Reader comments
Readers' forum: Government takeover
62 comments | Read story
GTO | 1:01 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009
The author of this letter is correct! Its all about the government taking over
private industry. Don't agree? Who controls GM, Chrysler and most of the
larger banks in America these days? Next on the Democrat agenda; your
healthcare! Wake up America, you are losing your country to Washington DC
bureaucrats and politicians who will decide how you live, not you! Oh but its
"freeeeeee"! Nothing from the government is ever free! Democrat
playbook: create a crisis, then dupe enough simple minded people into believing
the government can run it better by distroying its competition.
Anti-trust exemption | 5:48 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009
Personally, I think the healthcare industry needs to lose its anti-trust
exemption status, which allows healthcare companies to merge and become near
monopolies and oligopolies in states. The lack of competition is what is
driving up the costs of healthcare. Simply by allowing healthcare companies to
start competing in other states can do much to spark competition.
The problem is that there is virtually no competition. The public option is one way to create that competition and the limits on the public option -- from states being allowed to opt out to restrictions for whom can join -- should make it that the public option doesn't completely drive private companies out of business. They will have to become more competitive -- no question -- and that could lead to some companies currently overly bloated and protected by anti-trust exemptions to become more effective.
The problem is that there is virtually no competition. The public option is one way to create that competition and the limits on the public option -- from states being allowed to opt out to restrictions for whom can join -- should make it that the public option doesn't completely drive private companies out of business. They will have to become more competitive -- no question -- and that could lead to some companies currently overly bloated and protected by anti-trust exemptions to become more effective.
Comments continue below
Gross Exaggeration | 5:51 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009
The CBO estimates 5% would end up on a public option plan. Yet protecting this
small group who fall through the cracks will eventually destroy private health
insurance?
Conservative paranoid fantasy.
In France there is a robust supplementary private insurance industry, despite a public universal plan that covers every person. But any type of public option will demolish all private insurance here.
Continuing to stoke this paranoid dooms-day scenario effectively employs conservatives as free marketing for large private insurers, who are giggling all the way to the bank.
I've done the research, I've balanced the different approaches. I won't be a dupe of Democrats or Republicans. A limited public option will help save lives. That's more important than ideological debate.
Conservative paranoid fantasy.
In France there is a robust supplementary private insurance industry, despite a public universal plan that covers every person. But any type of public option will demolish all private insurance here.
Continuing to stoke this paranoid dooms-day scenario effectively employs conservatives as free marketing for large private insurers, who are giggling all the way to the bank.
I've done the research, I've balanced the different approaches. I won't be a dupe of Democrats or Republicans. A limited public option will help save lives. That's more important than ideological debate.
wallofvoodoo | 6:41 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009
The Republican plan presented actually was quite good. I knkow I was shocked. It
stopped short of what needed to be done, but it was better than the mess the
Dems are trying to get us into.
Doug G | 7:10 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009
I am looking for the government to create a single payer system that serves us
all. It works, and is a great way for us all to have access to a service we all
need at one time or another.
Brian | 7:18 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009
Sorry Mandate but I saw the exit poll interviews with the "smart ones"
that gave us Obama.
Progressive | 7:35 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009
So GTO was it an evil liberal plot to destroy the US economy so that when they
took control in 2009 they would have the cover they needed to take over private
industry? Oh wait, the republicans have had control 20 of the last 28 years,
and Bill Clinton was the most pro business democrat in history.
By the way you wing nuts are the only ones claiming anything from the government is freeeeeeee. Talk about simple minded dupes you and your ilk suspended reasonable thought decades ago when you somehow convinced yourselves that you are part of the capitalist class, masters of your own destiny, and deserving of exceptional rewards resulting from your exceptional talent and effort. All the while your real income has gone down, your masters have given and taken away jobs, retirements, and any form of meaningful work. Let's hope God will bless America becuause you've handed it over to Haliburton and Wells Fargo.
By the way you wing nuts are the only ones claiming anything from the government is freeeeeeee. Talk about simple minded dupes you and your ilk suspended reasonable thought decades ago when you somehow convinced yourselves that you are part of the capitalist class, masters of your own destiny, and deserving of exceptional rewards resulting from your exceptional talent and effort. All the while your real income has gone down, your masters have given and taken away jobs, retirements, and any form of meaningful work. Let's hope God will bless America becuause you've handed it over to Haliburton and Wells Fargo.
Dear GTO @ 1:01 | 7:42 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009
Your rant is not even close to the truth, but no doubt it's fun for you to
believe.
I'm guessing you'd have preferred GM to go belly-up? The credit markets to have completely self-destructed? Unemployment rates to skyrocket even beyond where they are now?
