Ceramic Tile Advice Forums - John Bridge Ceramic Tile

Ceramic Tile Advice Forums - John Bridge Ceramic Tile (https://www.johnbridge.com/vbulletin/index.php)
-   The Mud Box (https://www.johnbridge.com/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   The health care debate (https://www.johnbridge.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=74637)

jgleason 06-16-2009 07:56 PM

The health insurance plan where I work sucks. Luckily for me I don't use it. My wife is a special education teacher at a public school. Although the plan has changed a couple of times we pay a very small premium (less than $200 per month) for family coverage. $5 copay for a doctor visit. Between $5-$20 per prescription (depends on use of generics or not).

java 06-16-2009 08:17 PM

Well if Obama says he wants Single Payer, and that is what he is pushing, then what are we gona get? The people he is listening to, the people in that video, say themselves that the end game is Single Payer. They admit that the means they are using are just a ruse. Over and over, the proponents of Single Payer health care say that they will accept a govt picks up the slack program. Why?, because they admit over and over that it will lead to a Single Payer system.

Here is my take on it.

I don't trust a single one of the belly crawlers. Dem. Reb. makes no difference. They are liars and thieves. They had to play the game to get into office and get to were they are. No sane, stand up person would want to rub elbows with the snakes in D.C.

So what do we do? Throw them all out. All of them They would really know who we the people are then. The new guys get in and they will listen to the people you better believe it. And we will get better govt.

They are worse than us around here at J.B. at arguing for the sake of arguing. At least we get up in the morning and take care of our tile businesses. They just look for another way to divide us and never get around to the peoples business.

tilelayer 06-16-2009 08:33 PM

Quote:

The health insurance plan where I work sucks. Luckily for me I don't use it. My wife is a special education teacher at a public school. Although the plan has changed a couple of times we pay a very small premium (less than $200 per month) for family coverage. $5 copay for a doctor visit. Between $5-$20 per prescription (depends on use of generics or not).

Your lucky it cost me 25 to see the dr. I pay half of what the script actually costs my insulin costs a fortune along with any other script I need my insurance sucks and theres nothing I can do, without insulin I die. No one else will insure me cause of the diabetes.

Mark Krachenspiner 06-16-2009 08:46 PM

Anything short of todays doctors getting ahold of Dr. McCoys tricorder will result in a lesser quality of care than what we have now with the guberment involved.

And no, we will not ALL have Hillary's and Barry's health care plans. Another campaign promise not kept. Hope and change.

bathroomremodeler 06-16-2009 09:02 PM

Rodger,
I think many conservatives are worried about government health care, because of the statement you made in your 1st post … “I just want my wife to be able to get her medication AND the new used car she wants”.

For your wife to be insured, so you all don’t have to pay as much for medications, it would mean that the healthy would have to pay more for a service that they aren’t using … so the unhealthy can pay less. When you begin to pay less (because others are paying more) … you would then buy your wife a new (used) car with the savings.

There are other alternatives other than making other people pay some of your health bills.

Joe may have given you an answer ... go to work (or your wife) at a public school where your medications will cost $5 to $20 and you can have low premiums.

Rick suggested talking to the doctor about Humira (medication). One medication every two weeks has got to be cheaper (if it will work). Change doctors?

Grow your business (employee wise) where you can get group insurance with your company.

You are right. If I were in your shoes … I would want a change. I too, would be mad at the insurance company that dropped me and at the insurance companies that won’t give me a low cost policy (so they would have to pay $1650 a month, instead of me).

But I worry about that line that will be crossed, when I ask others to pay for my problems.

TileArt1 06-16-2009 09:58 PM

Wow. The statement in my first post was not asking for you or anyone else to pay for my problem! The money set aside was set aside for her (seven year old) vehicle. I was also paying ridiculous insurance premiums at the same time. Your train of thought seems to be that I want someone else to pick up the slack because I need a new vehicle. And if I can get you to do that I can run out and buy a new car. Well if that's where you think I'm coming from 1. you don't know me and 2. I can see why you're worried.
No offense, but statements like
Quote:

There are other alternatives other than making other people pay some of your health bills.
are an absolute insult to me. They smack of a mindset that now that something has happened I think everyone else should take care of it. I understand why conservatives are concerned about that - I am too.

