Universal Health Coverage & Medical Insurance.

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: palehorse74
The same as I pay now: $36 per month for BCBS PPO coverage w/ vision, dental, prescription discounts, and reasonable co-payments.

works for me!

I thought you were AD military - why don't you just use Tricare? They took good care of me even when I needed costly emergency surgery at a civilian facility, and I didn't pay a dime.

I'm not on AD at the moment (came off orders on 30 June). I'm a DoD contractor.

When I'm on AD, of course I fall under Tricare.

In other words, my health care is just fine the way it is. If some socialist comes along and screws that up, perhaps during a time when I, or someone in my family, needs good coverage; I will hurt them... badly.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
The same as I pay now: $36 per month for BCBS PPO coverage w/ vision, dental, prescription discounts, and reasonable co-payments.

works for me!

You do recognize that your lavish health benefits are not typical in today's American corporations, don't you? You are already enjoying the fruits of taxpayer-subsidized health care, albeit indirectly subsidized through the DoD.

 

[Bowfinger]

For everybody quoting their $250 per month (or whatever) health insurance, I hope you recognize that your employer is paying at least that much more, and often two or three times that much. At my Fortune 100 company, our average per-employee health insurance cost is over $7,400 per year, and our coverage is below-average for large companies. In addition to the $7.400 per year, the employee contribution varies from an additional $1,300 per year (single, high deductible, major medical only) to over $11,000 per year (Cadillac family plan, $430 per biweekly check). Assuming most people select a plan in the middle, that puts our total health insurance cost at about $12K to $14K per employee.

When you tally up how much it will cost for universal government care, be sure to balance it against the current costs. It is at worst a wash, and may actually save money even though more people will be covered.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: palehorse74
The same as I pay now: $36 per month for BCBS PPO coverage w/ vision, dental, prescription discounts, and reasonable co-payments.

works for me!

You do recognize that your lavish health benefits are not typical in today's American corporations, don't you? You are already enjoying the fruits of taxpayer-subsidized health care, albeit indirectly subsidized through the DoD.

go re-read my lats post. At the moment, as a contractor, I have private healthcare that I pay $36/month for.

The health and welfare of my family comes before everything and everyone else. If anyone, from any political party, screws with their health and welfare, I'll make them pay.

Period.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

In other words, my health care is just fine the way it is. If some socialist comes along and screws that up, perhaps during a time when I, or someone in my family, needs good coverage; I will hurt them... badly.

E-Thugz 4 Lyfe!!! Who are you going to go after first, the Congressman who proposes the legislation, the Senate or House leaders who marshall it through the legislative process, or the President who signs it?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
For everybody quoting their $250 per month (or whatever) health insurance, I hope you recognize that your employer is paying at least that much more, and often two or three times that much. At my Fortune 100 company, our average per-employee health insurance cost is over $7,400 per year, and our coverage is below-average for large companies. In addition to the $7.400 per year, the employee contribution varies from an additional $1,300 per year (single, high deductible, major medical only) to over $11,000 per year (Cadillac family plan, $430 per biweekly check). Assuming most people select a plan in the middle, that puts our total health insurance cost at about $12K to $14K per employee.

When you tally up how much it will cost for universal government care, be sure to balance it against the current costs. It is at worst a wash, and may actually save money even though more people will be covered.

Do you honestly believe that the companies will pass any of the savings on to their employees once they're taken off the hook for coverage? If so, you're delusional!

I woudn't mind increased "health taxes" if the government ALSO makes every employer in the country give every employee a raise worth at least 50% of the money the company used to pay in healthcare provision... but good luck with that!

It aint gonna happen. So, you'll make the companies more wealthy (freeing them from healthcare payments), and the employees less (higher taxes). That's just swell!

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
For everybody quoting their $250 per month (or whatever) health insurance, I hope you recognize that your employer is paying at least that much more, and often two or three times that much. At my Fortune 100 company, our average per-employee health insurance cost is over $7,400 per year, and our coverage is below-average for large companies. In addition to the $7.400 per year, the employee contribution varies from an additional $1,300 per year (single, high deductible, major medical only) to over $11,000 per year (Cadillac family plan, $430 per biweekly check). Assuming most people select a plan in the middle, that puts our total health insurance cost at about $12K to $14K per employee.

When you tally up how much it will cost for universal government care, be sure to balance it against the current costs. It is at worst a wash, and may actually save money even though more people will be covered.

Do you honestly believe that the companies will pass any of the savings on to their employees once they're taken off the hook for coverage? If so, you're delusional!