Would that be your preferred alternative?
Are not the corporations that took bailout money working like demons right now to repay their debt to the Fed?
The economic crisis was and is very real - the only people "duped" in the past year were those of you who now throw tantrums about "The government is coming! Run for your lives!"
Baloney.
I'm guessing you'd have preferred GM to go belly-up? The credit markets to have completely self-destructed? Unemployment rates to skyrocket even beyond where they are now?
Would that be your preferred alternative?
Are not the corporations that took bailout money working like demons right now to repay their debt to the Fed?
The economic crisis was and is very real - the only people "duped" in the past year were those of you who now throw tantrums about "The government is coming! Run for your lives!"
Baloney.
Anonymous | 7:49 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009
This is just silly. Anti-government types say government is not efficient as
the private sector, so shy are you concerned that a public option will harm the
private insurance companies? You can't have it both ways. And to GTO, the
money the government put into GM is scheduled to be paid back at a date certain.
The government has no interest in long term control. GM asked the government
to save them, not the other way around, and policy considerations made this
advisable. This is not unprecedented. Chrysler was sold off to other
investors. So please, stop your Chicken Little impersonation and stop making
things up.
RedShirt | 8:08 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009
To "Clyde Milton Pack" why would the government plan compete with
private insurance plans? First of all, it wouldn't play by the same rules
as the private plans. Second, it is the government that has been driving up the
costs of insurance.
Over the past 4 years, the average profit margin has dropped for health insurance companies from around 5% to 2.2%. If premiums are increasing, why are their profit margins decreasing? If you research an answer to that question, you will find out what the problem is.
Over the past 4 years, the average profit margin has dropped for health insurance companies from around 5% to 2.2%. If premiums are increasing, why are their profit margins decreasing? If you research an answer to that question, you will find out what the problem is.
Roland Kayser | 8:11 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009
If the government is as inefficient as conservatives claim, it will never be
able to compete with the free market. Whya are you worried?
No Mandate | 8:28 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009
Obama never had a "mandate" on health care or anything else. He was
elected by a minority of the electorate, mostly by people who were just sick of
the Bushes and prepared to gamble on some unknown guy who sounded good (they all
sound good). He kept pretty quiet about the specific nature of the
"change" that was in the offing.
The election results last night show conclusively what the electorate now thinks of the current crop of Democrats. Interesting that Obama is so little regarded that his personal intervention in State gubernatorial elections meant nothing except perhaps more certain defeat.
The election results last night show conclusively what the electorate now thinks of the current crop of Democrats. Interesting that Obama is so little regarded that his personal intervention in State gubernatorial elections meant nothing except perhaps more certain defeat.
RedShirt | 8:40 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009
To "Doug G | 7:10 a.m." but everybody does have access to health care.
If I go to a doctor's office, I will not be thrown out and told to go
away.
If I show up at an ER, I will be seen by a doctor, regardless of my ability to pay.
Be honest. What you want is for somebody else to pay for your health care.
To "Dear GTO @ 1:01 | 7:42 a.m." what would have been so wrong for GM to file bankruptcy, renegociate their contracts, and continue to operate as they have?
Do you know why those banks are "working like demons right now to repay their debt to the Fed"? American Express was still in financial trouble when they paid back the Fed. The strings that were attached to that money were so cumbersome that the banks are trying to get out as fast as they can to save themselves.
If I show up at an ER, I will be seen by a doctor, regardless of my ability to pay.
Be honest. What you want is for somebody else to pay for your health care.
To "Dear GTO @ 1:01 | 7:42 a.m." what would have been so wrong for GM to file bankruptcy, renegociate their contracts, and continue to operate as they have?
Do you know why those banks are "working like demons right now to repay their debt to the Fed"? American Express was still in financial trouble when they paid back the Fed. The strings that were attached to that money were so cumbersome that the banks are trying to get out as fast as they can to save themselves.
@Gross Exaggeration | 8:44 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009
If a mere 5% will end up in the program, why are we spending a trillion dollars?
Uncle Same needs your money and this whole ridiculous unreadable bill is a
contrivance to get it.
Kaiser Kayser | 8:51 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009
The government is as and more inefficient than conservatives say, claim and
know.
It will never be a fair fight between private and public sectors. The public sector will keep on subsidizing their side with stolen taxpayer money. They are, after all, "too big to fail".
It will never be a fair fight between private and public sectors. The public sector will keep on subsidizing their side with stolen taxpayer money. They are, after all, "too big to fail".
