Originally Posted by radind

One of the better ideas on this, in my opinion is from Sen. Wyden:

http://www.standtallforamerica.com/issue/health_care/

..."For starters, every American will have the power to choose - and will be required to choose - a comprehensive health insurance plan. The plans will be high-quality, at least as good as what Members of Congress have today. Every American will be able to choose from any plan offered in their region; and they can keep their plan even if they change jobs, lose their job, or become too sick to work.Under Wyden's plan, employers would no longer provide health coverage, as they have since World War II. Instead, they'd convert the current cost of coverage into additional salary for employees. Individuals would use this money to buy insurance, which they would be required to have.
Private insurance plans would compete on features and price but would have to offer benefits at least equivalent to the Blue Cross "standard" option. Signing up for insurance would be as easy as ticking off a box on your tax return. In most cases, insurance premiums would be withheld from paychecks, as they are now.
Eliminating employers as an additional payer would encourage consumers to use health care more efficiently. Getting rid of the employer tax deduction, which costs a whopping $200 billion a year, would free up funds to subsidize insurance up to 400 percent of the poverty line, which is $82,000 for a family of four.
The Lewin Group, an independent consulting firm, has estimated that Wyden's plan would reduce overall national spending on health care by $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years and that it would save the government money through great administrative efficiency and competition."...

That does sound like a pretty good idea. Thanks for injecting some substance into the discussion, rather than more rants about Lenin.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/10/27/if_public_option_is_really_back_why_such_a_heavy_l ift_98890.html

States like Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts and New Hampshire that have imposed ObamaCare-style regulations have seen premiums jump for everyone. If people can wait to get sick until they obtain insurance, fewer healthy people will carry insurance. The cost of an older, sicker insurance pool naturally rises. To prevent this spiral of "adverse selection," ObamaCare imposes a mandate requiring all adults to buy insurance...

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

...2012 cannot come too soon for me. My fantasy is to have the Republicans nominate Palin for prez and Lieberman gets his justice in Connecticut.

-Senator Lieberman (or "The Jew" as the Arab-Islamic world likes to think of him) got his justice in 2006: he defeated an "Anti-War" candidate in a "blue state" by a comfortable margin. I suspect the reason he's against certain segments of Obamacare is that he'd like to win in 2012.

Originally Posted by radind

http://www.standtallforamerica.com/issue/health_care/

..."For starters, every American will have the power to choose - and will be required to choose...

-Yeah. It always seems to end up there...

Originally Posted by playwrite

...Recent analysis suggests that lifetime earnings of fathers and their children are highly correlated, three times as highly correlated as earlier research had suggested.5 Far from disappearing in three generations, as earlier work had optimistically suggested, the new results imply that income differences based on family background are likely to persist for many generations.

-People rise (and sink) all the time. Most millionaires are self-made (and there are plenty of self-made people who are aren't in the millionaire category). More importantly, everyone knows how to avoid poverty- they just don't do it.

Originally Posted by Odin

Typical reactionary, it's OK for the state to kill people and enrich The M-I Complex in the process but helping ordinary people is not.

You have proven why I think your side's beliefs are evil...

1) No one is stopping YOU from "helping ordinary people" voluntarily. The only "evil" person who had a problem with your part-time help at the rape shelter was a Leftie Boomer whose greatest lifetime accomplishment seems to have been spending 3 days at Woodstock in 1969. But it's the Righties who do most of the charity, while the Lefties try to think of ways to force other people to pay for their charities. That is not only evil, it's hypocritical:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/12/who_gives_to_charity.html\

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123258358706104403.html

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTZiY2EyNjllZmI3MjBiODdiM2ViNjc5ZmYxNjI1Zjg=#mo re

Gross Income Charity
1999 $210,797 $120
2000 $219,953 $360


2) States are designed to protect life & limb, and it's also the only thing at which they (sometimes) excell the free market (for reasons I explained in post #321). BTW, that killing has kept you alive and free. Someone has to do that, since you are clearly incompetent to protect yourself or others (I seriously doubt that you'd make it as an Anarchist). Those efforts might be largely wasted on you, but is not exactly evil.

Originally Posted by playwrite

...You paid a certain price for it, but now expect everyone else to pay the same. Others, however, who have lost a limb or some other capacity, or perhaps a loved one, might consider your payment far, far too small...

-My payment is not "too small" according to the terms of my contract(s).

It's funny that when I was fulfilling my side of the contract(s), no one had a problem with said contract(s). It's only now that it's time for the US Taxpayer to fulfill their side of the bargain, that I hear whining: people like Playwrite only whine about the terms of military contracts after the servicemen has already provided the service. If anyone thought that the terms of my contract(s) was too generous, they should have thought of that back in 1983, at which time they could have taken my place.

Originally Posted by playwrite

...You paid a certain price for it, but now expect everyone else to pay the same. Others, however, who have lost a limb or some other capacity, or perhaps a loved one, might consider your payment far, far too small - in their eyes, you are freeloader, an undeserved, but coddled, suckling...

-Hmmm... Translation:

"You're contract is morally invalid because you didn't happen to get killed or crippled while fulfilling your side of the deal. Damn you!"

BTW, if I had been crippled, I would be getting 100% of my base pay every month (plus bonuses of various sorts) Right Now (not when I'm 60), AND I probably wouldn't be eligible for recall in the future. I've got three friends who are on 100% disability, and boy, do they cost a bundle. I'm a bargain.

Originally Posted by playwrite

"Honest enterrpenuers" are they like "real Americans" - you know the ones that only agree with you and that the rest (while being the majority of Americans) just hate America...

-Yup. Those who don't agree with me are usually those who don't understand appreciate what makes America great, or don't care.

A corporation which sucks up to a politician in order to stifle his competitiors (as during the NIRA) is NOT acting as a good American.

As I posted, there's a difference between pro-corporation and pro-free market.

Originally Posted by playwrite

...Why aren't you posting your warning any more? Did someone finally explain it to you - real slow...

1) PW needs to look more carefully;

2) I'm always happy to remind Liberals of what hypocrites thay are. Maybe it will seep into their limited double-thinking consciences:


---

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

WARNING: The poster known as jamesdglick has a history of engaging in fraud. He makes things up out of his own head and attempts to use these blatant lies to score points in his arguments. When you call him on it, he will only lie further. He has such a reputation for doing this that many people here are cowed into silence and will not acknowledge it or confront him on it.

Anyone who attempts to engage with glick will discover this and find out you have wasted your time and energy on an intellectual fraud of the worst sort.

-So cry many Boomers like Haymarket & Playwrite whenever they fail to explain their hypocritical self-justifications, their double-standards, and their double-think forays into evil. Perhaps their consciences bother them, perhaps not. Who knows.

so, Glick wants to play over here as well -

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

-People rise (and sink) all the time. Most millionaires are self-made (and there are plenty of self-made people who are aren't in the millionaire category). More importantly, everyone knows how to avoid poverty- they just don't do it.

I give you data that refutes this point specifically, and you just repeat the falsified point. You won't earn respect doing that, either.

And certainly all the rest of your post is not worthy given the 'gem' of hypocrisy you just laid over on the other thread -

http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...&postcount=100

What a clown.

Originally Posted by playwrite

so, Glick wants to play over here as well -


I give you data that refutes this point specifically, and you just repeat the falsified point. You won't earn respect doing that, either.

And certainly all the rest of your post is not worthy given the 'gem' of hypocrisy you just laid over on the other thread -

http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...&postcount=100

What a clown.

Under Obamacare, premiums will go up...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...s_opinion_main

Originally Posted by playwrite

I give you data that refutes this point specifically, and you just repeat the falsified point...

-Rubbish:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/millionairenextdoor.htm

Most of us have never felt at a disadvantage because we did not receive any inheritance. About 80 percent of us are first-generation affluent.


Of course, PW the self-proclaimed trust fund baby might have difficulty understanding how that's possible...

---
-So cry many Boomers like Haymarket & Playwrite whenever they fail to explain their hypocritical self-justifications, their double-standards, and their double-think forays into evil. Perhaps their consciences bother them, perhaps not. Who knows. [/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by wtrg8

Under Obamacare, premiums will go up...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...s_opinion_main

Wellpoint? Well, that's trustworthy information. Yep.

Originally Posted by radind

One of the better ideas on this, in my opinion is from Sen. Wyden:

http://www.standtallforamerica.com/issue/health_care/

..."For starters, every American will have the power to choose - and will be required to choose - a comprehensive health insurance plan. The plans will be high-quality, at least as good as what Members of Congress have today. Every American will be able to choose from any plan offered in their region; and they can keep their plan even if they change jobs, lose their job, or become too sick to work.Under Wyden's plan, employers would no longer provide health coverage, as they have since World War II. Instead, they'd convert the current cost of coverage into additional salary for employees. Individuals would use this money to buy insurance, which they would be required to have.
Private insurance plans would compete on features and price but would have to offer benefits at least equivalent to the Blue Cross "standard" option. Signing up for insurance would be as easy as ticking off a box on your tax return. In most cases, insurance premiums would be withheld from paychecks, as they are now.
Eliminating employers as an additional payer would encourage consumers to use health care more efficiently. Getting rid of the employer tax deduction, which costs a whopping $200 billion a year, would free up funds to subsidize insurance up to 400 percent of the poverty line, which is $82,000 for a family of four.
The Lewin Group, an independent consulting firm, has estimated that Wyden's plan would reduce overall national spending on health care by $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years and that it would save the government money through great administrative efficiency and competition."...

Thanks for the post. Let me reiterate that I am in support of a nationalized health care plan. My concern isn't whether or not we should go universal, but how. Like many here, I think that giving states the choice to opt-out is a bad idea. That exemplifies what I wrote earlier about the danger in trying to create a universal insurance plan that caters to both the big-government and small-government sides of the issue. Personally, I don't think health care should be something we politicize...anyway...that enters a digression I didn't want to make right now.

The issue that concerns me in Wyden's plan is the assurance that all citizens will be offered a choice of plans with benefits at least equivalent to a Blue Cross "standard" option.

I hope I can articulate my concern accurately. I believe that, for universal healthcare to be accepted by the majority of the population, we need to be promised something more substantial than, for example, the Blue Cross "standard" option.

The insured population is being asked to support a big risk. People who are insured, and there are many, have plans that they are familiar with, even if they don't like them very much. Surrendering medical care to what the government is willing to provide is a frightening decision. However, I do think that such a decision would be easier if they are assured a plan as comprehensive and strong as what Congress currently has.

This is why I think universal coverage has to be fully socialized. If a person no longer pays health insurance premiums from their paychecks, but is asked to support an income tax increase to cover the cost of health care that is identical to what Congress enjoys, there will be a fight. But the offer is very black and white: up front costs are higher, benefits are guaranteed. I think many people would eventually come around. However, if Congress starts creating plans in an attempt to please all contributing philosophies, whatever is assembled will be, like most other government programs, a mess. This is what people are used to and this is what people are afraid of.

I think it was playwrite who told me to wake up and smell the coffee. On this particular wish, maybe I should. I don't believe Congress will fully socialize healthcare, but I'm struggling to find another plan that I think has successful longevity. (Never would've imagined myself writing this 15 years ago, when I a was a dyed-in-the-wool champion for privatization.)

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

-Rubbish:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/millionairenextdoor.htm

Most of us have never felt at a disadvantage because we did not receive any inheritance. About 80 percent of us are first-generation affluent.

And,

Our household's total annual realized (taxable) income is $131,000 (median, or 50th percentile), while our average income is $247,000. Note that those of us who have incomes in the $500,000 to $999,999 category (8 percent) and the $1 million or more category (5 percent) skew the average upward.

So bright boy, let me explain this to you -

The 80% that are "first-generation affluent" are confined within the 92% that make less than $500K. With the 5oth percentile being at $131K, it is likely that two-thirds of your "first-generation affluent" are bringing home, at best, $131K. Nothing to sneeze at but in today's world with gas around $3, tuition at state universities averaging $17K per year, health care costs sky high, etc. etc., this "affluency" is spread pretty damn thin and that's not counting the job losses and job uncertainy that has come down on these people since that article.