Yes, Joe did give me the answer. You know, if I happened to be in the position where her condition was not yet diagnosed. Wait - I was in that position and did have reasonable premiums, and low prescriptions. You know, until we needed them. Even if me or my wife went to work at a public school and attempted to get on their insurance it wouldn't be accepted. Little thing they like to call "pre-existing condition". Convenient, huh?

Not asking for anybody to pay for my problems Dean. Never have. Just wanted what I was promised when I was the one with the healthy family and paid seven years straight apparently for nothing. Raise my premiums, that's fine, no problem. I'll pay for mine. What happens now that we've been dropped for this and now I blow out a knee? There goes my house.

Your other solutions as well are not viable due to the pre-existing condition clause. Don't give a #%*# about paying for the medication if it makes her feel better. But what happens if she gets a totally unrelated condition but she isn't insured because of this? You seem to be assuming quite a bit and that is probably part of the overall problem - assumptions.

But you aren't in my shoes, are you? And the assumption seems to be that you never will be. I will refer you to post #2 for a reply to that statement.

Just asking for a little responsibility from the companies just like you are asking of me. I've taken care of my responsibilities, always have. Not asking for a handout. Just want the same amount of fairness from the company that they expect from me.

While I don't disagree that there are a lot of people that would do this simply to have someone else pay for their problem don't presume that I'm one of them. Thanks.

sandbagger 06-16-2009 10:11 PM

Once again I'll strongly urge y'all to read The Forgotten Man. You'll learn the details about FDR's relentless attacks on the "wealthy." You'll read it and think, "I think I've seen this movie." You'll learn how FDR's belief in government-owned utilities brought us the Tennessee Valley Authority, and how the TVA's real mission was to put Wendell Wilkie's Commonwealth and Southern (a publicly traded company) out of business.

Obama's strategy on healthcare is clearly patterned after FDR's campaign for taking over utilities. The TVA's stated mission was to bring "affordable" electricity to the rural areas. In the beginning it worked with Wilkie's C&S. Sort of. TVA began encroaching on C&S areas. They brought in money for lots of non-TVA projects; money C&S could not match.

And "affordable" was defined as less than anything C&S charged. With no shareholders (if you don't count taxpayers) the TVA could set any rate it wanted. It didn't matter if the actual cost was higher. It took eight years, but in the end Wilkie was forced to sell out to TVA. The shareholders of C&S? They took it in the shorts, of course. But since FDR had long ago defined people who owned stock as "wealthy," nobody cared. That was the populist way to think.

Now take FDR's utility strategy and change it to "healthcare." The similarity in strategy is pretty obvious, and more than a little frightening. Like Commonwealth & Southern, the private healthcare sector will be run out of business by the government "option."

Read the book if you dare. I assure you it will keep your attention. And you will understand Obama's grand plan. :eek:

sandbagger 06-16-2009 10:20 PM

Quote:

Sorry to harp on auto insurance but it is the closest thing to compare.
Joe, funny you should use the auto insurance analogy for health care. That is precisely the model that Safeway has very successfully used to provide healthcare for its employees. The key to note is that it works. So don't expect to hear their program get any airtime on the Obama News Networks.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124476804026308603.html

Mark Krachenspiner 06-16-2009 10:28 PM

OK Art,

I told the wife Liberty and Tyranny was the book i wanted for father's day. I'm going to change it to The Forgotten Man, seems more appropriate anyhow.

good day.

ob1kanobee 06-17-2009 12:15 AM

TO QUOTE "There are other alternatives other than making other people pay some of your health bills."

When you are in a "group policy" you are paying for other peoples health bills or they could be paying for yours.

This is pretty much the only alternative and the insurance industry knows it. In order for insurance to be successful you have to have a group or the risk becomes too great for the insurance company.

