White House appears ready to drop 'public option'

[Extra Stout]

AP article (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jlMpJGn28kqCcgU-aGcYE_ZHW-ywD9A436580)

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama's administration signaled on Sunday it is ready to abandon the idea of giving Americans the option of government-run health insurance as part of his ambitious health care proposal.

Facing mounting opposition to the overhaul, administration officials left open the chance for a compromise with Republicans that would include health insurance cooperatives. Such a concession is likely to enrage his liberal supporters but could deliver Obama a much-needed win on a top domestic priority opposed by GOP lawmakers.

[Yonivore]

MORE DRAMATIC EFFECT (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133333)


http://www.drudgereport.com/wf.jpg
RETREAT: TEAM OBAMA DROPS 'PUBLIC OPTION' (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul)
http://www.drudgereport.com/i/logo9.gif

[balli]

Facing mounting opposition to doing anything whatsoever, administration officials left open the chance for a compromise with Republicans.
Fixed

And even with concessions, fat chance getting a compromise out of the anti-American pieces of shit who make-up the GOP.

[clambake]

the closer we can get to a collapsed nation, the better.

[Yonivore]

Fixed

And even with concessions, fat chance getting a compromise out of the anti-American pieces of shit who make-up the GOP.
It's not just the GOP, balli.

Obamacare -- worse than doing nothing (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/08/024291.php)


August 15, 2009 Posted by Paul at 10:18 PM

According to a Rasmussen survey (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/august_2009/54_say_passing_no_healthcare_reform_better_than_pa ssing_congressional_plan) released today, only 35 percent of Americans believe that passage of the bill "currently working its way through Congress" would be better than not passing any health care legislation this year. 54 percent of Americans disagree, believing that it would be better to pass no bill.

The poll question is a bit misleading because there is no single bill working its way through Congress at this time. However, the results show pretty clearly that the Democrats are losing the health care debate.

Democratic voters, of course, are still behind their party on this issue, though not overwhelmingly - 60 percent of Dems favor passing the legislation in Congress over doing nothing. But among independents, the split is 23 percent for and 66 percent against.

The Dems' approach to health care is particularly unpopular with the middle class. The most strongly opposed income cluster consists of those that making $40,000 to $75,000 a year. Those making $20,000 of less are evenly divided; every other group is opposed.

In a normal environment, these poll numbers would be fatal. But because the Democrats have such commanding majorities in both chambers, and because President Obama is so committed to passing legislation, it would be unwise to assume that the Dems won't be able to enact legislation along the lines now being pushed in the House. In fact, if it were up to the House alone, I'd probably bet that such legislation would pass. With the Senate in the picture, the outlook is more problematic, and it may be that the Democrats will need to compromise substantially in order to have a good shot at avoiding the embarrassment of passing nothing.

Yet the Rasmussen poll suggests that for Democrats in swing states or districts, nothing would be a pretty cool hand.

[ChumpDumper]

As predicted.

[Yonivore]

Another pledge bites the dust... (http://politicalwire.com/archives/2009/08/13/obama_willing_to_stake_presidency_on_health_care_r eform.html)


Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-IA) claims that President Obama told him "he's willing to be a one-term president if that's what it takes to get health care and energy reform," reports Radio Iowa.

Said Boswell: "The president (said), 'I'm not going to kick the can down the road.' And he said that and I said, 'Well, that's something I'm kind of used to from southern Iowa, you know. I know about kicking the can down the road.' And he said, 'No, if it makes me a one-term president, I'm going to, we're going to take it on because the country is in need of us taking this on.'"
Damn, and I was so counting on this one.

[Yonivore]

Holy Schmackers!

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/plain/storage/images/media/obama_index_graphics/august_2009/obama_index_august_16_2009/240925-1-eng-US/obama_index_august_16_2009.jpg

Maybe he was worried about making it even one term.

[Yonivore]

Nice trend...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/plain/storage/images/media/obama_total_approval_graphics/august_2009/obama_total_approval_august_16_2009/240928-1-eng-US/obama_total_approval_august_16_2009.jpg

[jman3000]

They lost the information war... badly.

People actually thought that all illegal immigrants were going to be covered. They actually thought that Palin was right about them wanting to kill her child with a Death Panel.

The one thing of substance they really had them on was that this isn't really deficit neutral. I think it comes out to costing 300 billion over 10 years. That's a pretty big promise that wasn't met, and even if they laid off everything else this would be a large sticking point.

I think they should have marketed it as cheap, basic health care coverage that was a step below private coverage. Getting what you pay for. They tried to say that it would be equal to what they have and that was just dumb.

[boutons_deux]

With no real competition from a public option, the for-profit health insurers will continue to screw the country over for decades.

The country is run for the profit of the corporations, not For The People.

[jack sommerset]

I don't think this bill(s) are dead.

[jack sommerset]

With no real competition from a public option, the for-profit health insurers will continue to screw the country over for decades.

The country is run for the profit of the corporations, not For The People.

What do you do for a living?

[angrydude]

You on the left only have yourselves to blame. The Left has kept pushing for a single payer socialized healthcare system for so long that whenever people hear 'healthcare reform' or 'public option' that's all they hear no matter what the actual details are. So people were able to bring up every worst case scenario that's ever been associated with the term and the Left had no moderate rock to hide behind.

[Yonivore]

You on the left only have yourselves to blame. The Left has kept pushing for a single payer socialized healthcare system for so long that whenever people hear 'healthcare reform' or 'public option' that's all they hear no matter what the actual details are. So people were able to bring up every worst case scenario that's ever been associated with the term and the Left had no moderate rock to hide behind.
Socialism can't be sold with an authentic wrapper. That's why they use terms like "progressive."

America is the antithesis of Socialism and, whenever it's recognized for what it is, it is soundly rejected by this country.

[Yonivore]

I don't think this bill(s) are dead.
They may not be dead but they can't go forward with Obama's nutroots supporters without the so-called "public option" and it can't be paid for with out a "death panel" rationing care.

Whatever they come up with, won't fly with about two thirds of the supporters of the current fiasco.

[Yonivore]

What do you do for a living?
Whatever it is, it's left him without a clue about how he's paid...you know, from the evil profits of his employer.

[hope4dopes]

Socialism can't be sold with an authentic wrapper. That's why they use terms like "progressive."

America is the antithesis of Socialism and, whenever it's recognized for what it is, it is soundly rejected by this country.


Nailed it Yoni. Not even the third world is buying this outdated and bankrupt idea called socialisim, even Europe has recognized it doesn't work, in fact after the socialists took a shellacking in the latest eurpoean elections they tried to promote the idea of calling themselves"democrats" instead of "socialists",They were following the thinking of the George Soros branch of the American democrat party.

[boutons_deux]

socialism is not what a public option is. socialism is lying slime, and it sticks with a lot dumbfuck, manipulated red-staters who can't think for themselves.

the corps win, citizens lose.

same is happening with the banksters, they live to gamble again unregulated and unseen, knowing the taxpayers will make good on their bad bets.

[Yonivore]

socialism is not what a public option is. socialism is lying slime, and it sticks with a lot dumbfuck, manipulated red-staters who can't think for themselves.

the corps win, citizens lose.

same is happening with the banksters, they live to gamble again unregulated and unseen, knowing the taxpayers will make good on their bad bets.
The "public option" was the linchpin of the single-payer plan. The "public option" would have been heavily subsidized by us (the taxpayers) so they could undercut the commercial insurance companies on price, draw customers, and cause them to collapse.

Under ObamaCare, we all lose...unless, of course, you're lucky enough to be a Congressman; because, then, you have an excellent "public option" also funded by the taxpayer.

[boutons_deux]

A public option wouldn't necessarily cause for-profiteers to collapse, but they would probably shrink, and good riddance.

In many countries with public health plans, for-profit private insurers exist well alongside the public plan.

A public option could also leverage down exorbitant drug prices, as happens in other countries where the US drug companies are forced to sell their drugs for a lot less than US suckers pay for them, because they have to negotiate with the govt's single-buyer.

That's why you can buy US drugs in, eg, Canada cheaper than in US, and why drug companies pay the US govt to stop (re)importation, with scare-the-dumbfucks bullshit like the US drugs from Canada are lower quality tha from the US.

In any case, I predict the Senate will kill anything the House passes, and we will continue to get screwed by the health care industry.

[Yonivore]

A public option wouldn't necessarily cause for-profiteers to collapse, but they would probably shrink, and good riddance.

In many countries with public health plans, for-profit private insurers exist well alongside the public plan.

A public option could also leverage down exorbitant drug prices, as happens in other countries where the US drug companies are forced to sell their drugs for a lot less than US suckers pay for them, because they have to negotiate with the govt's single-buyer.

