Totally agree…look at my response # 118
The Reality is that the US Healthcare System is funded on an “Employer Based” System that is no longer competitive in a global market.
Question: Please explain why your employer should be involved in this process at all ?
If you are hurt at work or become ill due to conditions “within the “course and scope of employment” you are covered under Workers Compensation. Your group health insurance excludes work related injuries or illness.
A single payer system ” Levels the playing field”..It is a win win

Obviously the rest of the world understands this concept…the US is tooo greedy to implement it. We have a “have or have not” system. The “haves” work for a large organization ( government or near monopoly)..the have nots ( small, mid size , self employed , un employed) are left out to dry and pay for the haves…

We can bomb the wrong country and then provide healthcare for their citizens, while the US can now brag that the # 1 reason for bankruptcy is MEDICAL BILLS.

Is this REALLY a great country ?…or what

Nice game of Twister you’re playing. I was responding to your original point, where you said…

Where I quoted from another article, did you not read it?

Which, by the way, weren’t even your own words

Again, quoting from another article. You act like you’ve never seen this sort of thing before.

But even so, I debunked the assertion that the bill wasn’t going to allow for any new policies written after the public option goes into effect.

Wow, I’ll bet you feel all important now, right?

You know what, mea culpa, I didn’t read further into the bill (and I did look at the referenced section of the bill, sorry the link expired, here’s a better one from the same site). Private coverage can still be bought within these “Exchange” things. They will “compete” with the public option… of course I do not believe that the rules will be fair.

So that’s about 20 pages into a 1000+ page bill, and I already know the intertubes are buzzing about this controversy. Even with the Exchange option this still looks pretty bad. I wonder what other nasty gems are hiding in this bill. No wonder the Dem congress and Pres. Obama want this rammed thru before anyone can get a chance to read it.

You want to know what the most effective attacks against Hillarycare in 1993 was? Reading the damn bill. The same thing will apply here, that’s why ya’ll are so desperate to rush this thru.

Later,

I would be nice if the GOP offered real solutions instead of just opposition to the effort.

IT WORKS…Profit brings in competition…competition LOWERS prices….Give us a government plan…you don’t like DON’T BUY IT !!!

Good Luck

Yes, you can, if you wish, buy health care from a private insurer in London or Birmingham, Glasgow or Cardiff. And there is a private health care system which exists (even flourishes) alongside the public system. Further, a thriving private pharmaceutical industry exists in the UK (Glaxo Smith Kline being just one). So it is undeniable that the destruction of private health insurance and the health industry is not, nor was it ever, the aim of any western government plan. Nor has it ever been an outcome.

Secondly, the notion that all we need is to reform the current private system and all its ills will disappear is completely unproven. The history of health care delivery in the US points exactly the other way.

Free marketeers believe that an economic force is needed to change (that is to reform) the market. For the US to pull out of the black hole that it’s Health Care System has become, a major force is needed. We all must hope that the Public Option will be that force. Either the Private Sector will get better (supplying coverage to the uninsured, working truthfully to control costs, lowering its obscene profit levels and administrative costs) or it will perish. That’s good old-fashioned market force at work.

Ummmm–the government does not make your health care decisions in the public option. That is a bogus argument by the Republicans and insurance companies who are trying to protect their profits. A public option lets people choose another option, but private insurance companies will have to compete with the premiums and quality. People are not going to pay high premiums for the same service when the public option is there. This also makes it easier for small businesses to get health care because they can afford to help subsidize their employees premiums. This is a win win for small business and people.

Too bad so sad. If they can’t compete, then they should go out of business. They will just have to stop spending 30% on overhead (bonuses, sky-high management salaries, advertising, etc) and put that money back into health care. They will also have to stop discriminating against people because of their age or pre-existing conditions.

I thought you righties were all about the free market and competition. Why is it that you feel the for-profit health insurance industry should be protected from competition?

Medicare is a government run health care system. It works just fine. And the government DOES NOT make decisions for the patient. The doctor makes decisions for the patient. Unlike the for-profit health insurance system where a bureaucrat who is paid a bonus for denying care makes decisions as to what treatment you will receive.

You are woefully misinformed.

As far as not reading the bill, I’m quite sure that you side won’t read it, but the Democrats will. They are the only party that is remotely interested in doing what’s right for the people in this country.

And what evidence do you have showing that private run health insurance IS the best choice for this country. All the evidence I have seen says it is not.

http://axisofreason.com/2009/06/12/conservatives-contradiction-on-health-care-competition/

A 2007 McKinsey study compared U.S. health care costs to health care costs of 13 comparable countries. McKinsey concluded that the U.S health care system is intrinsically more expensive due to: 1) higher cost of inputs, such as labor, drugs and supplies and the private nature of providers 2) operational inefficiencies and complexities and 3) higher costs of administration, regulation and intermediation.

The report notes that US per capita spending on health care administration and insurance is six times higher than the average in peer countries. It would be even higher if the administrative costs of compliance for hospitals and physicians and the human resource department expensese for businesses were included.

http://axisofreason.com/2009/06/12/conservatives-contradiction-on-health-care-competition/

http://axisofreason.com/2009/07/16/republicans-real-health-reform-strategy/

I go to any doctor I want, get any test I want,
100% free, free life-time care, no deductible,
my family covered 100%.. no out-of-pockets
expenses what-so-ever…

What is this program? Just a member of congress
benefit.. I think this is the program for me!

Nice game of Twister you’re playing. I was responding to your original point, where you said:

“What wasn’t known until now is that the bill itself will kill the market for private individual coverage by not letting any new policies be written after the public option becomes law.”

Which, by the way, weren’t even your own words. But even so, I debunked the assertion that the bill wasn’t going to allow for any new policies written after the public option goes into effect. That assertion was completely false, and I totally pwned you with facts.

So now, you’re making the argument of “And of course we’re going to trust the government to come up with rules that are fair and promote competition with insurance companies.” In other words, move from left-foot-yellow to right-hand-blue.

Well, since the government isn’t tying the private insurers down with regulations that don’t also apply to them — yes, I see competition is possible if the private insurers are willing to give up being the piggy greedheads they are now. Much in the way UPS and FedEx compete successfully with the U.S. Post Office, even though they still have to follow many of the same regulations.

You claim to have read the text of the bill. Obviously you haven’t, or you wouldn’t be making such false claims about what’s in it. (I checked the link you provided — it doesn’t work.)

Unfortunately, I must leave now — but I’m sure there are others here who can effortlessly beat down any other lame point you wish to make about how supposedly awful health care reform is.

And I hope you never lose your job and your insurance, and find you can’t get insured anywhere else due to a pre-existing condition, even if you could afford to spend half your income on premiums.

The paragraph you point out just refers to existing policies. Insurance companies will not be required to drop existing policyholders. It’s just that if they want to sign up new ones after this legislation goes into effect, they must meet certain standards ensuring they aren’t ripping off the public

And of course we’re going to trust the government to come up with rules that are fair and promote competition with insurance companies.

(By the way, I also looked up the bill, I went here to see it.)

Next time you hear something this absurd, would you mind checking it out before you take up space here with it?

You mean HR3200? Yes, I agree it is quite absurd.

Later,