of my job, I would be the first person to say the Pentagon needs to be reigned in and the heads of the military made to stand in corners. (Which Gates is trying to do)
Oh, one tax is only 40% of revenue. That sure isn't alot of money at all. Is it proportionally the largest single source of money?

[Sibirsky]

And that's a problem with the government. Both parties. We have 5% of the world's population. We are 21% of the world economy. We have 50% of the world's defense budget. We have 700 bases in 130 countries. How about cutting some of the Pentagon's budget? Also, the personal income tax, in normal times (tax revenues are down, the makeup of them may have changed, idk) is only 40% of the government's total revenue.

And seriously, it's Monday morning I have to get some work done. Not that you're stopping me...

Work sucks

At risk of my job, I would be the first person to say the Pentagon needs to be reigned in and the heads of the military made to stand in corners. (Which Gates is trying to do)
Oh, one tax is only 40% of revenue. That sure isn't alot of money at all. Is it proportionally the largest single source of money?

Yes it is the largest source. What is the Pentagon's budget? Are those 700 bases included in it? Are the 40,000 troops in each of Japan, Germany and Korea included in it? And it's not like we can't maker any domestic cuts.

[Gift-of-god]

No, I believe that is highly private information.

Still waiting for the source on your 5 to 6 year wait for surgery point.

Britain's Department of Health reported in 2006 that at any given time, nearly 900,000 Britons are waiting for admission to National Health Service hospitals, and shortages force the cancellation of more than 50,000 operations each year. In Sweden, the wait for heart surgery can be as long as 25 weeks, and the average wait for hip replacement surgery is more than a year. Many of these individuals suffer chronic pain, and judging by the numbers, some will probably die awaiting treatment. In a 2005 ruling of the Canadian Supreme Court, Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin wrote that "access to a waiting list is not access to healthcare."

The source for this information is an unsupported editorial written by members of the Cato institute, a rightwing think-tank that promotes free market solutions.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/com ... 9505.story

...About one third of those without insurance make $50,000 or more.....

.....Another thing is, about a third of the uninsured make $50,000 or more per year......

I would like a source for this.

Face it, I could have linked to anything and Muravyets would have shot it down as not a plan.

You are lucky that Murayvets spent as much time on it as she did. To me, it was simply link spam. If you had actually found a plan, then you could have just posted the onle link to it, and quoted the relevant text of the plan in a quote box. This text should have given a brief summary of the plan. But you didn't. Becuase there was no text in any of those links that summarised a viable plan for free market healthcare.

What is so special about healthcare? How is it different from food, clothes and shelter? Other basic needs are met through the private sector.

One thing that differntiates healthcare from food is that consumers can't tell the difference between a good medical purchase and a bad one, because we are not medical professionals. I have no idea how to diagnose cancer correctly, or what kind of cancer it would be or what the tretament is. I have to depend on the doctor. This makes it impossible for me to intelligently compare the prices and services of two competing doctors. In comparison, I can intelligently compare the quality of food at my local supermarkets, as can the average reasonable consumer.

In terms of shelter, most building acquisitions minimally involve some trained professional such as a building inspector or architect who will advicse the client on the purchase. This avoids the issue of having consumers who would be otherwise incapable of making an informed decision. Unfortunately, when we get sick, we can't go out and quickly hire our own personal medical adviser to follow us around and ensure we get the best deal out of all the possible options.

[The_pantless_hero]

Yes it is the largest source. What is the Pentagon's budget? Are those 700 bases included in it? Are the 40,000 troops in each of Japan, Germany and Korea included in it? And it's not like we can't maker any domestic cuts.

I imagine they are, but your implication is bunk and I will not explain why because you damn sure know why.

[Les Drapeaux Brulants]

"The article you requested is not available."

More GOP scare tactics. "National healthcare will kill America!" Nevermind that it hasn't killed insurance in any other country than Canada, and Canada took it to the extreme of outlawing private insurance which no Democrat is proposing.

Thank you for regurgitating Rush Limbaugh for us again, but we're still not buying it.

So go and read the bill. It's on page 16 and it does seem to say exactly what the IBD says it said... http://bit.ly/nSL2A

If you've read the bill, perhaps you can explain how the quote on Page 16 MEANS what the IBD alleges.

Hint: it doesn't.

After 2013, a company cannot enroll participants in individual market plans outside of the Health Exchange. I'd say page 16 means exactly what the IBD says it means. By attrition, the law will drive companies out of the individual market policy business.

[Gift-of-god]

After 2013, a company cannot enroll participants in individual market plans outside of the Health Exchange. I'd say page 16 means exactly what the IBD says it means. By attrition, the law will drive companies out of the individual market policy business.