No insurance company is going to come out with a plan to insure 50 million Americans by drastically reducing their spread (cost to final price).

On top of it all, the average American and even somewhat slightly above average American's income is not keeping pace with the rising costs of healthcare (and other things for that matter) which includes people with a part time job in addition to a full time job.

sandbagger 06-17-2009 01:34 AM

I hear Levin's book is a great read, but I haven't gotten there yet. You'll understand another thing before you finish Forgotten Man. And that is just how fortunate we are today to have the "alternate media" that did not exist under FDR.

sandbagger 06-17-2009 01:35 AM

Ben - maybe it's just too late to think, but what's your point? :scratch:

jgleason 06-17-2009 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TileArt1
Just wanted what I was promised when I was the one with the healthy family and paid seven years straight apparently for nothing. Raise my premiums, that's fine, no problem. I'll pay for mine. What happens now that we've been dropped for this and now I blow out a knee? There goes my house.

Roger - Have you spoken with an attorney regarding your contract with the insurance company? Lots of fine print in insurance contracts but there may be something that can be done.

I do worry about how to handle the preexisting conditions aspect, particularly when those conditions are not related to lifestyle. To me there is a big difference in someone making unhealthy choices (bad diet, smoker, heavy drinker, etc.) that raises their health risk versus someone unlucky enough getting cancer.

If you have an unhealthy lifestyle, you should pay more for insurance. at some point you may not be able to find insurance at any price. If I am a bad driver, constantly getting tickets and having accidents guess what happens to my insurance premiums?

tying health insurance to the employer was one of the more boneheaded things that has been in this country.

tilerite 06-17-2009 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean
Rick suggested talking to the doctor about Humira (medication). One medication every two weeks has got to be cheaper (if it will work).

$3000 per month, Dean. Thank God its covered by her Medicare.
Getting back to this argument; so far, I seem to be the only person here who gets it. PREVENT THE ILLNESS BEFORE IT HAPPENS!!!
Ok, you may all return to your morning biscuits and gravy.

tilerite 06-17-2009 06:08 AM

Quote:

I do worry about how to handle the preexisting conditions aspect, particularly when those conditions are not related to lifestyle. To me there is a big difference in someone making unhealthy choices (bad diet, smoker, heavy drinker, etc.) that raises there health risk versus someone unlucky enough getting cancer.

If you have an unhealthy lifestyle, you should pay more for insurance. at some point you may not be able to find insurance at any price. If I am a bad driver, constantly getting tickets and having accidents guess what happens to my insurance premiums?
I stand corrected. Joe gets it. :goodpost:

jgleason 06-17-2009 06:19 AM

Art linked this article - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124476804026308603.html

Everyone should read it. Makes me want to go work for Safeway.

HS345 06-17-2009 07:51 AM

Will the members of Congress be covered under the same health care bill as the rest of us? If not, why not? :suspect:

ob1kanobee 06-17-2009 08:02 AM

Art, I was afraid nobody would ask.

My point is to establish a profitable health care company by the government but mainly ran by the private sector. The people within the group (insureds) would receive dividends for participationg in the group. It would function with a much smaller profit than your traditional insurance provider.

Doctors, nurses, employees of the plan would also all be part of the group and owners as well.

I wrote a more detailed plan down earlier when I wrote the first post but I figured it was too long. This one isn't detailed enough and it isn't going to happen anyway so no more writing for me........................

Health care is the only business I could ever see the government actively competing in. Too many people's health at risk and just getting worse.

HS345 06-17-2009 08:49 AM

1 Attachment(s)
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has released a preliminary report of a portion of the proposed health care plan, mind you that the CBO only analyzed the portion available to them, even with that the cost is expected to be one trillion dollars. :drevil:That's trillion, with a great big T.

The CBO also estimates that for our one trillion dollars we would only reduce the number of uninsured Americans by 16 million over a ten year period. You do the math. :cry:

Also, remember that part B.O. spoke of about getting to keep the health insurance you have today? Not true, according to the CBO report. CBO projects that 15 million people would get pushed out of their job based plans and into the so called “gateways” run by the states. That number will go much higher when the bill includes the promised “government option.”

