Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.
It's not about health care Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: It's not about health care

    Originally posted by ToUtahNow View Post
    I don't know what cheap coverage would be but I currently pay $21,600 per year for the wife and I, is yours more expensive?

    Mark
    That is part of the problem, we don't actually know the true cost of our health insurance. IIRC, the part we pay is somewhere in the neighborhood of $5000/year. My wife's company kicks in a bunch more. Edit: On further reflection, it is even more difficult to figure out because the company wouldn't pay premium as they self-insure.

    If there was a community rating you would likely pay less than $21,600, because the insurance company couldn't charge you more based on age. On the other hand, young Californians would have to pay more than they do.

    This page has a list of the implementation of community ratings in various states. For example, in some states the premium can be only 150% higher based on age.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Rating

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: It's not about health care

      Originally posted by SpiffPeters View Post
      Doesn't everything boil down to personal responsibility? Do alcoholics sue bars or whiskey makers for getting them drunk?

      Health insurance as it is currently configured doesn't reward good behavior or habits. Yet those of us that take care of ourselves are expected to be there for the kids that are obese and develop diabetes from drinking too many sodas and one too many happy meals. Or the life long smoker that now has COPD and requires a electric scooter and oxygen.
      Spiff, I agree that living a healthy life that includes sensable eating and exercise should be rewarded, but imagine the flip side? Do we punsih folks who were raised in an unhealthy environment and now have health problems?
      How about risk? Do we punish the folks who participate in sports and incur injuries they would not otherwise sustain had they avoided such rish?

      I don't understand why cigarettes are still allowed to be sold given the proven health hazards to the smokers and folks close by? Would it be easier and more humane to simply stop selling cigarettes, cigars, chewing tobacco, and liquor? Mandate quarterly health checkups and monitor everyone's weight and B.M.I.? I'm pushing the idea, but if we were serious about reducing healthcare costs and having a healthier society, such measures would work!

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: It's not about health care

        "I read somewhere recently that the United States is the only Western nation where insurance companies are allowed to make unrestricted profits off of healthcare."

        Imagine the outrage and hostility currently directed at Obama, multiplied by a factor of 10 if he tried to put a cap on a capital enterprise. Commie and Marxist are the most PC words that come to mind. We have enough people out there right now fomenting fear, anger and rage. Cutting to the heart of god given right to earn as much money as possible regardless the harm inflicted on others would probably start civil unrest. And no, I don't think there is a just cause for a riot in this day and age. There are far more effective means of making a point. As consumers in a capitalistic society, we could simply go on strike. Stand a better chance of getting a couple million people to join the cause than you would to get a couple thousand to have a meeting police in riot gear.

        I too am confused by the standard that allows cigarettes to be on the market yet bans red dye No. 5.
        Last edited by SpiffPeters; 03-09-2010, 05:22 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: It's not about health care

          Originally posted by SpiffPeters View Post
          Imagine the outrage and hostility currently directed at Obama, multiplied by a factor of 10 if he tried to put a cap on a capital enterprise. Commie and Marxist are the most PC words that come to mind. We have enough people out there right now fomenting fear, anger and rage. Cutting to the heart of god given right to earn as much money as possible regardless the harm inflicted on others would probably start civil unrest.
          Regulating profits is nothing new and putting a cap on public enterprise is nothing new nor is it uncommon. All your utilites rates are regulated and have to be approved. We have usury laws on the books to protect people from unscrupulous financial institutions, although our friends at the banks have watered those down to near non-existence. The Federal Acquisition Regulations cap profits for many types of acquisitions and restrict strategies for winning awards for those wishing to sell to the Government. There's many more examples.

          We don't really see riots in the streets when PUC reviews denies a utility rate hike proposal. I don't think it's too likely that there would be any public outcry, beyond perhaps a sigh of relief, if Government started talking sense and put some meaningful restrictions on organized crime, oops I mean the insurance industry.

          Do you also think that the public would rise up in support of the banks if the Government imposed meaningful regulation on that group? Considering the outrage people have toward the financial world, I don't see it as likely. More likely that the Taxpayer is fed up with DC's utter failure to hold the right people accountable, and their "solutions" (eg bailouts) that make everyone happy except the Taxpayer.

          Excrement flows downhill, and the real outrage is because Government always puts the Citizen in the valley.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: It's not about health care

            [QUOTE=Andy_M;285873
            We don't really see riots in the streets when PUC reviews denies a utility rate hike proposal. I don't think it's too likely that there would be any public outcry, beyond perhaps a sigh of relief, if Government started talking sense and put some meaningful restrictions on organized crime, oops I mean the insurance industry.[/QUOTE]

            Utility rates impact everyone in a very real way, unlike bank bailouts. When the PUC declines a rate increase people don't complain because this is a positive effect on their income.

