Another health care thread.

OK DFWTraveler5, try this poll. That flaming liberal Murdoch rag, the Wall Street Urinal's latest poll, show a straight up majority wants the current bill passed:

46% favor passing the bill; 45% don't favor passing the bill.

You figure Rupert and the editors at the WSUrinal are "skew[ing] it to the pollsters perspective"?

As for support among Democrats, you're on drugs:

• The NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows an eight point increase in the number of Democrats saying the health reform bill is a "good idea" since late January (from 56% to 64%) compared to just a four point increase for Republicans (from 6% to 10%) .

• PPP shows a 13-point increase in support for reform among Democrats since mid-February (from 63% to 76%), but only a one point increase among Republicans (from 10% to 11%).

• PPP also shows a 16-point gain in support among liberals (from 73% to 89%), compared to a 4 point drop among conservatives (12% to 8%).

• The most recent Economist/YouGov poll shows a seven point gain in support among Democrats since late January (from 73% to 80%), while Republicans showed no change (11%).***

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/rising...especially.php

its funny how most think that she should run to have an abortion instead of taking responsablitlity for her and his actions. Shit happens and the guy is just as much as responable as the woman is for a child. I have 6 children and i love each and every one of them very much all of them were planed and wanted very much no none of them came from me hobbying but still if my SO would have told me to have an abortion believe me he would not still be my SO right now.

You would be required to pay child support as well as pay the state back if she gets any government assistance as in medical care during pregnancy birth for the child if she receives cash assistance from the state you will have to pay all of that back to the state. Originally Posted by Kaci Snow

From another thread....but fellas....apologies if this hits too close to home but...our tax dollars at work....sounds to me she's an expert on the system....

You type of high deductible solution will work for people making good money and it's what I have, but not what I buy for my employees.

But what about my clients and people who live in my town. I live in a town of about 25,000 where the median household (not individual) income is $24,582, yet only 26% live below the poverty line. Only 3.4% of the households make $100k or more. People here can't afford that sort of care and these are the people who are being left behind in our current system. Your type system does nothing but condemn them to no insurance for life. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

How does the set of proposals in the article I linked "condemn them to no insurance for life?"

It was specifically stated in the linked article (from post #87 in this thread) that the company pays 100% of all premiums for anyone working 30 hours per week or more. Additionally, it places money into "personal wellness accounts" so that employees can spend money for medical services as they see fit.

Here's an excerpt from the article:

• Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs). The combination of high-deductible health insurance and HSAs is one solution that could solve many of our health-care problems. For example, Whole Foods Market pays 100% of the premiums for all our team members who work 30 hours or more per week (about 89% of all team members) for our high-deductible health-insurance plan. We also provide up to $1,800 per year in additional health-care dollars through deposits into employees' Personal Wellness Accounts to spend as they choose on their own health and wellness.
Money not spent in one year rolls over to the next and grows over time. Our team members therefore spend their own health-care dollars until the annual deductible is covered (about $2,500) and the insurance plan kicks in. This creates incentives to spend the first $2,500 more carefully. Our plan's costs are much lower than typical health insurance, while providing a very high degree of worker satisfaction.




This plan is apparently working well for a grocery store chain. Obviously, most of its employees do not earn high salaries.

OK DFWTraveler5, try this poll. That flaming liberal Murdoch rag, the Wall Street Urinal's latest poll, show a straight up majority wants the current bill passed:

46% favor passing the bill; 45% don't favor passing the bill.

You figure Rupert and the editors at the WSUrinal are "skew[ing] it to the pollsters perspective"?

As for support among Democrats, you're on drugs:

• The NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows an eight point increase in the number of Democrats saying the health reform bill is a "good idea" since late January (from 56% to 64%) compared to just a four point increase for Republicans (from 6% to 10%) .

• PPP shows a 13-point increase in support for reform among Democrats since mid-February (from 63% to 76%), but only a one point increase among Republicans (from 10% to 11%).

• PPP also shows a 16-point gain in support among liberals (from 73% to 89%), compared to a 4 point drop among conservatives (12% to 8%).

• The most recent Economist/YouGov poll shows a seven point gain in support among Democrats since late January (from 73% to 80%), while Republicans showed no change (11%).***

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/rising...especially.php Originally Posted by TexTushHog

I would suggest going to Real Clear Politics website, linked below. The MAJORITY of all polls suggest the people don't want this crap. You would be well advised to talk to John Bull about socialized medicine where you might actually learn something.

See, I don't think you give a crap one way or the other because you wouldn't be subjected to the same medical care as everyone else, because you would partake in the "private care" option that the aristocracy of GB uses. F--- everyone else, I got mine, right?


Poll
Date Sample For/Favor Against/Oppose Spread

Real Clear Politics Average
2/13 - 3/14 - - 40.8 48.8 Against/Oppose +8.0
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl
3/11 - 3/14 1000 A 36 48 Against/Oppose +12
Rasmussen Reports
3/13 - 3/14 1000 LV 43 53 Against/Oppose +10
Associated Press/GfK
3/3 - 3/8 1002 A 41 43 Against/Oppose +2
Gallup
3/4 - 3/7 1014 A 45 48 Against/Oppose +3
Ipsos/McClatchy
2/26 - 2/28 1076 A 41 47 Against/Oppose +6
USA Today/Gallup
2/23 - 2/23 1009 A 42 49 Against/Oppose +7
POS (R)
2/17 - 2/18 900 RV 40 52 Against/Oppose +12
Newsweek
2/17 - 2/18 1009 A 40 49 Against/Oppose +9
PPP (D)
2/13 - 2/15 743 RV 39 50 Against/Oppose +11

I don't pay for spouses, only kids. All spouses at my firm have coverage elsewhere. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

That doesn't really answer whether your plan does pay for spouses, but that in fact the spouses are covered elsewhere because of circumstances. There are a lot of spouses I don't cover either, as they are covered elsewhere. But that doesn't mean that it is not available to them. Neverthless, the parsing of words is a cute lawyer trick, that I'm sure might be effective against some...just not me.

And it doesn't bother me at all. I'm paying for the insurance for those that need it and don't have it. I consider it my duty -- a contribution I make and don't really conceive of the money as belonging (or even being attributable) to a given employee. Just my duty as a contentious employer in a fucked up system where the employer is de facto responsible for paying for health care (for reasons of historical accident) rather than the government, like it is in the rest of the world. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Ahhh, I see. You discriminate for noble reasons. How wonderful of you. You're wonderful thought is that...what was it?..."government"...is the responsible party for your employee's health care. Somehow if you substitute the words "the rest of us" for "government" (since that is who really funds "government") it doesn't quite sound so noble. Another cute lawyer trick...equally effective.

Wasn't talking about your hand in the Empires pocket. Just your hand in mine.

As to the Brits making it work, I don't know where you get your info but that system would be a laughing stock were it not so sad. The aristocracy go to Indian private hospitals while the rest of the folks wait a year for a bypass. They do have wonderful success rates for heart operations (as an example) but the reason is because the weaker folks have died off before they can be treated. See Cleveland Clinic report.
Same for cancer treatment. And that's what you fellas want over here!

Either you belong to the aristocracy here or somehow, you don't think what's coming will affect you. But, I promise you, it will affect you and your families. The really bad part is that while I'd love to see the anguish on the faces of those who think they're doing the right thing "For Society" when reality strikes them, that would be to much like cutting my nose off to spite my face so I'll continue my personal fight against the system and ObamaCare and hope I'm successful. Originally Posted by John Bull

Here is a summary of my response so I don't have to do so much typing.

Ridicule.
Snarky comment.
Refutation.
Rebuttal.
Humor.
And, ummmm... Oh, yea, a winning quotation to help make me more attractive to providers

(Relevant to the advancement of civilization vs survival of the fittest):

Who trusted God was love indeed
And love Creation's final law
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and claw
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed

Alfred Lord Tennyson's In Memoriam A. H. H., 1850, Canto 56

I leave this room now to get back to matters pertaining to hobby sex.

Here is a summary of my response so I don't have to do so much typing.

Ridicule.
Snarky comment.
Refutation.
Rebuttal.
Humor.
And, ummmm... Oh, yea, a winning quotation to help make me more attractive to providers

(Relevant to the advancement of civilization vs survival of the fittest):

Who trusted God was love indeed
And love Creation's final law
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and claw
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed

Alfred Lord Tennyson's In Memoriam A. H. H., 1850, Canto 56

I leave this room now to get back to matters pertaining to hobby sex. Originally Posted by jdean208

That doesn't really answer whether your plan does pay for spouses, but that in fact the spouses are covered elsewhere because of circumstances. There are a lot of spouses I don't cover either, as they are covered elsewhere. But that doesn't mean that it is not available to them. Neverthless, the parsing of words is a cute lawyer trick, that I'm sure might be effective against some...just not me.



Ahhh, I see. You discriminate for noble reasons. How wonderful of you. You're wonderful thought is that...what was it?..."government"...is the responsible party for your employee's health care. Somehow if you substitute the words "the rest of us" for "government" (since that is who really funds "government") it doesn't quite sound so noble. Another cute lawyer trick...equally effective. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

There is no sense in any employer paying the fucking insurance industry twice to have coverage for the same person. Is that what you're advocating?

Second, I have no trouble at all saying that "the rest of us" are responsible for paying for everybody's health care. It should be -- and is everywhere else in the industrial world -- a collective responsibility. When Cain said, "Am I my brother's keeper?" it was to illustrate how evil he was, not to show that he was a great guy. We are all our brother's keeper.

How does the set of proposals in the article I linked "condemn them to no insurance for life?"

It was specifically stated in the linked article (from post #87 in this thread) that the company pays 100% of all premiums for anyone working 30 hours per week or more. Additionally, it places money into "personal wellness accounts" so that employees can spend money for medical services as they see fit.

Here's an excerpt from the article:

• Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs). The combination of high-deductible health insurance and HSAs is one solution that could solve many of our health-care problems. For example, Whole Foods Market pays 100% of the premiums for all our team members who work 30 hours or more per week (about 89% of all team members) for our high-deductible health-insurance plan. We also provide up to $1,800 per year in additional health-care dollars through deposits into employees' Personal Wellness Accounts to spend as they choose on their own health and wellness.
Money not spent in one year rolls over to the next and grows over time. Our team members therefore spend their own health-care dollars until the annual deductible is covered (about $2,500) and the insurance plan kicks in. This creates incentives to spend the first $2,500 more carefully. Our plan's costs are much lower than typical health insurance, while providing a very high degree of worker satisfaction.




This plan is apparently working well for a grocery store chain. Obviously, most of its employees do not earn high salaries. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

I have two employees whose prescriptions, if not taken care of with a prescription care, cost over $600/Mo. One, me, whose prescriptions would be $900/Mo. $1,800 in an account for high deductibles won't do them, or me, one bit of good. And that's just out of one dozen employees or so.

High deductible HSA's are a fraud unless you are in great health.

High deductible HSA's are a fraud unless you are in great health. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

They're a helluva lot better than what tens of millions of people have today.

If you want to see a real fraud, just take a look at the numbers claimed by the hacks trying to push the present plan. All Americans should regard attempts to pass this lemon as insults to their intelligence. No wonder they're feverishly trying to cram it through before people figure out how bad it is, and what a horrific budget-buster it is. (And that it won't really solve the core problems.)

As I said earlier, anyone using such phony numbers to hawk an investment in the private sector would risk being indicted and arrested.

They're a helluva lot better than what tens of millions of people have today.

If you want to see a real fraud, just take a look at the numbers claimed by the hacks trying to push the present plan. All Americans should regard attempts to pass this lemon as insults to their intelligence. No wonder they're feverishly trying to cram it through before people figure out how bad it is, and what a horrific budget-buster it is. (And that it won't really solve the core problems.)

As I said earlier, anyone using such phony numbers to hawk an investment in the private sector would risk being indicted and arrested. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

The core problem is 48 million Americans don't have insurance. This won't solve that core problem, but it makes a hell of a dent it is. I will provide insurance to 32 million of them. The Republican plan -- yes there is one -- would provide insurance to only 3 million. If that's the best plan you can muster, why bother.

The core problem is 48 million Americans don't have insurance. This won't solve that core problem, but it makes a hell of a dent it is. I will provide insurance to 32 million of them. The Republican plan -- yes there is one -- would provide insurance to only 3 million. If that's the best plan you can muster, why bother. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

I realy enjoy seeing people just throw a number out there about uninsured. It always seems to change depending on who is saying it. You failed to realize that some of those "48M" people or is is "32M" people, whatever, a lot of them CHOOSE not to have insurance and a lot of them are undocumented immigrants. Then add on the 11.6M people unemployed or underemployed because the AS$$HOLES in DC think this bull$hit healthcare is more important than the economy and jobs. What the hell do you think would happen if all of the unemployed and underemployed had jobs that paid the taxing vampires in DC? They wouldn't be talking about raising taxes would they? This healthcare push is nothing more than a bull$hit control issue. They don't want to do anything more than to get into everyones pocket to control every aspect of our lives. They want to add 15k more IRS employees. WHO PAYS THEM? WE DO!!! WHERE DO THEY GET THE MONEY? TAXES!!! Not to metion 100's of FDIC jobs they just posted, because they are about to go on another banking heist. Why don't you admit that you want a nanny state and get it over with. Tell everyone your true philosophy. If you want to live in a country where everything is provided for you by the taxpayers, MOVE TO IT!!!

[Awake at 2 AM and channel surfing to put myself back to sleep.]

Ran across a talk given by MIT Economist Jonathan Gruber (health care expert). From a purely economic standpoint he is very much behind the current health care bill. Is it perfect? No, he says. But he says it is better than nothing, and mostly sides w/ Democrats' assertions.

He does say the whole issue of health care is unbelievably complex. He says it is easier to attack the whole health care issue with a huge approach like this than by piecemeal.

Even those who don't agree with the health care bill should see this presentation. I found it quite enlightening. You can find it here:

http://www.c-span.org/search.aspx?For=gruber

BTW, I get the impression Gruber didn't pre-judge his position, but did his research. It is obvious from his talk that he is completely knowledgeable about health care studies and issues.

BTW, I get the impression Gruber didn't pre-judge his position, but did his research. It is obvious from his talk that he is completely knowledgeable about health care studies and issues. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Isn't that special. Is he also an expert on the social political implications of the feds fucking up 17% of the GDP?