That's why you can buy US drugs in, eg, Canada cheaper than in US, and why drug companies pay the US govt to stop (re)importation, with scare-the-dumbfucks bullshit like the US drugs from Canada are lower quality tha from the US.

In any case, I predict the Senate will kill anything the House passes, and we will continue to get screwed by the health care industry.
You must not pay taxes.

[Wild Cobra]

Holy Schmackers!

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/plain/storage/images/media/obama_index_graphics/august_2009/obama_index_august_16_2009/240925-1-eng-US/obama_index_august_16_2009.jpg

Maybe he was worried about making it even one term.
Well, he has to be better than President Bush at one thing. May as well be having the lowest approval ratings.

[Yonivore]

Well, he has to be better than President Bush at one thing. May as well be having the lowest approval ratings.
I think to beat Bush, Obama's opponent would have to engage in an 8 year campaign to destroy his character.

Most of his opponents, me included, are only interested in his policies failing to be realized.

[Rodriguez]

My canon is aimed at issues but not individuals. Barack Hussein is a respectable person that realized his American dream through his hard work, and such a person deserve to live a decent life in America despite where he was born. However, some of his political ambitions are unpractical and slightly delusional, which may eventually cause disasters.

[fyatuk]

The "public option" was the linchpin of the single-payer plan. The "public option" would have been heavily subsidized by us (the taxpayers) so they could undercut the commercial insurance companies on price, draw customers, and cause them to collapse.


The public option is not would have caused a single payer system. Yes it would allow it, but a public option alone would not cause such a system.

The key was how much power they are trying to give the government for controlling private insurance companies. The government would have the power to decree rates, institute mandatory loss ratios, and decide the benefits of plans offered by private insurance companies. There's also the fact that at least HR3200 required the government to do whatever was necessary to get "enough" people to go for the public option without specifying what "enough" was.

[Yonivore]

The public option is not would have caused a single payer system. Yes it would allow it, but a public option alone would not cause such a system.

The key was how much power they are trying to give the government for controlling private insurance companies. The government would have the power to decree rates, institute mandatory loss ratios, and decide the benefits of plans offered by private insurance companies. There's also the fact that at least HR3200 required the government to do whatever was necessary to get "enough" people to go for the public option without specifying what "enough" was.
Hence, my use of the word linchpin.

[hope4dopes]

socialism is not what a public option is. socialism is lying slime, and it sticks with a lot dumbfuck, manipulated red-staters who can't think for themselves.

the corps win, citizens lose.

same is happening with the banksters, they live to gamble again unregulated and unseen, knowing the taxpayers will make good on their bad bets.


Oh, reeeeeeeeeeelly...well about seventy members of congress belong to the DSA or the democratic socialists of america,all also belong to the DNC.
So am am I to believe they are democrats that aren't really socialists, or am I to believe they're socialists that aren't really democrats.

the apparatchiks win the proloteriat lose.

[fyatuk]

Hence, my use of the word linchpin.

Yes, but you based the argument on undercutting the private sector using subsidies, and implied that a public option would necessarily lead to a single payer system, which I disagree with.

I was pointing out that the regulation of private sector companies included in the bills would be used far more effectively than simple price undercutting. I don't think a public option leads to a single payer system without the governmne taking the power to destroy the private sector portion.

[Yonivore]

Yes, but you based the argument on undercutting the private sector using subsidies, and implied that a public option would necessarily lead to a single payer system, which I disagree with.
You're right, I believe it would have been structured by this administration to drive commercial insurance out of business. And, that is based on statements made by Obama prior to his becoming President.

Let me expand a bit.

Obama's "public option" was billed as an affordable alternative to expensive insurance for those who could not afford it...while offering the same amount of coverage. And, just like other government-subsidized programs, those who could afford more expensive option will migrate to the cheaper option, particularly if it offers the same level of coverage.

Obama is counting on this. Take enough customers from the commercial companies and they are no longer financially viable. Insurance only works if you have more money coming in in premiums than you have going out in costs. Well, free-market insurance, anyway. Those rules don't apply to government insurance...they can, and often do, operate in the red by borrowing from our grandchildren.


I was pointing out that the regulation of private sector companies included in the bills would be used far more effectively than simple price undercutting. I don't think a public option leads to a single payer system without the governmne taking the power to destroy the private sector portion.
Which they would do given the chance.

