I’m Confused, Do Republicans Want Government Health Care Or Not?

thoughtone · Sep 10, 2009

“Wait a second are people taking away the seniors Medicare, is that what democrats are doing?“

Michael Steele wants to preserve Medicare, Socialized medicine? Republicans talk out of their ass, as usual.

actinanass · Sep 10, 2009

what republicans don't want is UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE INSURANCE.

Right now, we typically have universal health care. Meaning, if I got shot right now, I will be treated in the emergency room, but will have to pay for it *either insurance, or out of pocket IE credit*. The issue isn't health care, its the insurance part that scares the shit out of everyone. Get it?

thoughtone · Sep 10, 2009

actinanass said:
what republicans don't want is UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE INSURANCE.

Right now, we typically have universal health care. Meaning, if I got shot right now, I will be treated in the emergency room, but will have to pay for it *either insurance, or out of pocket IE credit*. The issue isn't health care, its the insurance part that scares the shit out of everyone. Get it?

So you are on the record for being aginst Medicare. Of course you don't actually know what UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE INSURANCE is. Because your attempt at appearing intelligent and seeming to explain the issue is as convoluted as ever. I will wait for you to state, “you explain it if you’re so smart.”

actinanass · Sep 10, 2009

thoughtone said:
So you are on the record for being aginst Medicare. Of course you don't actually know what UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE INSURANCE is. Because your attempt at appearing intelligent and seeming to explain the issue is as convoluted as ever. I will wait for you to state, “you explain it if you’re so smart.”

I'm on the record of being against Universal health care INSURANCE.

Medicare and the public option are apples, and oranges.

Medicare is strictly for people who CAN NOT afford private health care insurance. Whats the difference? Right now, I will not qualify for Medicare because I'm considered "too well off" to get such coverage. However, I have private health insurance because of my job.

Of course, since I brought up my job, you will focus on where I work at for your next point, right?

thoughtone · Sep 10, 2009

actinanass said:
I'm on the record of being against Universal health care INSURANCE.

Medicare and the public option are apples, and oranges.

Medicare is strictly for people who CAN NOT afford private health care insurance. Whats the difference? Right now, I will not qualify for Medicare because I'm considered "too well off" to get such coverage. However, I have private health insurance because of my job.

Of course, since I brought up my job, you will focus on where I work at for your next point, right?

Medicare and the public option are apples, and oranges.

Ah, your confusing Medicare with Medicaid. What? Do you know what they are and the difference between the two? I'll let your circuits cool down until your net post.

actinanass · Sep 11, 2009

thoughtone said:
Ah, your confusing Medicare with Medicaid. What? Do you know what they are and the difference between the two? I'll let your circuits cool down until your net post.

My apologies...

I'm too YOUNG for medicare..

Generally, you are eligible for Medicare if you or your spouse worked for at least 10 years in Medicare-covered employment and you are 65 years or older and a citizen or permanent resident of the United States. If you aren’t yet 65, you might also qualify for coverage if you have a disability or with End-Stage Renal disease (permanent kidney failure requiring dialysis or transplant).

Here are some simple guidelines. You can get Part A at age 65 without having to pay premiums if:

* You already get retirement benefits from Social Security or the Railroad Retirement Board.

* You are eligible to get Social Security or Railroad benefits but haven't yet filed for them.

* You or your spouse had Medicare-covered government employment.

If you are under 65, you can get Part A without having to pay premiums if you have:

* Received Social Security or Railroad Retirement Board disability benefits for 24 months.

* End-Stage Renal Disease and meet certain requirements.

http://www.medicare.gov/MedicareEligibility/Home.asp?dest=NAV|Home|GeneralEnrollment#TabTop

I'm actually ok with medicare. Universal health care insurance is the part that I do not like. For one, medicare is only for a select few, that has the best chance of getting sick/dying. A 25 year old is less likely to die earlier than a 65 year old cancer patient. However, having universal health care INSURANCE, you would be essentially pushing that 65 year old into a coffin because you are paying for a person who will, more than likely, go to the doctor as much. Meaning, you are wasting money for someone who, more than likely, will not appreciate it as much as that 65 year old cancer patient.

