I am happy with the latest court decision on Mandated Health Insurance.

Name me one thing you are forced to purchase from a private entity every single month of your adult life.

You will not be able to name one..

No Amish pay automotive insurance.

That distinction is just an excuse to force us to buy from insurance companies. Most people understand that a car is not a luxury or choice for people. They must have a car in order to live. There are a lot of places where there is no bus service. There are a lot of places where a car is a must and we are forced to make a contract with an insurance company. The insurance companies know this and set their rates accordingly.

As of the last time I was forced to listen to details at traffic school... it was a $10K bond... put it in escrow.... you can withdraw the interest on some schedule that will keep your accountant happy.

The point is, you don't NEED insurance to drive a car. Unless you are poor.

The laws are always different for the poor.

claim to not want anything to do with anything modern. But, they use the local hospital and their care is written off as indigent care. I also see them at Walmart quite often.

others outside the community for their well being.

If my life goes down the shitter and I don't have a car, I don't need insurance.

If my life goes down the financial shitter, I still need health insurance.

Are you saying the my life, body, well being is the same as having a car? I have a choice to have a car or not.

And I can trim that out of my budget. But the gov't to mandate that I have to buy insurance from a private entity to live, is another thing entirely.

... in the form of a tax.

However, a well run, regulated single payer form of healthcare would
be preferable.

Of course none of this would matter if it was Medicare for all.

Hospitals, HMOs, Clinics, virtually all are private and would be paid to deliver health care. You complaint should not be against private entities as much as it should be against no government holding those private entities accountable for delivering high quality health care at an affordable cost.

who provide healthcare. I am against being forced to purchase anything from a middle man, for profit private corporation, not tightly regulated, gouging payments from people who can't afford the deductibles or co-pays to actually use the insurance.

to ridicule yourself in public. You will see that there are controls and accountability mechanisms. Of course, even if you read them, I suspect you will keep churning out the same bullshit prose.

from a private entity is unconstitutional. And I am happy with any court decision that deems it so.

and progressively moved that mandate from the private company pocket filler that Romney intended and the Massachusetts legislature prevented him from having, to a plan that is truly serving needs of citizens and companies that need affordable, full coverage health-care plans. Again, you write bluesky bull, but there are people out actually making change and progress happen.

--to have to pay the full deductibles. That would be 85% of the populuation--those who account for only 15% of health care costs.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/september/health_reform_failur.php
In sum, Massachusetts health reform planners have been wishing away a quarter of a million uninsured people. Recent Patrick administration claims that health reform is succeeding are based on cooked books. According to the state’s figures, almost half of the previously uninsured gained coverage under the health reform bill by July 1. But according to the Census Bureau, the new sign-ups amount to less than one-quarter of the uninsured. Moreover, it’s likely that much of that gain has already been wiped out by shrinking job-based coverage - a longstanding and nationwide trend.

Why has progress been so meager? Because most of the promised new coverage is of the “buy it yourself” variety, with scant help offered to the struggling middle class. According to the Census Bureau, only 28 percent of Massachusetts uninsured have incomes low enough to qualify for free coverage. Thirty-four percent more can get partial subsidies - but the premiums and co-payments remain a barrier for many in this near-poor group.

And 244,000 of Massachusetts uninsured get zero assistance - just a stiff fine if they don’t buy coverage. A couple in their late 50s faces a minimum premium of $8,638 annually, for a policy with no drug coverage at all and a $2,000 deductible per person before insurance even kicks in. Such skimpy yet costly coverage is, in many cases, worse than no coverage at all. Illness will still bring crippling medical bills - but the $8,638 annual premium will empty their bank accounts even before the bills start arriving. Little wonder that barely 2 percent of those required to buy such coverage have thus far signed up.

While the middle class sinks, the health reform law has buoyed our state’s wealthiest health institutions. Hospitals like Massachusetts General are reporting record profits and enjoying rate increases tucked into the reform package. Blue Cross and other insurers that lobbied hard for the law stand to gain billions from the reform, which shrinks their contribution to the state’s free care pool and will force hundreds of thousands to purchase their defective products. Meanwhile, new rules for the free care pool will drastically cut funding for the hundreds of thousands who remain uninsured, and for the safety-net hospitals and clinics that care for them.

