Jump to content
If eliminating the pre-existing condition restrictions were the goal of our representatives, it could be done tomorrow with the stroke of a pen. State governments require auto insurance and mandate minimum coverage's. Medicare sets the minimum standards required in Medicare gap insurance policies. The Federal government could require that pre-existing condition limitations be eliminated and all health insurance companies would do it tomorrow - and price that change into the premiums we all pay.
Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the goal of our representatives. They are proposing a dramatic overhaul and government take-over of the current system. Most people would support a change to the pre-existing condition rules and other changes to improve the system, but according to the polls, many more American's are not in favor of a government takeover of the healthcare system. Medicare spends 24% more per person served in overhead then private insurance companies. A government mandated solution will cost us all more and restrict our options.
beentheredonethat - I respect your opinion about health coverage being a moral obligation. Your belief that healthcare is a "right" creates an obligation for me to pay for your right. The proposed healthcare legislation limits my rights to choose how I receive and pay for healthcare. Your "rights" end up restricting mine and require that I pay for yours - where are my rights?
If mandating we all buy insurance or if eliminating pre-existing condition limits or arbitrary caps on coverage was the goal, the gov't could do that today. The issue is who pays for it and how. Medicare spends 24% more per participant in administration costs. How is that better? If your "right" to universal healthcare requires that I pay for it, where are my rights?
The main premise that statements from President Obama and the President of the AFL-CIO are unbiased and factual make your points less credible. They are both successful politicians on one side of the debate. Are their sales talking points inherently more accurate and honest than points made by those against the proposed Gov't healthcare plan? Can you please post the link to the WSJ article you reference.
Thanks for the reply theKid. I don't agree with you about Universal coverage, but I respect your right to believe what you do and vote the way you choose. I agree with you that the proposed plan doesn't address the problem.
Not sure what you mean theKid? Lets have a duscussion. Make your case for the proposed plan.
July 27th report by Brian Riedl
Spending Per Household
"Washington will spend $33,932 per household in 2009--$8,000 per household more than last year. While much of this spending is a temporary result of the recession and financial crisis, President Obama's 2010 budget would replace this temporary spending with permanent new programs. Consequently, by 2019--a time of assumed peace and prosperity--Washington will be spending $33,000 per household (adjusted for inflation), essentially making permanent this year's $8,000 per household spending hike. These numbers do not even include the cost of the President's health plan, estimated to be over a trillion dollars."
View report http://bit.ly/USSpending
From CNN 8-5-09:
"The debate to overhaul the nation's healthcare system has split the country into two camps, according to a CNN poll. Half of those surveyed in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation said they supported the president's plans to revamp the nation's healthcare systems, with 45 percent opposed. "
"Obama's plan is most popular among younger Americans and least popular among senior citizens," said CNN polling director Keating Holland.
"A majority of Americans over the age of 50 oppose Obama's plan; a majority of those under 50 support it."
Is "Divide and Conquer" a sustainable a political strategy?
Wed August 5th Newsmax.com
"A serious credibility gap has emerged between President Obama and voters over healthcare, with 72 percent saying his promise to enact a deficit-neutral overhaul of healthcare is a whopper.
A new Quinnipiac University poll finds that by a 72 to 21 percent margin, Americans do not believe the president will keep his promise to enact healthcare reform without adding to the federal budget deficit.
And by 57 percent to 37 percent, voters say healthcare reform should be dropped if it is going to add "significantly" to the deficit. Based on interviewed with 2,400 likely voters, the poll reflects a deepening skepticism toward Obama's plans to transform the nation's healthcare system, which accounts for one-sixth of U.S. economic activity."
That's the hope I was looking for! Hope in the American people to see through the rhetoric
July 7 (Bloomberg) -- House Ways and Means Committee members are likely to propose a surtax on high-income Americans to help pay for an overhaul of the health-care system, according to people familiar with the plan.
The tax would be similar to, yet much smaller than, a surtax proposed in 2007 by Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, a person familiar with the committee's talks said. That plan would have added at least a 4 percent levy on incomes exceeding $200,000, and was projected to reap as much as $832 billion over 10 years.
Two people familiar with closed-door talks by committee Democrats said a House bill probably will include a surtax on incomes exceeding $250,000, as Congress seeks ways to pay for changes to a health-care system that accounts for almost 18 percent of the U.S. economy. By targeting wealthier Americans, a surtax may hold more appeal for House Democrats than a Senate proposal to tax some employer-provided health benefits.
"The surtax is obviously more attractive to Democrats in the House because it's more progressive, which they find attractive in and of itself," said Paul Van de Water, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a research group focused on policies affecting low- and moderate-income families.
I thought it the plan would lower cost for all?
The issue isn't competing against the U.S. Federal Government in fair competition. The issue is competing against the U.S. Government that sets the rules and can subsidize cost with tax dollars. If like Medicare, the Gov't Single Pay plan is 24% more expensive, they can increase our taxes to subside the difference. Medicare, Amtrack, US Post Office, US department of Education - all inefficient tax sinkholes. Are there any real-life examples of an efficient and effective US Federal Government program?
Last login: Sunday, March 27, 2011
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2013 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.