advertisement

The world-famous Internet site of the Nationally Syndicated Neal Boortz Show!

Search Boortz.com
Enter search terms:
Browse Boortz.com
Today's Nuze

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it."

Frederic Bastiat

THE REAL COSTS OF THIS BAUCUS BILL

By
Neal Boortz
@ October 13, 2009 8:21 AM Permalink | Comments (90) | TrackBacks (0)

Today the Senate Finance Committee is going to vote on Max Baucus' healthcare bill. Can't you just taste the excitement among the American people? Right .... I guarantee you that more people know how their college football team did over the weekend then know what is going on in Washington. But if this Baucus bill passes committee, we can get things cranking in the full Senate on this healthcare charade.

If you are still one of these Americans who believes that the Democrats want to reform healthcare in order to save your wallet, I would bet dollars to doughnuts that you were educated in a government school. It's ok. There's still some hope for you ... after all, you ARE reading Nealz Nuze. So for one last ditch effort, I am going to provide you some details on how this Baucus bill will not decrease healthcare costs for you and your family. In fact, quite the opposite.

A health insurance industry trade group by the name of PricewaterhouseCoopers just released a study about the Baucus bill. Now let's stop right there for a minute. The Democrats immediately discount this study because of two reasons. First of all, it comes from the evil, filthy insurance industry. Secondly, because it was released just days before the Senate committee vote on the bill. For these reasons, the Democrats are brushing aside these findings, claiming that they are illegitimate. Illegitimate? Tell that to the families that are going to be paying the increased costs for these Democrat dreams and schemes!

Of course they would want to try and cut the legs off of a report like this, because it found that the Baucus bill will actually INCREASE the cost of private insurance coverage over the years. Here are some of the details thanks to NRO's The Corner:

This analysis shows that the cost of the average family coverage is approximately $12,300 today and could be expected to increase to approximately:

- $15,500 in 2013 under current law and to $17,200 if these provisions are implemented.

- $18,400 in 2016 under current law and to $21,300 if these provisions are implemented.

- $21,900 in 2019 under current law and to $25,900 if these provisions are implemented.

This analysis shows that the cost of the average single coverage is $4,600 today and could be expected to increase to:

- $5,800 in 2013 under current law and to $6,400 if these provisions are implemented.

- $6,900 in 2016 under current law and to $7,900 if these provisions are implemented.

- $8,200 in 2019 under current law and to $9,700 if these provisions are implemented.

Just think about that, folks. The cumulative increase for a typical family would be over $20,000 over the next ten years. What could you do with that money? What could you invest in with that money? What could you purchase? Instead, it will be wrapped up in paying more for your healthcare just so some ego-driven politician can get his picture at a signing ceremony for this healthcare bill. Just so he can buy votes from the moocher class that will allow him to stay in office with all the perks and the prestige he currently enjoys.

Categories:

Tags:

Main Index | Archives | RSS feed

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: THE REAL COSTS OF THIS BAUCUS BILL.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://boortz.com/blogging/mt-tb.cgi/46668

Jamie Dupree's Blog

If you enjoy Neal's daily chat with Jamie Dupree, you'll love Jamie's Blog! Check it out for analysis of the campaigns and goings on in Washington D.C.

Cristina Gonzalez and Laura Nunemaker assist in the daily preparation of Nealz Nuze!

Avg. rating: N/A

What others are saying

  • retwisted
    way to avoid the subject!

    nice job!
    By snarkybiird @ 10/14/09 04:42:53 PMreport abuse
  • How cute
    "sorry dude, anyone who touts their IQ doesnt have one. It's been proven." --Snarkybird

    Well, there it is folks. I guess that settles it. I'll just shut up now.

    I guess that's kind of like Al Gore's statement, "The debate is over."

    Very cute, and without substance.
    By Twistedsaint @ 10/14/09 03:32:48 PMreport abuse
  • lawlessness
    What part of a mandate, through force of government with a $25,000 tax and one year in prison, enforced by the IRS is voluntary? What part of Pg 58 - Govt will have real-time access to individuals' finances & a National ID Health card will be issued and Pg 59 at lines 21-24 - Govt will have direct access to your bank accounts for elective funds transfer is voluntary???????????
    FYI....I was merely using the wench as an example, though a poor one to make a point but,...I personally have family members that have abused the system to collect hundreds of thousands of dollars of fraudulent money, through deliberate actions taken to get money they never earned nor where they hurt permanently in any way. That does not include their welfare fraud, to the tune of over 152,240 each year alone for 4 people, and that doesn't include Medicare, Medicaid, schipps, and wic pay outs each year.
    I reported them to the authorities and then governor Chiles at the time. Not only did they do nothing (government) the government rewarded them all with their needs and care taken care of by the taxpayers because they are ill....new definition for crack heads, that plotted falling down and accidents to milk us all. These are 3 of my siblings and 1 nephew and it continues to this day. You and I pay for this crap, and there is a lot more where this came from about 25% of the population.
    The system is set up so that most doctors, companies, municipalities, states, counties etc...would rather pay out then spend millions more defending themselves.
    As to tort reform....lawyers out there that make a living filing extortion based fraudulent lawsuits should be stopped, with a loser pay system, which is also part of tort reform. I don't personally know how to stop predatory lawyers from siphoning from their clients, money they truly need and deserve, through blackmail so to speak, do you?
    Creek Woman
    By Jamsey Comes Looking @ 10/14/09 01:52:37 PMreport abuse
  • retwisted
    sorry dude, anyone who touts their IQ doesnt have one. It's been proven.

    the "mindset" I'm ascribing to sees a problem. You prefer the solution to be more of the same (by that I mean, the solutions offered (state line item, tort reform, etc) are straw men both because they have either already been tried to no effect on the problem or they are actively opposed by the forces that provide insurance (insurance companies DONT WANT to be able to have competition - they like things the way they are!)

    There are two problems at play here - coverage and cost.

    As I posted previously, insurance markets are not like other markets. There is no consumer power to exert on costs. No choices to help exert that power. And no alternatives for chosing to opt out (ie, people still get sick and still need care with or without insurance).

    the insurance "racket" works because you spread out costs across a large group of users and work the margins of care/service to reduce costs and maximize profits.

    SO, first - reform is needed and given in the bill up for consideration.

    second, a govt plan would introduce a player in the market that would have the power to impact price. it would not be mandatory. but an option for low cost, basic service.

    but this is called a "govt takeover"?

    this is citizenry acting through their representative republic to create positive change in a market that is not serving its customers where those customers have no other recourse.
    By snarkybird @ 10/14/09 09:36:54 AMreport abuse
  • @Snarky
    "you sir, are a genius!"--Snarkybird

    Actually, I have an IQ of 140, so that is correct.