[fyatuk]

You're right, I believe it would have been structured by this administration to drive commercial insurance out of business. And, that is based on statements made by Obama prior to his becoming President.


Which they would do given the chance.

I agree. Obama obviously wants a single payer system, and he was upfront about the in the past. Which is one of the reasons I hope these things get completely gutted. Some of the powers the government gives itself are HORRENDOUS.

[LnGrrrR]

Well, he has to be better than President Bush at one thing. May as well be having the lowest approval ratings.

Still has a little while to go on that one. :)

[Wild Cobra]

Still has a little while to go on that one. :)
He's on the right track for that considering he's only been in office for seven months.

[Yonivore]

Still has a little while to go on that one. :)
I agree, I think it would also take an 8 year character assassination campaign by his opponents...such as was perpetrated against President Bush.

That or his programs actually coming to fruition.

[LnGrrrR]

Well, it should be going up if this publich health options gets dropped, as the majority of the public seem to want.

Will you guys approve of the rest of the bill if the gov option is dropped off?

[Wild Cobra]

Well, it should be going up if this publich health options gets dropped, as the majority of the public seem to want.

Will you guys approve of the rest of the bill if the gov option is dropped off?Hell no. It mandates minimum insurance coverages that not everyone needs or wants to pay for. It gives the government access to our banks to take money out for the copay. It does so many other bad things still.

[fyatuk]

Will you guys approve of the rest of the bill if the gov option is dropped off?

Hell no. Everything I've looked at gives the government way too much control over the private insurance companies. Effectively the government would be running them and they'd be private in name only.

It's complete shit.

[LnGrrrR]

So, what SHOULD be done to relieve the issue of ineffectiveness in insurance? WC, I know you've mentioned some laws that conservatives have tried to repeal, as part of a 'reform' plan... any links?

Additionally, don't you think there should be some regulation preventing companies from dropping people once they develop an illness? What about all the over-billing that occurs?

[Wild Cobra]

So, what SHOULD be done to relieve the issue of ineffectiveness in insurance? WC, I know you've mentioned some laws that conservatives have tried to repeal, as part of a 'reform' plan... any links?

Additionally, don't you think there should be some regulation preventing companies from dropping people once they develop an illness? What about all the over-billing that occurs?
There was an article linked quoting numbers where there are actually very few people who do not have access or do not make enough to have insurance. If you want to cover those few who fall in between medicare and the middle class, then do that. What ever you wish to support, do not support something that takes away my freedom of choices.

What would I support?

How about another insurance added to social security and medicare insurances. Make a 2% insurance and 2% payroll tax on all income up to about $100,000. Everyone pays, then extend medicare to people who don't make enough to buy insurance.

Also, enforce immigration policies. If someone is suspected of being illegal to this country that comes across medical care, then find out, and deport them after treatment if they are illegal. These 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens are the largest calls of the uninsured that are complained about.

[101A]

With no real competition from a public option, the for-profit health insurers will continue to screw the country over for decades.

The country is run for the profit of the corporations, not For The People.


If you took ALL the profit ALL the Health Insurance companies made last year; you could run Medicare (not counting any expansions - or even Medicaid) for a day.

What you gonna do the other 364?

[Yonivore]

So, what SHOULD be done to relieve the issue of ineffectiveness in insurance? WC, I know you've mentioned some laws that conservatives have tried to repeal, as part of a 'reform' plan... any links?

Additionally, don't you think there should be some regulation preventing companies from dropping people once they develop an illness? What about all the over-billing that occurs?
Why should anything be done? Who says insurance is ineffective?

But, if you wanted to make a significant change that would bring down the cost of insurance...quit requiring insurance companies to pay for maintenance care and routine exams. Make insurance for catastrophic medical needs.

Then, bring down the overall cost of medical care by tort reform, lifting onerous government regulations, and discouraging people from running to the doctor every time they run a fever or the color of their bowel movement changes. How do you do that? You make them pay for those silly doctor visits instead of requiring the insurance companies to pick up the tab.

[clambake]

But, if you wanted to make a significant change that would bring down the cost of insurance...quit requiring insurance companies to pay for maintenance care and routine exams. Make insurance for catastrophic medical needs.
i hope you're just summerizing, and intentionally left out a bunch of shit.


Then, bring down the overall cost of medical care by tort reform, lifting onerous government regulations, and discouraging people from running to the doctor every time they run a fever or the color of their bowel movement changes. How do you do that? You make them pay for those silly doctor visits instead of requiring the insurance companies to pick up the tab.
how many people do that, and why would that lower the cost to those who don't?

[Yonivore]

i hope you're just summerizing, and intentionally left out a bunch of shit.
Well, you'd have to negotiate with your insurance company as to what constituted catastrophic medical need but, no, it's that simple. A person can buy catastrophic coverage now -- with a high deductible -- for a family my size for under $100 a month. Perfectly reasonable.


how many people do that, and why would that lower the cost to those who don't?
A butt load of people do. Since the inception of HMOs and $5 (now $20) co-pays, people have been going to their doctors for everything from hang nails to wart removal.

Why would it lower the cost? I wouldn't have to pay so much for insurance if my insurance company didn't have to pay for all that unnecessary garbage. And, since I'm not one of those that abuse the system, it would definitely lower my costs.

[Yonivore]

Another thing I would propose is to quit requiring employers to pay for, provide, or coordinate insurance coverage. Put that money back into my salary and let me shop for my own insurance.

That competition right there would drive down insurance costs.

[clambake]

nah, they wouldn't change the amount of your co-pay.

[clambake]

they require employers to pay for insurance?

[Gino]

There was an article linked quoting numbers where there are actually very few people who do not have access or do not make enough to have insurance. If you want to cover those few who fall in between medicare and the middle class, then do that. What ever you wish to support, do not support something that takes away my freedom of choices.

What would I support?

How about another insurance added to social security and medicare insurances. Make a 2% insurance and 2% payroll tax on all income up to about $100,000. Everyone pays, then extend medicare to people who don't make enough to buy insurance.

Also, enforce immigration policies. If someone is suspected of being illegal to this country that comes across medical care, then find out, and deport them after treatment if they are illegal. These 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens are the largest calls of the uninsured that are complained about.


I doubt illegal immigration has very little, if anything, to do with the cost of high premiums.

[Gino]

Another thing I would propose is to quit requiring employers to pay for, provide, or coordinate insurance coverage. Put that money back into my salary and let me shop for my own insurance.

That competition right there would drive down insurance costs.

I dont think the government requires employers to proide insurance. And this wouldnt work as a government program. You cant tell private business to stop giving their employees insurance and hope they give them more salary (that they save) instead.

Rather, the tax code should change so that you could buy your own insurance privatey, and hope that employers would give their employees the option to opt out of their insurance and receive a larger paycheck instead.

[clambake]

more proof that yoni hasn't created anything.

[Yonivore]

nah, they wouldn't change the amount of your co-pay.
Sure it would. I wouldn't have a co-pay. I would be paying the entire cost of the non-catastrophic doctor's visits while my insurance company would be paying the entire cost (minus deductible) of my catastrophic medical need.

How would that save me money?

Well, right now, I have about $400.00 per month taken out of my paycheck for insurance premiums. I spend less than that, per year, on medical care for my family because of co-pays and the infrequency of our visits to the doctor.

Give me that $400.00 per month, I'll spend $100.00 per month on catastrophic insurance and still spend less than $2,500.00 per year on doctor's visits.

$400.00 per month = $4,800.00 per year (not counting co-pays)
$100.00 per month + $2,500.00 out of pocket = $3,700.00 per year (no co-pay)

It's simple math. And, that's only if I can manage to spend $2,500.00 a year. Which I doubt I can...without, of course, suffering a catastrophic illness and, then, my catastrophic coverage kicks in.

Some people would spend absolutely nothing on medical care some years. When I was younger, I went years without seeing a doctor. When my family was young, we went years without seeing a doctor for anything beyond immunizations and the occasional trip to the E.R. for stitches.

[ChumpDumper]

Which law requires employers to pay for, provide, or coordinate insurance coverage?

[Yonivore]

I dont think the government requires employers to proide insurance. And this wouldnt work as a government program. You cant tell private business to stop giving their employees insurance and hope they give them more salary (that they save) instead.
In a competitive market, the employer would be stupid not to convert that premium to salary because, one employer would and that'd be all it took.


Rather, the tax code should change so that you could buy your own insurance privatey, and hope that employers would give their employees the option to opt out of their insurance and receive a larger paycheck instead.
The tax code should butt out of my medical care altogether.

[Gino]

In a competitive market, the employer would be stupid not to convert that premium to salary because, one employer would and that'd be all it took.


The tax code should butt out of my medical care altogether.