Anonymous | 8:52 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009
More 'conservative' pablum. Oh, scary government. Listen up, WE ARE
THE GOVERNMENT!! We vote for our representatives. We have for over 200 years.
Just because you lost an election doesnt mean the sky is falling or the reds are
going to grind you children into kid-burgers.
We spend twice as much and get less from our health care system. The majority wants to change that. Stop listening to the extreme reich and your life will improve immediately.
We spend twice as much and get less from our health care system. The majority wants to change that. Stop listening to the extreme reich and your life will improve immediately.
RedShirt | 9:03 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009
To "Roland Kayser | 8:11 a.m." how fair do you think the Government
will be to the private companies? The government makes the rules, enforces the
rules, levies the penalties. Now they want to play in the game too.
It will be like playing a game with a child who makes up the rules. It doesn't matter how well you play or how well you follow your child's rules, you will lose. That child is the government, and the game being played is control of health insurance industry.
The government currently is in control of 30% of the economy. If they could capture the health insurance industry, that would give them another 18%. In the past you have denied that Obama is pushing us to Socialism, yet, if the government can take over healthcare they will run 48% of the economy. At their current rate of expansion, it wouldn't take much for the government to control a majority of the economy. That would be bad. Just think USSR, but on a slower death spiral.
It will be like playing a game with a child who makes up the rules. It doesn't matter how well you play or how well you follow your child's rules, you will lose. That child is the government, and the game being played is control of health insurance industry.
The government currently is in control of 30% of the economy. If they could capture the health insurance industry, that would give them another 18%. In the past you have denied that Obama is pushing us to Socialism, yet, if the government can take over healthcare they will run 48% of the economy. At their current rate of expansion, it wouldn't take much for the government to control a majority of the economy. That would be bad. Just think USSR, but on a slower death spiral.
Chrysler = Fiat | 9:08 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009
Chrysler is owned by the ITALIAN company Fiat.
Last I checked, Italy is not owned by America.
Last I checked, Italy is not owned by America.
Anonymous | 9:24 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009
No! A government ran option. Private business can't compete with the serve
government provides. I guess, conservatives are finally admitting government can
do a better job. By doing a better job, Americans will abandon the private
sector.
This is so humorous.
To hack with democracy. Seven-twp-percent of Americans favor a public option. Wealth care for billionaires is opposed. We will see mijority rules if they out spend you.
This is so humorous.
To hack with democracy. Seven-twp-percent of Americans favor a public option. Wealth care for billionaires is opposed. We will see mijority rules if they out spend you.
Keep trying | 9:25 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009
The saddest part is that if this cursed health care bill is ever passed, it will
not be repealed, even when it is revealed that it will cost much more than
expected and deliver an inferior product. Why? Because people will get used to
it.
@ RedShirt | 9:31 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009
Stop spreading your lies and fear. This is not about having someone else pay
for our healthcare. It's about taking care of everybody in the most
cost-effective way. You outlined the basic problem in your post: everyone will
be seen at the ER, regardless of their ability to pay. But you also ignored the
consequences: the costs of their care is passed on to those of us who have
insurance and can afford it. WE ARE ALREADY PAYING FOR THEIR CARE! We're
just doing it in the least efficient way possible. Somehow, Canada (along with
every other industrialized country) manages to spend far less per person on
healthcare, yet they cover EVERYONE and have a higher life expectancy that we
do. Clearly we are doing something wrong. According to the CBO, 62% of
bankruptcies in 2007 were caused by medical bills, and 78% of those people HAD
INSURANCE. Do you know how many medical bankruptcies there were in Germany that
year? How about Switzerland? France? I'll give you a hint: There were no
medical bankruptcies in any of those countries because everyone has adequate
insurance.
Wrex | 9:49 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009
All you free market whack jobs are just ridiculous. Look what the "free
market" has done to health care in our society!! LOOK. LEARN. OPEN YOUR
EYES.
Pass the Public Option NOW.
Don't want to use it? Then DON'T!
Pass the Public Option NOW.
Don't want to use it? Then DON'T!
to keep trying | 10:11 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009
It isnt sad and the fact is that in every other modern DEMOCRATIC nation, they
have never even thought about going back to a market based system. The reason is
because they have a far better system. Even most conservatives in those
countries dont want to change back to a system like ours. If/when we do move on,
only the AM radio millionaires would whine about it because it would work much
better AND COST LESS!
jackhp | 10:18 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009
"If a mere 5% will end up in the program, why are we spending a trillion
dollars? Uncle Same (sic) needs your money and this whole ridiculous unreadable
bill is a contrivance to get it."
