I'm scared of ignorant right-wing bigots.

so let me se eif I understand. the plan is just to create an insurance "company" run by the govt? that and nothing else? doesn't it aslo include some regulations to be introduced for the already existing private companies?

well the theory is that the main regulating factor for private insurance companies will be the economic competition of a very low priced public plan, and it will result in private insurance companies lowering their prices. At least that's my understanding of it, if there are other regulations for the insurance industry planned i am not aware of them.

the inner cynic inside of me can't help but think that forcing people to have health insurance or face some sort of penalty ( besides a fine i have no idea what it could be, if you own a car and you don't pay insurance you just won't be able to get it registered) is not going to help the people on the lowest rungs of the economic ladder. And wouldn't a lot more people be putting money into the pockets of private health insurance companies if it is now the law that you must be covered medically in some form or another?

  On 9/16/2009 at 12:39 AM, Babar said:

As a foreigner i've some questions to ask :

 

Those people are ignorant right ? Because they're not enough informed and haven't been at the university ok ? So logically they're are poor and are likely not to have enough money for hospital fees. So why the fuck are they against obama's health plan ?

 

 

Why does the presidents of the USA take oath on the Bible. Isn't america a secular country ? What if the next president is jewish. What'd happen ?

Its not that black and white. No pun. I know people that have been to great UNI's that are ignorant bigots. I know really smart open minded working class people. A lot of people make money with trades, too. Trades are manual labor jobs that require skills. Plumbing, electricians, contractors, salesmen ,whatever.. Entrapenuers are mostly right wing too. They just hate taxes usually.

Mccain really is not the republican party's guy. They thought he was the Manchurian candidate a few years back. These tea party people probably weren't very happy when he was voted to run. My father is a huge right winger. Very informed about the ways of goverment, but he chooses to listen to only one side of the arguments. He hated Mcaine along with all Ditto heads. Yes, my flesh and blood is a ditto head. Its awful.

  On 9/16/2009 at 2:01 AM, Awepittance said:

 

the inner cynic inside of me can't help but think that forcing people to have health insurance or face some sort of penalty ( besides a fine i have no idea what it could be, if you own a car and you don't pay insurance you just won't be able to get it registered) is not going to help the people on the lowest rungs of the economic ladder. And wouldn't a lot more people be putting money into the pockets of private health insurance companies if it is now the law that you must be covered medically in some form or another?

What if the payment is built into our income tax? Maybe the payment for lower income people will be very affordable

  On 9/16/2009 at 12:26 AM, inteeliguntdesign said:

  On 9/15/2009 at 11:51 PM, joshuatxuk said:

And I personally think a national healthcare system like NHS won't be feasible. We're a federal government with a population of 300 million. And fatasses.

 

germany's a federal country.

 

and as for size, the federal part actually helps, as your country is split up into segments. the nhs is difficult because beaucracy for 65 million people is difficult. california is half that, and your other states are much smaller.

 

the uk has plenty of fatasses. we're #2 in the world, i'll have you know.

 

i'm not sure about the costs. someone once told me the medicare stuff is actually more expensive per capita than the nhs. that could be total shit though.

Yeah, I didn't think about Germany. No one really brings up them or the Swiss, who have a regulated private insurance system. The U.S. is a mess on a state level, different states have different levels of additional welfare and healthcare laws. As Ezkerraldean alluded to, people move based on those differences. Since the recession hit hard a year or so the state I'm in, Texas, has had massive influx of people from out of state, especially California, Illinois, and Michigan. Texas has cheaper homes (for the time being), more jobs and international trade, and no income tax. The state budget is in surplus. But we also have a high poverty rate and one of the highest levels of uninsured residents. So it's a trade off. With 20 million and large immigrant population it's not much different than Cali in terms of demographics, so it's an interesting comparison.

My worry is that we'll have to pay more no matter what, and there are statistics that prove it, just no politican or policy maker would admit it. U.S. GDP per ratio going to healthcare in 17%, most other nations its 10% or less. So I wouldn't be surpised if Medicare is more expensive than NHS care.

Haha, I actually lived in the U.K. twice. Born in Suffolk, moved shortly after, then lived at RAF Lakenheath again from 99'-01. I am aware of the level of corpulance, lol, just wanted to stick to bashing my home country for civility sake.