    In response to the rest fo your post,you are clearly thinking with emotion and not logic, and of the mindset that we need government control over everything because we are too dumb to think for ourselves.

    Ayn Rand was a genius, too. Let's just say I ascribe to her logic, and not thinking that is clouded with emotion and rhetoric.
    By Twistedsaint @ 10/14/09 08:39:30 AMreport abuse
  • Health care
    Me and my child have health care. My girlfriend (the mother) does not. If this bill passes, my insurance costs go up and she will be forced to pay for insurance. This bill will hurt us financially big time.
    By Bulldada @ 10/13/09 08:43:39 PMreport abuse
  • Government Interveion in HC Part 2
    From Democrats public statements, one would have guessed they were no friend of large Health Insurance firms but their actions indicate that they are actually one of their biggest supporters! If they truly wanted to squeeze the “Evil” Health Insurance industry and bring insurance costs down they would force them to compete for our business not deliver it to them on a silver platter!

    Finally, a large driver of costs in Health Insurance and medical treatment is simply due to an aging population. There are a huge number of baby boomers who make up a large portion of the Health Care customer base (80 of 135 million), so naturally their increasing costs of medical care must be passed on other policy holders. Again, Democrats so-called "solutions" does nothing to address meeting the demand which is the true underlying cost driver! Unless Democrats are prepared to outlaw aging, we should be looking at ways to increase the supply of Medical services and empowering patients to act as cost conscious consumers not simply forcing more people to dump more money in the pot. Democrats support of the Individual Mandate forces the young and healthy to buy more Health Insurance then they may need or want to cover the costs for the old and sick. Again, this is a very disingenuous and coercive way to simply paper over the problem and simply props up the worst features of the present system.
    By JGL @ 10/13/09 07:44:44 PMreport abuse
  • Government Intervention IS the problem!
    "High health care costs are causing cuts in benefits and increases in premiums, adding to the ranks of the uninsured at alarming rates."

    Government Intervention at the state and federal level are one of the primary causes of this – and you propose to vast increase this government intervention! The continued underpayment by the Federal government from the Medicare program is at present made up for by medical providers by passing the losses they are forced to take treating Medicare patients on to Private Health Insurance firms and self-payers in the form of higher billings for similar treatments. For privately insured individuals, this is reflected in higher premium costs. None of the proposals you support would change this dynamic in the least. In fact, Democratic support of the Individual Mandate provision would simply accelerate and worsen this trend. I can see where this is good thing from the perspective of a Washington politician but this is very bad for average Americans.

    Several state government policies which basically prohibit Health Insurance companies from offering a full range of policies and pricing based on risk has also lead to skyrocketing costs. Rules such as one-size-fits all "community rating" laws to equalize pricing and mandatory coverage of everything from Mental Illness to sex changes have effectively turned Health Insurance companies into pre-paid medical plan administrators. Democrats propose to take this bad trend and the state level and elevate it to federal law. Again, this will cause prices to skyrocket.

    Next, the lack of a truly competitive Health Insurance market effectively eliminates the possibility for price competition. Several states have laws and regulation such as I cited above that basically keep smaller Health Insurance firms from entering into that state’s market. This had led to a proliferation of several state semi-monopoly markets for large Health Insurance firms. Democrats support of a Federal Health Insurance “Exchange” concept would basically take these bad state policies and make it Federal law. In essence, Democrats advocate the creation of a national Health Insurance Monopoly for in your support of the so-called "Exchange" idea - only the biggest and wealthiest firms can afford to compete. This will have the effect of reducing competition and choice and push costs ever upwards. And to make matters worse, Democrats give these large and wealthy Health Insurance firms millions of unearned customers thru your support of the Individual Mandate! The experiment with Mandatory Insurance in MA, TN, and HI has shown that costs will soar under this kind of scheme.
    By JGL @ 10/13/09 07:43:57 PMreport abuse
  • The Night They Drove the Old Republic Down
    On 11/04/2010 I hope we can begin to stop the madness of this government’s and our wonderful Federal Reserve’s third world banana republic economic policies but I am losing faith. I’m beginning to think that GWF (gold, whiskey, and firearms) three things that never lose their value no matter how bad it gets are my only chance for survival. And of course survival is never guaranteed in chaotic situations.

    Maybe we will avoid the worst case scenario, an inflationary depression. But I think the American people are about to learn a bitter lesson.

    How did that song go? “Now I don’t mind choppin’ wood, and I don’t care if the money’s no good…”
    By gxm @ 10/13/09 04:48:39 PMreport abuse
  • @Owen
    Right you are. You're the only one on this board who caught that subtle nuance....
    By $mooth Operator @ 10/13/09 04:36:28 PMreport abuse
  • rejoyce
    You said "And TruthIgnorer, some clocks just never move again so like you, they NEVER get it right."

    LOL! This just really says all I need to know about your intellectual power joyce.

    think about a clock - frozen on say, 12:30. Guess how many times that clock would actually be correct.

    thank you joyce - this was classic!!
    By snarkybird @ 10/13/09 04:29:10 PMreport abuse
  • Health Care Reform is needed...
    I'm not in favor of a public option but when you have health insurance companies denying people coverage over silly reasons, a whole state is given to only two insurance companies for coverage, people having to file bankruptcy even if they do have insurance and several other non-regulated injustices that occur within this industry, what the hell do you expect? Eventually, the insurance companies are going to screw enough people or the wrong one and now their balloon is going to get popped.

    They have paid multi-millions to politicians for protection, most Republican, and now no amount can protect them.

    All I can say is, if the insurance companies had been running their industry in an ethical manner, they could have still made a fair profit but I think their greed, hell yeah, their greed has come home to roost.
    By Patriot til' Death @ 10/13/09 04:13:55 PMreport abuse
  • fer instanz
    http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters7fd8
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 10/13/09 03:48:42 PMreport abuse
  • WALLY-WORLD HOSPITAL?????
    I will admit I'm not a big fan of wal-mart butt.............

    they sure know how to provide a service to millions of folks......

    healthScare from the gubmint is not going to be good for anyone 'cept peeple in gubmint.......

