Health Care Reform & the e-cig (a solution that may upset you at first)

[Surf Monkey]

exactly...and i don't even think they will purchase govt insurance..they will just drop insurance all together..and people will have to take the public option on their own

Yeah, because employers are going to risk employee defections because they don't offer benefits anymore. That's a realistic scenario.

 

[LaceyUnderall]

I do believe that if we have universal health care, we will be under more scrutiny by our fellow man (even more than we are now) to be a healthier country.

This is my main concern with a universal program. This is where I am torn because a slippery slope is usually under the water, just where you can't see it. Like the time I was loading the boat onto the trailer and went just far enough into the water on the ramp and slipped and just about broke my tailbone. Lesson learned

I simply cannot stand the idea of us being allowed to tell each other what to do and worse, to inflict hate as a "reasonable behavior" upon each other.

I hesitate to go into another huge idea of mine, and that is the "anti-war" on drugs. It is based on the fact that users use, so we should legalize it, tax it, and use tax dollars to offer real, funded treatment programs. We would stop wasting money on our criminal prosecution of the users for using. Not to mention free up some jail space for pedophiles, rapists, and murderers, and release that guy smoking a joint at a Phish concert.

Love it. And Phish rocks

 

[vapordad]

Again, Lacey, I am not a proponent of the human nature behind what would happen if we all "realized" we were paying each other's medical bills...we are now, just so I am clear, but if it were as transparent as we want it, I believe this to be a side-effect. If I were truly here with an agenda, and trying to push this down anyone's throat, I wouldn't mention the bad stuff that could happen. But it can.

I posted the idea to see if others could expand on it or totally debunk it. I think we have a lot of work to do as citizens, and I think we are all a bit too apathetic to do it. ...getting cynical again, sorry.

 

[LaceyUnderall]

Again, Lacey, I am not a proponent of the human nature behind what would happen if we all "realized" we were paying each other's medical bills...we are now, just so I am clear, but if it were as transparent as we want it, I believe this to be a side-effect. If I were truly here with an agenda, and trying to push this down anyone's throat, I wouldn't mention the bad stuff that could happen. But it can.

I posted the idea to see if others could expand on it or totally debunk it. I think we have a lot of work to do as citizens, and I think we are all a bit too apathetic to do it. ...getting cynical again, sorry.

I didn't think you are a proponent of it... and to bring it up now in forsight is what needs to happen instead of it sneaking up and biting us in the ..... Are we willing to accept this side-effect? It's a good question.

I know I want to change things... I know change needs to happen... More to think...

 

[BARENETTED]

Denec,

I agree with everything you said. That being said, I am out of here.

There are some blockheads who jump in every thread and post relentlessly about their views. No matter what you say, he is always right and has all the answers, especially when he is picking your/our pockets.
So, when I see that blockhead, I will go elsewhere.

 

[vapordad]

Edit:

deleted by vapordad. mine was not necessary commentary. continue discussion. thanks

 

[ladyraj]

An ethical employer would raise wages if they were able to get cheaper health care plans for their employees, either public or otherwise.

I don't see any evidence to support the idea that a public option would represent a decreased level of benefits. At the moment we don't know exactly what the benefits of a public option would look like so it's nothing but speculation.

Well...in a downsizing market where employers are trying to reduce costs to maintain more of their loyal employees rather than lay them off...which is more ethical? All across this nation people have take an average of 5% pay cut...with no annual cost of living increase nor scheduled annual pay increase based on excellent work performance. Even the Soc Sec Admin...did not give a cola this year (that's the government not covering medicare recipients because inflation is held constant...though the cost of products and services have increased). State governmental employees are being given days off to reduce pay and benefits or they are being laid off.

I know the benefits of a public option...I'm a veteran with benefits based on a service connected disability. Military insurance is a public option to service members and retirees and their families. Medicare and medicaid are public options. Some employers offer very little if any insurance to their employees because their pay is at or below the level to get medicaid for their children...public option. These "public options" are bankrupt because of waste and mismanagement.

To proclaim there is no evidence of employers opting to save money via use of public options is simplistic. The government has failed to manage the public options under their current purview...what makes you think throwing more money at the problem would make any difference other than more mismanagement?

The best test of future performance in a given situation is past performance in that situation. The government has failed the options already under their management. What say you...

 

[ladyraj]

Yeah, because employers are going to risk employee defections because they don't offer benefits anymore. That's a realistic scenario.

With so many out of work the job market is glutted with eager beavers who have no problem stepping in to jobs that employees defected from. It's not even about defecting...it's about earning less because of government interference. I paid 100 grand for my education and spent 8 years in college to get premium perks via benefits...call me crazy but I think I earned it. Forced charity via government mandate is not charity at all...I'd rather donate to hospitals as I do now.

People that believe the promises of government of what and what will not happen are relying on faith that the government will actually be able to deliver on promises despite the fact there are various bills that many have not read nor analyzed the terminology of the bills. The latest bill offerd by: Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus...has changed overnight and fines for being uninsured were reduced due to outrage. Thus...everything is speculation!!!

Why aren't the legislators who make an average of 170 grand a year forced into this program? Their governmental insurance benefits have been gauranteed via an exception to not be effected...unlike we peons. That evidence alone should be enough to give anyone pause that we are being sold a program of smoke and mirrors.

Most people that want this option do not have to participate in the program or are one of the few that will benefit from it (or they think they will). The number is down from covering an additional 46 million to 30 million...strange isn't it? Unemployment rates are about 10% and the 30 mill is about 10% of America's 300 million population.

If we are already covering the uninsured as some have proposed....why do we have to change anything?8-o

Sorry for ranting...but it seems the world has gone mad.

 

[Surf Monkey]

With so many out of work the job market is glutted with eager beavers who have no problem stepping in to jobs that employees defected from. It's not even about defecting...it's about earning less because of government interference. I paid 100 grand for my education and spent 8 years in college to get premium perks via benefits...call me crazy but I think I earned it. Forced charity via government mandate is not charity at all...I'd rather donate to hospitals as I do now.

Every plan on the table includes strictures on companies that already offer insurance barring them from dropping coverage or reducing benefits if they move to one of the public options being considered.

I understand what you're saying about defections and I agree. But there are two sides to that coin. When companies lay people off, they generally start with the more expendable workers. As the force is winnowed down the remaining employes become more and more valuable to the company. The employees who may be tempted to jump ship if a company drops significant benefits are the most critical to the company's survival and exactly the sort of people who will have less trouble finding new employment. The risk cuts both ways.

People that believe the promises of government of what and what will not happen are relying on faith that the government will actually be able to deliver on promises despite the fact there are various bills that many have not read nor analyzed the terminology of the bills. The latest bill offerd by: Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus...has changed overnight and fines for being uninsured were reduced due to outrage. Thus...everything is speculation!!!

In essence, that's true. We're in the negotiation phase. Until there's a single bill we don't know what the shape of the plan is going to be. That's just how the system works. Once there's a single, specific bill under debate then we can have a more granular discussion of individual provisions.

Why aren't the legislators who make an average of 170 grand a year forced into this program? Their governmental insurance benefits have been gauranteed via an exception to not be effected...unlike we peons. That evidence alone should be enough to give anyone pause that we are being sold a program of smoke and mirrors.

According to the president, no one is going to be forced into any program. Not us, not them. You can choose not to believe him and that's your prerogative, but if that's the baseline assumption of your argument then there's no point in taking it any further.

Most people that want this option do not have to participate in the program or are one of the few that will benefit from it (or they think they will). The number is down from covering an additional 46 million to 30 million...strange isn't it? Unemployment rates are about 10% and the 30 mill is about 10% of America's 300 million population.

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here.

If we are already covering the uninsured as some have proposed....why do we have to change anything

Because we're paying too much for it. I don't have a problem with the community as a whole paying to cover those who can't afford their own insurance. What I do have a problem with is waisting money on the uninsured when they have to go to the emergency room for things that could have been prevented or that could have been treated by a GP at a far lower rate.

Think of it this way: the current system forces a lot of people to do the equivalent of grocery shopping at 7/11. Food at a 7/11 is a lot more expensive than it is in a standard grocery store. The idea is to stop wasteful 7/11 shopping and get people to spend their money at a regular grocery store where things are reasonably priced (in comparison.) The emergency room is like the 7/11 of health care. It's the most expensive option. That's what we're already paying for in higher premiums, higher insurance rates, higher hospital costs and so forth. Wouldn't it be better to save money by enabling people to get preventive care and do doctor's office visits rather than be forced to wait until things are so critical that they have to go to the emergency room? I think it would be.

