Comments on: The Note: Curve Ball — Another Week, Another Set of Obstacles to Health Care Reform

By: Sandcrab1612

Sandcrab1612 — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 23:17:07 +0000

granny tranny – You said “federal employees-including the military
have successfully used a health system that the base conservatives would phrase as “socialist”"
You are totally incorrect on this one. Federal employees do not use a healthcare system which would be called “socialist” as you state. Federal employees do not have “public option health insurance” or any special government health plan availalbe to them. The healthcare insurance available to the federal employees is through private insurance companies (Blue Cross, Aetna, Group Health, Kaiser, etc). The federal government as the employer pays a portion of their monthly premium (just as many private employers do) as part of their compensation package and the employee pays the remainder from his salary. When the employee uses the services of a health care provider he (not the government) is responsible for any co-pays or deductibles which are due to the provider at the time of service. For reference just Google “FEHB”.
As far as letting the rest of us into their plans this could be a viable option but it would cost us all money. If Congress were to open these plans to the public the monthly premiums for a family plan would roughly be between $425.00 and $1300.00, for an individual the monthly premium would roughly be between $177.00 and $550.00 (premiums could be shared between the employer and employee if an employer chose to provide healthcare as an employee benefit). One of the differences in the plan costs is the level of benefits provided and the amount the patient pays when receiving healthcare. To me this would be a viable option as the government would not have to make a large outlay to open these plans to the public and they already negotiate the cost and benefits each year with the plan providers.
The biggest reason most people are looking for healthcare reform is the costs which keep rising. No bill should be passed until such time as it can be shown that the impact of the bill will significantly reduce costs. You folks on the left are looking for anything without realizing that the current bills being offered will not reduce costs and will likely increase government spending. Open your eyes and look at the big picture.
In your household do you continuosly spend money on items you don’t have money for but desire to have (i.e. $100 per month income and spend $125 per month)? If you can answer yes to this then please tell the rest of us how to do it because with that scenario the eventual result is bankruptcy and loss of your assets.

By: Sandcrab1612

Sandcrab1612 — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 23:04:50 +0000

Ronald Newton – You said “Why can’t we have the same plan as a congressman?”
You could if Congress would open access to the insurance plans they have available to choose from. Congress does not have “public option health insurance” or any special government health plan availalbe to them. The healthcare insurance available to the members of Congress is through private insurance companies (Blue Cross, Aetna, Group Health, Kaiser, etc). The federal government as the employer pays a portion of their monthly premium (just as many private employers do) as part of their compensation package and the Congressman pays the remainder from his salary. When the Congressman uses the services of a health care provider he (not the government) is responsible for any co-pays or deductibles which are due to the provider at the time of service. For reference just Google “FEHB”.
As far as letting the rest of us into their plans this could be a viable option but it would cost us all money. If Congress were to open these plans to the public the monthly premiums for a family plan would roughly be between $425.00 and $1300.00, for an individual the monthly premium would roughly be between $177.00 and $550.00 (premiums could be shared between the employer and employee if an employer chose to provide healthcare as an employee benefit). One of the differences in the plan costs is the level of benefits provided and the amount the patient pays when receiving healthcare. To me this would be a viable option as the government would not have to make a large outlay to open these plans to the public and they already negotiate the cost and benefits each year with the plan providers.

By: Ronald Newton

Ronald Newton — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 21:48:56 +0000

You mean no congressman wants this plan for themselves? Looks like a way to redistribute wealth and begin class warfare. I agree it is not socialized medicine, just pork barrel medicine. Why can’t we have the same plan as a congressman?

By: bobc

bobc — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 12:35:28 +0000

The GOP is not in the way of this! They are the minority! The Blue Dogs are the only ones that are standing up to this fiasco, in the Democratic Party!
Government cannot run anything correctly, case in point:
Flu shots were given in my area, costing $20 if you didn’t have insurance
If you had Medicare they were “free”.
Whoever gave these flu shots, billed Medicare $118, and Medicare paid $118!
How’s that for bringing down costs?

By: Don

Don — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 03:10:32 +0000

Angie, please give your definition of what socialism is so we can understand what you mean. Until then I will offer the definition I am working from. Taken from Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary, socialism is “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.” That IS what the Dems are trying to do with health care so unless you can improve on that definition, the Dem ARE trying to move us toward socialized medicine. I welcome your definition of socialism so I can understand your thoughts better.

By: Don

Don — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 03:00:29 +0000

To say that people want health care reform may be correct but to equate that reform with socialize medicine is not. Americans DO NOT want the public option to be their only option. They DO NOT want a federal bureau making their health care decisions. They DO NOT want their taxes to be raised to pay for an unworkable plan. They DO NOT want the disastrous results this will have on the work force. They DO NOT want the kind of health care reform the Dems are trying to rush us into.

By: Mike_C

Mike_C — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 21:37:44 +0000

healthcare is not a commodity.
you mean like the wate, food, clothes & shelter that you dont pay money for ?

By: granny tranny

granny tranny — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 20:01:14 +0000

“Are you willing to have them pass a bill which the CBO says will not reduce cost and will likely cause an increase in costs along with having problems with being sustaining in the out years or pass a bill which the CBO will back as reducing cost and being sustainable over the years.?”
—————————-
yes.
the cost to provide healthcare for everyone can be absorbed by less profit for the mega pharmaceutical companies, private insurers, along with tax for the wealthy.
healthcare is not a commodity.

By: granny tranny

granny tranny — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:52:31 +0000

federal employees-including the military
have successfully used a health system that the base conservatives would phrase as “socialist”

By: no faux lies or generalizations

no faux lies or generalizations — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:42:55 +0000

“A growing number of physician groups are also objecting to the plan. And the AMA is split on their decision to back the plan, they do not favor it as another commentator said.”
Posted by: NoMoreMr.NiceGuy | Jul 17, 2009 12:51:13 PM
—————————
NYT NEW YORK: July 17, 2009– “the American Medical Association had announced its support for the House health care bill.”
AP CHICAGO July 16, 2009– “The American Medical Association on Thursday endorsed a liberal health overhaul bill that includes a public insurance option, a bold step for a traditionally conservative group with a checkered past on health reforms.
In its strongest action yet signaling support for President Barack Obama’s vow to reform health care, the nation’s largest doctors’ group sent letters to three House committees behind the bill. The letters, signed by AMA’s executive vice president, Dr. Michael Maves, said the AMA appreciates and supports what is being called America’s Affordable Health Choices Act.”