Page 16 shows the definitions for various terms used throughout the document. The quote the editorial uses is from the definition for a grandfathered clause. Basically it says that any private insurance bought after the bill goes into effect won't fall under the 'grandfathered' definition. However, it will still be perfectly legal to purchase and use that private coverage.

[Les Drapeaux Brulants]

After 2013, a company cannot enroll participants in individual market plans outside of the Health Exchange. I'd say page 16 means exactly what the IBD says it means. By attrition, the law will drive companies out of the individual market policy business.

Page 16 shows the definitions for various terms used throughout the document. The quote the editorial uses is from the definition for a grandfathered clause. Basically it says that any private insurance bought after the bill goes into effect won't fall under the 'grandfathered' definition. However, it will still be perfectly legal to purchase and use that private coverage.

It will only be legal until you let it lapse. As the exchange between Congressman Paul Ryan and House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee Staff Director Cybele Bjorklund points out, there will be no new individual policies written outside of the Health Exchange after 2013.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPSHAqrS7RU&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fboortz.com%2Fnealz_nuze%2F2009%2F07%2Fwhat-the-lamestream-media-wont.html&feature=player_embedded

[The_pantless_hero]

After 2013, a company cannot enroll participants in individual market plans outside of the Health Exchange. I'd say page 16 means exactly what the IBD says it means. By attrition, the law will drive companies out of the individual market policy business.

Page 16 shows the definitions for various terms used throughout the document. The quote the editorial uses is from the definition for a grandfathered clause. Basically it says that any private insurance bought after the bill goes into effect won't fall under the 'grandfathered' definition. However, it will still be perfectly legal to purchase and use that private coverage.

It will only be legal until you let it lapse. As the exchange between Congressman Paul Ryan and House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee Staff Director Cybele Bjorklund points out, there will be no new individual policies written outside of the Health Exchange after 2013.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPSHAqrS7RU&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fboortz.com%2Fnealz_nuze%2F2009%2F07%2Fwhat-the-lamestream-media-wont.html&feature=player_embedded

How about instead you summarize the parts of that that I might give a damn about. Or provide a transcript.

[Gift-of-god]

After 2013, a company cannot enroll participants in individual market plans outside of the Health Exchange. I'd say page 16 means exactly what the IBD says it means. By attrition, the law will drive companies out of the individual market policy business.

Page 16 shows the definitions for various terms used throughout the document. The quote the editorial uses is from the definition for a grandfathered clause. Basically it says that any private insurance bought after the bill goes into effect won't fall under the 'grandfathered' definition. However, it will still be perfectly legal to purchase and use that private coverage.

It will only be legal until you let it lapse. As the exchange between Congressman Paul Ryan and House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee Staff Director Cybele Bjorklund points out, there will be no new individual policies written outside of the Health Exchange after 2013.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPSHAqrS7RU&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fboortz.com%2Fnealz_nuze%2F2009%2F07%2Fwhat-the-lamestream-media-wont.html&feature=player_embedded

Do you know what the Health Exchange is?

[Les Drapeaux Brulants]

Do you know what the Health Exchange is?

The problem is that what the Gateway/Exchange is, exactly, is hard to pin down. There's different eligibility in different versions of the bills. Not everyone is eligible all the time, or even in the same way from time to time.

That's the problem with this whole fiasco. It's not clear what will be law until after it becomes law. And that's the best reason to reject it.

[The_pantless_hero]

That's the problem with this whole fiasco. It's not clear what will be law until after it becomes law. And that's the best reason to reject it.

And government automatically shuts down because no laws will ever be passed now. Thank you Better-idea-man.

[Gift-of-god]

Do you know what the Health Exchange is?

The problem is that what the Gateway/Exchange is, exactly, is hard to pin down. There's different eligibility in different versions of the bills. Not everyone is eligible all the time, or even in the same way from time to time.

That's the problem with this whole fiasco. It's not clear what will be law until after it becomes law. And that's the best reason to reject it.

It's not that hard to pin down. It's a regulated market, basically. Private insurers will sell their services in the Exchange, and private individuals or businesses will then purchase their insurance plan from within the sellers operating in the Exchange. All the transactions in the Exchange will be overseen by a regulatory board who will set and enforce standards.

If your beef, or that of Mr. Ryan, is that services will no longer be available outside of this market, then I don't really see the problem. That criticism boils down to the following: insurance policies that no longer meet a minimum standard will no longer be available. Big deal. Food quality is also regulated, yet you can still choose between McDonalds and Burger King for your nasty food.

[Muravyets]

Do you know what the Health Exchange is?

The problem is that what the Gateway/Exchange is, exactly, is hard to pin down. There's different eligibility in different versions of the bills. Not everyone is eligible all the time, or even in the same way from time to time.

That's the problem with this whole fiasco. It's not clear what will be law until after it becomes law. And that's the best reason to reject it.

So, in other words, no, you don't know what it is.