  On 9/15/2009 at 11:16 PM, fox said:

i take it then that you are not scared by ignorant left-wing bigots, or well-informed bigots of any stripe?

no. left-wing generally means pacifist, not gun-hording.

  On 9/15/2009 at 11:39 PM, Joyrex said:

I think all this anti-Obamaism that's going on in the States is just thinly veiled racism. All this "he's a Muslim" crap is just a convenient way of getting around wanting to say "He's a nigger, and I don't want a nigger as President".

 

America is still terribly racist, regardless of how far we feel we've come since the 60's.

this... and i think they are scared and threatened by the support Obama has and his ability to persuade with his words and message. so they jump on any news item or oppurtunity to try to take him down.

  On 9/16/2009 at 12:39 AM, Babar said:

As a foreigner i've some questions to ask :

 

Those people are ignorant right ? Because they're not enough informed and haven't been at the university ok ? So logically they're are poor and are likely not to have enough money for hospital fees. So why the fuck are they against obama's health plan ?

 

 

Why does the presidents of the USA take oath on the Bible. Isn't America a secular country ? What if the next president is jewish. What'd happen ?

spoken like a true Frenchman (re:secular country). ;)

yes, they are ignorant, and poor, and unemployed and are among the biggest beneficiaries of the purposed plan. you are 100% correct. that is how ignorant, and uninformed they are. the people they vote for have been fucking them in the ass for decades, and they still vote for them. they are disgustingly stupid, and they deserve every horrible thing their elected representatives do to them, and then some.

a friend of mine's father is one of these people. he is unemployed and he calls Obama a socialist... as he cashes his welfare check. I SHIT YOU NOT.

as for the oath... i think that's because our country was founded by christian puritans, but i'm not sure. more likely it's just the result of our country being largely run by rich white christian men. we have "god" in out pledge of allegiance, and on our currency. it's proper fucked. i hate it.

  On 9/16/2009 at 5:02 AM, blicero said:

  On 9/15/2009 at 11:16 PM, fox said:

i take it then that you are not scared by ignorant left-wing bigots, or well-informed bigots of any stripe?

 

no. left-wing generally means pacifist, not gun-hording.

Yeah they prefer to use these instead.

I don't have a problem with people protesting government-run health insurance.

I do have a problem with neo-conservatives pretending to be libertarians when they're NOT, and they've been doing such a thing very often at these tea party protests. These people who pretend they give a shit about how unconstitutional such a program would be (and it would be unconstitutional, at least if run at the federal level) are the same shitbag traitors who told us Libertarians to STFU when we openly took issue with the existence of the Patriot Act and the war in Iraq.

These "tea party" bottom-feeders have no problem with unconstitutional government programs. They just want THEIR unconstitutional government programs, not YOUR unconstitutional government programs, in place.

tl;dr -- fuck both of you

  On 9/15/2009 at 11:39 PM, Joyrex said:

I think all this anti-Obamaism that's going on in the States is just thinly veiled racism. All this "he's a Muslim" crap is just a convenient way of getting around wanting to say "He's a nigger, and I don't want a nigger as President".

 

America is still terribly racist, regardless of how far we feel we've come since the 60's.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8258011.stm

jimmy carter agrees.

  On 9/16/2009 at 12:30 PM, Hoodie said:

  On 9/15/2009 at 11:39 PM, Joyrex said:

I think all this anti-Obamaism that's going on in the States is just thinly veiled racism. All this "he's a Muslim" crap is just a convenient way of getting around wanting to say "He's a nigger, and I don't want a nigger as President".

 

America is still terribly racist, regardless of how far we feel we've come since the 60's.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8258011.stm

 

jimmy carter agrees.

Yeah, I saw that this morning too - but after Apwittence's posting of that Single Payer versus Public Option plan (a lot of stuff, if accurate, I was not aware of), I'm wondering if perhaps some of what people are complaining about the Public Option and why it's bad is true. Of course, time will tell, and honestly, I think the lobbyists will see to it that their employer's interests are met and kill any form of healthcare reform in order to keep the status quo. This might spell disaster for Obama and the Democrats just like it did for Clinton in '94.