    I'm sure wal-mart could and maybe should get into the medical field.....of course all the services and providers will be MADE IN CHINA butt what the hell.........so is everything else.....'cept our presidunce....Kenyan??????
    By butt neckid @ 10/13/09 03:48:27 PMreport abuse
  • yay!
    bill passed committee

    ""Senate Panel Clears Health Bill With One G.O.P. Vote

    The Senate Finance Committee voted on Tuesday to approve
    legislation that would reshape the American health care
    system and provide subsidies to help millions of people buy
    insurance, as Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine,
    joined all 13 Democrats on the panel in support of the
    landmark bill. The vote was 14 to 9, with all of the other
    Republicans opposed.""
    By snarkybird @ 10/13/09 03:35:20 PMreport abuse
  • mefein
    walmart has power. it has power over its suppliers because of it's size and scope.

    and through that power, it keeps prices down.

    gee, who could be so big as to be able to impact the health insurance market like that?
    By snarkybird @ 10/13/09 03:31:25 PMreport abuse
  • I like football AND politics.
    Iowa beat Michigan this past Saturday AND Maine Senator Olympia Snowe voted for this turd. Am I the paragon of the informed citizenry?
    By Christopher Calandro @ 10/13/09 03:22:17 PMreport abuse
  • In big government we trust.
    Lets just let group think fix it all for us. Bureaucracies know best, both private sector and government sector. Especially government sector. Free thinking, free choice leads us into dangerous innovations that threaten government progress and societal stability. Almost all those technologies are around because government made it happen. I just can't find the legislation that MADE it happen.

    This Baucus Bill will result in more innovation and better medical solutions by putting government bureaucrats in charge instead of insurance bureaucrats.

    Snarkybird, Truthseeker, Jimmy Dolan, help me out here. While private bureaucracies usually muddle things up, innovation is always better under government involvement. I just need examples of government innovations far outweighing private innovations. That way I can show that innovations will INCREASE as government size INCREASES!!

    The problem I find is that a majority of patents at the US Patent Office are held by private citizens and private companies.

    Also, rumors abound that many people don't like innovating under government R&D contracts and bureaucracies or company bureaucracies, since they don't get patent rights, or even much in royalties for their efforts. Clearly these engineers and other innovators are being selfish to want recognition for their efforts. People from Intel, DOE, DOD, Bechtel, PNNL, Fluor Daniel, McDonnell Douglas, Boeing, MicroSoft, and smaller companies told me that over the years. What a strange pattern... they want rewards for free thinking. They should trust bureaucracies, especially government.

    All those countries with universal health care have the BEST technologies and the best talent.... because government bureaucracies made it that way. I just can't find examples that back that up.

    Long live bureaucracies and government!! Think for us ALL!!!
    By Ken in Washington (left Oregon) @ 10/13/09 03:18:34 PMreport abuse
  • Health Care
    Under all of the gift wrapping this bill as all the others is just another example of the receiver(no net income paid) class wanting more handouts from the provider class (those who pay taxes), and a enabler class (government) more than willing to take the provider's money as to keep themselves in power
    By booger @ 10/13/09 03:11:54 PMreport abuse
  • "Yet"
    remefein
    your point assumes there is competition now and a market that creates incentives to lower costs. It doesnt exist now. There is no Insurance wal-mart out there.

    Yet.
    By snarkybird

    There would be if we eliminated state line restrictions, put in tort reform. In fact I bet WalMart would be chomping at the bit!

    And TruthIgnorer, some clocks just never move again so like you, they NEVER get it right. Sorry, but with that progressive crap you lost all credibility with me.
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 10/13/09 03:11:43 PMreport abuse
  • Wal Mart
    "There is no Insurance wal-mart out there."

    Wal Mart succeeds because it runs efficiently. It runs efficiently because it is spending its own money. It is the antithesis of government. Your point assumes that government would be fair competition. It wouldn't.

    As Mises pointed out long ago, government interventionism can only hurt an economy. Do you know something he didn't?
    By MeFein @ 10/13/09 03:09:12 PMreport abuse
  • remefein
    your point assumes there is competition now and a market that creates incentives to lower costs.

    It doesnt exist now.

    There is no Insurance wal-mart out there.

    Yet.
    By snarkybird @ 10/13/09 02:59:01 PMreport abuse
  • Public option and competition
    Snark, you can't be serious claiming the public option will stimulate competition. A public option will have sources of revenue no private insurer has: captive taxpayers, the U.S. Treasury, and the Federal Reserve. Do you mean to tell me this won’t permit the government program to engage in cutthroat competition and predatory pricing against the private insurers? And let’s not forget that it will be government that dictates what products the private companies can sell. Whatever happened to a "level playing field"?
    By MeFein @ 10/13/09 02:39:25 PMreport abuse
  • rejamescomelkng
    the example you cite - that award was reduced by the judge using normal means - no reform needed - to much, much, MUCH less. thousands...

    Tort reform has already passed in most states and costs were uneffected.

    You want to hitch your wagon to the idea that we reduce FDA involvement and also decrease the threat of lawsuits, you're begging for disaster
    By snarkybird @ 10/13/09 02:30:32 PMreport abuse
  • Even a Broken Clock is Right Twice a Day
    I agree with Joyce about one thing. If we're going to pay for an illegal's treatment in an emergency room, he or she should be arrested and deported immediately thereafter. That's what I would expect if I were in another country illegally, so I don't see why it should be any different here.

    Jamsey -- I'm afraid you don't understand how "tort reform" works. In Texas, Georgia and most other states that have it, it most definitely cap the amount of money a patient can collect. Essentially, it caps "non-economic damages." What that means is if a doctor neglegently kills your kid, you can't sue because you didn't suffer any "economic damages."
    By TruthSeeker @ 10/13/09 02:30:05 PMreport abuse
  • rejoyce
    joyce, the problem is in theory, you're right.

    it's when you put it into practice that is falls apart.

    no hospital wants this or could do it well.

    better to enforce these laws through other means.
    By snarkybird @ 10/13/09 02:26:57 PMreport abuse
  • Jamsey Comes Looking
    just like your stealing from those lawyers from your tort reform?

    "Tort reform sets a cap on the amount of money a lawyer can get...". sounds anti-capitalist to me.
    By tshirt-doctor.com @ 10/13/09 02:23:58 PMreport abuse
  • @Frank Sanders
    Frank - didn't want you to feel left out.

    You advanced an opinion, so here is my opinion which is equally (if not more) qualified than yours.

    I am also a Canadian. Lived in Canada for 37 years. Developed Type I diabetes at age 19. As Neal likes to say, for those of you educated in public schools, that means I was treated by the Canadian health care system as a diabetic for 19 years.

    I know personally what it is like to spend days in an ER hallway because there is no bed in the hospital. Been there, done that.

    i also know that I have been in the US for 10 years, and guess what. Contrary to your opinion, I have had health insurance the entire time. Fact, not opinion. Gee, with a pre-existing condition and everything. But according to Frank that is impossible.

    Want to discuss quality of care Frank? Since you are from Canada, why dont you inform everyone here what "Ward" rooms are? You remember, the type of hospital accomodation the Canadian health system pays for. Well since you choose to ignore it, "ward" means 8 in a room. If you want semi-private rooms in Canada guess what, you have to have supplemental private health insurance. Much better system, isnt it Frank.