The chances that any of the top 8% and certainly the top 5% were "first genertion affluent" is less than thin to none - its a joke and the joke is on idiots like you that lap up this stuff like Pavlov dogs.

You have no clue what it means to really be affluent and how one gets there, or likely not, in our society today.

In short, you're mouthing off again without any thinking. You'll never change. Pathetic

Originally Posted by The Rani

I lived in Texas for 16 years, and I've taken responsibility for my own health my entire life. I'm not afraid of anyone or anything.

Well, then, practice your "Howdy's" and don't let the Golden Gate hit you in the ass on your way out.

Originally Posted by radind

One of the better ideas on this, in my opinion is from Sen. Wyden:

http://www.standtallforamerica.com/issue/health_care/

..."For starters, every American will have the power to choose - and will be required to choose - a comprehensive health insurance plan. The plans will be high-quality, at least as good as what Members of Congress have today. Every American will be able to choose from any plan offered in their region; and they can keep their plan even if they change jobs, lose their job, or become too sick to work.

Under Wyden's plan, employers would no longer provide health coverage, as they have since World War II. Instead, they'd convert the current cost of coverage into additional salary for employees. Individuals would use this money to buy insurance, which they would be required to have.

Private insurance plans would compete on features and price but would have to offer benefits at least equivalent to the Blue Cross "standard" option. Signing up for insurance would be as easy as ticking off a box on your tax return. In most cases, insurance premiums would be withheld from paychecks, as they are now.

Eliminating employers as an additional payer would encourage consumers to use health care more efficiently. Getting rid of the employer tax deduction, which costs a whopping $200 billion a year, would free up funds to subsidize insurance up to 400 percent of the poverty line, which is $82,000 for a family of four.

The Lewin Group, an independent consulting firm, has estimated that Wyden's plan would reduce overall national spending on health care by $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years and that it would save the government money through great administrative efficiency and competition."...

The devil is in the details. Would insurers still be able to exclude pre-existing conditions? Would the cost of premiums still vary by age and health? If so, would the funds from the employers also vary? What happens when a person loses their job?

I just have a lot of questions. It is an interesting idea, however.

Originally Posted by The Rani

You don't need a "howdy" to live in Texas, more like a "ya'll."

Well, ya'll be sure to set your traps in the right places. Billy Bob's in Ft Worth is just gotten too many of them touristas. And young lady, watch out for them thar horny frogs and sidewinders!

Originally Posted by BookishXer

..."The issue that concerns me in Wyden's plan is the assurance that all citizens will be offered a choice of plans with benefits at least equivalent to a Blue Cross "standard" option. "...I hope I can articulate my concern accurately. I believe that, for universal healthcare to be accepted by the majority of the population, we need to be promised something more substantial than, for example, the Blue Cross "standard" option. "...

Although Wyden did not make it clear, I am reaonably sure that he is referring to the Blue Cross standard option that is one of the plans in the federal government health insurance program.
-This is a very good plan.
The main problem is that this will not go over with the Republican party or with most libertarians. It is too good.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

The devil is in the details. Would insurers still be able to exclude pre-existing conditions? Would the cost of premiums still vary by age and health? If so, would the funds from the employers also vary? What happens when a person loses their job?

I just have a lot of questions. It is an interesting idea, however.

There are two things I like about Wydens plan:
1. Breaks the dependency of Health Insurance on employers
2.Essentialy this goes directly to a national insurance pool.( no exclusions)
-If Wyden's plan is similar to the Govt health insurance program( which is my working assumption), the only variables for a given insurance provider are individual or family option ;and for some plans , a 'high' & a 'low' option.
In such a national pool, the risks are shared in common.

The issue then becomes the cost( ie , how to pay for those with low incomes.). This is where I still have questions. Wyden claims to pay for this with savings from the current inefficient 'system' and elimination of some tax write-offs.
However, I am convinced that designing a true system first would provide the basis to have both an effective and an efficient health insurance program.