Well you should AT LEAST get the same tax break your employer gets.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html

This dude makes some interesting points although some it is pretty far reaching. Saying "tort reform" is something the right throws out even though its NEVER going to happen. You might as well say "a magic wand".

[Yonivore]

Well you should AT LEAST get the same tax break your employer gets.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html

This dude makes some interesting points although some it is pretty far reaching. Saying "tort reform" is something the right throws out even though its NEVER going to happen. You might as well say "a magic wand".
I read Mackey's opinion piece. He's being excoriated by the left for having this opinion because, he runs a business that is stereotypically "liberal" (Whole Foods) and had the temerity to piss off his (assumed) customer base by proposing a very conservative solution to the health care problem.

Tort reform is doable. Texas made great strides in this respect and there's no reason the other states couldn't follow suit.

And, finally; sure, if I couldn't get the tax code to butt out of my medical affairs altogether, I'd at least like to be treated fairly by it.

[LnGrrrR]

Why should anything be done? Who says insurance is ineffective?

But, if you wanted to make a significant change that would bring down the cost of insurance...quit requiring insurance companies to pay for maintenance care and routine exams. Make insurance for catastrophic medical needs.

Then, bring down the overall cost of medical care by tort reform, lifting onerous government regulations, and discouraging people from running to the doctor every time they run a fever or the color of their bowel movement changes. How do you do that? You make them pay for those silly doctor visits instead of requiring the insurance companies to pick up the tab.

I'm ok with this idea: However, it's a chicken and egg problem it seems. Do you convince the doctors to lower prices first, or the insurance companies to not cover it, or the people to pay?

Is it realistic to assume that doctors could make a profit by charging "reasonable" rates for these things? Ie. Is a normal doctor's exam too expensive for the average family to afford? What about the issue of malpractice if the docto DOESN'T order all those tests to look for cancer or some other item? Would he have to worry about 'due diligence' cases?

[ChumpDumper]

Which law requires employers to pay for, provide, or coordinate insurance coverage?

[Yonivore]

I'm ok with this idea: However, it's a chicken and egg problem it seems. Do you convince the doctors to lower prices first, or the insurance companies to not cover it, or the people to pay?

Is it realistic to assume that doctors could make a profit by charging "reasonable" rates for these things? Ie. Is a normal doctor's exam too expensive for the average family to afford? What about the issue of malpractice if the docto DOESN'T order all those tests to look for cancer or some other item? Would he have to worry about 'due diligence' cases?
Let's say a routine doctor's visit is $150.00 to $200.00. That's 12 to 16 visits a year before you hit the $2,500.00 figure I used.

And, tort reform would solve the other issue.

Yeah, I think it's doable.

[LnGrrrR]

I dont think the government requires employers to proide insurance. And this wouldnt work as a government program. You cant tell private business to stop giving their employees insurance and hope they give them more salary (that they save) instead.

Rather, the tax code should change so that you could buy your own insurance privatey, and hope that employers would give their employees the option to opt out of their insurance and receive a larger paycheck instead.

The problem I see with this is, for the people who decide to opt out, then they can just go out to the emergency room if possible.

See the "Free rider" issue... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem

[ploto]

A person can buy catastrophic coverage now -- with a high deductible -- for a family my size for under $100 a month.

I pay $200 a month for $5000 deductible policy just for me.

[clambake]

wow....this yoni guy has no clue.

feeling a little sorry for him.

[ChumpDumper]

Yoni, please answer this question.
Which law requires employers to pay for, provide, or coordinate insurance coverage?

[doobs]

I pay $200 a month for $5000 deductible policy just for me.

Where do you live?

[clambake]

they require employers to pay for insurance?

well?

[doobs]

Employers are not required to pay for insurance. But preferential treatment in the tax code makes it an attractive benefit for employers to provide. Employers have to compete with one another.

[clambake]

But preferential treatment in the tax code makes it an attractive benefit for employers to provide.
it's not that attractive, and it depends on where you are located.

Employers have to compete with one another.
not really.

[Gino]

Here's the Daily Kos link for the boycott of wholesale foods:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/8/12/765613/-Whole-Foods-is-anti-Health-Care-reform

This will probably affect wholesale as much as those chain emails that told you on which days to buy gas affected the cost of petroleum.

And they laugh at "Birthers and deathers".

[doobs]

it's not that attractive, and it depends on where you are located.

not really.

Ok, whatever. I guess you would rather snipe than use your thinking cap.