How about examine the percentage of people who aren't cover more closely? How many of the people are younger than 45, fairly healthy, and have a decent financial situation? Subtract illegal immigrants out of that percentage. Now, if the percentage is more than half of the US population, then we have a problem. If not, then this whole health care situation is now considered a power grab by the Democrats.

thoughtone · Sep 11, 2009

actinanass said:
what republicans don't want is UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE INSURANCE.

Right now, we typically have universal health care. Meaning, if I got shot right now, I will be treated in the emergency room, but will have to pay for it *either insurance, or out of pocket IE credit*. The issue isn't health care, its the insurance part that scares the shit out of everyone. Get it?

but will have to pay for it *either insurance, or out of pocket IE credit

lets say you broke your arm and the total bill is $25,000 which is less than what it would cost. You are not insured and don't have the money. Who pays?

actinanass · Sep 11, 2009

thoughtone said:
lets say you broke your arm and the total bill is $25,000 which is less than what it would cost. You are not insured and don't have the money. Who pays?

first and foremost, my credit is going to be shot if I don't pay monthly *personal responsibility*.

Secondly, what you keep forgetting is the fact that YOU GOT TREATMENT.

What you need to figure out is, what is more important? Getting treatment, or finding out who is going to pay for the treatment. We have money *from generations of paying taxes*, to pay for treatment for situations like this. I rather keep the treatment phase, and ADD the ability to buy health insurance OUTSIDE of my state if I chose so.

*I put it in bold for your answer*

thoughtone · Sep 11, 2009

actinanass said:
first and foremost, my credit is going to be shot if I don't pay monthly *personal responsibility*.

Secondly, what you keep forgetting is the fact that YOU GOT TREATMENT.

What you need to figure out is, what is more important? Getting treatment, or finding out who is going to pay for the treatment. We have money *from generations of paying taxes*, to pay for treatment for situations like this. I rather keep the treatment phase, and ADD the ability to buy health insurance OUTSIDE of my state if I chose so.

*I put it in bold for your answer*

So you said, "We have money *from generations of paying taxes*. The operative word is TAXES! So from your answer which finally is the correct one is that everyone else will chip in, socialism and government. And these uninsured, spur-of-the-moment incidences are killing us because just showing up when you are hurt, especially by young people who think they are invincible and do not buy health insurance by choice in the long run costs everyone dearly. As President Obama stated this is not sustainable.

thoughtone · Sep 11, 2009

actinanass said:
My apologies...

I'm too YOUNG for medicare..

It’s funny, you have gotten this far in to the debate and we have been discussing this in one form or another for about three years on this board and you only have an idea of what Medicare or Medicaid is and have no idea how it is run. The only thing you heard was that it was a government program so automatically it is bad. This is what I mean by being blinded by ideology.

actinanass said:
http://www.medicare.gov/MedicareEligibility/Home.asp?dest=NAV|Home|GeneralEnrollment#TabTop

I'm actually ok with medicare. Universal health care insurance is the part that I do not like.

Wow! Medicare IS universal health care insurance for those over 65! Medicare recipients use the same doctors and facilities that those with private, for profit health care insurance use. Doctors, health care workers and facilities are not owned or run by the federal government. :smh:

actinanass · Sep 11, 2009

thoughtone said:
So you said, "We have money *from generations of paying taxes*. The operative word is TAXES! So from your answer which finally is the correct one is that everyone else will chip in, socialism and government. And these uninsured, spur-of-the-moment incidences are killing us because just showing up when you are hurt, especially by young people who think they are invincible and do not buy health insurance by choice in the long run costs everyone dearly. As President Obama stated this is not sustainable.

Let me get this straight? You rather make a nationwide, government run health care system, in which, everyone will be apart of, and this suppose to cut "long run costs" in the long run? Really?