            Capping profits on an specific industry is politically a third rail. With the cries of unfair, never done before and unprecedented circling around reconciliation these days, do you really think Wall Street would sit idle if anyone threatened to cap their profits? Do you think either the repubs wouldn't use this to bludgeon the dems?

            With the supreme courts decision I can guarantee they would throw millions of dollars into 'free speech' ads attacking anyone in favor of capping profits.

            The difference between a dem and a repub is that a dem will allow the poor to be corrupt too.

            But this is about to end. This will be a very interesting fall campaign. Wall Street and health insurance industry will be out in full force with their ad campaigns.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: It's not about health care

              Spiff, unless laws are passed to force politicians to make good on campaign promises and Work together for the good of the country, what "change" can we expect from the next election or the ones after that?

              We are bound see a repeat every broken campaign promise and be spectators to foot dragging and dirty politics from both sides of the aisle. The only thing that will force change is a law that must be obeyed.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: It's not about health care

                Originally posted by Frankiarmz View Post
                Spiff, unless laws are passed to force politicians to make good on campaign promises and Work together for the good of the country, what "change" can we expect from the next election or the ones after that?

                We are bound see a repeat every broken campaign promise and be spectators to foot dragging and dirty politics from both sides of the aisle. The only thing that will force change is a law that must be obeyed.
                I read an article several years ago about the myth of broken campaign promises. The reporter had done extensive research and found that by and large, every president in recent history had indeed delivered on the vast majority of their campaign promises.

                Richard Scaife-Mellon, a billionaire and captain of industry, was instrumental in setting up the infrastructure that we see today. Or at least some of us recognize it as such. Think tanks and lobbying exploded in DC back in the early 80's. Before that the Christian Coalition meet with Carter in the oval office and explained the benefits of aligning with them. Carter kicked them out of the oval office. Now we have presidents having public meetings with "The Family". Tell me who won that one?

                The republicans recognized the value 40 years ago in building a machine that could broadcast their message and attack opponents. There is simply no denying this fact. FOX News is only the largest and most prominent of the partisan outlets. And if anyone wants to deny FOX News is partisan, then they have lost all objectivity. Based on the numerous, frequent lies they get caught in, FOX News is not a credible news source. Yes they produce stories that feed the outrage, but they seem to focus on one side of the isle as if the republicans, including those sitting in federal prisons at this very moment, are choir boys and girls. There is enough guilt to spread around yet Murdoch and Ailes are obviously only interested in further fracturing the electorate.

                Now we've come full circle and the only ones government serves are the ones that are able to have paid lobbyists. If you are a large corporation, then this is just the government you want. This is exactly the way Richard Scaife-Mellon wanted it to be. Monied interests getting a government that looks after their best interests.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: It's not about health care

                  Originally posted by SpiffPeters View Post
                  I read an article several years ago about the myth of broken campaign promises. The reporter had done extensive research and found that by and large, every president in recent history had indeed delivered on the vast majority of their campaign promises.

                  Richard Scaife-Mellon, a billionaire and captain of industry, was instrumental in setting up the infrastructure that we see today. Or at least some of us recognize it as such. Think tanks and lobbying exploded in DC back in the early 80's. Before that the Christian Coalition meet with Carter in the oval office and explained the benefits of aligning with them. Carter kicked them out of the oval office. Now we have presidents having public meetings with "The Family". Tell me who won that one?

                  The republicans recognized the value 40 years ago in building a machine that could broadcast their message and attack opponents. There is simply no denying this fact. FOX News is only the largest and most prominent of the partisan outlets. And if anyone wants to deny FOX News is partisan, then they have lost all objectivity. Based on the numerous, frequent lies they get caught in, FOX News is not a credible news source. Yes they produce stories that feed the outrage, but they seem to focus on one side of the isle as if the republicans, including those sitting in federal prisons at this very moment, are choir boys and girls. There is enough guilt to spread around yet Murdoch and Ailes are obviously only interested in further fracturing the electorate.

                  Now we've come full circle and the only ones government serves are the ones that are able to have paid lobbyists. If you are a large corporation, then this is just the government you want. This is exactly the way Richard Scaife-Mellon wanted it to be. Monied interests getting a government that looks after their best interests.
                  I watch Fox News and I find it frustrating at times when they bash Unions and talk over opposing views, but I still think they report News and are up front about which side they support.

                  I really don't care that much about Fox News or how many past politicians made good on their campaign promises. My urgent need are for actions and results now that will employ Americans, break our dependance on communist china and have politicians stop doing their own thing and work for the country and electorate. If we can't focus our attentions on the important things and keep wasting time arguing over Fox News, or defending either party that has clearly screwed us over, we are doomed. In my opinion, we are doooomed!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: It's not about health care

                    UCLA and University of Missouri did a study of Media outlets in 2005 and found while not as far to the Right or Left as Congress, most News Channels were Left leaning. They suggested it has more to do with the party the individuals belong to then a policy. They omitted the Editorial and Op-Ed pieces so the likes of Hannity, Olbermann and Michelle Malkin were not included. Many claim the reason Fox News has done so well is it is one of the few which are not Left leaning.