    Did you ever get a presecription filled in Canada Frank? Covered by the great Canadian health care system right? WRONG. Private insurance is needed for that too. Dental? Private Ins.

    Everyone has heard the stories about access to doctors, specialists and operations in Canada. All true. This is better???

    The one aspect of health care that has not gathered media attention is access to leading edge treatments. As I mentioned above, I was treated by endocrinologists in Canada for 19 years. Within 6 months of moving to the US, I had an insulin pump and my diabetes control improved 100%. Insulin pump?? They had been on the market for 15 years before I moved to the US, but I NEVER had an endocrinologist even mention it as an option for me in Canada.

    Fact is Frank, one of the most imporatant reasons I moved to the US was health care. You are correct, the US has the best health care in the world, and I wanted in on it.

    And that is my opinion
    By D @ 10/13/09 02:23:41 PMreport abuse
  • @snarkybutt
    Tort reform sets a cap on the amount of money a lawyer can get, not the patient, that is truely injured by malpractice; IT will begin the end of fraudulent lawsuits with loser pay legislation. And yes it will cap what a patient can sue for in re: to small claims, like billions of dollars awarded for that cup of spilled coffee that wench spilled on herself. Sounds good to me, who do you think pays for that crap others and myself here. Obviously not you right? You sound like you have no problem stealing from others.
    Creek Woman
    By Jamsey Comes Looking @ 10/13/09 02:07:18 PMreport abuse
  • Snark
    Don't be facetious, you know exactly what I mean. I guess you would rather have an even BIGGER bureaucracy to just take care of everyone.

    And think for a moment (I know it's hard), if illegals thought they might get turned in MAYBE they would GO HOME.
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 10/13/09 02:04:11 PMreport abuse
  • @truthseeker
    Big difference in re: to car insurance. First you need a drivers license and a car. If you use mass transit, a bicycle or walk it is NOT mandatory.
    Second, it is NOT INFORCED BY THE IRS.
    Third, if you don't have car insurance, you lose your drivers license not your car, home or bank account: see how thats working out for all the illegals that refuse to buy car insurance....are they in jail?.....is their property being seized?....are they going to jail? No....no and no.

    Big difference.

    Fourth and lastly, upon passage (date of signature) of this BS healthcare reform, NO NEW policies can be written. After 5 years everyone must be signed up with the public option and/or pay a fine of $25,000 and one year in prison. The IRS can civilly take your earnings and your home as well.

    Which is why on Pg 58 - Govt will have real-time access to individuals' finances & a National ID Healthcard will be issued

    Pg 59 at lines 21-24 - Govt will have direct access to your bank accounts for elective funds transfer deductions begining in Jan. 2010.

    However, services do not begin until 2013. Wow, so much for a crisis and those poor poor people that will die if we don't do this today!!!! I quess they forgot about the many that will die from now until 2013 huh?

    What the hell do you think public option and /or single payer means????
    It means government is the single payer, and public mandated option means, taxpayers paying for everything, government makes no money, and produces nothing but parasites.

    Obviously, you progressives and your kind, must be parasites that can't take care of your own business and you need government to steal from someone else to pay for your incompetence and or slothness.
    Creek Woman
    By Jamsey Comes Looking @ 10/13/09 01:54:29 PMreport abuse
  • rejoyce
    You said "But for the walk in illegals, if not life threatening, turn them away, even if life threatening, treat them, then call immigration to deal with them."

    Absolutely!! let that guy or gal take up space, make the hospital be responsible for containing that person while they wait on immigration. Which, I am sure, would be there SUPER fast. Let's come up with a myriad of new regulations to enforce immigration laws through the ER.

    you too, are brilliant!

    "If not life threatening" LOL! truly, you are on a roll here!

    "doc, my side hurts"..."Are you bleeded?" "no" "are you an illegal"..."yes" "BYE!"

    headline: Man found dead of burst appendix outside ER, details at 11.

    Hospitals would LOVE to see that on the news!

    gold star for joyce!
    By snarkybird @ 10/13/09 01:49:43 PMreport abuse
  • Phil
    i was just answering a question "Since when has the Government had the right to tell what you have to buy?".
    By tshirt-doctor.com @ 10/13/09 01:37:20 PMreport abuse
  • The "real" cost of the Bogus Baucus Bull?
    How in tarnation would anybody know how much this sucker'll likely cost - the best parts of this bill (of goods) has yet to be written - our elected representatives are going to vote a blank check ... WTF, it's not like it's THEIR money, it's not THEIR health care (the part that's been written specifically excludes our elected representatives).

    The lyrics to "Whiskey for my men, and beer for my horses" by Toby Keith keep running through my head.

    Any lawyers out there care to sue Congress for malpractice?
    By Jubilation T Cornpone @ 10/13/09 01:36:12 PMreport abuse
  • Oh snark
    Don't be ridiculous, no one is advocating turning down life threatening conditions such as your gunshot (good shot btw).

    Yes there could be changes in FDA.

    And yes, eliminating state line restrictions could be mandated by the Federal Government, lobbyists wouldn't have a choice, we need to quit giving them so much power anyway.

    But for the walk in illegals, if not life threatening, turn them away, even if life threatening, treat them, then call immigration to deal with them.

    We do NOT need yet another big government bureaucracy to intrude into our lives and increase taxes and get so big it needs constant infusions like all the other goverment programs.
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 10/13/09 01:33:31 PMreport abuse
  • re-Joyce -- again :O)
    i hope that comes true. but our congressmen will have to get permission from they're lobbyist masters to vote on it. i don't think they'll get permission though.
    By tshirt-doctor.com @ 10/13/09 01:33:05 PMreport abuse
  • @ tshirt-doctor.com @ 10/13/09 12:45:52 PM

    Since you like comparing auto insurance to ObamaSCare, why is Blue Cross Blue Shield split into small companies by State, but Geico as a whole is allowed to operate in all 50 States?
    By Phil @ 10/13/09 01:23:17 PMreport abuse
  • retwisted
    You said "...Insurance mandates, state line restrictions, FDA restrictions and requirements, requirements that hospitals take care of anyone that walks in, Medicare and Medicaid driving costs up because they don't pay enough to actually reimburse expenses....and that's just off the top of my head."

    Do you really think insurance companies lobby to remove state line restrictions? really? if so, are you naive enough to think, if they wanted those removed, that they wouldn't be able to get it done? really?

    FDA?? Oh yes, please - let's take the FDA out of the equation. That's a fabulous idea! Can't see any problems there. Better yet - enact tort reform along with that one! YES!! Then companies can cut costs, put the public at risk, and the public can't hold their feet to the only fire they know ($$) when they are injured or killed. Awesome!