Seriously, before you drink some more kool-aid, can you please reevaluate your THOUGHT process?

thoughtone said:
It’s funny, you have gotten this far in to the debate and we have been discussing this in one form or another for about three years on this board and you only have an idea of what Medicare or Medicaid is and have no idea how it is run. The only thing you heard was that it was a government program so automatically it is bad. This is what I mean by being blinded by ideology.

Wow! Medicare IS universal health care insurance for those over 65! Medicare recipients use the same doctors and facilities that those with private, for profit health care insurance use. Doctors, health care workers and facilities are not owned or run by the federal government.

Answer this question.

Who is more likely to die, a 30 year old, or a 65 year old?

thoughtone · Sep 11, 2009

actinanass said:
Let me get this straight? You rather make a nationwide, government run health care system, in which, everyone will be apart of, and this suppose to cut "long run costs" in the long run? Really?

Einstein, for the trillionth time, Medicare IS a nation wide health care system that has run better than private health care insurance for over 40 years. No one over 65 gets rejected or bumped off and it is more efficient than private health care. What don’t you understand?

Answer this question.

Who is more likely to die, a 30 year old, or a 65 year old?

Ah, ah, the 65 year old? What is your eff'in point!

actinanass · Sep 12, 2009

thoughtone said:
Einstein, for the trillionth time, Medicare IS a nation wide health care system that has run better than private health care insurance for over 40 years. No one over 65 gets rejected or bumped off and it is more efficient than private health care. What don’t you understand?

Ah, ah, the 65 year old? What is your eff'in point!

1. Medicare works because its essentially a revolving door system. That was my point for asking that question. The citizenry that's 65, and up, have a higher probability to die than a person in their 30's. Meaning, less people are covered under medicare. When you make it for everyone, that means MORE PEOPLE WILL BE COVERED. Meaning, less of that great medicare coverage our elderly received throughout the OVER 40 years medicare existed. I really wished you used your head more than your heart. The shit is common sense.

thoughtone · Sep 12, 2009

actinanass said:
1. Medicare works because its essentially a revolving door system. That was my point for asking that question. The citizenry that's 65, and up, have a higher probability to die than a person in their 30's. Meaning, less people are covered under medicare. When you make it for everyone, that means MORE PEOPLE WILL BE COVERED. Meaning, less of that great medicare coverage our elderly received throughout the OVER 40 years medicare existed. I really wished you used your head more than your heart. The shit is common sense.

When you make it for everyone, that means MORE PEOPLE WILL BE COVERED.

With all due respect, really, your logic astounds me. You have made the case for single payer national heath insurance and you don’t even realize it. Let me see if I can explain it to you in terms in which YOU can understand. How does insurance work. When a policy is taken out, the issuer (insurance company) is betting that they will never have to pay out that policy. When you buy car insurance, the insurance company is betting that you will pay and pay and never recoup any of the money you pay in. In fact, the odds are that even if you do get into an accident, the pay out will be less than what you have been paying over time. In fact the reason why insurance companies are so profitable is because they have been collecting payments at such a great amount and paying out in such a small percentage of what they receive. Now when the pool of payers (policy holders) is so great, the risk is reduced because you will have groups of people that will never cash in or cash in at such a low rate that the risk of those who will cash in is lowered even more. To correct your assumption, those under 30 are not at the least risk for medical insurance. Those under thirty use the emergency room more than anyone else because they tend not to be insured. The group least likely to use heath insurance is between 30 and 50, married, because they are less likely to engage in risky behavior and are stable.

actinanass · Sep 12, 2009

thoughtone said:
With all due respect, really, your logic astounds me. You have made the case for single payer national heath insurance and you don’t even realize it. Let me see if I can explain it to you in terms in which YOU can understand. How does insurance work. When a policy is taken out, the issuer (insurance company) is betting that they will never have to pay out that policy. When you buy car insurance, the insurance company is betting that you will pay and pay and never recoup any of the money you pay in. In fact, the odds are that even if you do get into an accident, the pay out will be less than what you have been paying over time. In fact the reason why insurance companies are so profitable is because they have been collecting payments at such a great amount and paying out in such a small percentage of what they receive. Now when the pool of payers (policy holders) is so great, the risk is reduced because you will have groups of people that will never cash in or cash in at such a low rate that the risk of those who will cash in is lowered even more. To correct your assumption, those under 30 are not at the least risk for medical insurance. Those under thirty use the emergency room more than anyone else because they tend not to be insured. The group least likely to use heath insurance is between 30 and 50, married, because they are less likely to engage in risky behavior and are stable.