                    Mark
                    "Somewhere a Village is Missing Twelve Idiots!" - Casey Anthony

                    I never lost a cent on the jobs I didn't get!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: It's not about health care

                      Originally posted by SpiffPeters View Post
                      Utility rates impact everyone in a very real way, unlike bank bailouts. When the PUC declines a rate increase people don't complain because this is a positive effect on their income.

                      Capping profits on an specific industry is politically a third rail. With the cries of unfair, never done before and unprecedented circling around reconciliation these days, do you really think Wall Street would sit idle if anyone threatened to cap their profits? Do you think either the repubs wouldn't use this to bludgeon the dems?

                      With the supreme courts decision I can guarantee they would throw millions of dollars into 'free speech' ads attacking anyone in favor of capping profits.

                      The difference between a dem and a repub is that a dem will allow the poor to be corrupt too.

                      But this is about to end. This will be a very interesting fall campaign. Wall Street and health insurance industry will be out in full force with their ad campaigns.
                      There isn't really much practical difference between healthcare insurance and a utility, in the sense that both are considered necessities of life, and due to regional and provider limits, neither is a free market.

                      It was exactly my point that the PUC actions to control rates generally meet with public approval because they have a positive effect on cots to the public. So, too, would meaningful regulation of the insurance companies have the same effect and garner the same public response.

                      This whole thing is precisely about the failings of the current system. The current system is the healthcare insurance industry. Government should fix what's broken, not come up with everything but. This is what they're doing, and it's why the majority of the taxpayers don't support Obama on this.

                      I fully agree that either party would attack the one suggesting industry reform. This is just another case of neither party working in the best interest of the taxpayer.

                      We saw auto insurance regulation in California that was met with threats by insurance companies to pull out of the state. Guess what didn't happen? Their all still here and they're all advertising like mad based on their lower rates. My point is that o course no industry would meekly accept regulation. Does this mean they shouldn't be regulated? Are the inmates running the asylum?

                      Most people, notwithstanding the Demos on Capital Hill, agree that the current proposal isn't too good. The Republican's ideas aren't clearly better.
                      You seem to be arguing that regulating the industry isn't a good solution. So what's your solution?

                      Seems to me that politics-as-usual that focuses essentially on the excuses not to address the problem is how we got into this mess - and most every other mess - in the first place.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: It's not about health care

                        Originally posted by Frankiarmz View Post
                        ... and are up front about which side they support.
                        I agree they are up front about which side they are on. I've heard them with my own ears say they are republicans. On Fox News and Friends. News is suppose to be objective. Declaring your allegiance to a political persuasion may be appropriate in some circumstances, but news reporting is suppose to be objective.

                        FOX News merely carries the water for the monied interests. They are instrumental in enabling one political parties grip on the average middle class American.

                        "I've gotten balanced coverage, and broad coverage--all we could have asked. For heaven sakes, we kid about the 'liberal media,' but every Republican on earth does that." Pat Buchanan, 1996

                        "I admit it, the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." William Kristol
                        Last edited by SpiffPeters; 03-10-2010, 03:36 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: It's not about health care

                          Originally posted by SpiffPeters View Post
                          I agree they are up front about which side they are on. I've heard them with my own ears say they are republicans. On Fox News and Friends. News is suppose to be objective. Declaring your allegiance to a political persuasion may be appropriate in some circumstances, but news reporting is suppose to be objective.

                          FOX News merely carries the water for the monied interests. They are instrumental in enabling one political parties grip on the average middle class American.

                          "I've gotten balanced coverage, and broad coverage--all we could have asked. For heaven sakes, we kid about the 'liberal media,' but every Republican on earth does that." Pat Buchanan, 1996

                          "I admit it, the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." William Kristol
                          Is the influence of the press why Jimmy Carter defeated incumbent Gerald Ford, a very popular member of congress and by most accounts relatively effective congressional leader, or why Bill Clinton defeated Bush 41, an incumbent that won what was actually a well-supported war both domestically and worldwide? No. One was allied with Nixon by party affiliation and the other shot himself in the foot over "read my lips" (although I do think that the press did contribute to Clinton's success in the election, but no point in opening that can of worms). Both republicans ran poor campagns, Bush 41 in particular squandered his opportunities and both lost. The liberal press did not make that happen, nor did (or could) a conservative press have prevented it.

                          The liberals traditionally are better represented in the media than the conservatives. Kristols' and Buchanan's statements mean what they say... that the liberal media isn't (in their opinions) too influencial. Those statements don't support the notion that the conservative leanings of Fox are any more influential. In fact, it's more reasonable to conclude that if the plurality of traditional left leaning media is acknowledged to be not that powerful, why would anyone conclude that the right-leanings of one lonesome network would be any more so?

                          Fox news is IMO more interested in getting share. They provide an alternative to the left-leaning media, which many find attractive. If they presented a me-too approach they wouldn't get the same numbers of viewers.

                          JC is right. It's all about money. It always is.
                          Last edited by Andy_M; 03-10-2010, 04:05 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: It's not about health care

                            Originally posted by SpiffPeters View Post
                            I agree they are up front about which side they are on. I've heard them with my own ears say they are republicans. On Fox News and Friends. News is suppose to be objective. Declaring your allegiance to a political persuasion may be appropriate in some circumstances, but news reporting is suppose to be objective.

                            FOX News merely carries the water for the monied interests. They are instrumental in enabling one political parties grip on the average middle class American.

                            "I've gotten balanced coverage, and broad coverage--all we could have asked. For heaven sakes, we kid about the 'liberal media,' but every Republican on earth does that." Pat Buchanan, 1996

                            "I admit it, the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." William Kristol
                            I have not really paid enough attention to have heard anyone on any channel say what party they belong to but have felt I knew what party they likely belong to by the way they present things.

                            One correction I might make to your above post is it is not "Fox News & Friends" a news show it is "Fox & Friends" a morning show similar to "The View" on ABC. As such I don't know that I would hold either show to the same standard as a regular news show.

                            Mark
                            "Somewhere a Village is Missing Twelve Idiots!" - Casey Anthony

                            I never lost a cent on the jobs I didn't get!

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: It's not about health care

                              Andy - Did the press do Mondale, Dukais, Gore or Kerry any favors? Seems to me there plenty examples where the press did not do their due diligence and let campaign statements fester and grow legs to one candidates disadvantage.

                              So by this metric one could conclude the media prefers republican presidents.

                              Regardless, no president has ever enjoyed the prying eyes and ears of the press. Some have been more effective in controlling access than others.

                              In the Bush WH, legitimate reporters were limited or denied access while a known male prostitute with no press experience was given tremendous access in both the press room and, according to secret service records, the white house. Seems he checked in numerous times, when no press conferences were taking place, but never checked out. Odd, isn't it?

                              Just google Jeff Gannon. He's a tea bagger.

                              FOX News, AM radio and a wide selection of newspapers and magazines work in concert with each other to get the message out there on a daily basis. Ever wonder why they all communicate the same message every day? It isn't a vast right wing conspiracy. It's in plain sight for anyone that cares to open their eyes and see the propaganda they are spreading.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: It's not about health care

                                Originally posted by SpiffPeters View Post
                                Andy - Did the press do Mondale, Dukais, Gore or Kerry any favors? Seems to me there plenty examples where the press did not do their due diligence and let campaign statements fester and grow legs to one candidates disadvantage.

                                So by this metric one could conclude the media prefers republican presidents.

                                Regardless, no president has ever enjoyed the prying eyes and ears of the press. Some have been more effective in controlling access than others.

                                In the Bush WH, legitimate reporters were limited or denied access while a known male prostitute with no press experience was given tremendous access in both the press room and, according to secret service records, the white house. Seems he checked in numerous times, when no press conferences were taking place, but never checked out. Odd, isn't it?

                                Just google Jeff Gannon. He's a tea bagger.

                                FOX News, AM radio and a wide selection of newspapers and magazines work in concert with each other to get the message out there on a daily basis. Ever wonder why they all communicate the same message every day? It isn't a vast right wing conspiracy. It's in plain sight for anyone that cares to open their eyes and see the propaganda they are spreading.
                                Yes actually I believe that the press did treat Kerry in particular better than he deserved. He lost anyway, largely because he was a terrible candidate who ran an inept campaign. Bush 43 should should have been easy pickin's... by the time of the election, it was well known that there were no WMDs and that reasons for war were fabricated. Kerry still managed to lose. I know several outspoken Republicans that were extremely critical of Bush, fully aware of his failings, and would have voted Demo had there been any sort of reasonable person on the ticket. It is sad that Kerry was the best they could muster. I, personally, had such a problem with Bush that I voted Kerry... but not without severe gnashing of teeth and unease.

                                But my point is that IMO the press has an effect but not close to the strength you assign to it. You can't ever extrapolate that the outcomes of elections are a direct result of the press, so I fail to see the argument.

                                The extreme right wingers probabl;y cost the Republicans as much support as they win. Maybe more. I know that I am even less happy with them because of the extreme right faction, and I know I'm not alone.

                                This thread seems to have become another debate on the press and Fox. I fail to see the strength of the correlation to the healthcare issue. I get that's it a hot button for you, but seriously doubt that the world revolves around the leanings of Fox.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X