You don't understand the numbers or the plan. The trillion dollar figure is for 10 years. That's $100 billion per year. If we can get 46 million people health insurance for $100 billion a year then that's a bargain.
Also, the money isn't for the public option, it's to subsidize the purchase of health insurance (public or private) for those who can't afford it.
After startup the public option will be funded by participants' premiums, just like a regular insurance fund.
You don't understand the numbers or the plan. The trillion dollar figure is for 10 years. That's $100 billion per year. If we can get 46 million people health insurance for $100 billion a year then that's a bargain.
Also, the money isn't for the public option, it's to subsidize the purchase of health insurance (public or private) for those who can't afford it.
After startup the public option will be funded by participants' premiums, just like a regular insurance fund.
re No Mandate @ 8:28 | 10:21 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009
"Obama never had a "mandate" on health care or anything else. He
was elected by a minority of the electorate..."
Well, there you have it. The hard-right is so badly out of touch with reality they don't even acknowledge the 2008 election results.
Votes for Obama: 69,456,897 52.9%
Votes for McCain: 59,934,814 45.7%
Voter turnout nationally was the highest in more than 40 years.
How can you reason with right-wingers when reason has never been part of the wacky opinions they hold in the first place?
Well, there you have it. The hard-right is so badly out of touch with reality they don't even acknowledge the 2008 election results.
Votes for Obama: 69,456,897 52.9%
Votes for McCain: 59,934,814 45.7%
Voter turnout nationally was the highest in more than 40 years.
How can you reason with right-wingers when reason has never been part of the wacky opinions they hold in the first place?
Charles | 10:35 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009
It's sad to see the Obamaites heading straight for the cliff and continuing
to chant, Left, Left, Left, Left.
I truly have never seen such ignorance exhibited in the comments of the Obama supporters. It's clear you've never run your own businesses or been in Executive Level management because you'd never, ever say what you are saying; especially Roland.
If you don't understand how the government will eliminate private insurance with this approach, you just plainly aren't smart enough to get it.
As for MANDATE? Did you see the results last night? Your faux mandate was just blown up and handed to you on a silver platter. Get used to it.
More people in America identify themselves as conservative than any other affiliation.
You want Communism? Then move to a country that already has it -- there are plenty.
I'd rather have America stay free.
I truly have never seen such ignorance exhibited in the comments of the Obama supporters. It's clear you've never run your own businesses or been in Executive Level management because you'd never, ever say what you are saying; especially Roland.
If you don't understand how the government will eliminate private insurance with this approach, you just plainly aren't smart enough to get it.
As for MANDATE? Did you see the results last night? Your faux mandate was just blown up and handed to you on a silver platter. Get used to it.
More people in America identify themselves as conservative than any other affiliation.
You want Communism? Then move to a country that already has it -- there are plenty.
I'd rather have America stay free.
Charles | 10:43 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009
@9:31 --- who do you think PAYS for all this FREE healthcare? Do you know the
actual taxes paid by everyone to get the FREE healthcare?
In the Constitution, it says that the government is supposed to provide healthcare for all where exactly?
The Democrats and fellow shallow thinkers want to blow up an entire system to cover 12 million people with healthcare. Oh yes, that makes sense!
It also makes sense to fine someone who chooses not to get healthcare with the IRS going after them.
I say, let's just go the distance -- let's ease his pain --- Let's build it so they will come!
Everyone just turn over all paychecks to the government and they will send us all what it determines we need. If we are going to go for 1/6th of the economy, let's just go the whole way.
After all, elitists know what we need better than we do. They've told us!
We can all live in mediocrity and be rewarded the same regardless of personal productivity...we are all in this together, right?
Let's have Obama make our Field of Dreams come true!
In the Constitution, it says that the government is supposed to provide healthcare for all where exactly?
The Democrats and fellow shallow thinkers want to blow up an entire system to cover 12 million people with healthcare. Oh yes, that makes sense!
It also makes sense to fine someone who chooses not to get healthcare with the IRS going after them.
I say, let's just go the distance -- let's ease his pain --- Let's build it so they will come!
Everyone just turn over all paychecks to the government and they will send us all what it determines we need. If we are going to go for 1/6th of the economy, let's just go the whole way.
After all, elitists know what we need better than we do. They've told us!
We can all live in mediocrity and be rewarded the same regardless of personal productivity...we are all in this together, right?
Let's have Obama make our Field of Dreams come true!
RedShirt | 10:44 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009
To "Anonymous | 8:52 a.m." so, let me summarize what you just said.
"Shut up, and fall in line."