1. People over 65 years of age, use medical assistance *overall* way more than any other group in the United States. You are trying to narrow the argument by only discussing emergency room visits.

2. Whats the difference between Health care insurance, and car insurance? I can by car insurance from any state, cheaper. Don't act like that's not true.

3. So, punish people under 30 because you think its better for them? Who gives you, or the government a right to dictate what we should do? Damn I love it when liberals are arrogant.

4. So, that means that I'm living an unstable lifestyle right? Lets have some fun real quick. I'm thinking that you are black. Lets say that I made a statement about since we are both black, we are more likely to sell drugs, rape women, and kill people than other races. That would be a fucked up assumption right? I guess that's an apples, and oranges situation right?

thoughtone · Sep 12, 2009

actinanass said:
1. People over 65 years of age, use medical assistance *overall* way more than any other group in the United States. You are trying to narrow the argument by only discussing emergency room visits.

I still don't know what your point is?

2. Whats the difference between Health care insurance, and car insurance? I can by car insurance from any state, cheaper. Don't act like that's not true.

The difference is you don't have to drive. That is not a life or death choice. Again when you need health care you need it immediately and you need the best, nearest service. You don't have time to shop around.

3. So, punish people under 30 because you think its better for them? Who gives you, or the government a right to dictate what we should do? Damn I love it when liberalserre arrogant.

The people under 30 are punishing everyone else. Because they don't or can't get health care insurance, their emergency room visits are causing the cost of health care to be unsustainable. Your selfish attitude is one reason why this is such an issue.

4. So, that means that I'm living an unstable lifestyle right? Lets have some fun real quick. I'm thinking that you are black. Lets say that I made a statement about since we are both black, we are more likely to sell drugs, rape women, and kill people than other races. That would be a fucked up assumption right? I guess that's an apples, and oranges situation right?

Unfortunately, that's how insurances companies rate their pool of customers. Females pay less in car insurance than males, those under 30 pay more for care insurance than those over 30. I am over 35 and own a home, don’t smoke, so my rates are lower than those that rent under 25. That's how it's done.

actinanass · Sep 12, 2009

thoughtone said:
I still don't know what your point is?

The difference is you don't have to drive. That is not a life or death choice. Again when you need health care you need it immediately and you need the best, nearest service. You don't have time to shop around.

The people under 30 are punishing everyone else. Because they don't or can't get health care insurance, their emergency room visits are causing the cost of health care to be unsustainable. Your selfish attitude is one reason why this is such an issue.

Unfortunately, that's how insurances companies rate their pool of customers. Females pay less in car insurance than males, those under 30 pay more for care insurance than those over 30. I am over 35 and own a home, don’t smoke, so my rates are lower than those that rent under 25. That's how it's done.

1. You tried to change the debate by only talking about emergency room visits when it's way more than just that. The point is, overall, a younger person will not put priority into going to the doctor as much as a middle aged person. Meaning, the middle aged person will eventually spend more money dealing with surgeries, doctor visits, and medicines.

2. You do not need health care insurance. Health care insurance is a fairly new *in history terms* terminology. The old days, we *America* had a neighborhood doctor to do everything. Society survived very well with that system. Honestly, you really don't need it now. That's if you do not care about your treatment.

3. So, making my generation do something they don't wanna do is the answer? That's like me saying "thought vote republican, because when you voting democratic, you are punishing the other group of Americans with tax hikes...." You rather control a group of people, then letting them decide for themselves. That's the difference between me and you.