Here's some further food for thought: where did the Doctor that made that chart get her info? Yeah, the Single Payer Option info probably is based on the plans in Canada and/or in Europe, but where'd she get info on the Public Option, when nothing concrete has been put down in writing yet? Is it based off what Obama said in his address to Congress and the nation, and if so, how is she inferring that is what the Public Option will deliver?

Here's a great article on Salon that is some more food for thought:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/09/14/resentment/index.html

  Quote

Who are the undeserving "others" benefiting from expanded government actions?

The New York Times' Ross Douthat argues, uncontroversially, that the tea-party protests, townhall outbursts and related appendages aren't about specific health care proposals but, instead, are motivated by a more generalized anger over what is happening in Washington:

At the same time, [the health care protests have] become the vessel for a year’s worth of anxieties about bailouts, deficits and Beltway incompetence.

This August’s town-hall fury wasn’t just about the details of health care. Neither were the anti-Obama protests that crowded Washington over the weekend. They were about the Wall Street bailout, the G.M. takeover, the A.I.G. bonuses, and countless smaller examples of middle-income Americans’ "playing by the rules," as [GOP pollster Frank] Luntz puts it, "and having someone else benefit."

Notably, Douthat never specifies the identity of this so-called "someone else" who, as a result of government behavior, is unfairly benefiting from the hard work of middle-class Americans, but he gives a clue when he compares current anger over the health care bill to the anger over the 1994 crime bill, which he argues drove Democrats out of, and Newt Gingrich into, Beltway power:

Instead, the crime bill became a lightning rod for populist outrage. The price tag made it seem fiscally irresponsible. (Back then, $30 billion was real money.) The billions it lavished on crime prevention -- like the infamous funding of "midnight basketball" -- looked liked ineffective welfare spending. The gun-control provisions felt like liberalism-as-usual.

"Every day that the Republicans delayed the bill," Luntz remembers, "the public learned more about it -- and the more they learned, the angrier they got."

In other words, the 1994 fury over the crime bill was driven by the belief that the Clinton-led federal government would steal money from middle-class Americans and give it to "midnight basketball" programs, i.e., "welfare" recipients. The racial and class-war components of that fear-mongering campaign were manifest: Bill Clinton wanted to steal the money of "'middle-income Americans playing by the rules" and transfer it to the inner-city (see Ta-Nehisi Coates' examination of the racial, class and similar cultural appeals that fueled vitriolic right-wing attacks on Clinton).

In that sense, Douthat (and Luntz) are correct when they say: "That’s exactly what’s been happening now." Just as was true for the 1994 crime bill, the right-wing fury over health care reform is motivated by the fear that middle-class Americans will have their money taken away by Obama while -- all together now, euphemistically -- "having someone else benefit." And this "someone else" are, as always, the poor minorities and other undeserving deadbeats who, in right-wing lore, somehow (despite their sorry state) exert immensely powerful influence over the U.S. Government and are thus the beneficiaries of endless, undeserved largesse: people too lazy to work, illegal immigrants, those living below the poverty line. That's why Joe Wilson's outburst resonated so forcefully among the Right and why he became an immediate folk hero: he was voicing the core right-wing fear that their money was being stolen from them by Obama in order to lavish the Undeserving and the Others -- in this case illegal immigrants -- with ill-gotten gains ("having someone else benefit," as Douthat/Luntz put it).

* * * * *

This is the paradox of the tea-party movement and other right-wing protests fueled by genuine citizen anger and fear. It is true that the federal government embraces redistributive policies and that middle-class income is seized in order that "someone else benefits." But so obviously, that "someone else" who is benefiting is not the poor and lower classes -- who continue to get poorer as the numbers living below the poverty line expand and the rich-poor gap grows in the U.S. to unprecedented proportions. The "someone else" that is benefiting from Washington policies are -- as usual -- the super-rich, the tiny number of huge corporations which literally own and control the Government. The premise of these citizen protests is not wrong: Washington politicians are in thrall to special interests and are, in essence, corruptly stealing the country's economic security in order to provide increasing benefits to a small and undeserving minority. But the "minority" here isn't what Fox News means by that term, but is the tiny sliver of corporate power which literally writes our laws and, in every case, ends up benefiting.