Kathryn is a young diabetic who needs twelve prescriptions a month to stay healthy. She told us “Under Free Care I saw doctors at Mass. General and Brigham and Women's hospital. I had no co-payments for medications, appointments, lab tests or hospitalization. Under my Commonwealth Care Plan my routine monthly medical costs include the $110 premium, $200 for medications, a $10 appointment with my primary care doctor, and $20 for a specialist appointment. That's $340 per month, provided I stay well.” Now that she's “insured,” Kathryn's medical expenses consume almost one-quarter of her take home pay, and she wonders whether she'll be able to continue taking her life saving medications.

--in 15 states and has been an abject failure. Here is what actual control of insurance companies looks like in France, Germany, Japan, etc.

These countries absolutely forbid denying any claim.

These countries have fees directly set by the government for health care services.

These countries have just one universal benefit plan in which items to be covered are specified by the government.

These countries do not allow age rating.

These countries have no deductibles, though co-pays may be required.

... is a private entity contracted to do that?

Here in Illinois Blue Cross does it.

Don

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

thing I can think of. What if you were required to buy insurance from the government? Would you feel differently about that?

As a public good. Not a for profit gouging scam.

The problem is lack of competition in the health care industry and failure of government to set standards for health care companies. I have no idea where you physically reside, but if that is Massachusetts, your state is leading the way toward affordability of health care. The Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts came into office and took the hallow shell of a health care plan that Romney left and spent his first term filling it out and making it sensible. Massachusetts set up something called a health care connector during Patrick's first term. The connector started off slow, but has three or four anchor health care providers that started out small, with progressive ideas on health care providing, but are growing into important cornerstones for an important change system. Every month more plans are being added to the connector, Massachusetts state residents that are looking for insurance coverage or looking to change to more coverage for less costs use the connector to meet their goals.

You write hallow statements that sound good on the surface, but come with out a path for getting to where you claim you desire. Fortunately, there are people around, like the developers of the health connector, that use practical step by step approaches to achieving results that people of your ilk can't come close to gaining, even as you yell blue faced that you want such results.

that is being done there. Look at the standards and conduct that the small, but growing companies that underpin the plan are delivering. See what progressive health care is. Stop sitting on one's ass complaining and spouting pie in the sky BS that has not chance of becoming reality. For once in life, be what one claims to be, a progressive. Otherwise, bagger is the most appropriate title.

And calling another DUer a 'bagger' is against the rules here.

Maybe you should look at what is going in Mass. regarding the sky-rocketing, as predicted back when it was implemented, cost of Romneycare. No wonder Romney backs away from taking credit for it.

My employer used to offer three health care plan options—Cigna, Premera and Group Health. They just cancelled all but Premera. So much for “choice” and “competition.” The reason why they eliminated choice ought to be obvious—by giving Premera a much larger captive risk pool, they likely got a much lower per capita price for the insurance. Eliminating choice and competition is saving them a lot of money. And now Vanna, tell our contestants what they will win if they correctly answer the grand prize question “What is the biggest and cheapest possible risk pool of all?”

The answer is obvious—the entire population of the country. Large risk pools that reduce choice are cheaper by nature, which is why health care risk sharing trends toward being a natural monopoly, like the provision of electrical power. And any natural monopoly which is not either owned by or regulated by the public will inevitably screw consumers big time just because they can.

The last time a big state gave in to the ridiculous argument that deregulation, fragmentation and “choice” was the answer to reducing energy prices, we had Enron and Reliant withholding power from the California market to jack up prices, causing a major energy “crisis.” Few in the mainstream media noise machine bothered to point out that none of the cities with municipally owned utilities had any “brownouts.”

Yet people continue to spout bullshit about how more use of “competition” and “choice,” that is to say creating as many smaller risk pools as possible, is the way to hold down health care costs. The reality is that all private health insurance, whether for profit or non-profit, currently operates on the Enron/Reliant business model, and current health “reform” offers nothing but throwing our tax dollars at Enron/Reliant and asking them to pretty please not charge members of the public as much.

It is a general economic principle that competition in the area of what should be public goods does nothing but drive costs skyrocketing upwards. If you aren’t familiar with the studies demonstrating that communities of similar size with more than one hospital have health care costs that are much higher than those communities with only one hospital, you could at least apply basic common sense to the issue.

If your city had three competing for-profit fire departments, fire protection costs would rise dramatically, as the public would have to pay capital and operating costs for three duplicate sets of equipment. If a new hospital opens in a town that already has one hospital, the public is not going to obligingly start to have twice as many heart attacks. Both hospitals will have fewer patients per item of capital equipment, and will dramatically raise prices to compensate.

Therefore it ought to be obvious that current health care so-called "controls" cannot possibly work, because Congress and the administration flat out refuse to really regulate health insurance. (Requiring a higher medical loss ratio is in no way shape or form regulation—there is no enforcement mechanism, and it is much too indirect.) Single payer (HR 676/HR 1200), which is health care that is publicly funded and privately delivered, is the best solution that has been legislatively proposed so far, although it is not the only way to reign in the insurance companies.

In Britain and Scandinavia, the government owns and operates the entire system, as is the case with Seattle City Light. However, given that we are having enough trouble just making health care financing rational, changing the entire delivery system as well is impractical and hopeless at this point.

In countries like the Netherlands, Japan and France, universal health care is provided by government regulation of private insurers (and hospitals, pharmaceuticals and health care providers), the way that the Public Utilities Commission regulates privately owned utilities here. In other words, their governments directly dictate what benefits must be offered and what they must cost. That could work here, except that Congress flat out refused to consider it for the exactly the same reason they refuse to consider single payer. The premiums that the Dutch pay under their mandatory private insurance system are 100 euros/month/adult, with NO co-pays, NO deductibles and NO age rating. This is in the same ballpark as the $125/month/adult proposed in HR 676, or the $100/month/adult proposed by the Washington Health Security Trust. (The Netherlands has, and single payer legislation here proposes, payroll taxes above a certain threshold paid by employers as well.)

Many people argue that we shouldn’t attempt to get single payer all at once. It is certainly possible to start out smaller, but only if there is a government-run program for a risk pool that is large enough. A public option that anyone could join would work, given that about 60% of the population wants government-paid health care. So would gradual Medicare expansion, assuming that the problem of geographic inequities in reimbursement rates is addressed. Of course insurance companies oppose both of those things on the grounds that they could lead to single payer, which is why our bought and paid for representatives eliminated even extremely watered down and restricted versions of these two options, as well as government-negotiated drug prices and drug reimportation. Therefore the issue is not gradual vs. immediate implementation of public control of health care costs; it is how long the public is going to tolerate Enron-style abuse of a pricing monopoly.

66-year-old persons into Medicare which will amount to state-mandated euthanasia for some of these soon-to-be-disenfranchised elders. :patriot:

efficient giant killing-machine that fully understands the fruits of economies of scale. :patriot:

who lack the financial means to pay for the private healthcare?

Anyways, I'm sure there will be a day when the government imposes price regulations on health insurance companies.

I know our current HCR seems convuluted a pro-corporate now, but it is better than nothing, and I agree with the philisophical notion of every citizen having coverage. There's are chances to improve it, and removing the mandate nullifies the whole point of the bill, and would result in even higher rates.

--outrageous DEDUCTIBLES?

There are lots of people who don't own a car.

Car Insurance and Health Insurance are completely different.

I am here. I don't have a choice in that. So to force someone to by something from a private for profit corporation is a long way down that rabbit hole.

- as that's the accurate comparison. Not to mention that not all states require only insurance, many states have other options - uninsured motorist fee, securing a bond, filing evidence of financial responsibility - that can be substituted for an insurance policy.

Auto insurance-mandated by a state=Constitutional
Health insurance-Mandated by Federal Govt=Unconstitutional

several farmers who have jeeps and pick ups they use for farm vehicles sans insurance/registration.

Obama is all for the corporations, what would that make you?

We don't have that now, do we?

Can you answer the question in the OP?

:)

On a national level???????

If it works so great, why did Obama kill it and make it a states issue?

PROOF: http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=joe+lieberman+killed+public+option&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Why do you stand with Michelle Bachmann?

Whey do you stand with Romney?

Obama made a back room deal with hospital associations to kill the public option.

I think Prez Obama has a little more clout than Lieberman, you?

Or do you think Obama is just some puppet who can't form a thought or position.

It was more than him. It was Max Baucus and all the rest of the Blue Dog traitors.

was willing to pass single payer and mean old obama stopped them.

the truth is it never stood a prayer of passing. yet we go over this over and over and over and over...

Why was that the even part of the choice.

I hope this gets slapped down and we can go back to the drawing board. However, I do not think it is likely with them make up of the free market, pro corporatist majority on the SCOTUS.

Which makes him a hero?

Are the Republicans heroes for shutting down the FAA then reopening it?

President Obama put it back. :)

RomneyObamaCare took that away. Now Obama promises that he'll allow it again (and we know all about his promises...)

We can do what we want unless there's a specific legal prohibition.

You can only disprove it by showing that there was a prohibition. I wish you luck in your efforts.

the proof is in the puddin.

We aint got nothing but a federally manadated health insurance scam for the profit of one of the most corrupt industries around.

Good on Obama, and good for you for supporting it.

he went with Romney's.

I don't see why you keep ignoring this fact. After all, you agree with Republicans regarding opposition to the mandate in HCR.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/obama-i-didnt-campaign-on-a-public-option-progressives-excuse-me.php

Funny that, Obama echoing the words of the evil (we agree he is evil, right?) Lieberman.

So, according to you, Obama always wanted a Public Option and was harangued by others. Why in the world would he say he never campaigned on it? Answer is.... I'm waiting to hear it.....

LOL

it before he was for it type of deal? Why the change? ....... HEY! I FOUND THE CHANGE!

Dole and Gingrich were pushing it before it was being discussed in Massachusetts.

This is not the dream child of some wonderful Democrats but an old Reich wing scam long pushed as a way to use the energy of the reform movement to strengthen the hand of existing profit centers and enhance the viability of the suicidally greedy insurance cartel.

Some of us have been paying attention for longer than a few cycles.

Can you name one thing the gov't forces you to purchase from a for profit private entity, every single month of your entire adult life?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The fact is that libertarian-leaning people on both ends of the political philosophy line share your opinion. Pointing that out is not an attack; it's simply a fact.

It's wrong for the U.S. government to force people to purchase something from a private for-profit industry.

Every other developed country on Earth provides health care coverage to their people because health care is essential. And if you want to look at it from an economically rational rather than humanitarian point of view, it's cost-effective.

We would be the first nation in the world to require our people to purchase access to health care from a for-profit industry. The waste of money is staggering. The implications are appalling.

If the Tea Party morans happen to understand this (and I doubt that they do and I haven't seen any reasonable effort on their part to explain this) that doesn't automatically mean it's wrong. I think it's a good idea to get a good night's sleep. You can probably find a Tea Partier that agrees. That doesn't mean that I'm wrong.

Set up a Medicare program for everyone. If one doesn't want to pay the small amount to join they would be put on a 6 month waiting period. When they have a health problem and need insurance they would undergo a 6 month waiting period. They would be responsible for all costs incurred until they join the Medicare program.

I'm on Medicare and pay about $98 for it, including the prescription plan. I also pay $380/month as I carried over the insurance I got as a state employee.

on the political extremes of course.....

Of course, I don't know which pro-corporate fascists you're talking about, really, since you don't adequately identify them. Since I don't know of anyone who self-identifies with that description, you'd have to tell me who you mean for it to make much sense.

Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck. So be it.

I am using the argument that progressive health care companies with true progressives as leaders in those companies are changing the health care landscape in Massachusetts, as I write. One of those companies are work a million of your ilk. Those companies are bringing changes that makes the lives of every day people better. You bring the same old bullshit, pronouncements that have no substance attached to them.

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

Do you work for a Health Insurance company? Because that's the ONLY way I could EVER see someone defending a Health Insurance company as "progressive".

Insurance companies are the most repulsive, difficult to deal with set of thieves that exist. Their entire business model is "how to keep from paying claims".

A shitty overpriced plan with a deductible so high you can't afford to use it makes no one's live better.

That's pretty disturbing if that's your argument.

every other post.

a republican plan. romneycare w/ obama's signature.

LOL You are right! Thanks!

Now vote for me, and Romney sucks! LOL

Why do you keep ignoring the facts? I guess demonizing President Obama is an endeavor that needs no factual interference.

We do not have a public option.

Please try to stay on topic. Reply to the intent of the OP. If you can't, that's ok.

And the fact that both Hillary's and Edwards' plan had a mandate.

And Obama's plan didn't include a mandate. Double whammy to his supporters.

for profit, scum corporations is unconstitutional.

I agree with Medicare for all.

You obviously agree that the corporations are wonderful and our lives should be in their hands, and that gov't sucks and should stand aside. Which is generally a republican stance.

tit for tat and all..... again....

While I obviously don't agree with Michelle Bachmann and Teabaggers on this ruling.

I do however believe in Medicare for All.

How bout you? Waiting for the answer to that specific question.

What is so hard to understand about that.

It does not make me Michelle Bachman or anything else.

Their alternative is more control to the private corrupt industry.

My alternative is Medicare for all.

Me, MY OPINION.

And I will be happy to see deemed unconstitutional by the SCOTUS, and I hope it is.

But I have my doubts as they are for the corporations are people thingy. So chill out.

<< And I will be happy to see deemed unconstitutional by the SCOTUS, and I hope it is. >>

The same wing nut-controlled SCOTUS that said corporations are people? I betcha you do.

Relax.

Relax.

So what's the difference in requiring participants on the Health Care Bill to pay? I wrote previously if anyone doesn't want to get on board with the Health Care Plan they would have a 6 month wait if they change their mind. Sooner or later we all need medical care. Those not on the Health Care Plan would be responsible for any medical bills they incur during the 6 month wait.

it Romney's plan you dismiss the quote. Why is that?

If the facts bother you, that's not my problem.

Does that disturb you at all?

This is just too easy.

on Romney's plan?

It will hurt less over time.

Are you also happy if the millions of people with pre-existing conditions, who now have coverage, lose that coverage?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Just as you have stated.

You support Romney care. Say it loud, say it Proud!

It's very impressive.

tried to eliminate wrote the law. A democratic governor that came in after Romney has worked with the democratic legislature to make the plan healthier, less expensive to residents, more complete in coverage and more readily available to citizens, small and medium sized companies and to cities and towns for their employees. That is what real progress looks like.

"Romney signed the legislation. A democratic legislature which Romney tried to eliminate wrote the law. A democratic governor that came in after Romney has worked with the democratic legislature to make the plan healthier, less expensive to residents, more complete in coverage and more readily available to citizens, small and medium sized companies and to cities and towns for their employees. That is what real progress looks like."

:thumbsup:

I was merely noting the company of opinion in which boston bean stands, a fact which seems to bother both you and the OP.

Thanks.

I was hoping to start a new trend.

Not meant to infer anything at all.

OK then.

Meant to convey coincidence.

will bring cabals of clueless to their feet yelling salutations of misinformed joy?

That doesn't mean I'm a teabagger. When in fact, I want medicare for all.

The fact is this. People will be mandated to purchase health insurance from a private for profit entity.

If you are cool with that, cool.

But don't try to make it seem as though i am a teabagger.

Teabaggers don't want Medicare for All. Teabaggers want more competition in the private market, which is something you wrote upthread, that you agree with.

So, I guess we could do this all day long.... It's up to you.

how Medicare works. Who are the companies that administer Medicare. Take a look at what you are asking for if you are not afraid to find out how clueless your prescription is. But, why do I know you won't research?

I would be for locking our side's crazies in the basement, ala GHW Bush's prescription for the Dark Side. But I am so damned afraid that your crazies will escape that basement, having become even crazier, ala teabaggers on the Dark Side.

:scared:


;)

What does that say about you now?

See, two can play this game.

Thanks Xchrom!

If I had a choice to go into a public pool for insurance I would jump at the chance.

Even here in MA, with Romney's plan, I do not have that option.

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=joe+lieberman+killed+public+option&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Move to Vermont, where they just passed single-payer, thanks to President Obama.

health insurance scam.

If we were talking about a federally mandated, for the welfare of this country, Medicare for all, this discussion would be moot.

for profit insurance companies.

Also, Obama then says he never campaigned on a public option. Showing he never really wanted it.

You can continue to twist yourself into a pretzel, or you can have a come to jesus moment, I don't really care.

You have done a nice job of derailing the thread.

Again, respond to the intent of the OP. Do you know of one thing we are required to purchase from a private entity every single month of our adult lives?

Did he meet with the hospital industry. We can all pick and choose whatever source we want.

The facts are this: There is no public option. There is a mandate to force people to buy health insurance from a private entity.

Spin and twist and whatever.

Doesn't change my opinion that I think it's unconstitutional and will be happy if it gets overturned by the SCOTUS.

But it probably won't cause they are a bunch of that think corporations are people. So you can rejoice when the conservative court decides in Obama's favor.

You should include that Obama said he never campaigned on the PO.

Would do wonders for your case.

behind closed doors.

Now. Understand that the explanation can't be a typical glazed eyed recitation of the term public option ten times in each paragraph.

NO!

Explain how a public options would run, what entity would ADMINISTER it, how and where citizens would get clinic and hospital treatment.

THEN!

Explain to me how the hell many private, for profit companies won't be involved all along that chain?

has regulations, payment terms, cost prohibitors, and people, whoever, that are paid a certain amount to administer the plan.

NOT MAKE A HUGE PROFIT ALL FOR THEMSELVES and have a say INTO WHETHER YOU LIVE OR DIE.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

- could it be that - as odd a collective group as they are - they could be right about this one thing? Or do we just discount the entire concept because we don't like some of those who agree with it?

And, to answer the OP's original question - I can't think of any other product of general commerce that every individual in the U.S. is required by law to purchase every month.

rest of the health care plan was constitutional. It serves to note that the first ruling had all judges agreeing, whereas the one Friday had an aggressive dissent from one of the three judge panel. So where are we? Which court at the very same level of the judiciary do you want to believe? If you believe the ruling Friday and ignore the logic put forth by the first, why shouldn't other posters question your motives?

"A federal appeals court in Cincinnati ruled that the individual mandate and the rest of the health care plan was constitutional. It serves to note that the first ruling had all judges agreeing, whereas the one Friday had an aggressive dissent from one of the three judge panel. So where are we? Which court at the very same level of the judiciary do you want to believe? If you believe the ruling Friday and ignore the logic put forth by the first, why shouldn't other posters question your motives?"

Obama is president, do you or do you not agree with this health insurance scam.

Try to answer, I know it's hard, but you can do it. Cause obviously if you only supported Obama you would be against this.

And Romney's plan was written by the MA Democratic legislature, so I don't have a problem with HCR, which was written by Congress.

But you agree with Michelle Bachmann and teabaggers.

Romney singed, is proof enough of what it might be you stand for.

Tit for Tat and all that....

You stand with Michelle Bachmann and Teabaggers against the mandate. This is a fact. Don't distort what I say.

That he never hailed it. That he hated it all along?

Does this make is strawman # 10 or what, I'm losing count.

lost the argument for a public option he should have shut down the mandate. Get it?????

That there is the point you seem to always miss.

They would NOT have done any HCR that included a mandate which did not also include a public option.
Obama did though!!!!!!



You can not be that thick!!!!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

we are in a sad state.

I am by no means in favor of mandatory health insurance, but we do not have the option of demanding Medicare for all and making it work. We have a lot of people here who aren't covered by health insurance. What does our huge country produce anymore? What is going on with our monetary system? This idea of 'fixing' our health coverage issues in this country at this particular point in history is just not going to happen until we see what pans out with the other things going on.

We may well be forced to do this anyway, but it won't mean there will be the kind of health care everyone needs when they need it.

It works on a better margin that for profit health care co's...

Please explain a little more. I am listening.

Don't you think we're at least as good as they are?

penalty too.

but not us.

In some ways we are very far from "as good as they are". But we are who we are.

:shrug:

We could easily shift some of that money from the pockets of the private health industry's CEOs and shareholders into coverage for those who have none. Providing people with health care when their illnesses are in early stages is very cost-effective compared to letting them reach crisis stage and present at the Emergency Department.

Our approach to health care in this country is illogical, expensive, and runs counter to every best practice. Providing Medicare coverage to everybody, reimbursing Medicare at a reasonable rate, and ensuring that every person in the country has access to high-quality care is easily within our country's reach and would actually save money.

Deval Patrick. The state has build a insurance and health care plan online super mall where state residents and companies that need health care can go to to examine plans and select the one that fit their needs. The mall started out slow because it relied on small providers that had progressive views on health care and health care costs, but did not have the size to initially compete with the large companies such as Blue Cross, Harvard Pilgrim and Fallon. Patrick, his insurance Comish and the people that were put in charge of the MassCare plan persisted, helped the little progressive companies grow and grow their plans and services and now have the bigs shaking in their boots with concerns about getting left behind. The challenge that Massachusetts has is how to allow the big companies into the health super mall and not have them bastardize it. My preferred way of getting the big companies in, but not allowing them to pollute MassCare is to keep electing democrat governors, Tim Murray after Patrick's second term ends, elect a proven, progressive mayor like O'Brien of Worcester after Murray does two terms as Gov.

or next to nothing. Insurance companies have deals with providers that are a small percentage of the price. My recent $450 worth of blood tests earned the lab $30 from me and $12 from my insurance company. For this I pay them almost $1000 per month.

It's the same with all my medical costs. The only thing I am paying BCBSNJ for is doing the deal. They are making a profit of about $930 a month and I am a diabetic! I would gladly pay the same amount to the government to get better insurance and help others who need it.

is that it costs too damn much thanks to insurance companies. For profit insurance companies are why everything costs so damn much. Get rid of them and their 30% overhead, and we'd be in a much better position to provide health care to all.

Framing the debate as ANYTHING other than "Health care costs too damn much in this country" is fallacious.

Therefore we can afford to pay for health care for all. In fact, we are ALREADY PAYING for universal health care--we just aren't GETTING it.

that are not fully operational and sitting on the ground? :rofl:

Stop buying the RW propaganda that universal health care is not possible for a country that spends more on its military than 25 LDCs combined.

I'm not surprised that it continues to be found unconstitutional. It is wrong. It is a way of enriching the CEOs and shareholders of the private health insurance industry. It is a travesty that the private health insurance industry exists at all, much less basically runs our country.

is that a "democrat" gave us this stinking bill

are you also happy if the millions of people with pre-existing conditions, who now have coverage, lose that coverage?

Sid

Want to call me names next?

:shrug:

I don't think I've called anyone a name in my one (now two) posts in this thread.

Sid

And I don't think it will happen as long as we have conservatives controlling all parts of all 3 branches of government.

is that people with pre-existing conditions that COULD get coverage can't get it because it costs too damn much.

The problem is that it COSTS TOO DAMN MUCH, and for-profit insurance companies are the reason it COSTS TOO DAMN MUCH. We can debate how to solve the problem all day long, and whether this politician is right or that politician is wrong, but the bottom line is "the health care is too damn high".

Though cheaper than shitty state high risk pools, it is STILL unaffordable.

I totally agree with your sentiment. This aspect of HCR is just a giant boondoggle for the insurance companies who's sole purpose to exist is to churn a profit and keep them rising quarter after quarter. What makes it all the more disgusting is that this business is entirely predicated on your health or lack thereof. All of which is disgraceful, inhumane, barbaric.

What insurance company would Jesus endorse?

<< This aspect of HCR is just a giant boondoggle for the insurance companies who's sole purpose to exist is to churn a profit and keep them rising quarter after quarter. >>

Wrong again. There's no proof of what you're saying. Companies which participate in HCR cannot do that:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&q=HCR+participating+insurance+companies+non-profit&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=

If you believe some companies are doing that, I suggest you contact HHS and report them to Kathleen Sebelius.

is nothing more than a handout to insurance companies.



"If you believe some companies are doing that, I suggest you contact HHS and report them to Kathleen Sebelius."

Have you ever been sick? We have what is considered "excellent" insurance and have been dealing for 2 years after a major illness in preventing them from destroying our credit because of their nonsense of refusing to pay for things. Kicking back thousands of dollars of bills back to us. There is nothing in the HCR that prevents these abuses. Nothing whatsoever.

Gotcha.

you have no other argument.