 

[ladyraj]

Surfmonkey...I guess it depends on how force is interpreted. If it is cheaper for employers to drop private insurance and opt for the fees to the government option...those that do not want to drop their policy have no choice financially...thus they are forced out of their preferred plan.

I understand your point about emercency room costs that are passed on to the insured via higher premiums... but surely allowing reimbursement for the uninsured or subsidization of immediate care clinics or a general medical clinic would be more feasible. The government does the same thing for substance abuse residential treatment centers to the tune of 12-35 grand for 30 days. This does not include therapy nor precriptions. Alot of studies indicate that homeless people (most with mental deficits) seeking a place to sleep or a place to get patched up or sober up are the primary users of ER services. They also pass around their medical cards for a few bucks compensation. Further, free clinics are increasingly unfunded have been closing and has fostered the only source of care to be found is at ER's. Individuals in the "know" of such things understand they must exaggerate their symptoms to be seen and results in needless tests. Studies done by the health and human services department have found that people who would be eligible for benefits have never applied...perhaps this is where emphasis should be applied.

Merely giving these individuals medical cards will not fix this mentality nor plug the hole of government expense.

Sorry if I've rambled and pardon the grammar and spelling errors...I'm tired and I think I need my nap time...

Edit: I forgot to add that in places such as Arkansas which mandates a balanced budget...if government reimbursement billing exceeds "expected" receipts for the population requiring help (not rationing of help merely rationing of paying for that help) the state will receive no funds and cease to pay for services. I've seen non-profit organizations loose millions and advise their care-givers/personnel to hold off until the new year to give "tests" that can be put off till the future. This is definitive of rationing.

 

[denec]

Denec,

I agree with everything you said. That being said, I am out of here.

There are some blockheads who jump in every thread and post relentlessly about their views. No matter what you say, he is always right and has all the answers, especially when he is picking your/our pockets.
So, when I see that blockhead, I will go elsewhere.

I know there are plenty of others who have PM me who feel exactly as we do, but choose not to say anything, We might not agree on all of our ideologies but the main thing is we do not want the federal government running our healthcare because we know they only create a bigger government with more redtape, rationing healthcare, and never solve any problems but create bigger ones and cost taxpayers a lot more money when there was never a crisis to begin with.

we definitely cannot afford it in this economic crisis we are experience right now.

I think Obama should be focusing on reducing spending, cutting the deficit, that should be his priorities right now and getting the economy back before he starts talking about anything else.

When people start getting jobs back and we have time then start working on healthcare reform without UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE being rushed down our throats

How can anyone trust Obama to do this right


talk about Obama being a typical lieing politician

what did he say in 2006?

“Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren,” Obama said in a 2006 floor speech that preceded a Senate vote to extend the debt limit. “America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.”

he said this when Bush asked to do it..

and guess what he is asking to do today? he just asked the senate to do this yesterday because he needs more money to spend, he is doing exactly what he criticized Bush for but worst

The Senate must move legislation to raise the federal debt limit beyond $12.1 trillion by mid-October, a move viewed as necessary despite protests about the record levels of red ink.

I was pisst off when they did it back then and think it is crazy to do it again now...people think you can keep on printing money...and keep on burrowing from china..eventually everything will collapse


Congress raised the debt limit just a few months ago when it passed the $787 billion stimulus package.


The one thing Obama is right is our children and grandchildren will be paying for it if the USA still exists and does not outright collapse like Rome did, you know all great nations fall eventually has our time come?


We cannot afford any type of universal healthcare coverage in this economic crisis not now not ever

 

[vapordad]

Although I appreciate that this is a hot topic, I want folks to remember to read the OP, as it is NOT reflective of any current proposal. I was just trying to say that options do exist.

I admit I am an Obama fan. I admit I am progressive thinking. I am disappointed that the Change I voted for is getting quagmired in politics, but I understand that.

The comments above iterate that our government just buggers things up. I don't disagree that the way our current government works buggers things up. I thought the OP was pretty clear that we need sweeping reform in more aspects than just healthcare. I do feel healthcare should be a right protected by our constitution (since it speaks directly to Life --of life liberty and pursuit of happiness), but until our "democracy" is no longer corrupted by our mega giant capitalists, and the rest of us get a say in the fundamentals of our democracy, that cannot happen.

Most of the socialist programs we have are fundamentally good (list a few): Fire protection, police protection, social security, medicare, medicaid, public school system, public hospital system...public penal system....but all of them need from a little work to a lot of work to be sustainable and effective. If healthcare were in the mix above, we would also want to fix it. I think the iron is hot for sweeping government reform to make our government more efficient, make our economy stronger, and make our lives healthier. I think my plan outlines these issues.

So, continue your discussions, but remember that my plan is not a derivative of any current proposal. It is a HUGE change in how our government works, and would demand transparency on where our dollars are spent. Some is theoretical, but has worked elsewhere or prior --- yes, the competition would be great enough for the corporations to increase your pay when they didn't pay your health care or corporate taxes, as other companies would use that edge to draw away talent. Even clerks and factory workers in large companies are talent, or they wouldn't work there, especially now.

It failed to mention that all elected officials need to be on any and all public plans (education/social security/fire and police/etc). Otherwise, they don't have a vested interest to keep the plans viable or fix them when they start to break.

thanks for all your responses. I am not starting a revolution here, but I am also not saying one isn't needed.

thanks

 

[martha1014]

The idea is that the government would have a public option for some Americans. This option is for people who can’t afford their health care right now. And it’s based on a percentage of their premiums as compared with their income. If your current insurance premium is 11 or 12 percent of your salary or higher, you might qualify to buy into this public option. And in terms of overall costs, a public plan would in some ways compete with private insurance companies and may influence how prices are set overall.
The bill being considered now specifies two interesting points in terms of costs. One is that no payment rates would be lower than the Medicare rates right now. Also they would not be able to set prices higher than the average of all plans in the so-called insurance exchange. “Exchange” is the term used to describe the system of private insurance plans and the public option that would come with reform. So there is no direct setting of prices for doctors or hospitals, but a lot of potential influence over prices in the long run.


Critics of the House health reform bill argue that the government plan will always get the better deal. It will always be able to negotiate better prices than private insurers because there will be a larger pool of people. Therefore it would be able to negotiate prices that will not be as low as Medicare but will be low enough that private companies won’t be able to compete. The administration will say this assumption that Americans will flood the public plan is not necessarily true because not everyone will qualify.

 

[ladyraj]

The idea is that the government would have a public option for some Americans. This option is for people who can’t afford their health care right now. And it’s based on a percentage of their premiums as compared with their income. If your current insurance premium is 11 or 12 percent of your salary or higher, you might qualify to buy into this public option. And in terms of overall costs, a public plan would in some ways compete with private insurance companies and may influence how prices are set overall.
The bill being considered now specifies two interesting points in terms of costs. One is that no payment rates would be lower than the Medicare rates right now. Also they would not be able to set prices higher than the average of all plans in the so-called insurance exchange. “Exchange” is the term used to describe the system of private insurance plans and the public option that would come with reform. So there is no direct setting of prices for doctors or hospitals, but a lot of potential influence over prices in the long run.


Critics of the House health reform bill argue that the government plan will always get the better deal. It will always be able to negotiate better prices than private insurers because there will be a larger pool of people. Therefore it would be able to negotiate prices that will not be as low as Medicare but will be low enough that private companies won’t be able to compete. The administration will say this assumption that Americans will flood the public plan is not necessarily true because not everyone will qualify.

I mean no disrespect but if you are going to plagarize Dr Gupta's response in a blog one usually cites the reference and gives credit to the author:

Expert Q&A – Paging Dr. Gupta - CNN.com Blogs

8-o

 

[martha1014]

Sorry. I didn't think about it. I just wanted you to know what was out there. This was my error.

 

[martha1014]

I certainly didn't do this to make you think I did it. I don't even know any of you. I didn't realize this was and english class.

 

[LaceyUnderall]

martha -

Don't feel bad... it happens. I wouldn't worry about it... ladyraj cited it and I am sure you won't forget your credit due/links/back up again

 

[vapordad]

edit by vapordad, my 2 cents not needed, Lacey's comment enough