It wasn't the poor or illegal immigrants who were the beneficiaries of the Wall St. bailout; it was the investment banks which, not even a year later, are wallowing in record profits and bonuses thanks to massive taxpayer-funded welfare. The endlessly expanding (and secret) balance sheet of the Federal Reserve isn't going to fund midnight basketball programs or health care for Mexican immigrants but is enabling extreme profiteering by the very people who, just a year ago, almost brought the global economic system to full-scale collapse. Our endless wars and always-expanding Surveillance State -- fueled by constant fear-mongering campaigns against the Latest Scary Enemy -- keep the National Security corporations drowning in profits, paid for by middle-class taxes. And even health-care reform -- which supposedly began with anger over extreme insurance company profiteering at the expense of people's health -- will be an enormous boon to that same industry, as tens of millions of people are forced by the Government to become their customers with the central mechanism to control costs (the public option) blocked by that same industry. That's why those industries are enthusiastically in favor of reform: because, as always, they will benefit massively from it.

This is what is so strange and remarkable about these tea-party protests. The people who win when government acts aren't the poor, minorities or illegal immigrants -- the prime targets of these protesters' resentment. Their plight only worsens by the day. In Washington, members of those groups are even more powerless than "middle-income Americans." That's so obvious. The people who win whenever the federal government expands its power are the ones who, through their massive resources and lobbyists armies, control what the government does: the richest and most powerful corporations. And yet -- in an extreme paradox -- those are the people who are venerated by the Right: they simultaneously spew rage at what's happening in Washington while revering and defending the interests of the oligarchs who are most responsible.

What's really happening with these protests is that the genuine rage and not unreasonable economic insecurity of these citizens is being stoked, exploited, distorted and manipulated by movement leaders for entirely different ends. The people who are leading them -- Rush Limbaugh, the Murdoch-owned Fox News, Glenn Beck, business-dominated organizations of the type led by Dick Armey -- are cultural warriors above everything else. They're all in a far different socioeconomic position than the "middle-income Americans" whose anger they're ostensibly representing. Their principal preoccupation is their cultural contempt for various groups (illegal immigrants, the "undeserving" poor, liberals) and their desire to preserve the status quo whereby the prime beneficiaries of government policies remain themselves: the super rich and the interests that control Washington. It's certainly true that many of these protesters are driven by the standard right-wing cultural issues which have long shaped that movement -- social issues, religious fears, cultural and racial divisions, and hatred for "liberals" as Communist-Muslim-Terrorist-lovers. For many, all of that is intensified by the humiliation of being completely thrown out of power, at the hands of the first black President. But much of it is fueled by the pillaging of the corporations and Wall St. interests which own their government.

That's what accounts for the gaping paradox of these protests movements: genuine anger (over the core corruption of Washington and the eroding economic security for virtually everyone other than a tiny minority) is being bizarrely directed at those who never benefit (the poorest and most downtrodden), while those who are most responsible (the wealthiest and largest corporations) are depicted as the victims who need defending (they want to seize Wall St. bonuses and soak the rich!!). Several months ago, Matt Taibbi perfectly described the bizarre contradiction driving these protests:

After all, the reason the winger crowd can’t find a way to be coherently angry right now is because this country has no healthy avenues for genuine populist outrage. It never has. The setup always goes the other way: when the excesses of business interests and their political proteges in Washington leave the regular guy broke and screwed, the response is always for the lower and middle classes to split down the middle and find reasons to get pissed off not at their greedy bosses but at each other. That’s why even people like [Glenn] Beck’s audience, who I’d wager are mostly lower-income people, can’t imagine themselves protesting against the Wall Street barons who in actuality are the ones who fucked them over. . . .

Actual rich people can’t ever be the target. It’s a classic peasant mentality: going into fits of groveling and bowing whenever the master’s carriage rides by, then fuming against the Turks in Crimea or the Jews in the Pale or whoever after spending fifteen hard hours in the fields. You know you’re a peasant when you worship the very people who are right now, this minute, conning you and taking your shit. Whatever the master does, you’re on board. When you get frisky, he sticks a big cross in the middle of your village, and you spend the rest of your life praying to it with big googly eyes. Or he puts out newspapers full of innuendo about this or that faraway group and you immediately salute and rush off to join the hate squad. A good peasant is loyal, simpleminded, and full of misdirected anger. And that’s what we’ve got now, a lot of misdirected anger searching around for a non-target to mis-punish . . . can’t be mad at AIG, can’t be mad at Citi or Goldman Sachs. The real villains have to be the anti-AIG protesters! After all, those people earned those bonuses! If ever there was a textbook case of peasant thinking, it’s struggling middle-class Americans burned up in defense of taxpayer-funded bonuses to millionaires. It’s really weird stuff.