If our representatives were doing what the people wanted, why are we debating the current health reform bill? The current bill has 42% support that support is falling. 37% of the US supported the Stimuls bill when it passed, which means that 63% opposed it. If the government listened to us, why did it pass?
We need to dump every politician in Washington.
If our representatives were doing what the people wanted, why are we debating the current health reform bill? The current bill has 42% support that support is falling. 37% of the US supported the Stimuls bill when it passed, which means that 63% opposed it. If the government listened to us, why did it pass?
We need to dump every politician in Washington.
Charles | 10:52 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009
@jackhp: perfect example of ignorance in the debate. It's not 46 million
people; it's 12 million. Now do your math.
Just like with TARP --- the money should have just been given to us citizens directly if that's who the Democrats are really wanting to help.
Just give the money directly to the people. Why won't they?
@Wrex: you want Communism, then just move to a country that practices what you want to have. There are many; just pick one. Leave America; the land of the free and the brave alone. You and your followers are bad, bad for a free America.
Just like with TARP --- the money should have just been given to us citizens directly if that's who the Democrats are really wanting to help.
Just give the money directly to the people. Why won't they?
@Wrex: you want Communism, then just move to a country that practices what you want to have. There are many; just pick one. Leave America; the land of the free and the brave alone. You and your followers are bad, bad for a free America.
RedShirt | 10:56 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009
To "@ RedShirt | 9:31 a.m." in Massachusetts, where they implemented a
smaller version of what is being proposed, only 26% see it as a success (See
Rassmussen Poll data). Since it's implementation the ER's have become
even more crowded because the Doctors offices are operating at full capacity.
(See "Sick of Waiting" in Proto magazine)
Canada may pay less, but they also get less. A recent headline in the Vancouver Sun stated "Thousands of surgeries may be cut in Metro Vancouver due to government underfunding, leaked paper." You also have not taken into account the tort reforms that Canada enacted to reduce the lawsuits from malpractice. In some of those countries, such as Germany, they do not set boundaries on where an insurance company can sell insurance (Germany has a tiered system where a person can opt-out of the government plan if they make enough money). You also have failed to mention that the US has better access to the most advanced equipment and treatments than anywhere else in the world.
Bankruptcies due to medical bills account for less than .25% of the total US population. Even with a bankruptcy the person typically loses nothing.
Canada may pay less, but they also get less. A recent headline in the Vancouver Sun stated "Thousands of surgeries may be cut in Metro Vancouver due to government underfunding, leaked paper." You also have not taken into account the tort reforms that Canada enacted to reduce the lawsuits from malpractice. In some of those countries, such as Germany, they do not set boundaries on where an insurance company can sell insurance (Germany has a tiered system where a person can opt-out of the government plan if they make enough money). You also have failed to mention that the US has better access to the most advanced equipment and treatments than anywhere else in the world.
Bankruptcies due to medical bills account for less than .25% of the total US population. Even with a bankruptcy the person typically loses nothing.
RedShirt | 11:04 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009
To "@ RedShirt | 9:31 a.m. " plus, if the problem is cost, why is it
that the Government plans proposed by the Democrats only increase the cost of
insurance?
Government mandates both state and federal add 20% to 50% to the cost of insurance. Eliminate or reduce those and you make health care more affordable.
Next, thanks to Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement rates, each insurance policy ends up paying an extra $1000/year.
Also, you haven't addressed the waste in a government program. Currently the government has identified $700 billion wasted in the health care. Of that $700 billion, only 1/3 is directly attributed to private businesses. The rest is due to government waste. Private health insurance covers about 2/3 of the US, and government covers the rest. So, with half the number of insured people, they waste twice as much money. So, if the government insures all the people, that $700 billion waste jumps to $1.4 Trillion waste in healthcare. How can a system that has the potential to waste more money be cost effective?
Also, what lies have I spread?
If you want cost effective healthcare, get the government out of the way.
Government mandates both state and federal add 20% to 50% to the cost of insurance. Eliminate or reduce those and you make health care more affordable.
Next, thanks to Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement rates, each insurance policy ends up paying an extra $1000/year.
Also, you haven't addressed the waste in a government program. Currently the government has identified $700 billion wasted in the health care. Of that $700 billion, only 1/3 is directly attributed to private businesses. The rest is due to government waste. Private health insurance covers about 2/3 of the US, and government covers the rest. So, with half the number of insured people, they waste twice as much money. So, if the government insures all the people, that $700 billion waste jumps to $1.4 Trillion waste in healthcare. How can a system that has the potential to waste more money be cost effective?
Also, what lies have I spread?
If you want cost effective healthcare, get the government out of the way.