4. Well, why aren't you fighting for overall equality on the insurance front. That's something I would love to reform. To be honest, how they rate individuals is damn near discrimination if you think about it. That's something we could be on the same page about.

thoughtone · Sep 12, 2009

actinanass said:
1. You tried to change the debate by only talking about emergency room visits when it's way more than just that. The point is, overall, a younger person will not put priority into going to the doctor as much as a middle aged person. Meaning, the middle aged person will eventually spend more money dealing with surgeries, doctor visits, and medicines.

The debate is that health care cost too much. How to bring it down and get those uninsured is the debate.

2. You do not need health care insurance. Health care insurance is a fairly new *in history terms* terminology. The old days, we *America* had a neighborhood doctor to do everything. Society survived very well with that system. Honestly, you really don't need it now. That's if you do not care about your treatment.

Society survived without medicine too. Will you give up medicine when you need it?

3. So, making my generation do something they don't wanna do is the answer? That's like me saying "thought vote republican, because when you voting democratic, you are punishing the other group of Americans with tax hikes...." You rather control a group of people, then letting them decide for themselves. That's the difference between me and you.

That is just the point. Your generation doesn’t want to do anything.

4. Well, why aren't you fighting for overall equality on the insurance front. That's something I would love to reform. To be honest, how they rate individuals is damn near discrimination if you think about it. That's something we could be on the same page about.

Because you have no recourse with a private business short of changing the laws. That is my main overall argument you fail to see. With a business (private organization) if you want something changed you can go to the CEO. Of course when you step in to the cooperate headquarters you will get arrested for trespassing. When you want a law to change, you can petition your government. You see what the republican teabaggers are doing to protect the laws for billionaires!

actinanass · Sep 13, 2009

thoughtone said:
The debate is that health care cost too much. How to bring it down and get those uninsured is the debate.

Society survived without medicine too. Will you give up medicine when you need it?

That is just the point. Your generation doesn’t want to do anything.

Because you have no recourse with a private business short of changing the laws. That is my main overall argument you fail to see. With a business (private organization) if you want something changed you can go to the CEO. Of course when you step in to the cooperate headquarters you will get arrested for trespassing. When you want a law to change, you can petition your government. You see what the republican teabaggers are doing to protect the laws for billionaires!

1. Yes it is about health care, but don't try to narrow down a segment just for your convenience. The health care system, overall, needs adjustment. However, forcing people into a government ran system is a little bit too far. Especially, when there's private sector measures the government can do to fix this issue. Such as letting citizens by coverage out of state, and giving a significant tax cuts to the insurance companies so they can afford to have "risky" policies.

2. Are you talking about modern, or ancient? I'm talking about modern medicine.

3. That's my generation's choice. Again, who are you, or the government to tell us what we should/shouldn't do? Is this a democracy or a dictatorship?

4. With a CEO, there's one thing the public can do against a CEO, and that CEO will never want that to happen. They can stop buying their product. If anything, a CEO would be FOR this bill. Only because if he ,figuratively speaking, "SUCK THE RIGHT DICK" he/she could be the one running this debacle. What you have made a mistake in, is your assessment of the American people. You think they are protesting for CEO's, when, in fact, they are protesting for their freedom. You believe the government should tell it's citizens what to do because of financial reasons. While, the protesters resists such notions. In fact, the government is suppose to work for us, not tell us what to do. We pay their salaries *even government workers do too*, we voted for them to do a job that reflect on our politics. Sadly, for you, majority of America really do not want this bill. You can't run from that fact.

Citizens of the United States do not work FOR this country, we work for our families, friends, hell even complete strangers. The time we work for this country is when this country is in tragedy. We will volunteer when a Katrina hits. We will serve when we have a 9-11. However, we will not be told what to do by any government, yet alone our own. With this debate, I saw right through your heart, and brain. You believe Americans are too dumb to realize that Mr. Obama has a better situation for them. While, at the same time, you fail to realize the consequence is if Obama's idea goes wrong. Which it will likely happen.

Lamarr · Sep 13, 2009

thoughtone said:
The debate is that health care cost too much. How to bring it down and get those uninsured is the debate.

its not about cost, it's about control! Its been like that for a minute, every move the govt makes is about control. Study the biggest issues

Lamarr · Sep 13, 2009

thoughtone said:
That is just the point. Your generation doesn’t want to do anything.