There is some good news though, the CBO expects the gummint will collect about 2 billion dollars over ten years, in penalties against those who don't purchase government approved health insurance. That will certainly go a long way toward helping to defray the trillion dollar price tag. :rolleyes:

sandbagger 06-17-2009 10:45 AM

Quote:

Health care is the only business I could ever see the government actively competing in.
Sorry, Ben, that's just naive. The government does not compete in anything. The government dictates.

"Competition" is what happens between businesses. In order to survive every business must constantly examine its business model and how it operates. The government doesn't have a business model. It doesn't care if it's not efficient. The government doesn't have to worry about that line of credit with the bank. The gov't doesn't have to worry about profit and loss. And it certainly doesn't have to worry about those silly, recalcitrant shareholders.

Big Governmnt IS the problem. Now we want Big Government to come to the rescue?? :bang: :bang:

Aquera 06-17-2009 11:15 AM

2 cents from a Canadian here

I've always wondered why some Americans seem so against, or even scared of socialized health care - your other essential services like police and fire are already socialized, why not health care?

anyways, I know our system isn't perfect, however I will say that when we get sick, the last think we think about is money. (my dad is just getting over cancer, is medication costs maybe ten bucks a month, and that's the expensive part) I consider it a gift to be able to focus on getting better and that's it. The real kicker I would think is the "pre existing condition" stuff - you have a baby born with some rare disease and all of a sudden the family financially ruined - it just doesn't seem right.

In this thread I've picked up on some resistance to "paying for other people's health care" - please remember that your society consists of everyone, and any trauma that's a result of sickness will impact everyone. There is a HUGE price to having unhealthy people on your streets, and a huge toll paid by hard working families who suffer because of health insurance policy. You all get your taxes together and pay to be safe and not on fire, why not all get together and take away each others pain...

HS345 06-17-2009 11:22 AM

Mike, the ten bucks is the expensive part? Really?

What kind of taxes are you paying?

I have heard many, many horror stories about Canada's, and others national health care. No thanks, I'll take my chances with the imperfect system we have here, that is, if I have a choice. :shake:

LadyGodiva 06-17-2009 11:40 AM

Why is there always a focus on the horror stories of health care in Canada and never on the good stuff?

Meanwhile, we have how many millions of folks without health care in the US? I guess that's better than the systems in Europe and Canada, huh? Way to go Greg. You are a true believer.

How many folks have lost their homes due to illnesses that their existing insurance won't cover? I guess you missed that documentary recently? I won't even bother looking for links. They're there, do the search. Quit putting down other systems when ours is not even humane.

HS345 06-17-2009 11:45 AM

Should we ignore the horror stories?

If there are so many uninsured LG, then I guess you're against Obama's proposed plan, yes? Estimates show it will only reduce the uninsured by 16 million over 10 years, at a cost of one trillion dollars.

I know liberals don't like to be bothered with reality, but how will we pay for that?

jgleason 06-17-2009 12:01 PM

Duh Greg, we pay for it by printing more money. :D

LadyGodiva 06-17-2009 12:02 PM

Why do you and a few others ALWAYS bring up Liberals in a discussion? What's the obesession? Do you think that we are not able to think past our political affiliation?:scratch:

We need universal coverage.

jgleason 06-17-2009 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyG
We need universal coverage.

No thanks, I don't want to be paying for any Martians. :moon:

HS345 06-17-2009 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe
Duh Greg, we pay for it by printing more money.

Oh yeah. What was I thinking. :dunce:

HS345 06-17-2009 12:13 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by LG
Why do you and a few others ALWAYS bring up Liberals in a discussion? What's the obesession?

Uhhhhh, because it's relevant? :shrug:

No obsession, just logic. :D

jgleason 06-17-2009 12:25 PM

I don't understand the need for universal coverage. Why stop at health care? Maybe we should all just work as hard as we do and turn all of our money over to the government who can then redistribute it to everyone in a fair and equitable manner.

I used to envision a world where money was no longer necessary, it was quite a utopia. I live in the real world though and life isn't fair. Some people prefer not to work at all and thus contribute nothing to society.

HS345 06-17-2009 12:29 PM

As an interesting aside, Obama's father believed taxation of 100% of income would be just fine and dandy.
Quote:

“Theoretically,” he wrote, “there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed.”
"Dreams From My Father"? Kinda makes you go, hmmmmmmmmm.

Aquera 06-17-2009 12:30 PM

yes we pay taxes - but the cost we pay for health care is a lot less then what you pay (although yours is better in some ways - basically you don't have to wait for anything where as we may have to wait for non essential surgery sometimes)

I heard a thing on the radio a few weeks ago - I guess in the last 10 years or so, 6 or 7 Canadians lives were probably saved because they were able to go to the US and pay for surgery they would of had to wait for in Canada. When you consider how many millions of people die of totally preventable disease and car accidents, 6 or 7 in 10 years means squat.... the funny part is that these same 6 or 7 people have been paid by American lobbyist groups to do radio adds explaining how the Canadian system failed them..

I don't think the US should copy the Canadian system, there are WAY more efficient systems in Europe. Know that your system isn't humane, and that you're paying way too much for it.

HS345 06-17-2009 12:35 PM

Part of the reason our system is broken, is because it is too humane. We spend billions on health care for illegal aliens in this country. How much strain does that put on our system? :bonk:

jgleason 06-17-2009 12:39 PM

How is our system not humane? If you are sick you will get treatment regardless of your insurance. Just show up at any emergency room, they can't turn you away if you are ill. They may stabilize you and transfer you to a community hospital but you will get treatment.

ob1kanobee 06-17-2009 12:43 PM

Republican Enjoys Paying Huge Health Insurance Premiums
 
http://www.theonion.com/content/radi..._enjoys_paying

Funny 45 second clip........................

sandbagger 06-17-2009 01:06 PM

Mike - who do you think is really paying for that Canadien medication? :uhh: I'm talking about the total cost - not what the Canadian guvmint claims (ie, the phony guvmint-dictated price).

Your friends in the US are subsidizing your healthcare. The vast majority of the R&D is done in the US. How many of those chemo miracle drugs were developed in Canada? or France? or Britain?

and btw, I saw some data recently on cancer survival. Turns out that for the two most common forms of cancer - prostate and breast - the survival rate in Canada and Britain is about 60%. It is over 90% in the US. But not to worry, Obama will apologize and bring us down to your level. :cry:

ob1kanobee 06-17-2009 01:18 PM

Art here is an article bout it:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...16?hub=MSNHome

My only question is if those high survival rates are indicative of people in the U.S. who have good health insurance.

If it doesn't matter, then what about the medical bill you get in the mail for a million dollars that you now have to pay.

You also just pulled what stood out to you in the article. Read the whole thing. It is still good odds for U.S but I think your taking just one element out of the article so here is the whole thing for people to read.

sandbagger 06-17-2009 01:21 PM

LadyG, you never cease to amaze and amuse, but this one is classic.

First you ask
Quote:

Do you think that we are not able to think past our political affiliation?
and before we can formulate a response, lo and behold you answer the question for us with
Quote:

We need universal coverage.
:rofl: :lol1: :bang: :bang:

(obviously your first question was rhetorical)

HS345 06-17-2009 01:22 PM

I didn't read the whole article yet Ben, but do you actually expect me to believe this statement? Seriously.
Quote:

For breast cancer, Cuba had the highest survival rates -- another country with free health care. The United States was second, and Canada was third, with 82 per cent of women surviving at least five years.
How would one get an accurate count on cancer survival rates in Cuba?

sandbagger 06-17-2009 01:43 PM

Greg - if you starve before the cancer gets you it doesn't count.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:13 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2018 John Bridge & Associates, LLC