[clambake]

Ok, whatever. I guess you would rather snipe than use your thinking cap.

i answered that way because your statement sounded like you are generalizing that all situations are universal.

[ploto]

Where do you live?

Texas

[clambake]

Here's the Daily Kos link for the boycott of wholesale foods:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/8/12/765613/-Whole-Foods-is-anti-Health-Care-reform

This will probably affect wholesale as much as those chain emails that told you on which days to buy gas affected the cost of petroleum.

And they laugh at "Birthers and deathers".

i laugh at these guys, too. but birthers and deathers take the cake over whiny boycotters.

[DarrinS]

i laugh at these guys, too. but birthers and deathers take the cake over whiny boycotters.


The Shift key has a purpose.

[rjv]

public opinion polls show that americans favor the public option but it appears that the insurance companies own capitol hill.

[clambake]

The Shift key has a purpose.

sorry, i forgot about you.

Birthers.

[doobs]

i answered that way because your statement sounded like you are generalizing that all situations are universal.

No, genius, I was explaining why employers provide health insurance. Because it's a tax subsidy.

But go ahead and snipe away.

[clambake]

No, genius, I was explaining why employers provide health insurance. Because it's a tax subsidy.
you said that already. i pay almost 14K a month for just under 50 employees and they have to pay a portion.

go ahead, einstein.......whats my tax break? try to convince everyone that i'm doing it for profit.


But go ahead and snipe away.
tell me to fuck myself......just, please, stop using the word "snipe".

[Yonivore]

it's not that attractive, and it depends on where you are located.
Then why do they do it?


not really.
Yeah, really.

[SonOfAGun]

o rly?

[Yonivore]

public opinion polls show that americans favor the public option but it appears that the insurance companies own capitol hill.
Which poll? The one that asked all the freeloader of the country if they want a health plan paid for with someone else's money? That poll?

[doobs]

you said that already. i pay almost 14K a month for just under 50 employees and they have to pay a portion.

go ahead, einstein.......whats my tax break? try to convince everyone that i'm doing it for profit.


tell me to fuck myself......just, please, stop using the word "snipe".

I'm sure you would fuck yourself anyway. No need to tell you. Maybe I should just say something about your mother or something . . .

Anyway, dumbass. Because of the tax subsidy, healthcare benefits dollars are worth more to workers than salary dollars. So it's cheaper for you to pay 14k in health benefits than it is for you to pay an equal amount in salary. (That amount would surely be higher than $14k; you can do the math on your own time.)

[Yonivore]

I pay $200 a month for $5000 deductible policy just for me.
Is it just catastrophic? And, why not a $10,000 deductible? If you suffer a catastrophic illness or injury, $10,000 could be paid off in time.

[ploto]

why not a $10,000 deductible?

It's a $5000 deductible for individual, $10,000 for family.

[clambake]

I'm sure you would fuck yourself anyway. No need to tell you. Maybe I should just say something about your mother or something . . .look at me. pay attention to me.



Anyway, dumbass. Because of the tax subsidy, healthcare benefits dollars are worth more to workers than salary dollars. So it's cheaper for you to pay 14k in health benefits than it is for you to pay an equal amount in salary. (That amount would surely be higher than $14k; you can do the math on your own time.)
you have no idea why i offer this to my employees.

why don't you and yoni get together and create something.

[Yonivore]

It's a $5000 deductible for individual, $10,000 for family.
$200 is better than $400. Is it for more than just catastrophic?

[hope4dopes]

If you took ALL the profit ALL the Health Insurance companies made last year; you could run Medicare (not counting any expansions - or even Medicaid) for a day.

What you gonna do the other 364?

Please say that's just some right wing propaganda and not the truth....One day? I'm really not calling you a liar but I'd love to see where you got that info.

[doobs]

you have no idea why i offer this to my employees.

why don't you and yoni get together and create something.

OK. Why do you offer this to your employees?

Do I need to get a tissue?

[clambake]

OK. Why do you offer this to your employees?
because they have been with me for years and i know every member of their immediate family.


Do I need to get a tissue?
it does sound as if you cry quite a bit...so......yeah, get a tissue.

[ducks]

$200 is better than $400. Is it for more than just catastrophic?

he hates paying 200 for insurance because he has a $1600 morgage
a $800 car payment
$400 month boat payment
$400 colledge payment
but the insurance is the problem
you see he loves his car,boat,house and he want to go to harvard