A significant reason this has happened is that the Democratic Party has largely ridden to power based on its servitude to these corporate interests -- chief party-fundraiser Chuck Schumer is the Senator from Wall St. and the Blue Dogs are little more than corporate-owned subsidiaries -- and thus can't possibly pretend to be opponents of the status quo. They can't and don't want to tap into any populist anger because they're every bit as supportive of, servants to, the corporate agenda as the GOP establishment is. K Street support is what sustains their power. Super-rich corporations aren't benefiting from a free market, laissez faire approach. They're benefiting from the opposite: a constant merging of government and corporate power whereby the latter exploits the former for its own benefit. The right-wing theme that an expansion of federal government power means a contraction in corporate freedom is completely obsolete: government power is the means by which large corporations benefit themselves at the expense of everyone else.

Both parties -- but particularly the one in power at any given moment -- perpetuate that system because they benefit from it. That's what has left the gaping void into which Fox News, Glenn Beck, Limbaugh and the like have stepped: absurdly parading around as populist leaders while supporting policies designed to further crush the interests of the people who they are leading.

* * * * *

In a rational world, there ought to be citizen rage towards the government that transcends -- indeed, that has little to do with -- divisions between the so-called "Right" and "Left." One saw the incipient emergence of that sort of citizen anger during the rage over the Wall St. bailouts and AIG bonuses, where the divisions were defined not as "conservatives v. liberals" but as "outsiders" (citizens of all ideologies who were enraged by such blatant corruption and stealing) v. "insiders" (who defended it all as necessary and scorned the irresponsible dirty masses who were protesting). The real power dynamic in this country has little to do with the cable-generated "right v. left" drama and much more to do with "outsider/insider" divisions, since the same corporate interests control the Government regardless of which political party wins.

But these protests end up expressing themselves in dichotomies that are largely besides the point -- "right v. left" or "Democratic v. GOP" -- because that's how their leaders define it. These protests, at their leadership level, are little more than Fox-News-generated events. That is notable in itself: it's extremely unusual (if not unprecedented) for a political movement in the U.S. to be led and galvanized by a "news" media outlet; that's usually something that happens elsewhere ("opposition television or radio stations" sponsoring street protests in Italy, Venezuela, Rwanda). Fox News and Rush Limbaugh are part of the class that has long controlled and benefited from Washington, and thus promote a view of the world based in the Douthat/Luntz "having someone else benefit": the Democrats are socialists coming to steal your money and give it to the poor, the minorities and the immigrants. As a result, citizen rage is directed towards everyone except those who are actually responsible for their plight.

If Fox News, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh were truly opposed to expanded government power, where were they when George Bush and Dick Cheney were expanding federal power in virtually every realm, driving up the national debt to unprecedented proportions, destroying middle-class economic security in order to benefit the wealthiest, and generally ensuring government intrusion into every aspect of people's lives? They were supporting it and cheering it on. That's what gives the lie to their pretense of "small-government" rhetoric. These citizen protests have a core of truth and validity to them -- it would be bizarre if citizens weren't enraged by what is taking place -- but that is all being misdirected and exploited for ends that have nothing to do with the interests (or even their claimed beliefs) of the protesters themselves.

  On 9/16/2009 at 12:12 PM, my usernames always really suck said:

I don't have a problem with people protesting government-run health insurance.

 

I do have a problem with neo-conservatives pretending to be libertarians when they're NOT, and they've been doing such a thing very often at these tea party protests. These people who pretend they give a shit about how unconstitutional such a program would be (and it would be unconstitutional, at least if run at the federal level) are the same shitbag traitors who told us Libertarians to STFU when we openly took issue with the existence of the Patriot Act and the war in Iraq.

 

These "tea party" bottom-feeders have no problem with unconstitutional government programs. They just want THEIR unconstitutional government programs, not YOUR unconstitutional government programs, in place.

 

tl;dr -- fuck both of you

Amen.

There's a name for such a twat. LINO: Libertarian in name only.

  On 9/16/2009 at 5:28 PM, Joyrex said:

- but after Apwittence's posting of that Single Payer versus Public Option plan (a lot of stuff, if accurate,

it's not.

Here's the most likely bill.

a total useless turd. co-ops ain't gonna do shit.

i just hope that when whatever crippled and lousy piece of legislation passes that Obama reminds people that this isn't what he wanted, and therefore, when it inevitably fails miserably, we have only ourselves to blame...

too bad the very same people responsible for creating the failed bill will somehow claim that it's Obama's fault.

  On 9/16/2009 at 7:06 PM, blicero said:

  On 9/16/2009 at 5:28 PM, Joyrex said:

- but after Apwittence's posting of that Single Payer versus Public Option plan (a lot of stuff, if accurate,

 

it's not.

just out of curiosity , how is it not accurate (for the proposed public option idea)

  On 9/16/2009 at 6:00 PM, Joyrex said:

Here's some further food for thought: where did the Doctor that made that chart get her info? Yeah, the Single Payer Option info probably is based on the plans in Canada and/or in Europe, but where'd she get info on the Public Option, when nothing concrete has been put down in writing yet? Is it based off what Obama said in his address to Congress and the nation, and if so, how is she inferring that is what the Public Option will deliver?

 

Here's a great article on Salon that is some more food for thought:

 

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/09/14/resentment/index.html

 

thats my favorite journalist working today, he writes great stuff!

"The Nazis had the Brown shirts... " lol.

  On 9/16/2009 at 9:40 PM, Awepittance said:

  On 9/16/2009 at 7:06 PM, blicero said:

  On 9/16/2009 at 5:28 PM, Joyrex said:

- but after Apwittence's posting of that Single Payer versus Public Option plan (a lot of stuff, if accurate,

 

it's not.

 

just out of curiosity , how is it not accurate (for the proposed public option idea)

OK, here goes... These are all corrections based on the health reform that Obama has asked for:

"Everyone In?"

Yes. Being uninsured is not an option. Every American will be required to have insurance, be it private or public.

"Guaranteed Coverage?"

Yes. Everyone will be required to carry insurance, and therefore will be covered. New regulations on private insurance will make it illegal for insurers to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions, and even if you still can't private coverage for whatever reason, the public plan will take you no matter what. If you can't afford the public plan, your premium will be subsidized by the government. And if you are even too poor for that, you will qualify for Medicaid.

"Choice of paying...?"

No. Cannot have "no plan". See above.

"Risk of destruction"

Not sure, but I do not know of any subsidies for private insurers. Also, since health insurance will be required by law, nearly 50 million people who currently do not have isurance will be shopping for insurance. So, the prediction is that private insurance companies will see a huge spike in enrollment. the question is if this will offset the number of customers that will hop over to the public plan, OR the downward pressure on premiums due to competition with the public plan.

"Cherry picking?"

Not really. See my point about increased regulation of private insurers. They can't discriminate as much as they used to. But they can't be forced to take everyone either, and they shouldn't be. that is what the public plan is for.

"Risk pool shared?"

Yes. As it is now, if I am uninsured, and I go to the emergency room, that will cost a fortune. If i neglect to pay for it, or declare bankruptcy, the hospital has to eat those costs, which translates out to higher costs for everyone who pays for healthcare. If everyone has insurance, then everyone is covered and is only a liability to themselves. This is why basic car insurance is required by law.

"Discrimination against pre-existing conditions?"

No. Again, insurance companies will not be allowed to deny coverage due to pre-existing conditions.

"Plan will help negotiate...?"

Yes. I think this is completely backwards. Competition from the public pan reduces the number of customers of private insurers, thus INCREASING the public bargaining power of members/administrators of the public plan.

"Current support?"

No. The president and the liberals in the house and senate support this, but "Blue Dog" democrats and all Republicans in the senate oppose it. Therefore this is not likely to pass.

"Reducing costs"

Yes. Supposedly, the Congressional Budget Office has stated that this plan could be paid for mostly by reducing waste/costs of health care.

it doesn't seem too bad. however, i'm speaking from the point of view of someone that can't afford insurance, so anything seems like an improvement from what we have now.