I know we don't want the "Tuskegee Health Plan" that's currently being presented!

thoughtone · Sep 14, 2009

Lamarr said:
its not about cost, it's about control! Its been like that for a minute, every move the govt makes is about control. Study the biggest issues

Who controls you more the company that drops your health coverage after you have been paying faithfully for 5 years or the government that wants to give an option to that business practice?

thoughtone · Sep 14, 2009

Lamarr said:
I know we don't want the "Tuskegee Health Plan" that's currently being presented!

How is this related to the Tuskegee experiments? Your talking points from Freedom Works are getting annoying.

thoughtone · Sep 14, 2009

actinanass said:
1. Yes it is about health care, but don't try to narrow down a segment just for your convenience. The health care system, overall, needs adjustment. However, forcing people into a government ran system is a little bit too far. Especially, when there's private sector measures the government can do to fix this issue. Such as letting citizens by coverage out of state, and giving a significant tax cuts to the insurance companies so they can afford to have "risky" policies.

You stated earlier, “I want the government off of my health care.” Now you admit that there is a problem with the private health insurance system. I’m out!

BigUnc · Sep 14, 2009

Lamarr said:
its not about cost, it's about control! Its been like that for a minute, every move the govt makes is about control. Study the biggest issues

It's not just the government after control but also corporations.

Control of who who has the power to place their agenda in effect enriching themselves and those in their "set".

If we acknowledge that everyone does this on some level will be the day when the general public can block these attempts or get a piece of the action for themselves and their "set".

actinanass · Sep 14, 2009

thoughtone said:
You stated earlier, “I want the government off of my health care.” Now you admit that there is a problem with the private health insurance system. I’m out!

Obviously I won this debate, due to your running...

I never said there wasn't a problem with health care. I just do not want government ran health care. How clear can I be with that?

*just noticed that Thought needs the last word in every argument. Even if he is losing it..*

actinanass · Sep 14, 2009

BigUnc said:
It's not just the government after control but also corporations.

Control of who who has the power to place their agenda in effect enriching themselves and those in their "set".

If we acknowledge that everyone does this on some level will be the day when the general public can block these attempts or get a piece of the action for themselves and their "set".

I, for one, have always preached balanced. What's getting caught up in the midst is the fact that both sides *government, and private* should be working for the American people. This is our countries foundation. Thought's problem is that he needs the government to have more control than anything else. I've successfully shown his true colors in this debate. Thus, why he reacted the way he has.

SPECTRE1 · Sep 15, 2009

The plans mimics single payer in many aspects. In Canada, when you work, you are paying your health insurance through your tax rate. If you become unemployed in Canada, the government or other taxpayers are kicking out money, since you are not paying income taxes to pay for the access to the health care system.

United States...
Many of the healthcare bills provide a subsidy based on income if you are unable to afford insurance, due to a job loss or other reason. This is the same thing at a a single payer system except there is no direct subsidy to taxpayer. With the public option, you are getting access to the low administrative cost that a public plan offers similiar to the efficiency of a single payer system, plus the government will subsidize the cost of insurance if you are unable to pay because of income.

You are paying for healthcare directly versus a higher tax rate in many single payer countries. There is no major difference between single payer and this uniquely American system that is being proposed.

I think anybody that is opposing healthcare reform is scum, they would rather let people die, than pay slightly higher taxes.

Lamarr · Sep 15, 2009

COINTELPRO said:
I think anybody that is opposing healthcare reform is scum, they would rather let people die, than pay slightly higher taxes.

scum? The people who oppose this plan recognize that its nothing more than an Insurance industry bailout, plain & simple. Sure, I support reform, but 'true' reform. Let's focus on preventive medicine as opposed to helping people cope with their illness. You must admit, it plays into the hand of the insurance company to treat a disease, rather than cure it. This plan validates that line of thinking, we must eliminate bureaucracy to increase competition. In other words, get the Insurance companies out of the way! Congress should start over, & look out for the people instead of the Insurance industy

BigUnc · Sep 15, 2009

actinanass said:
I, for one, have always preached balanced. What's getting caught up in the midst is the fact that both sides *government, and private* should be working for the American people. This is our countries foundation. Thought's problem is that he needs the government to have more control than anything else. I've successfully shown his true colors in this debate. Thus, why he reacted the way he has.

I agree they should be working for the people but are they? It appears the main objective of both is the accumulation of greater levels of power to control the daily lives of the people. Although I could be wrong.

Can't speak with any authority on what motivates thoughtone.From reading his post he's sees a problem and in his worldview the answer is a collective response from the entire society with the government taking the lead. The financial burden it places on those members of society that will have to pay for it does not appear to be a consideration.

On the flip side those that advocate an individualist or a private enterprise solution seem to have lost touch with their humanity. The private sector has failed to find a way to insure a sizable number of people. Maybe if the corporations and it's investors would accept a lower return they could accomplish it. If they did that thoughtone wouldn't have an issue. But it's all about the dollar with them.

actinanass · Sep 15, 2009

Lamarr said:
scum? The people who oppose this plan recognize that its nothing more than an Insurance industry bailout, plain & simple. Sure, I support reform, but 'true' reform. Let's focus on preventive medicine as opposed to helping people cope with their illness. You must admit, it plays into the hand of the insurance company to treat a disease, rather than cure it. This plan validates that line of thinking, we must eliminate bureaucracy to increase competition. In other words, get the Insurance companies out of the way! Congress should start over, & look out for the people instead of the Insurance industy

I totally agree on that point. That's what I've been saying throughout this post.

BigUnc said:
I agree they should be working for the people but are they? It appears the main objective of both is the accumulation of greater levels of power to control the daily lives of the people. Although I could be wrong.

Can't speak with any authority on what motivates thoughtone.From reading his post he's sees a problem and in his worldview the answer is a collective response from the entire society with the government taking the lead. The financial burden it places on those members of society that will have to pay for it does not appear to be a consideration.

On the flip side those that advocate an individualist or a private enterprise solution seem to have lost touch with their humanity. The private sector has failed to find a way to insure a sizable number of people. Maybe if the corporations and it's investors would accept a lower return they could accomplish it. If they did that thoughtone wouldn't have an issue. But it's all about the dollar with them.

Thought has more faith in this government than the American people as a whole. I successfully revealed Thought's true nature as a person, and a politic. Thus, why he had to find something I said, and take it out of context. Right now, he is taking a break *slight one* before he finds something he thinks he can bash over my head. Sad thing, Thoughtone is very predictable just like Obama.

SPECTRE1 · Sep 16, 2009

Lamarr said:
scum? The people who oppose this plan recognize that its nothing more than an Insurance industry bailout, plain & simple. Sure, I support reform, but 'true' reform. Let's focus on preventive medicine as opposed to helping people cope with their illness. You must admit, it plays into the hand of the insurance company to treat a disease, rather than cure it. This plan validates that line of thinking, we must eliminate bureaucracy to increase competition. In other words, get the Insurance companies out of the way! Congress should start over, & look out for the people instead of the Insurance industy

This isn't a bailout for the insurance company if there is a public option and a national exchange of healthcare plans. Some of the insurance companies operate in state monopolies and will face more competition.

There is no difference with single payer (subsidies for the poor, banning pre-existing condition, requiring health insurance), the real issue is how much in administrative costs ($600 million dollar stock option package for the CEO) you want to pay.

Plus reducing healthcare cost will reduce the tax writeoff many companies receive and put them into a higher tax bracket possibly. Having a bloated health insurance market is reducing the revenue of many states and the federal government.

Plus the federal workers for the public option will be high paying union jobs.

I’m Confused, Do Republicans Want Government Health Care Or Not?

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Star

Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

Potential Star

Rising Star

Rising Star

SE for CI, Terrorism, Revenge, Extortion

Star

Potential Star

Rising Star

SE for CI, Terrorism, Revenge, Extortion