Originally Posted by radind

Although Wyden did not make it clear, I am reaonably sure that he is referring to the Blue Cross standard option that is one of the plans in the federal government health insurance program.
-This is a very good plan.
The main problem is that this will not go over with the Republican party or with most libertarians. It is too good.

Thanks for the information. I very quickly perused the website for the Blue Cross Blue Shield Federal Employee Program. The Standard Option does sound nice.

Originally Posted by radind

There are two things I like about Wydens plan:
1. Breaks the dependency of Health Insurance on employers
2.Essentialy this goes directly to a national insurance pool.( no exclusions)
-If Wyden's plan is similar to the Govt health insurance program( which is my working assumption), the only variables for a given insurance provider are individual or family option ;and for some plans , a 'high' & a 'low' option.
In such a national pool, the risks are shared in common.

The issue then becomes the cost( ie , how to pay for those with low incomes.). This is where I still have questions. Wyden claims to pay for this with savings from the current inefficient 'system' and elimination of some tax write-offs.
However, I am convinced that designing a true system first would provide the basis to have both an effective and an efficient health insurance program.

I appreciate the information, but so far the Senate leadership isn't listening to Sen. Wyden. I have been for the GEHA since the beginning. Senator Wyden is the only rational Senator out there at the moment.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffre..._b_336789.html

Originally Posted by radind

Although Wyden did not make it clear, I am reaonably sure that he is referring to the Blue Cross standard option that is one of the plans in the federal government health insurance program.
-This is a very good plan.
The main problem is that this will not go over with the Republican party or with most libertarians. It is too good.

Oh well... screw them.

Originally Posted by The Rani

You should write a play called The Ugly New Yorker.

I guess when the truth is ugly -

Of the nation's 435 congressional districts, Texas districts topped the list with the highest percentage of uninsured residents, while the lowest percentage of the uninsured were in congressional districts in Massachusetts, which in 2006 legislated near-universal health insurance.

The extremes range from Democratic U.S. Rep. Gene Green's congressional district in Houston, where 40.1 percent of the population is uninsured, to Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern's district around Worcester, Mass., where only 3.4 percent of the population has no coverage.

- those that don't want to hear, or care about, the truth, find the truth-sayers as ugly.

Its a pretty old theme, but perhaps one worth repeating.

Ye-haw, ya'all!

Just to show we aren't the only one with problems, the Washington Post reports that In China, too, a health-care system in disarray

Originally Posted by The Rani

Having no health insurance isn't ugly.

It is if you get seriously sick. And we all know people who exercise regularly, watch what they eat, and still get a serious disease...

Originally Posted by The Rani

The problem is that people equate health insurance with health. A fallacy promoted by the health care industry.

While health insurance isn't health (it won't replace a good diet and exercise for example), lack of health insurance in some situations does equate to ill health. There are times when medical care is called for, and it if can't be paid for, it won't be had, with consequences that are not good for health.

Originally Posted by The Rani

You've fallen for the propaganda. But it's ok, you're far from alone.

I seem to recall someone consulting a doctor when she suffered from vertigo once upon a time. Who was that?

Originally Posted by independent

Not sure what's worse: The corrupt politicians, or the enablers saying "something is better than nothing."

Looserman is a scuzzbucket that needs a swift kick in the face.

Originally Posted by Odin

Looserman is a scuzzbucket that needs a swift kick in the face.

If I were the sort of person who advocated violence, I might choose a word other than 'swift' or advocate a different target area somewhat lower down. However, Mr. Saari once reported one of my posts such as the above as promoting violence. Craig doesn't exactly appreciate people advocating violence.

Thus, I shall merely give full and formal endorsement to the word 'scuzzbucket'. ™

Originally Posted by The Rani

You've fallen for the propaganda. But it's ok, you're far from alone.

Yea, right.

"The study estimates medical-caused bankruptcies affect about 2 million Americans each year, counting debtors and their dependents, including 700,000 children."

I guess if it was cows instead of kids.

Originally Posted by The Rani

You've fallen for the propaganda. But it's ok, you're far from alone.

That's a strange view. Why did you enter the field if you believe what you do to be of little value?