  On 9/16/2009 at 10:54 PM, blicero said:

  On 9/16/2009 at 9:40 PM, Awepittance said:

  On 9/16/2009 at 7:06 PM, blicero said:

  On 9/16/2009 at 5:28 PM, Joyrex said:

- but after Apwittence's posting of that Single Payer versus Public Option plan (a lot of stuff, if accurate,

 

it's not.

 

just out of curiosity , how is it not accurate (for the proposed public option idea)

 

 

OK, here goes... These are all corrections based on the health reform that Obama has asked for:

 

"Everyone In?"

 

Yes. Being uninsured is not an option. Every American will be required to have insurance, be it private or public.

---

"Guaranteed Coverage?"

 

Yes. Everyone will be required to carry insurance, and therefore will be covered. New regulations on private insurance will make it illegal for insurers to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions, and even if you still can't private coverage for whatever reason, the public plan will take you no matter what. If you can't afford the public plan, your premium will be subsidized by the government. And if you are even too poor for that, you will qualify for Medicaid.

---

"Choice of paying...?"

 

No. Cannot have "no plan". See above.

---

"Risk of destruction"

 

Not sure, but I do not know of any subsidies for private insurers. Also, since health insurance will be required by law, nearly 50 million people who currently do not have isurance will be shopping for insurance. So, the prediction is that private insurance companies will see a huge spike in enrollment. the question is if this will offset the number of customers that will hop over to the public plan, OR the downward pressure on premiums due to competition with the public plan.

---

"Cherry picking?"

Not really. See my point about increased regulation of private insurers. They can't discriminate as much as they used to. But they can't be forced to take everyone either, and they shouldn't be. that is what the public plan is for.

---

"Risk pool shared?"

 

Yes. As it is now, if I am uninsured, and I go to the emergency room, that will cost a fortune. If i neglect to pay for it, or declare bankruptcy, the hospital has to eat those costs, which translates out to higher costs for everyone who pays for healthcare. If everyone has insurance, then everyone is covered and is only a liability to themselves. This is why basic car insurance is required by law.

---

"Discrimination against pre-existing conditions?"

 

No. Again, insurance companies will not be allowed to deny coverage due to pre-existing conditions.

---

"Plan will help negotiate...?"

 

Yes. I think this is completely backwards. Competition from the public pan reduces the number of customers of private insurers, thus INCREASING the public bargaining power of members/administrators of the public plan.

---

"Current support?"

 

No. The president and the liberals in the house and senate support this, but "Blue Dog" democrats and all Republicans in the senate oppose it. Therefore this is not likely to pass.

---

"Reducing costs"

 

Yes. Supposedly, the Congressional Budget Office has stated that this plan could be paid for mostly by reducing waste/costs of health care.

Thanks for that

  On 9/16/2009 at 10:59 PM, Hoodie said:

it doesn't seem too bad. however, i'm speaking from the point of view of someone that can't afford insurance, so anything seems like an improvement from what we have now.

EXACTLY. and for me, that's really the point. I have great insurance that is majorly subsidized by my employer. but why should millions not have any insurance? that's bullshit. i feel like being against a public plan is just plain selfish.

  On 9/16/2009 at 11:08 PM, Awepittance said:

Thanks for that

You are welcome. Remember, this is based on Obama's wishlist, as he has expressed in the past months, and reiterated in his speech at the capital. This is NOT what the Baucus bill contains. Not even close.

I don't have insurance, but I'd be happy to get some, especially if was cheap the government had some better influence over how the insurance companies ran their business. And if this were to become closer to the european health systems in the future. So I'm all for it.

I'll ask again, why would you need a fucking gun for these faggot pussies?

  On 9/17/2009 at 3:51 AM, abusivegeorge said:

I'll ask again, why would you need a fucking gun for these faggot pussies?

Because they're faggot pussies with guns. Lots of guns.

obama is a bad president and the dems are spineless shits when a bunch of fat people in lawnchairs and rascalscooters can sway them to make a reform for the worse.

as long as the american system only allows two parties to share the power, no meaningful reforms are going pass. two-sides of the same shitty coin.