Anonymous | 11:10 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009
RedShirt,
"Over the past 4 years, the average profit margin has dropped for health insurance companies from around 5% to 2.2%. If premiums are increasing, why are their profit margins decreasing? If you research an answer to that question, you will find out what the problem is."
Because less people can afford health insurance and those who are seriously sick are either rejected or have their premiums raised so that they can't afford to continue their coverage.
Entire family's are denied health insurance because one family member has a serious illness which means that insurance companies are taking the handful of people who are stupid enough to not know that health insurance is a lose-lose situation.
Imagine having a restaurant in your neighborhood that you go and purchase a meal but are told that your hunger was a pre-existing condition so you don't get the meal that you paid for.
The people would soon learn to not go to the restaurant and their profits would decrease even if some people are stupid enough to continue patronizing that restaurant.
Take a simple economics class.
"Over the past 4 years, the average profit margin has dropped for health insurance companies from around 5% to 2.2%. If premiums are increasing, why are their profit margins decreasing? If you research an answer to that question, you will find out what the problem is."
Because less people can afford health insurance and those who are seriously sick are either rejected or have their premiums raised so that they can't afford to continue their coverage.
Entire family's are denied health insurance because one family member has a serious illness which means that insurance companies are taking the handful of people who are stupid enough to not know that health insurance is a lose-lose situation.
Imagine having a restaurant in your neighborhood that you go and purchase a meal but are told that your hunger was a pre-existing condition so you don't get the meal that you paid for.
The people would soon learn to not go to the restaurant and their profits would decrease even if some people are stupid enough to continue patronizing that restaurant.
Take a simple economics class.
Wrex | 11:24 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009
To Charles,
This is America, and I'll advocate whatever I want.
If you don't like, then you should leave.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
This is America, and I'll advocate whatever I want.
If you don't like, then you should leave.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
2 bits | 11:35 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009
I think most rational people agree that there needs to be a way to insure
EVERYBODY has access to affordable healthcare. I just think MANY disagree that
the only way to do this is through turning it over to the Government.
So quit spending all your energy vilifying the other side and start asking questions and talking about solutions!
Personally I don't care if there is a public option as long as my current private option isn't affected by that.
The problem is.... Obviously it is.
Why must Obama's plan include HUGE taxes on people like me, who want to stay with what the Government refers to as "Cadillac Plans"?
Why must it include RESTRICTIONS and laws obviously intended to price them out of reach?
In Obama's plan... Prices for my CURRENT option will necesarily skyrocket! WE ALL KNOW THAT.
He says I can keep my current insurance if I like it. BUT... How can they afford to provide it IF...
-Must accept anyone_anytime pre-existing conditions and all.
-No payment caps allowed.
-Extra taxes heaped upon the vendor AND the customer.
I can no longer afford my CURRENT insurance if this bill passes!
So quit spending all your energy vilifying the other side and start asking questions and talking about solutions!
Personally I don't care if there is a public option as long as my current private option isn't affected by that.
The problem is.... Obviously it is.
Why must Obama's plan include HUGE taxes on people like me, who want to stay with what the Government refers to as "Cadillac Plans"?
Why must it include RESTRICTIONS and laws obviously intended to price them out of reach?
In Obama's plan... Prices for my CURRENT option will necesarily skyrocket! WE ALL KNOW THAT.
He says I can keep my current insurance if I like it. BUT... How can they afford to provide it IF...
-Must accept anyone_anytime pre-existing conditions and all.
-No payment caps allowed.
-Extra taxes heaped upon the vendor AND the customer.
I can no longer afford my CURRENT insurance if this bill passes!
jackhp | 11:36 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009
Charles,
What is 12 million? The number of uninsured people in America? Because that's what I'm talking about. If you're talking about the same thing then you, sir, are clearly the ignorant one in this debate. Please, do elaborate on exactly what your 12 million is referring to . . .
What is 12 million? The number of uninsured people in America? Because that's what I'm talking about. If you're talking about the same thing then you, sir, are clearly the ignorant one in this debate. Please, do elaborate on exactly what your 12 million is referring to . . .
Anonymous | 11:50 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009
If Canada has such a great health plan why do they run to the US constantly for
health concerns. Could it be, maybe because the health care in America is
superior. My aunt broke her arm and had to drive from Alberta to montana to get
it fixed because of the three week waiting period in Canada. Their coverage
blows.
Charles | 11:55 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009
@Wrex--- sorry pal... someone has to stay here and defend the country from
takeover revolutionaries like you....
It's time to defend the Constitution from enemies, foreign or DOMESTIC!