I woudn't mind increased "health taxes" if the government ALSO makes every employer in the country give every employee a raise worth at least 50% of the money the company used to pay in healthcare provision... but good luck with that!

It aint gonna happen. So, you'll make the companies more wealthy (freeing them from healthcare payments), and the employees less (higher taxes). That's just swell!

What do you think a company will do with that money they save? Keep it under the mattress? Simply not sustainable in the real world.
If they invest it in expansion, that will create demand for jobs and lift salaries. If they don't increase salaries and disposable income of workers drops, they will have to cut prices to compete for the consumer's smaller take home pay, and thus the overall purchasing power won't change.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Triumph
Now I'm not saying that the current system is the best, but the idea that the government can do a better job is completely laughable. Have any of you people been in the military? (I have not, but I work directly for the military and am currently deployed, my point being that I see ALOT of it but I don't want to give the impression that I have served) US servicemen belong to one of the largest socialized welfare structures in the world, larger than that of many countries. Housing, clothing, medical, food, is all payed for outright or subsidized. And you know what? It's a freakin' mess and incredibly cost inefficient. Look at the recent scandals at Walter Reed, people who have put their life on the line for this country can't even get good medical service. You think Joe Average is going to get anything better? Here we have a perfect example of government ineptitude in the format of the VA, and yet some people suffer from this dillusion that "oh we can do better than that the second time around!"

The Air Force has the best planes in the world, largest payloads, amazing fighters and bombers, ability to fly anywhere in the world at the drop of a hat, etc. etc. etc. It is a HUGE logistics operation. And yet, anyone who has flown MIL-AIR, or delivered equipment via the same, can tell you that the way it is run is downright laughable when compared to Fedex, DHL, and UPS operations. I've seen completely empty C-130's fly from one base to another while equipment waited on the ground for the same transportation. I've waited days for packages that could have easily been put on the next flight to my base. I've been told that tracking numbers do not exist while at the same time the equipment has already arrived at the destination. Yes, this happens with commercial carriers, but the Air Force does not handle nearly the volume of stuff that Fedex and UPS do. But I digress, my point is that here you have two operations that perform basically the same function, one government run (Air Force) and one commercially run (Fedex, UPS), and the commercial operation is vastly superior.

I don't see any reason to believe that the Government can run healthcare any better than private industry can. Government can do things to affect how private industry operates, for instance, drug advertisements should be prohibited. But to have the government outright run the system would be disastrous. We DO have the best healthcare in the world, if you can get it. The problem is getting it to everyone while still maintaining the quality of care. Right now the current healthcare system works for alot of people. Don't mess it up for 250 million americans because of the 50 million who don't have it; how about just focusing on a way to get it to them?

Interesting perspective. Its nice to hear from someone who is part of this.

 

[theeedude]

That's why it's called "single-payer" not "single-operator" system. Talk about a red herring.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
1. How much are you willing to pay on a per person basis for UHC?

$0

I am willing however to take responsibility for my own health INSURANCE costs not look to big brother to take care of me.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

In other words, my health care is just fine the way it is. If some socialist comes along and screws that up, perhaps during a time when I, or someone in my family, needs good coverage; I will hurt them... badly.

Can you feel the testosterone just oozing from his keyboard??:laugh: A lot of good you'll be to your family sharing a cell with Bubba:roll:


Making sure everybody has Health Insurance sounds good, having the government in charge of it doesn't. That doesn't mean the way it is now is acceptable though. I wish I knew the solution, I'd run for office.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: palehorse74

In other words, my health care is just fine the way it is. If some socialist comes along and screws that up, perhaps during a time when I, or someone in my family, needs good coverage; I will hurt them... badly.

Can you feel the testosterone just oozing from his keyboard??:laugh: A lot of good you'll be to your family sharing a cell with Bubba:roll:


Making sure everybody has Health Insurance sounds good, having the government in charge of it doesn't. That doesn't mean the way it is now is acceptable though. I wish I knew the solution, I'd run for office.

Actually running for office wouldn't be the right move. Starting a consulting and lobbying firm would be the right move.

1. formulate plan
2. start firm
3. profit!

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: palehorse74

In other words, my health care is just fine the way it is. If some socialist comes along and screws that up, perhaps during a time when I, or someone in my family, needs good coverage; I will hurt them... badly.