    Requirement that hospitals take care of anyone - LOL! yes! also Awesome! Better yet, make them show ID to prove they are a citizen! So, I'm an american - I can then walk out on the street and shoot some dude I think or know is an illegal. He shoots me back. We both go to the ER and then HAHA! I get through the door and live and he's left to die! Or EVEN BETTER! Guy brings his kid in who has the swine flu... refused treatment... oh well, guess he goes home. ANd his kid dies.... but who cares? ideaology has been served. We've done the "right" thing and refused treatement.

    you sir, are a genius!
    By snarkybird @ 10/13/09 01:18:48 PMreport abuse
  • Doc - again
    Why is health insurance the only business that has an exemption from the Sherman Anti-Trust Act other than Major League Baseball? because they don't like competition? which is why they paid their lobbyists to get our congressmen to get the public option killed.
    By tshirt-doctor.com

    Allow competition across state lines and that would take care of it. And yes, it could be done, since each company could have it's own charts for coverage in other states. A company in North Carolina selling a policy for someone in New York for instance would be more expensive than the policies they sell for people in NC BUT probably still cheaper than policies bought from a company in New York.
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 10/13/09 01:18:35 PMreport abuse
  • Doc
    toothseeker
    car insurance comes to mind...
    By tshirt-doctor.com

    That is between the state and the finance companies. State laws are a lot easier to monitor and change, Federal laws are impossible.
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 10/13/09 01:13:08 PMreport abuse
  • Tony
    you see, i am a hard core libertarian. to me they're ain't no difference in forcing me to buy car insurance or forcing me to buy health insurance.
    By tshirt-doctor.com @ 10/13/09 01:11:45 PMreport abuse
  • Where do you come up with yours Truth?
    Where Do You Guys Come Up With This Stuff? (Oh yeah, from Talk Radio)
    Toothseeker -- The government would not "tell you what you have to buy." That's why it's called an OPTION.

    It is NOT an OPTION if you will be penalized which is what they are proposing.

    This is unconstitutional period. No matter how good they paint it, it ain't legal. And I hope it goes all the way to the Supreme Court, then we'll see if those judges actually know their constitution. No social justice, just the facts.
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 10/13/09 01:11:30 PMreport abuse
  • public option makes it more of a free market
    http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/10/a_free_market_case_for_the_public_option.php

    ""Something like televisions exist in a free market because consumers, if they don't like any of the new TVs on the market, can simply keep their old one. If they really don't like the market, they can even forgo owning one altogether; it will make you unpopular on game day, but it won't risk your life. Insurance is different. Anyone with a sense of basic self-preservation has no choice but to buy health insurance every single month. You cannot opt out, there are few options to choose from, and it's difficult to know how to price your future risk of injury. So health insurance companies have distorted incentives to innovate or provide a more cost-effective product.

    A public option would, crazy as it might sound, make health insurance a free market. If there exists a government-run plan, which by all accounts would be basic and geared towards affordability, consumers will have the ability to opt out of the private insurance market. Private providers would finally have real incentives to provide a better product and innovate by building an insurance plan stronger than public insurance. Fears that a public option might decree certain treatments "not cost-effective," which are not as outlandish as some liberals think, should delight free-market conservatives because it would be an opportunity for private insurers to step in. Worried you might develop a condition requiring $60,000 medication that no public option would ever include? Buy a blinged-out private plan that, for an increased premium, will.""
    By snarkybird @ 10/13/09 01:10:13 PMreport abuse
  • Truth
    Joyce -- The "public option" being proposed would only be availabe to 5% of the US population (those who couldn't get health insurance through their employers) and it wouldn't be funded by taxpayers (it would be paid by premiums). To the extent tas funds are used, it would be to subsidize low and moderate income families to purchase health insurance, whether via the public option or a private plan. So, if your beef is that we shouldn't use tax money to subsidize anyone's purchase of health insurance, I can actually appreciate that position, but don't confuse that with the public option.
    By TruthSeeker

    You DO have to look at both since we have yet to get answers to 1) once a person has improved their financial situation and can afford to go private will they be allowed to withdraw from the government plan?, 2) will we continue to cover illegals?, 3) will new employees in the coming years have the option to go public or private?, 4) if the "basic requirements for coverage" are not met by your current plan, can you upgrade or be forced to get government option?

    Depending on the answers to these questions, you could see private participation getting smaller (attrition) and public getting bigger.

    Putting your blinders on and not looking at both is putting too much faith in government that hasn't proven they can do anything right.

    And have you really studied what it means to be a progressive? So you support the Cloward Piven strategy?
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 10/13/09 01:07:03 PMreport abuse
  • @TruthIgnorer
    Why is Canada's system cheaper? It isn't...the true cost is buried in higher taxes, which won't show up in a "study."

    The other factors for higher costs in the US are ALL due to government meddling. Insurance mandates, state line restrictions, FDA restrictions and requirements, requirements that hospitals take care of anyone that walks in, Medicare and Medicaid driving costs up because they don't pay enough to actually reimburse expenses....and that's just off the top of my head.

    Come on, anyone that wants even MORE government involvement needs to educate themselves real fast. Government is never the solution. It is always the problem.

    The only people truly in favor of this plan are the deadbeats that are hoping to get other people to pay for their problems via government force.
    By Twistedsaint @ 10/13/09 01:05:28 PMreport abuse
  • toothseeker
    the governments still forcing you to buy something. that's what you asked for. i answered it. do be giving me those restriction now.
    By tshirt-doctor.com @ 10/13/09 01:02:30 PMreport abuse
  • Just remember: we call it the Pubic option because it will have everyone by the short curies
    Still wondering why they truthful about it, calling it the Pubic option and all.
    By Calamazoo @ 10/13/09 01:02:03 PMreport abuse
  • Re Truthbender
    Your 12:15 post is so wrong that it must be a parody, sadly I know it is not.

    When the government gets into "insurance" the private companies WILL cease to exist (probably about 2 years in - same way it happened in Canada originally) thus there will be NO OPTION.

    If our system is SOOO bad, why do people keep coming here to 1. Learn Medicine, 2. Get treated for the truly serious diseases? Answer: because we do cutting edge medicine really well, unfortunately that also means we pay for all the R&D that goes into developing cutting edge medicine. Any medical system is great, as long as you don't get sick.

    My group insurance through my company didn't even do a health review on me or my family, they just took us on. So, obviously there is a flaw in this whole "pre-existing problem" argument.

    As to the last point, if it is all funded through premiums, WHY IS IT GOING TO COST THE TAXPAYER MORE THAN 3/4 OF A TRILLION DOLLARS!!!

    The real issue with all of this is it is all about control. Progressives want a regulated society that eliminates the need to actually think about ones actions. If one simply follows the progressives rules, no one will get hurt. The problem is we may all as well be zoo animals, because we will have no freedom to fail or succeed based on our own drive and skills. No one will excel, because there will be no incentive to do so. 1984 is not a world I want to live in, and the only way this progressive stuff works is if we have no freedom to do anything other than the dictated policy. I do not love big brother nor do I wish him a toehold into my life.
    By Owen @ 10/13/09 12:59:07 PMreport abuse
  • Reply to James at 12:26:35 pm
    Yesterday in Neals Notes, there was a link to an article in the Wall St Journal by a retired resident in Mass. talking about their epxerience and the penalty they have to pay to Mass. becaus their policy through IBM has a higher deductible than the Mass. bureaucrats think is correct.
    By Kevin H @ 10/13/09 12:54:30 PMreport abuse
  • is he/she for reel???????
    TRUTHSEEKER..........your response to twisty is just dumbass........

    why does it cost more?????? cuz it's better than anywhere else you moron....and we gots to pay fo' our uninvited "GUESTS".........
    By butt neckid @ 10/13/09 12:50:50 PMreport abuse
  • TruthSeeker Where Do You Guys Come Up With This Stuff? (Oh yeah, from Talk Radio)
    When people or groups acquire power, they don't give it away easily. The Founding Fathers were quite worried about this which is why the Federal Government was divided into three branches.

    Since you like to mention that the government option is an option, you should remember that the Income Tax is "voluntary" and that Social Security was set up to be "voluntary".

    Now I do have a question for you. What happens if you decide that you did not want to pay Income or Social Security tax anymore?

    Governments by their nature are not benevolent. They are force as the Founding Fathers put it.
    By Libertarian Voter @ 10/13/09 12:49:54 PMreport abuse
  • So what your saying Seeker is....
    .....that if private ins is forced to take people that wait till the last second to by ins, that the premiums will not go up on those of us that have been paying all along?

    And are you telling me that there is no other way, none what so ever, that will fix this problem without the "PUBLIC OPTION"?

    And how long do you think itsgoing to take before goverment employers just put there people on the goverment plan?

    By the way slick, Medicare ain't that great a program, carried too many patients to the hosptial under medicare many of the patients hated it.
    By D.D. @ 10/13/09 12:48:28 PMreport abuse
  • The government would not "tell you what you have to buy." - LOL
    From the Baucus plan:

    "All plans must provide preventive and primary care, emergency services, hospitalization, physician services, outpatient services, day surgery and related anesthesia, diagnostic imaging and screenings (including X-rays), maternity and newborn care, pediatric services (including dental and vision), medical/surgical care, prescription drugs, radiation and chemotherapy, and mental health and substance abuse services ... In addition, plans could charge no cost-sharing (e.g., deductibles, copayments) ... for preventive care services ... Plans could also not include lifetime limits on coverage or annual limits on any benefits."

    Notice the word "must". It's on page 17 of the Baucus plan (http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/leg/LEG%202009/091609%20Americas_Healthy_Future_Act.pdf) if you are interested.

    "The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax (of between $750 and $3,800 per year depending on AGI).The excise tax would apply for any period for which the individual is not covered by a health insurance plan with the minimum required benefit"

    So, I can either buy a plan rife with coverages that I don't want or need, pay the hefty excise tax, or go to jail. But, yeah, the government isn't forcing me to buy anything.
    By Jay in Texas @ 10/13/09 12:48:19 PMreport abuse
  • Insurance
    toothseeker
    "car insurance comes to mind..."
    By tshirt-doctor.com

    Technically yes, but truthfully no. The government doesn't require you to drive a car, that is your decision. If you drive it on their roads, then yes in most all states, except WI, you need car insurance.

    Health insurance is different by saying if you want to live and breath in the US you need to buy their health insurance.

    The option is probably so they can't get sued, stating you don't have to take the option, but if you don't we'll just fine you and take your money either way.
    By Tony @ 10/13/09 12:48:09 PMreport abuse
  • Twistedsaint
    If our wonderful private health insurance companies "keep prices (and profits) low thanks to existing competition"

    the existing competition, huh?

    Maine, where Wellpoint controls 71% of the market.

    North Dakota, where Blue Cross controls 90% of the market.

    Arkansas, where Blue Cross Blue Shield controls 75% of the market.

    Alabama, where Blue Cross Blue Shield controls 83% of the market.

    http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/06/health_competition_map.html

    Why is health insurance the only business that has an exemption from the Sherman Anti-Trust Act other than Major League Baseball? because they don't like competition? which is why they paid their lobbyists to get our congressmen to get the public option killed.
    By tshirt-doctor.com @ 10/13/09 12:45:52 PMreport abuse
  • @ Lie-spewer Orwell would be proud! Only the government could call something you HAVE to buy, an “Option”
    Epic Logic Fail!!! #1

    Hey, that's just like the tax system being 'voluntary' – yeah, sure it is.

    Oh, and How do you KNOW that we ALL get this stuff from “Talk Radio “?

    The clear answer is that YOU DON'T.

    Epic Logic Fail!!! #2
    By toothseeker @ 10/13/09 12:42:06 PMreport abuse
  • TruthSeeker
    What you don't seem to realize is:

    We have the BEST health care in the WORLD!

    The people who would be considered uninsurable under the current or proposed systems are uninsurable for a reason. They have expensive, pre-existing conditions. These people are not looking for INSURANCE, they're looking for someone ELSE to pay for their problems. And NO, we as taxpayers DO NOT have an obligation to do that.

    So if the GOVERNMENT - meaning TAXPAYERS - take up the responsibility of paying for the medical expenses of these people, that isn't INSURANCE, that's a handout - which will become yet another entitlement.

    Bad idea - bad public policy.
    By DG in GA @ 10/13/09 12:38:42 PMreport abuse
  • voting on a concept is the same as voting on a bill
    Owen

    Your right,and they would all be eligible for a Nobel Prize
    By booger @ 10/13/09 12:35:06 PMreport abuse
  • @ tshirt-doctor.com Only if you own a car and drive it on the public roads.
    That example has already been debunked on several occasions, by thanks for playing.
    By toothseeker @ 10/13/09 12:32:19 PMreport abuse
  • Conservative's plan
    To the first poster below:
    Repubs have put forth a plan (HR 3217) which is a much smaller bill, yet it seems to be stuck in all the committees keeping it from being discussed. I'm not necessarily saying this bill is the greatest thing ever, but it does allow for insurance companies to sell their product across state lines.
    By Kenneth @ 10/13/09 12:28:55 PMreport abuse
  • health care
    Why have we not heard more about Massachusetts? They have a health care system similar to what is being proposed yet I have heard very little about it. To me, that is a good test case.
    By James @ 10/13/09 12:26:35 PMreport abuse
  • toothseeker
    car insurance comes to mind...
    By tshirt-doctor.com @ 10/13/09 12:19:29 PMreport abuse
  • Where Do You Guys Come Up With This Stuff? (Oh yeah, from Talk Radio)
    Toothseeker -- The government would not "tell you what you have to buy." That's why it's called an OPTION.

    Twistedsaint -- If our wonderful private health insurance comanies "keep prices (and profits) low thanks to existing competition," then why is our health care so much more expensive than in any other country? (As Frank Sanders points out, we're paying 46% more than Canada for a crappy system.)

    DD -- Of course insurance companies will be forced to take people with pre-existing conditions. That's the WHOLE POINT of health insurance reform -- that everyone can get coverage. The alternative that most of us progressives would prefer is to have a single-payer system like Canada or Medicare so that everyone is covered automatically, but the private insurance system is so entrenched in the US (and so powerful politically) that the single-payer system was taken off the table.

    Joyce -- The "public option" being proposed would only be availabe to 5% of the US population (those who couldn't get health insurance through their employers) and it wouldn't be funded by taxpayers (it would be paid by premiums). To the extent tas funds are used, it would be to subsidize low and moderate income families to purchase health insurance, whether via the public option or a private plan. So, if your beef is that we shouldn't use tax money to subsidize anyone's purchase of health insurance, I can actually appreciate that position, but don't confuse that with the public option.
    By TruthSeeker @ 10/13/09 12:15:15 PMreport abuse
  • aaaaaaaw crap!!!!!!!
    I lost my place.......how much is my free healthScare going to cost????
    By butt neckid @ 10/13/09 12:06:29 PMreport abuse
  • PriceWaterhouseCoopers
    PriceWaterhouseCoopers is not "a trade industry group." It is the largest of the "Big Four" public accounting firms. Their study was paid for by the insurance industry but they were in a no-win situation with it because not matter which way it went, the side that didn't like it would denounce them. The Big Four firms don't sign off on anything they don't believe as their reputations are everything to them.
    By Brother J @ 10/13/09 12:00:41 PMreport abuse
  • Republicans could kill this thing with one statement...
    "Just think how easy it will be to make abortion illegal when we regain power and the government has complete control of healthcare."
    By Jay in Texas @ 10/13/09 11:28:08 AMreport abuse
  • Re: Lie-spewer 'Report Shows the Need for a Pubic Option'
    Since when has the Government had the right to tell what you have to buy?
    By toothseeker @ 10/13/09 11:12:47 AMreport abuse
  • @TruthIgnorer
    *sigh* Once again we have a liberal showing his economic ignorance. Guys...if you don't understand it, don't vote and stuff until you do.

    TruthIgnorer (sorry, I just can't say Truthseeker with a straight face anymore), Insurance companies already need to keep prices (and profits) low thanks to existing competition. But, if you still think they are "gouging" you, then don't buy their product. Nothing says you have to. That's why it's a free market.

    Government does not need to make a profit to stay in business, it just needs to take more money from taxpayers...which is what it will do. Insurance companies need a profit to stay in business, so they will not be able to compete, and will quietly close shop.

    Then you will be left with only one choice: You will be forced to buy the lousy service the government will offer. Nice.

    Why don't you get this? Seriously, it's common sense.
    By Twistedsaint @ 10/13/09 10:55:26 AMreport abuse
  • @$mooth
    That is what scares me about these politicians, they seem to think voting on a concept is the same as voting on a bill. The way they are doing it, the staffers could slip ANYTHING into the bill after it was voted on and that would be the law.

    I am not sure this is strictly constitutional, but then again, the constitution just says congress will pass the laws; it doesn't specify that they have to know what the laws say.
    By Owen @ 10/13/09 10:51:23 AMreport abuse
  • An awful healthcare system gets even worse
    America has one of best health care systems in the world... if you (and your company) can afford it and if you have no-preexisting condition and if you have never been seriously sick before. Otherwise the system is god-awful. But it is great for the insurance companies, and it will get a whole lot better for them.

    The proposed health care plan was written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it,
    passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it, signed by a president that also hasn't read it, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's nearly broke.

    I'm a Canadian. And that system is a whole lot better (and cheaper per person - something like 46% of what Americans pay) than either the current system we have in place, or the system being proposed. Both are awful.
    By Frank Sanders @ 10/13/09 10:41:51 AMreport abuse
  • More reading
    Rationing coming to Massachusetts: http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2009/10/boston_globe_he.php

    Wash. Examiner on Baucus Bill: [...] We know from past experience that cost estimates of all government health care programs (except the 2003 Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit, which has private market competition) tend to understate actual costs. So the Baucus bill -- er, conceptual language -- if enacted is likely to expand government spending by more than the estimated $829 billion.

    I especially liked this little point:
    [...] We know from past experience that cost estimates of all government health care programs (except the 2003 Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit, which has private market competition) tend to understate actual costs. So the Baucus bill -- er, conceptual language -- if enacted is likely to expand government spending by more than the estimated $829 billion.

    "PRIVATE" competition kept the costs down. But yet we are constantly being told it's public that will keep costs down...
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 10/13/09 10:23:39 AMreport abuse
  • Hey Seeker....Just a question
    While you were reading, did you by any chance see the little part about forcing insurance companies to take anyone, like those that wait till they have a big problem to buy insurance?

    Hey Dolan - Most lierals are lying buckets of horse squeeze! Now we have had name calling, can we talk about the problem, or do I just get to hear more sand lot politics?


    AND IT KEEPS GETTING FUNNIER!
    By D.D. @ 10/13/09 10:16:23 AMreport abuse
  • Health insurance care reform
    Let's paint all the insurance companies with a bad brush. Of course since they are big business, it stands to reason they are evil. They're probably racists too, but that's another story.

    What this cobbled together, undefined monstrocity is trying to do is cover the 15-20% of Americans that don't have ANY health care coverage. Please remember that if any of these folks present at a local hospital with symptoms ranging from a hang nail to full cardiac arrest - the hospital MUST by law treat them.

    So this song and dance is to cover about 20% of the public that either can't afford coverage or elects not to have it. What percentage of those people truly can't afford it, and what percentage has elected NOT to purchase it, and what percentage of those are undocumented/illegal aliens?

    What about pooling coverage across state lines for those who can't afford it? Much in the same manner as Flood insurance? Then those who like their coverage don't have to change!

    Why screw with a perfectly legal industry, selling a perfectly legal product? But no, the libs scream and holler, "What a minute, insurance firms make too much money. We've got to stop this!" Do you hear them screaming about the obscene amount of money Hollywood types make?

    This whole thing makes me sick as hell and I guarentee my coverage is going to be less and it will cost me more! Oh, and Congress won't have to participate.

    The French had it right - Off with their heads!
    By Forsyth Mom @ 10/13/09 10:13:37 AMreport abuse
  • @ Truthseeker
    I'm always amazed at people who put their trust in government before the free market.
    By John Galt @ 10/13/09 10:12:40 AMreport abuse
  • Public Option
    will only be cheaper to run insurance companies out of business then they will go back up. And it will only appear cheaper cause costs will be transferred to taxpayers instead. So you can either pay more in premiums or pay more in taxes, take your pick. At the end of it all, we will get both.
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 10/13/09 09:58:10 AMreport abuse
  • @John Galt
    Jimmy won't bother to read that. It doesn't support his precious BO, Democrats and moochers, so it can't be true.
    By Tim - Ohio Libertarian @ 10/13/09 09:48:39 AMreport abuse
  • Wait a minute, Neal
    If portions of the bill don't even exist yet.....how can they vote on this monstrosity with a serious face? Then again, this might help explain the logic behind the Nobel Peace Prize vote....lots of hot air, zero substance.
    By $mooth Operator @ 10/13/09 09:48:19 AMreport abuse
  • The problem of Ignorance
    Most employees don't realize the amount of money being paid by their employer for their health insurance. My liberal sister-in-law says that she only pays $225/month. What she can't seem to understand is that her employer, (the school district), is paying at least $400/month for a combined cost of $625/month. That $400/month could be in her paycheck if it wasn't being spent on healthcare coverage.
    It's insane to have 20% or more of the cost of an employee going to pay health insurance. There must be some sort of reform, and soon. But the government is certainly not the one to do it.
    By Carlos @ 10/13/09 09:48:18 AMreport abuse
  • Report Shows the Need for a Public Option
    If you had actually READ the report, Boortz, you would see that the reason for this increase is that the insurance industry doesn't believe that the fines imposed on people who don't buy insurance is high enough. So, the insurance company wants the fines to be higher so more younger, healther (i.e. cheaper to insure) people will sign up for health insurance.

    Is that what you are advocating, Boortz? That the fines should be increased? Of course not, because you don't know what you're talking about.

    In truth, this report shows the need for a public option to compete with the piranhas that run our private health insurance companies. Only by having to compete with a government-administered plan can we be assured that the private insurers won't gouge us to death. But, of course, you're too dense to figure that out either.
    By TruthSeeker @ 10/13/09 09:43:33 AMreport abuse
  • Even liberals hate this plan
    This bill sucks. It literally is oral sex to the health insurance companies. It should be the bawkus-screwinus bill.
    Forcing the sheep to the wolves is no plan at all. Health insurance jowls must be dripping with anticipation.
    What was this 54 billion over 5 years in savings if tort was passed? What do they think we can't do math? Oh, wait, most of you can't. Thats about $80 a year if you count just working people who pay for insurance.
    Wake up you brain washed masses. Stop giving your enemy everything they ask for. You are not employees, you are slaves. If you want to be peasants like those of 3rd world countries, just keep up what youre doing.
    By Mike @ 10/13/09 09:35:29 AMreport abuse
  • insurance industry
    the insurance industry, which you seem to love, wants more teeth to bite at americans wallets with.

    they want to increase fines for americans who don't want to buy health insurance.

    Without more severe government penalties on young Americans, the lobbyists warned that the industry would jack up rates on everyone.

    “Between 2010 and 2019 the cumulative increases in the cost of a typical family policy under this reform proposal will be approximately $20,700 MORE than it would be under the current system,” said Karen Ignagni, president and chief executive of America’s Health Insurance Plans, the industry’s lobbying arm which commissioned the price study by PriceWaterhouseCoopers. [Washington Post, Oct. 12, 2009]

    http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/101209b.html

    well, neal, its time to start "it's better than socialize medicine" malarky

    god, i can't stand lobbyists
    By tshirt-doctor.com @ 10/13/09 09:25:17 AMreport abuse
  • This should make the hair on the back of your neck stand up:
    "The misleading and harmful claims made by the profit-driven insurance companies are politicking for corporate gain at its worst," said Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.
    By Ben Dover @ 10/13/09 09:05:20 AMreport abuse
  • ?
    "A health insurance industry trade group called PriceWaterhouseCoopers"

    I thought PWC is the World's largest public accounting firm?
    By Rocco @ 10/13/09 09:04:56 AMreport abuse
  • Neal
    You really must be a back bencher if Jimmy Dolan is the best troll you can get...
    By Ben Dover @ 10/13/09 09:01:47 AMreport abuse
  • @Jimmy Dolan
    Hey Jimmy, heard of Google?

    http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare
    By John Galt @ 10/13/09 08:55:45 AMreport abuse
  • Timing
    ..and what perfect timing to pass this thing, what with the sports and reality TV season kicking in full gear now.
    By Mark @ 10/13/09 08:53:58 AMreport abuse
  • And according to Dupree
    It still leaves 25 million uninsured. So what is the point exactly?
    By John Galt @ 10/13/09 08:47:51 AMreport abuse
  • Baucus Bogus Bullsh!t
    #1--If this is such an 'emergency' why is nothing started until 2013? (as if we don't already know) and why does it still leave 20 MILLION PEOPLE UNINSURED?
    #2--Why are we going to such extreme 'reforms' before trying something a bit more logical, ie, across-state-line competition, tax breaks on benefits, and private group plans for small businesses?
    #3--Why am I being stripped of the freedom to opt out of this plan?
    All I want is for the government to leave my healthcare arrangements to me...you know...like they have been for my entire adult life.
    Of course, the answer to all three is: BECAUSE NONE OF THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH HEALTH INSURANCE.
    By Randy @ 10/13/09 08:47:50 AMreport abuse
  • What the H&ll do the Statist Demoncraps have against profits?
    Who would you rather deal with, a person that just wants to make a profit or a person who wants Power?

    A person that just wants to make a living by serving their fellow man or a person who wants to Control their fellow man?

    Would you rather deal with a person that just wants to make a profit or a person who wants to control your life?
    By ACE @ 10/13/09 08:37:05 AMreport abuse
  • Conservatives are useless
    Well, it looks like the crybabies are sitting around crying again and not doing anything. I dont see any conservative plan to reform healthcare, to lower taxes, or to do anything to help the country(this is USA not iraq).

    And dont give me the liberal media isnt reporting crap. That is just more crying. The media would report it if it wasnt a worthless plan.
    By Jimmy Dolan @ 10/13/09 08:34:44 AMreport abuse
send to a friend  view as printer-friendly  RSS feeds
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement