And the winner is...

Snowdoggie wrote: My problem is that I do a lot of contract work and I keep changing health insurance. My COBRA from Robert Half ran out this month and I am still waiting to hear if Blue Cross will accept me for an individual plan. My current employer does not offer health insurance and more and more employers don't. I am over 50 and I am very healthy now but if I ever get a pre-existing condition I am screwed. The Republican solution for this is .... what?? Maybe the time has come for me to start sending resumes to Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

My solution is buy insurance.

I'm a 42 yo self employed smoker and pay mine out of my own pocket every month.

If you want a government to supply your insurance, by all means go to a country that offers that. I personally don't want the government to supply mine, and don't want your wishes forced on me.

Hopefully with the numbers change congress won't be able to get anything done for the next few years. They can't screw up if they can't agree on anything. That suits me just fine. No one party should ever have complete control. I would rather have them fight it out for years or decades before making sweeping changes to how the country operates. Then you just might get a bill that was well thought out and that someone actually read.

Toyman01 wrote:

Snowdoggie wrote: My problem is that I do a lot of contract work and I keep changing health insurance. My COBRA from Robert Half ran out this month and I am still waiting to hear if Blue Cross will accept me for an individual plan. My current employer does not offer health insurance and more and more employers don't. I am over 50 and I am very healthy now but if I ever get a pre-existing condition I am screwed. The Republican solution for this is .... what?? Maybe the time has come for me to start sending resumes to Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

My solution is buy insurance. I'm a 42 yo self employed smoker and pay mine out of my own pocket every month. If you want a government to supply your insurance, by all means go to a country that offers that. I personally don't want the government to supply mine, and don't want your wishes forced on me. Hopefully with the numbers change congress won't be able to get anything done for the next few years. They can't screw up if they can't agree on anything. That suits me just fine. No one party should ever have complete control. I would rather have them fight it out for years or decades before making sweeping changes to how the country operates. Then you just might get a bill that was well thought out and that someone actually read.

I don't have a problem with buying insurance. I have done so for the last 5 years since I have been on my own. I am currently covered by a short term policy and I am applying for a long term policy. My problem is with the current health care situation.

My problem with people who refuse to buy health insurance is that when they land in the county hospital I am forced to pay for their health care whether I want to or not. As a taxpayer I not only have to pay for my healthcare, but also for the healthcare of every single congressmen and federal employee, but also for the healthcare of people who are in the country illegally. Yes, I am already forced to pay for health insurance for all of those people and they get better health care than I do in some cases.

The solution is probably going to be a combination of government and private health care. What makes me laugh is all of those people over 65 who are covered by Medicare who keep screaming that they don't want 'socialized medicine' when socialized medicine is exactly what they already have.

Strizzo wrote: Oz has an age limit for immigration... as long as you get accepted to BCBS on the personal pay plan, you can just keep it, so you wouldn't have to worry about any preexisting conditions unless there was one that for some reason had not been discovered before now or something.

The 'or something' is exactly what bothers me. There are too many 'or somethings' in most health insurance contracts. Once an 'or something' in a health insurance policy cost me about $12,000 and I paid it off by the month for years with interest. Yes, I am one of those poor suckers who always pays what he owes.

As for OZ having an age limit, that is probably why I will never have another permanent corporate job with 'Cadillac Benefits' ever again. I'm too old. I still work and I actually have to turn down contract work. Strangely enough, they still want me.

Hey, maybe I can just sneak over the border and work for cash then show up in the emergency room when I am sick. Are we the only country that does that?

Maybe the time has come for me to start sending resumes to Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

DING DING DING DING!!!

Seriously though, it sounds like you have a problem with Medicare/Medicaid. So do I. If the federal/state gov't's prove that they can "FIX" that, along with social security, then I'll believe them that they're going to "fix healthcare." Until then, I don't see any reason to flush more of my tax dollars down the toilet and give government control over yet another aspect of my life.

poopshovel wrote:

Maybe the time has come for me to start sending resumes to Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

DING DING DING DING!!! Seriously though, it sounds like you have a problem with Medicare/Medicaid. So do I. If the federal/state gov't's prove that they can "FIX" that, along with social security, then I'll believe them that they're going to "fix healthcare." Until then, I don't see any reason to flush more of my tax dollars down the toilet and give government control over yet another aspect of my life.

Right now we have a system where drug addicts, congressmen, illegal aliens and millionaires over age 65 get free government health care.

How about a system where working poor people who put in 40 hours a week and retired people who can't afford health care but have worked all their lives get government health care, and those of us who can afford to pay get reasonable policies without having to subsidize deadbeats and millionaires over 65.

Standardize and manage all subsidized health care and farm the work out to a private contractor who is the lowest bidder. No multiple systems. No government hospitals. Opportunities for well run private companies and coops. Not medicare, medicaid, veterans care, etc. Computerize everything. Cut administrative costs.

Yeah yeah. I know. socialism, government control and all that, but it would be a better form of socialism that we have now. Cheaper and more humane.

(sarcasm)Get the government to back off on forcing the hospitals to serve everyone no matter whether they can pay or not. Then you won't have to pay for all the deadbeats. If a few of the people who refuse to be responsible for themselves die in the parking lot of the ER maybe the rest of them will take notice.(sarcasm)

On a more serious note,

I don't know of a good way to "fix" healthcare. The problem is the boys and girls in congress don't either. Neither does the man in the White House. Throwing billions and trillions at the problem won't fix it. Unfortunately that is the way they tend to solve everything. Then after it doesn't work, they come back for more.

If people had to pay for a doctors visit rather than whipping out a insurance card maybe they would shop around. Maybe they wouldn't go to the $400.00 ER visit when they could go to a $50.00 doctor's office visit. If they have a cold, refuse them service unless the bill is paid. Let insurance companies sell across state lines. It worked for the auto insurance industry.

Medicaid and Medicare are a necessary part of the medical industry. Like most government programs they are poorly managed and cost way more than they should.(or cover less people than they could) That's all the socialized medicine needed. If you don't fall under those two programs then you need to pay your own way or do without. If you choose to do without then the consequences are on you. Medicare needs a financial based qualification to it just like Medicaid. If you are a multimillionaire do you really need government assistance. How about put a cost cap on it per person just like the insurance companies do. I think I would rather die than go though two million dollars of medical procedures.

There are a lot of incremental and basically cost neutral changes that could be made before stepping off the deep end and throwing a trillion dollars at the problem.

Stopping the Democrat's super majority is a step in the right direction. Splitting them 50/50 would be even better. Then they would actually have to debate and discuss the issue before passing something just to pass it before the general public realizes how much they are getting screwed.

My dad canceled his insurance just before he was diagnosed with cancer (in retrospect, not one of his best decisions). His last medication cost $600.00 and he took exactly 1, the rest cannot be returned. My stepmother shopped it around, found the same thing for $39.00. No that is not a misprint or fatfinger.

The last amount of the bills for the two months of care (2 1/2 weeks inpatient, the rest outpatient) he received was $43,000.00 and there are still some chemotherapy bills we haven't received.

Where am I going with this? Health care in this country is great from a 'mechanical' standpoint but ridiculous from a cost standpoint. Those who can and do pay (either through insurance or self pay) are subsidizing those who can't or won't. Many of the costs are grossly inflated to make up for that.

Health care needs to have a profit motive to spur development of new techniques etc dut damn there needs to be something rational about the whole thing. And no I don't know how to fix it either.

Toyman01 wrote: Stopping the Democrat's super majority is a step in the right direction. Splitting them 50/50 would be even better. Then they would actually have to debate and discuss the issue before passing something just to pass it before the general public realizes how much they are getting screwed.

The Democratic Congress has the only proposal on the table. It looks to me that the Republicans want to stop any and all reform, then go back to their masters at the health care lobby and get a big pat on the back for a job well done and millions more for their next campaign. Looks like a few blue dog democrats made out pretty well in the campagn contribution department for stopping reform as well.

What's Scott Brown's health care reform plan?

Check the facts, not the evening news.

http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare

Just because something doesn't cost 800 billion dollars doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Their plan isn't perfect any more than the Dems plan. The solution is probably somewhere in the middle. Without the Democratic super majority we might actually get there.

If the Democratic plan is the only one being discussed, it's because the controlling party isn't allowing it to be discussed.

Picture most of congress running in circles shouting "Mercy mercy it's an emergency we must pass something NOW!!!!!!!"

Toyman01 wrote: Check the facts, not the evening news. http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare Just because something doesn't cost 800 billion dollars doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Their plan isn't perfect any more than the Dems plan. The solution is probably somewhere in the middle. Without the Democratic super majority we might actually get there.

I didn't say there wasn't one. I just wanted to know what it is. That's what I was fishing for. Some of the stuff might work. Allowing groups to band together to buy group insurance would be a good idea. Anybody for the Grassroots Motorsports-Challenge Competitor Health Insurance Co-Operative - Raise your hand now.

Allowing us to buy stripped down castasrophic policies instead of forcing everybody to buy psychiatric insurance and chiropractic care would be a good thing.

Tort reform would be a good thing too as long as there is some kind of provision to keep bad docs away from the operating table. Good luck getting that past all the lawyers in congress though.

I'm a little leary of buying across state lines. Health insurance companies would tend to move to the states with the least regulation, just as most corporations tend to want to incorporate in Delaware. There is a reason the industry wants that.

Now is the time for the Republicans to put up or shut up. Do they want to reform our current system or just block reform until we have another crisis just like what happened in housing, banking and auto manufacturing.

Toyman01 wrote: Check the facts, not the evening news. http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare Just because something doesn't cost 800 billion dollars doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Their plan isn't perfect any more than the Dems plan. The solution is probably somewhere in the middle. Without the Democratic super majority we might actually get there.

^This.........

Snowdoggie either missed my response (bottom of the the first page) or chose to ignore the content.

But, when one party controls everything that goes through the committee process, squashes alternate proposals and media doesn't honestly investigate or report, too many conclude the other party is nothing but obstructionist. Republicans have been proposing alternatives since (at least) June of '09: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/17/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5093897.shtml

Jensenman is right in asserting that the mechanics work, but the financials really suck. There can be a balance between an open market free-for-all and a government-run system, but we ain't anywhere near that solution.

I keep seeing mention (by Snowdoggie) of Congressmen and federal employees getting free "government" healthcare. This isn't true. I can assure you (as a fed employee) that it ain't free. The plan I have is BCBS and it's a good deal and better than many other plans, but that's what the buying power of having so many employees buys you. I actually heard a democratic Congressman repeat this myth himself claiming that Repubs didn't want you to have what they already get (meanging gov't healthcare handled by OPM). He obviously knew that people would simply believe that BS and go around repeating it without looking into the facts. OPM does handle it, but the gov't doesn't provide it. BCBS or whomever you choose does (ie PRIVATE insurance companies).

In reply to Clay:

You raise a good point, but I think it needs further clarification. BCBS and other insurance companies are not health care providers at all. Hospitals and clinics are the health care providers. Insurance companies merely handle the money side of things and dictate to hospitals what is and is not covered under their plans.

JeffHarbert wrote: In reply to Clay: You raise a good point, but I think it needs further clarification. BCBS and other insurance companies are not health care providers *at all*. Hospitals and clinics are the health care providers. Insurance companies merely handle the money side of things and dictate to hospitals what is and is not covered under their plans.

Yes, but because insurance companies choose what is and isn't covered and at what amounts, they influence the providers, which influences the care you receive.

One of the reasons health care cost so much now is to cover the Govt. run systems already in place, and dealing with the complications of filing insurance claims due to more govt. regulations and punitive damage award settlements.

My wife works for an internist, and it costs them around $69 per patient to break even on an office visit. Medicare pays about $20, and if they are lucky, they might, might get something from Medicad. It is to the point where they will not accept any new patients with either of these, and that is sad. If you think they are rolling in the cash, you are also mistaken.

Many months the Dr. has to subsidize the practice to make ends meet, and his malpractice insurance has skyrocketed in the past couple of years. And there are only so many patients you can see in a day so you are limited somewhat in your cash revenue. The reason a lot of doctors give cash discounts is the sheer abundance of paperwork involved with filing insurance claims, mostly due to not getting sued. It takes a substantial amount of work on a daily basis just to get paid, so if they can skip these steps and get paid sooner, you get the money back that they would have spent on your claim.

The only real solutions to this problem involve fixing the govt. systems already in place, and allowing a breakup of the govt. monopolies in place by not allowing competing insurance companies across state lines.

In our current area, BCBS is the only game in town to speak of, so they can do whatever they please, and if you think insurance companies are corrupt, there is nothing in the world more corrupt than governments. No matter who is in office a govt. run system simply will not work and still maintain any reality of a functioning, quality system. There is also no way on earth a govt. system saves the govt. anything either, a total lie and misconception. This money has to come from somewhere, and since they are not spending money to insure the people that are already uninsured, and even including what you would pay in premiums, there is a substantial gap. Taxing is the only way on top of your premiums. That or printing more money, also very bad.

As for everything else, the company I work for now does all of it's work almost exclusively out the country, mainly South Africa and Australia. We are an R&D company and a producer of high tech products for energy fields, mainly coal mining and oil. Since big O took office, these industries have pretty much been strangled. They are now just trying to survive. Since we have an abundance of both, this is very sad news, and they employ a lot of people as well. I cannot relay how bad these industries are right now. Regardless of what you hear on the news, there is nothing out there right now capable of producing the kinds of energy we need to replace them with in the quantity needed for the US and worldwide. Green energy simply doesn't exist in a way that can remotely produce the energy the world requires. And strangling the companies that could possibly work towards this goal with crippling taxes is no way to proceed here. Trust me when I say that many of these oil and mining companies also invest in R&D for other types of energy, something that is being taken away at this moment and not replenished from govt. subsidies. This administration has zero interest in "going green", they have every interest in controlling your energy consumption, which controls you.

Also, having now seen these countries and the way they are run and their conditions, we are VERY blessed. And you do not want to follow their governmental path which is the one we are currently on. People need to wake up and get some common sense or it will be too late to stop the deflation of the dollar, the poverty that follows, and the govt. take over of pretty much everything.

The biggest differences I see between the two parties is that the Repubs are simply greedy, where the Dems are trying to shove a 3rd world govt. down our throats.

OK, rant off....

carguy123 wrote: Ahhhh, but the other party as you put it isn't dedicated to removing all Americans liberty and freedoms.

Which other party would be against screwing Americans out of their liberties and freedoms? The GOP? Please.

Both parties are being run by the nutjobs instead of the reasonable members. And both parties are so afraid of the "other" party that the rank and file all toe the party line far, far too often.

They're both about funneling as much money out of you and me as possible. It's just a matter of where the fraction that doesn't get sent where they really want it (them and their buddies) that changes. That amount goes to fund either bread (Dems) or circuses (GOP). And they both gleefully stomp all over your liberties and freedoms to do it. Don';t fool yourself into making one party the "good" guys. Not exactly a new method of politics.

We could always go with the Cuba model: the gov't trains docs and then sends them abroad. They have their costs paid by the Cuban gov't which in turn charges the host country and makes a profit. They run 'show' clinics where people from the Great Satan can get surgery etc for free (Castro gots to poke them evil Yanks in the eye ever' chance he gets), the rank and file citizens get free health care but it's bare bones. The care is free but there are shortages of any medicines, the hospitals are generally pretty dismal and the patient has to supply their own bedding and even food.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_medical_internationalism

'In 2006 Cuba's earnings from medical services (including export of doctors) amounted to US$2,312m - 28% of total export receipts and net capital payments. This exceeded earnings from both nickel and cobalt exports and from tourism.'

Then these wunnerful Cuban docs want to defect to the Great Satan. Why? They really don't have a choice, the gubmint tells them where to go.

I believe it is time for a real 3rd party.

Call it the GRM party. Common sense on a budget. We're used to squeezing a dollar until it screams. I figure we could hash out everything in a week and have a system that would work for a reasonable price.

Poop can be president, Billy can be chief justice, Jensenman can be transportation. Snowdoggie can be interior. I volunteer to be the court jester as long as I don't have to wear the pointy hat and shoes.

I'll have to think on the rest of them.

At least when we disagree with each other we will listen to the other side. That's more than I can say for the politicians.

Oh yeah, rather than being a donkey or an elephant, we can use a rusty British car with a BIG motor or something like that.

OK. So Federal Employees don't get free health insurance. It still looks like a good deal to me. Why shouldn't we all get something like this.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/BG1123.cfm

oldsaw wrote: Voters took the campaign rhetoric to heart, believing the wasteful spending, catering to special interests and business-as-usual tactics would end; voters were wrong.

you kinda nailed it there...

Thats why I voted for Obama.. Then he went slotted right into political business as usual. He is seriously started to seem like a more intelligent Dubya and that really is pissing me off.

That's because the voters keep forgetting that the President is nothing more than a figurehead and target. The real action is in Congress and in the various state legislatures. The voters kick the Prez in the nards for the bad things when they should really be boxing the ears of their elected representative. Then those same voters keep good ol' ____ (fill in your favorite local politician) in office because of all the bacon he/she/it brings home, never stopping to think the bread and circuses have to come out of someone's pocket. It doesn't matter which pocket gets emptied as long as it ain't theirs.

I forget which book this came from: 'a million greedy, grasping little hands'. But man it sums things up, doesn't it?

Jensenman wrote: That's because the voters keep forgetting that the President is nothing more than a figurehead and target. The real action is in Congress and in the various state legislatures. The voters kick the Prez in the nards for the bad things when they should really be boxing the ears of their elected representative. Then those same voters keep good ol' ________________ (fill in your favorite local politician) in office because of all the bacon he/she/it brings home, never stopping to think the bread and circuses have to come out of someone's pocket. It doesn't matter which pocket gets emptied as long as it ain't theirs. I forget which book this came from: 'a million greedy, grasping little hands'. But man it sums things up, doesn't it?

Ahhh, but Presidents have the "bully pulpit" and veto powers that force Congress to reconsider legislation or over-ride the executive decision.

Bush rarely used either option and Obama (the one who campaigned against earmarks) signed a bill that included thousands of earmarks. Oh, and Obama's use of the media has done nothing to advance his (and a "D" controlled Congress) agenda.

Congress has consistently lower approval ratings than the last two presidents and for damn good reasons.

oldsaw wrote: Congress has consistently lower approval ratings than the last two presidents and for damn good reasons.

yeah, and now more than ever, lobbyists will count more than me and you... http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22donate.html?hp

ugh.. Sure we elect them.. but I'm only voting for those who disclose funding 100% from now on... This is getting silly.