It's pathetic how many ignorant Americans will sell out this country from a little "free" stuff....we all know that nothing is free but people like Wrex just don't get it.
Yes, let's ruin America to give 12 million, not 40 million, health coverage. That's truly a smart move. Idiotic is a more appropriate way of putting it.
It's time to defend the Constitution from enemies, foreign or DOMESTIC!
It's pathetic how many ignorant Americans will sell out this country from a little "free" stuff....we all know that nothing is free but people like Wrex just don't get it.
Yes, let's ruin America to give 12 million, not 40 million, health coverage. That's truly a smart move. Idiotic is a more appropriate way of putting it.
Anonymous | 12:00 p.m. Nov. 4, 2009
I had been misdiagnosed with depression for 30 years and I could not get a
doctor to spend more than 5 minutes with me to diagnose the problem. I finally
couldn't keep a job and had to go on medicaid and the PA at the health
department spent a couple of hours diagnosing me and discovered I had bipolar
disorder. With the medicine I take I have stabalized and was able to go back to
work. However the insurance with my job will not cover the medicine cost of
300.00 that medicaid gladly paid. So I am worse off on regular insurance than on
medicaid. Don't tell me the poor have no coverage, they have the best.
Charles | 12:10 p.m. Nov. 4, 2009
@jackhp: that's EXACTLY what I'm talking about. Why don't you
detail your 46 million number for us all? Break down the 46 million figure with
facts and sources.
You do know that Obama isn't using that figure any longer --- after it was exposed that illegals, you know non-citizens, were included in that figure...but go ahead, breakdown the 46 million figure for us.
You do know that Obama isn't using that figure any longer --- after it was exposed that illegals, you know non-citizens, were included in that figure...but go ahead, breakdown the 46 million figure for us.
Thanks Obama! | 12:18 p.m. Nov. 4, 2009
Thank you, Obama for stopping the government take over of our lives that Bush
started. Thanks for opening records of visitors to the America people's
White House that Bush avoided.
steve (the actuary) | 12:25 p.m. Nov. 4, 2009
@RedShirt
Where are you getting the number that 30% of the economy is controled by the government? I can't find it anywhere on the internet.
Where are you getting the number that 30% of the economy is controled by the government? I can't find it anywhere on the internet.
RedShirt | 12:40 p.m. Nov. 4, 2009
To "Anonymous | 11:10 a.m." and why can't people afford health
insurance?
Read "THE ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF STATE-MANDATED HEALTH INSURANCE BENEFITS" at the college of New Jersey. It shows how 25% of the uninsured are that way as a direct result of state mandated benefits.
Read "Fix health care? Cut taxes." at the Times Union, which shows that 20% to 50% of the cost of insurance is due directly to government mandates.
In 2000, 64% of the US had private insurance. Today, 60% of the US has private insurance. When you use those percentages with the increase in population, you find that there are 14 million more people covered with insurance now than in 2000. So, total enrollment is up, not down as you think.
If a family is denied because of one person, they can get coverage for all of the remaining family if they choose to do so. The remaining person, having been denied, can be covered under HIPUtah. If a person doesn't take the time to work with an insurance representative why should that be counted as a problem with health insurance? Isn't that a problem with that person?
Read "THE ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF STATE-MANDATED HEALTH INSURANCE BENEFITS" at the college of New Jersey. It shows how 25% of the uninsured are that way as a direct result of state mandated benefits.
Read "Fix health care? Cut taxes." at the Times Union, which shows that 20% to 50% of the cost of insurance is due directly to government mandates.
In 2000, 64% of the US had private insurance. Today, 60% of the US has private insurance. When you use those percentages with the increase in population, you find that there are 14 million more people covered with insurance now than in 2000. So, total enrollment is up, not down as you think.
If a family is denied because of one person, they can get coverage for all of the remaining family if they choose to do so. The remaining person, having been denied, can be covered under HIPUtah. If a person doesn't take the time to work with an insurance representative why should that be counted as a problem with health insurance? Isn't that a problem with that person?
RedShirt | 12:56 p.m. Nov. 4, 2009
To "steve (the actuary) | 12:25 p.m." the 30% comes from Michell
Bachmann during an interview on Glenn Beck's show on October 14th. She was
quoting Prof. William Boyes, an Arizona State Economics professor.
She was quoting a Washington Times article from July 7th, that said "William Boyes, an economics professor at the W.P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University, estimates that the government now owns or controls businesses that generate about one-third of U.S. economic activity."
Dr. Boyes, said in another interview about the article and Bachmann "I simply added up how much of GDP [gross domestic product] was govt run or govt controlled. I gave an approximation that is pretty conservative. I suspect the actual number is more like 40%; if health care goes through then it will rise to over 50%."
Does that work for you?
She was quoting a Washington Times article from July 7th, that said "William Boyes, an economics professor at the W.P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University, estimates that the government now owns or controls businesses that generate about one-third of U.S. economic activity."
Dr. Boyes, said in another interview about the article and Bachmann "I simply added up how much of GDP [gross domestic product] was govt run or govt controlled. I gave an approximation that is pretty conservative. I suspect the actual number is more like 40%; if health care goes through then it will rise to over 50%."
Does that work for you?
jackhp | 1:13 p.m. Nov. 4, 2009
Charles is obviously unhinged.
jackhp | 1:17 p.m. Nov. 4, 2009
Quote from the US Census website:
The percentage of people without health insurance in 2008 was not statistically different from 2007 at 15.4 percent. The number of uninsured increased to 46.3 million in 2008, from 45.7 million in 2007.
The percentage of people without health insurance in 2008 was not statistically different from 2007 at 15.4 percent. The number of uninsured increased to 46.3 million in 2008, from 45.7 million in 2007.
Alice | 1:46 p.m. Nov. 4, 2009
I hope the goverment takes over and saves us from super captilism and corrupt
wall street.
thatthatguy | 1:48 p.m. Nov. 4, 2009
So, here is the thought. If government run healthcare is really so bad and
poorly managed, then the private firms would be able to provide better services
at lower cost right? So no one will sign up for the public plan and it will go
away. Isn't that the power of the much praised free market?
If a public plan turns out to provide better care for a lower price, then the private plans deserve to go out of business. Again, good for everyone as we get better care for less price.
So, what's all the drama about?
If a public plan turns out to provide better care for a lower price, then the private plans deserve to go out of business. Again, good for everyone as we get better care for less price.
So, what's all the drama about?
Wrex | 1:52 p.m. Nov. 4, 2009
Charles,
Perhaps if you had better health insurance, you could afford that medication you obviously need. Good luck with your hysterical paranoia.
Perhaps if you had better health insurance, you could afford that medication you obviously need. Good luck with your hysterical paranoia.
Progressive | 1:53 p.m. Nov. 4, 2009
There you go Steve, Red Shirt and Michelle Bachmann how do you argue with that
combination. At least these two prove the string theory premise of alternate
dimensions.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- Scuba diving in Utah 3:51 p.m.
- Conan mocks Orrin Hatch, Mormons 3:47 p.m.
- Blog: Six FB players leaving USU 3:43 p.m.
- Susan Powell notebook seized 3:39 p.m.
- Miller Motorsports gets major race 3:35 p.m.
- N Salt Lake has two vacancies 3:29 p.m.
- Stocks stall as Fed preps to back off 3:27 p.m.
- Little lies to little ones acceptable? 3:17 p.m.
- Keep the holiday pounds off 3:16 p.m.
- Impaired walking is a disorder 3:14 p.m.
- Josh Powell meets with WVC police
- Will Chambers keep his promise?
- Susan Powell notebook seized
- Star on field, in community
- BYU singers compete in 'Sing Off'
- Boozer plays at an All-Star level
- Cougar seniors see a new Bronco
- Jazz miss Harpring's toughness
- Cougs brace for coaching changes
- Boy shot in head during struggle dies
- Jazz stunned by Timberwolves
114 - Stay the course with our president111
- BYU to wear royal blue uniforms108
- Josh Powell meets with WVC police107
- TV mom gives birth to 19th child106
- Sources: Josh Powell hires attorney100
- Letters: Explaining Palin99
- Letters: 'Liberal conceit'93
- Choir, guests unwrap musical magic88
- Tethering of pets could spur charges84
First of all, to "20/20," how can you read newspapers and not understand...
For the latest news in the health care debate and how it affects you...
Latest comments
I pray the investigators and the general news media deals with this...
I could be wrong, but I have been told that in France, Denmark, and other...
RE: Evets | 11:42 a.m. Dec. 16, 2009 Yes Evets. It is true. My work put...
Just because conservatives in general appose government welfare systems, does...
Here's a quote from Henry Hazlitt, to whom I referred earlier. I think you...
Donny Osmond did just fine and continues to bring positive news for the LDS...
'He deserves some hard time to find out what 'gays' like.' - 3:17 p.m....
@AZ: Sorry to disappoint! The "gay card" is only directed to those who...
Thanks Average Joe. It is comforting to see at least one positive comment on...
Congrats Johnson. You're a great player. Although, I'm not sad to see you...
Advertisements
OBAMA in 2012! Get used to it!