Can you feel the testosterone just oozing from his keyboard??:laugh: A lot of good you'll be to your family sharing a cell with Bubba:roll:


Making sure everybody has Health Insurance sounds good, having the government in charge of it doesn't. That doesn't mean the way it is now is acceptable though. I wish I knew the solution, I'd run for office.

Actually running for office wouldn't be the right move. Starting a consulting and lobbying firm would be the right move.

1. formulate plan
2. start firm
3. profit!

:thumbsup:

 

[StageLeft]

Just as long as the indolent smoking fat bastards do not have equal access to health care as I do, and I'm paying for them, then I'm fine. I realize I'm paying, through taxes, for some of the indolent smoking fat bastards to receive health care as it is now, but at least I can still get quick access to health care via private insurance.

 

[glugglug]

1. How much are you willing to pay on a per person basis for UHC?
$10K

2. Are you in favor of a cap on the total amount taken to pay for it?
No

3. Should there be a deductible for service?
Yes, this will help prevent a sudden increase in the # of hypochondriacs going to the doctor every day for lack of anything better to do.

3a. If so, how much for routine visits?
Reasonable fees, my current copay of $20 would be about the max.

3b. Specialist?
Same as above.

3c. Prescriptions
Ideally free, but then what keeps the drug companies from overcharging the system if there is no % cost the patient pays for there to be competition?

4. Should elective, to include face lifts, breast jobs, and sex changes be covered?
Generally no, may require a narrower definition of "elective," i.e. plastic surgery for true deformities or if someone's face gets scarred & burnt in a wreck shouldn't be considered elective.

5. Should private insurance still exist?
Only for the elective items which the regular insurance doesn't cover, or for traveling.

6. Should private practices still exist, as in serving no government paid customers?
No.

7. Should there be cut off ages for certain procedures?
No.

8. Would there be an needs test for copayment? As in, do you lose benefits for making too much?
Low income should reduce (not eliminate) the copayment.

9. Should insurance cover self inflicted injury? (drinking, smoking, dangerous sports?)
yes. For drinking & smoking, if it didn't people would just lie about it anyway.

10. Would you support NOT being able to choose your doctor?
No.

 

[Deudalus]

What do you think a company will do with that money they save? Keep it under the mattress? Simply not sustainable in the real world.
If they invest it in expansion, that will create demand for jobs and lift salaries. If they don't increase salaries and disposable income of workers drops, they will have to cut prices to compete for the consumer's smaller take home pay, and thus the overall purchasing power won't change.

Holy crap, did anyone else just notice what that said?

One of the most hardcore, liberal, Hillary supporters on this board just touted Reaganomics as one of the reasons UHC should be provided.


Are these people waking up or is this some clever ploy by a liberal to invoke some Reaganistic common sense to get us to give the government more money?

 

[theeedude]

Wait, you used "Reaganomics" and "common sense" in the same sentence? Reaganomics is borrow and spend until this country is bankrupt.

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Wait, you used "Reaganomics" and "common sense" in the same sentence? Reaganomics is borrow and spend until this country is bankrupt.

Umm no, I know thats what Al Franken and Michael Moore told you but that isn't really the case.

Reaganomics is the more money the job providers and investors have the better off everyone else further down the totem pole will be. It is trickle down economics, the thought being that wealth trickles down from the highest point to the lowest and everyone benefits.

You just effectively argued that UHC would be ok partly because it would effectively be a "tax cut" on corporations which would provide more jobs and better pay. Did you stop to consider that oil companies would get the same "tax relief"?

OMG TAX CUTZ FOR OIL COMPANIEZ


It just makes me giddy on the inside to see a ray of sunshine enter your thick noggins at just the right angle to make you have some sort of understanding of simple economics. Even if you do jump to suppress that rational thought that reared its ugly head.

But you've had an epiphany man. Let that beautiful flower grow into wonderful gardens of critical thinking and rational thought.

There's hope you could live up to your handle of "Sense"amp yet.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Originally posted by: senseamp
Wait, you used "Reaganomics" and "common sense" in the same sentence? Reaganomics is borrow and spend until this country is bankrupt.

Umm no, I know thats what Al Franken and Michael Moore told you but that isn't really the case.

Reaganomics is the more money the job providers and investors have the better off everyone else further down the totem pole will be. It is trickle down economics, the thought being that wealth trickles down from the highest point to the lowest and everyone benefits.

You just effectively argued that UHC would be ok partly because it would effectively be a "tax cut" on corporations which would provide more jobs and better pay. Did you stop to consider that oil companies would get the same "tax relief"?

