12 Aug 09
Originally posted by sh76But are you not wrong your self ??
You're wrong about 1 and 3. Perhaps you didn't see my other thread, but the business about it being an "option" is misleading. HR 3200 calls for the phase out of all non-complying private insurance. As it is, existing private insurance can only exist as long as the insurance company makes no changes in the policy. Only then is it grandfathered in. No new privat ...[text shortened]... that. In fact, don't be surprised if your healthcare costs go up in the aggregate.
The Federal Crop Insurance Program impose restrictions on private crop insurance, thus imposing "compliance", while on the other hand granting generous subsidies.
I don't see that your conclutions are justified, can you elaborate.
12 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by ScheelI'd love to elaborate, but I am not understanding your point. Maybe I'm just being thick, but I'll try to recap.
But are you not wrong your self ??
The Federal Crop Insurance Program impose restrictions on private crop insurance, thus imposing "compliance", while on the other hand granting generous subsidies.
I don't see that your conclutions are justified, can you elaborate.
Bill718: Obama's plan will not cause the government to dictate healthcare and won't replace private insurance
sh76: Yes, it will do the first and will have the effect of doing the second eventually under the terms of HR 3200
Scheel: The government also does these things with regard to crop insurance.
What you're saying may be 100% correct. I don't see how it relates to my point.
If you're saying "Well, the government regulated crop insurance also, so why don't you complain about that too?" then my response is:
1) I didn't complain about the former either. I just set the record straight as to what it would do; and
2) I am not a farmer. As such, I don't care what the government does regarding crop insurance as long as it works out okay for the farmers. I don't know whether it does or not because, as I said, I'm not a farmer.
To answer your initial question, no, I am not wrong myself, at least not on this issue. I'm sure I'm wrong on some things, as we all are. And, of course, I don't know which things I'm wrong about. However, I am fairly certain I am not wrong on this point.
12 Aug 09
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenWhat is your age ? What is your background ? Do you embrace parliamentarism ?
omg, back to Japan you go. You have to be the most obtuse person on rhp....There are so many differences between Japan and the U.S. I don't even want to go into it. Are you from Japan? Is there population near ours? IS there diet as diverse and bad as ours? Do they have crime, violence, drugs, illegal immigrant issues that drain our health care? ...[text shortened]... rain from being an expert on the U.S. and focus on posting about your own irrelevant country?
Hard to say but judging from this post you are a almost under aged right wing fascist. And you do not welcome free discussion.... Phfff
We live in a global world and this site is graced by a global crowd. But according to you only you and your ilk can discuss "your issues" - why don't you just go to the local gas station ?
You can say what you want about my friends and my neighbourhood. I'll say what I want to say about yours.
12 Aug 09
Originally posted by sh76The government ALREADY imposes regulations on health insurance providers. This bill simply imposes stricter regulations while granting them a grace period for pre-existing accounts.
I'd love to elaborate, but I am not understanding your point. Maybe I'm just being thick, but I'll try to recap.
Bill718: Obama's plan will not cause the government to dictate healthcare and won't replace private insurance
sh76: Yes, it will do the first and will have the effect of doing the second eventually under the terms of HR 3200
Scheel: The gove ...[text shortened]... s I'm wrong about. However, I am fairly certain I am not wrong on this point.
You may agree or disagree with some of the specific, new regulations. But your assertion that it's a "back door" rout to universal healthcare is nonsense.
12 Aug 09
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperIts not non sense . you have been shown time and time again this is obamas goal.
The government ALREADY imposes regulations on health insurance providers. This bill simply imposes stricter regulations while granting them a grace period for pre-existing accounts.
You may agree or disagree with some of the specific, new regulations. But your assertion that it's a "back door" rout to universal healthcare is nonsense.
12 Aug 09
Originally posted by utherpendragonAnd EVERY single time you've posted that "quote" I then posted the same quote IN ITS CONTEXT, where Obama specifically states the need for CHOICE, the part that was deliberately removed.
Its not non sense . you have been shown time and time again this is obamas goal.
When are you going to stop ignoring that?
12 Aug 09
Originally posted by sh76Very good question, you put the issue here to the point.
I'd love to elaborate, but I am not understanding your point. Maybe I'm just being thick, but I'll try to recap.
Bill718: Obama's plan will not cause the government to dictate healthcare and won't replace private insurance
sh76: Yes, it will do the first and will have the effect of doing the second eventually under the terms of HR 3200
Scheel: The gove ...[text shortened]... s I'm wrong about. However, I am fairly certain I am not wrong on this point.
Lets start with the Agricultural question you did not understand :
Yes it happens for an other area, because we want it to be that way !
We even inforce it - Because we think it is important.
It's called prioritazion - Its part of good governance !
In the past Agriculture was not insured, and the government viewed that as a problem, since it increased social inequality and enlarged social unrest. They inforced certain standards.
Now on the other hand the health system, is not traditionally a state area - but the current insurance system increase social inequality, and is viewed as being a potential issue for social unrest.
12 Aug 09
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperOK "Sgt. Obama defender" ,put these words of his in the proper context,
And EVERY single time you've posted that "quote" I then posted the same quote IN ITS CONTEXT, where Obama specifically states the need for CHOICE, the part that was deliberately removed.
When are you going to stop ignoring that?
Lie #1 Obama is not for universal health care.
Truth "The time has come for universal health care in America," Obama said at a conference of Families USA, a health care advocacy group.
"I am absolutely determined that by the end of the first term of the next president, we should have universal health care in this country," the Illinois senator said.
12 Aug 09
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperI'll assume that this is directed at me, as it quotes my post.
I'm on government run healthcare and it's the best I've ever had.
My mother has had no problems with her quality of care using Medicaid. In fact, the program has literally kept her alive for years. She has a rare, chronic form of leukemia. I'm actually quite thankful for that ugly, "socialistic" program that she's involved in. I'm terribly sorr ...[text shortened]... lives and such.
If you don't want "Obamacare" then simply use your own provider.
I have no problem with Medicaid. I wish I could get on Medicaid. Believe me. I do. Medicaid coverage is much more broad than my HMO. When my wife was pregnant and needed an anti-nausea pill, the insurance company made us use a cheaper one instead of the one the doctor prescribed. Our doctor said that Medicaid would have covered the better one with no problem. Like I said, I wish I could get on Medicaid.
That being said, it doesn't inherently mean that Medicaid could work when applied to the whole country. Medicaid is notorious for underpaying providers and faced with the prospect of being reimbursed only by Medicaid, many providers may simply choose other fields.
===If you don't want "Obamacare" then simply use your own provider.===
I thought we've gone through this, but I'll try one more time. This time, I'll just quote the relevant statute and let you tell me if it's really fair to say that you "can simply use your own provider"
(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT-
(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PERMITTED- Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day.
(2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR CONDITIONS- Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1.
(3) RESTRICTIONS ON PREMIUM INCREASES- The issuer cannot vary the percentage increase in the premium for a risk group of enrollees in specific grandfathered health insurance coverage without changing the premium for all enrollees in the same risk group at the same rate, as specified by the Commissioner.
12 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperWhat are you talking about???
The government ALREADY imposes regulations on health insurance providers. This bill simply imposes stricter regulations while granting them a grace period for pre-existing accounts.
You may agree or disagree with some of the specific, new regulations. But your assertion that it's a "back door" rout to universal healthcare is nonsense.
===But your assertion that it's a "back door" rout to universal healthcare is nonsense.===
When did I say that???
You put the words "back door" in quotes as though those are the words I used. Where did I use them???
I feel like I'm in a twilight zone here. People just makes up positions for me, attribute them to me, and then attack them.
This is either sad or funny. I'm not sure which yet.
12 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by ScheelIf your point is that government regulation of an industry can work, I'll save you the trouble. I agree with that.
Very good question, you put the issue here to the point.
Lets start with the Agricultural question you did not understand :
Yes it happens for an other area, because we want it to be that way !
We even inforce it - Because we think it is important.
It's called prioritazion - Its part of good governance !
In the past Agriculture was not insured, an ...[text shortened]... system increase social inequality, and is viewed as being a potential issue for social unrest.
I don't know if regulating crop insurance for a few thousand farmers (okay, maybe tens of thousands) is comparable to regulating health insurance for 300,000 people; so I'm not sure if I agree with the analogy.
13 Aug 09
Originally posted by sh76Regulation can work in the best interest of society !
If your point is that government regulation of an industry can work, I'll save you the trouble. I agree with that.
I don't know if regulating crop insurance for a few thousand farmers (okay, maybe tens of thousands) is comparable to regulating health insurance for 300,000 people; so I'm not sure if I agree with the analogy.
The difficult part comes in finding where it works best. !!
The analogy is strained (naturally) by scale, but not as much as you think.
The budget under the Farm Bill is 10.000.000.000, now divide that by the number of farmers and multiply it by how much more important you think health care is than farming subsidies.
Then you have how much you want to subsidize every single health care patient.
Come on try and do it - you can !