OMG TAX CUTZ FOR OIL COMPANIEZ


It just makes me giddy on the inside to see a ray of sunshine enter your thick noggins at just the right angle to make you have some sort of understanding of simple economics. Even if you do jump to suppress that rational thought that reared its ugly head.

But you've had an epiphany man. Let that beautiful flower grow into wonderful gardens of critical thinking and rational thought.

There's hope you could live up to your handle of "Sense"amp yet.

Someone should ask one of the socialists pushing UHC why they are giving a tax cut to big evil oil! Oh wait, that'll never happen.... nevermind.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Originally posted by: senseamp
Wait, you used "Reaganomics" and "common sense" in the same sentence? Reaganomics is borrow and spend until this country is bankrupt.

Umm no, I know thats what Al Franken and Michael Moore told you but that isn't really the case.

Reaganomics is the more money the job providers and investors have the better off everyone else further down the totem pole will be. It is trickle down economics, the thought being that wealth trickles down from the highest point to the lowest and everyone benefits.

You just effectively argued that UHC would be ok partly because it would effectively be a "tax cut" on corporations which would provide more jobs and better pay. Did you stop to consider that oil companies would get the same "tax relief"?

OMG TAX CUTZ FOR OIL COMPANIEZ


It just makes me giddy on the inside to see a ray of sunshine enter your thick noggins at just the right angle to make you have some sort of understanding of simple economics. Even if you do jump to suppress that rational thought that reared its ugly head.

But you've had an epiphany man. Let that beautiful flower grow into wonderful gardens of critical thinking and rational thought.

There's hope you could live up to your handle of "Sense"amp yet.

The small difference being that Reaganites borrowed the money to give tax cuts to the top earners, hoping it would eventually trickle down to the people. That's Reaganomics for you. Put the country into a big hole and hope the borrowed money trickles down to the bottom.
The situation being discussed is revenue neutral. Big difference from Reaganomics that you love so much, where government spending is decoupled from taxation, and we can have all the tax cuts we want while growing spending. Of course you make it sound like Reagan invented the concept that people and companies who have money spend them.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Originally posted by: senseamp
Wait, you used "Reaganomics" and "common sense" in the same sentence? Reaganomics is borrow and spend until this country is bankrupt.

Umm no, I know thats what Al Franken and Michael Moore told you but that isn't really the case.

Reaganomics is the more money the job providers and investors have the better off everyone else further down the totem pole will be. It is trickle down economics, the thought being that wealth trickles down from the highest point to the lowest and everyone benefits.

You just effectively argued that UHC would be ok partly because it would effectively be a "tax cut" on corporations which would provide more jobs and better pay. Did you stop to consider that oil companies would get the same "tax relief"?

OMG TAX CUTZ FOR OIL COMPANIEZ


It just makes me giddy on the inside to see a ray of sunshine enter your thick noggins at just the right angle to make you have some sort of understanding of simple economics. Even if you do jump to suppress that rational thought that reared its ugly head.

But you've had an epiphany man. Let that beautiful flower grow into wonderful gardens of critical thinking and rational thought.

There's hope you could live up to your handle of "Sense"amp yet.

Someone should ask one of the socialists pushing UHC why they are giving a tax cut to big evil oil! Oh wait, that'll never happen.... nevermind.

You seem really concerned about how much in tax cuts big oil gets. I wonder why that is?

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Originally posted by: senseamp
Wait, you used "Reaganomics" and "common sense" in the same sentence? Reaganomics is borrow and spend until this country is bankrupt.

Umm no, I know thats what Al Franken and Michael Moore told you but that isn't really the case.

Reaganomics is the more money the job providers and investors have the better off everyone else further down the totem pole will be. It is trickle down economics, the thought being that wealth trickles down from the highest point to the lowest and everyone benefits.

You just effectively argued that UHC would be ok partly because it would effectively be a "tax cut" on corporations which would provide more jobs and better pay. Did you stop to consider that oil companies would get the same "tax relief"?

OMG TAX CUTZ FOR OIL COMPANIEZ


It just makes me giddy on the inside to see a ray of sunshine enter your thick noggins at just the right angle to make you have some sort of understanding of simple economics. Even if you do jump to suppress that rational thought that reared its ugly head.

But you've had an epiphany man. Let that beautiful flower grow into wonderful gardens of critical thinking and rational thought.

There's hope you could live up to your handle of "Sense"amp yet.

Someone should ask one of the socialists pushing UHC why they are giving a tax cut to big evil oil! Oh wait, that'll never happen.... nevermind.

You seem really concerned about how much in tax cuts big oil gets. I wonder why that is?

OMG CONSPIRACY!

Your skill at shifting the conversation has improved 1 point!

You reach level 8!

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Originally posted by: senseamp
Wait, you used "Reaganomics" and "common sense" in the same sentence? Reaganomics is borrow and spend until this country is bankrupt.

Umm no, I know thats what Al Franken and Michael Moore told you but that isn't really the case.

Reaganomics is the more money the job providers and investors have the better off everyone else further down the totem pole will be. It is trickle down economics, the thought being that wealth trickles down from the highest point to the lowest and everyone benefits.

You just effectively argued that UHC would be ok partly because it would effectively be a "tax cut" on corporations which would provide more jobs and better pay. Did you stop to consider that oil companies would get the same "tax relief"?

OMG TAX CUTZ FOR OIL COMPANIEZ


It just makes me giddy on the inside to see a ray of sunshine enter your thick noggins at just the right angle to make you have some sort of understanding of simple economics. Even if you do jump to suppress that rational thought that reared its ugly head.

But you've had an epiphany man. Let that beautiful flower grow into wonderful gardens of critical thinking and rational thought.

There's hope you could live up to your handle of "Sense"amp yet.

Someone should ask one of the socialists pushing UHC why they are giving a tax cut to big evil oil! Oh wait, that'll never happen.... nevermind.

You seem really concerned about how much in tax cuts big oil gets. I wonder why that is?

OMG CONSPIRACY!

Your skill at shifting the conversation has improved 1 point!

You reach level 8!

I don't think there is a conspiracy, but I am interested in what this Republican obsession with protecting big Oil is. I can see the Republican politicians reasons, but what about the rank and file?

 

[Deudalus]

See thats the problem you are having Senseamp.

I'm really not a Republican, I'm a JFK Democrat.

I'm almost 100% across the board socially a democrat. But I'm not a communist or socialist which to me is more important than abortion, gay marriage, or stem cell research which by the way I support each of 100%.

I have also amassed quite a bit of wealth which according to the new Democrat party makes me evil. It makes me an exploiter of others while we take extensive financial risks to produce jobs for those people that I'm supposedly exploiting. This is all despite the fact that our family business has provided thousands of high paying jobs to New Orleans which is one of the most cash strapped cities in the nation.


But I would like to point out that our family business is now shut down. It is shut down because taxes keep going up. It is shut down because when my father dies for example we will have to mortgage off half of what he worked for to pay the death tax. So we all pretty much decided to cash it in and keep giving all our money to the government to see how many high paying jobs they produce for the citizens of New Orleans and the nation.

So far the crime is up and good career jobs are non-existant in the city. But on the bright side with all the crime, drugs, murders, and rapes the current Democrat class warfare card is working tremendously well


Perhaps you should look at the Utopia that is truly created when government spends our money for us. Like for example the blue tarps that were put on all the local roofs after Hurricane Katrina.

The government was paying companies $1.75 a square foot to lay down the blue tarp. That contract was then sub-contracted out 5 more times until someone was eventually paying someone 10 cents per square foot to lay the tarp.

Now extrapolate that to UHC and see how you think we will wind up.

You fail to consider how these things will be paid for.
You fail to consider the fact that the European countries went down this road and now their economies are suffering because of it.
You are quick to point out your hatred for the haves and their supposed greed without stopping to consider where the have-nots would be without them.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Originally posted by: senseamp
Wait, you used "Reaganomics" and "common sense" in the same sentence? Reaganomics is borrow and spend until this country is bankrupt.

Umm no, I know thats what Al Franken and Michael Moore told you but that isn't really the case.

Reaganomics is the more money the job providers and investors have the better off everyone else further down the totem pole will be. It is trickle down economics, the thought being that wealth trickles down from the highest point to the lowest and everyone benefits.

You just effectively argued that UHC would be ok partly because it would effectively be a "tax cut" on corporations which would provide more jobs and better pay. Did you stop to consider that oil companies would get the same "tax relief"?

OMG TAX CUTZ FOR OIL COMPANIEZ


It just makes me giddy on the inside to see a ray of sunshine enter your thick noggins at just the right angle to make you have some sort of understanding of simple economics. Even if you do jump to suppress that rational thought that reared its ugly head.

But you've had an epiphany man. Let that beautiful flower grow into wonderful gardens of critical thinking and rational thought.

There's hope you could live up to your handle of "Sense"amp yet.

:thumbsup: