Details of Democrats’ Health Care Reform Plan Emerging

By | June 10, 2009

  • June 10, 2009 at 11:41 am
    Gill Fin says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    insurance companies honest?’ Did Charles Schumer really say that? Well, as far as I know, keeping insurance companies honest had always been the purview of states insurance commissioner, Charlie.
    Although dishonest insurance companies has not ever been a problem. Why not have a public option for legal services, so as to keep attorney honest?
    Just a hell of a good idea is all, Charlie.

  • June 10, 2009 at 12:41 pm
    Reagan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Who is going to keep Congress honest?? Oh, wai, “KEEPING” them honest would imply that they already ARE honest. Who is going to keep the welfare fraud, and by fraud I mean any single woman who has a kid out of wedlock, honest? Who will keep the illegal aliens honest? Oh, wait, again, since they’ve already broke the law and feel we’re all “putas” anyway, I guess again, we’d have to imply that they are honest to begin with, to KEEP them honest.

  • June 10, 2009 at 12:42 pm
    hAhAhA says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Keeping the insurance companies honest? With the highest number of tax cheats and members under investigation, the Dems in congress and the Obama Administration have nothing on “dishonest” insurance companies.

    By the way, Chuckie, how does it work for the consumer when their only source of medical care is a government health care plan that is “dishonest”? What sort of recourse is there for that?

  • June 10, 2009 at 12:45 pm
    Anonymous says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Congress and politicians in general have their own definition of honesty… Clinton didn’t lie did he??? I’m sure chuckie boy doesn’t either, in his own world.

  • June 10, 2009 at 12:56 pm
    brad says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This isn’t only about healthcare for Americans…it’s about the role of the federal government and how much is too much. The sad thing is any piece of legislation will be passed, if the Republicans don’t approve it at first, throw on some more spending or tack on a non-related benefit to all Americans (such as increasing FDIC limit) and it will be passed. When it gets bad..where do we go? Canada?

  • June 10, 2009 at 1:33 am
    Nugget says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Their government run healthcare is so good that those who can afford it come to the US so they don’t die waiting to be seen.

  • June 10, 2009 at 1:46 am
    brad says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I guess both us and the Canadians will sail over to India for healthcare one day.

  • June 10, 2009 at 1:57 am
    mike f says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    So the companies can not charge more for people with pre-existing conditions and they have to accept the inusred with full coverage. This is a disaster waiting to happen, in which all of the insurance companis will be going the route of Chrysler and GM. I forgot this is what Obama wants to run all industry, since he and the democrats are bringing this country to facism.

  • June 10, 2009 at 1:58 am
    wow says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Maybe the government (dems) is trying to enforce population control? If you get sick, too bad, you will be dead before the doctor will see you.

    YES WE CAN, wait… >_

  • June 10, 2009 at 2:12 am
    Brad says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I think government wants majority of voters to rely on it, then the cycle has begun.

  • June 10, 2009 at 2:21 am
    John says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    That government regulation will be sufficient because of the profit motive…….Boy that sounds and awful lot like socialism. Unless you run in the red and lose money, its not a good plan.

    Its amazing that people actually voted for Schmucky Schumer.

  • June 10, 2009 at 2:22 am
    Karl Marx says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    How about giving the American people the choice to have the same exact health insurance coverage at the same price that members of Congress receive? Seems only fair, but a lot of people who have money and good healthcare call that “socialism.”

  • June 10, 2009 at 3:04 am
    Karl Fan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Tried to buy individual health insurance after I was recently laid off. Cheapest plan with reasonable deductible = $5000! = was $650 a month for self and spouse; we are both over 50, no serious health problems. This is before the medical underwritign. Have moderately elevated blood pressure controlled by meds. Spouse has high cholesterol, controlled by meds. Pre-existing conditions are excluded for twelve months. Guess if I had a stroke they would deny coverage. Guess if spouse had a heart attack, that would be excluded as well. Also excluded were mental disorders. A lot of the uninsured-by-lay off will suffer mental disorders unless they can access affordable health care that is not tied into being employed. Big Surprise – Age discrimination is rampant. Part of the problem is the employers don’t want “baby boomers” on their group policy because if one or the other gets sick and uses the Plan, the ins. co. will raise the rates on the whole group. Happened at my last job. Spouse needed emergency surgery, ins. co. raised the group rates 75% on the whole office. The system is broken.

  • June 10, 2009 at 3:15 am
    Ins Worker says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I agree…system is broken…people find themselves chained to a job for the insurance because they can’t afford it otherwise. Or if they CAN afford an individual policy, it won’t cover anything you’ve been treated for before….even group insurance is a joke because of the high deductibles, not-so-affordable group premiums, and then you’re still paying out of pocket for your treatment. It’s a racket..and the PROVIDERS need an overhaul as well. I have no problem letting the government come in and have some control over this. Seems to me a lot of providers, health insurance companies and agents are reaping the rewards of the current system. The working insured certainly are not.

  • June 10, 2009 at 3:33 am
    Sam says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Welcome to your new health insurer. AIG!

  • June 10, 2009 at 3:37 am
    Bill says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The employee benefit end of the insurance agency is dead. As soon as government gets into this they will dominate this area and it will not be like a flood policy. There will be no commission in it for the Benefits dept. Better get busy selling life insurance, Group Health is gone.

  • June 11, 2009 at 4:28 am
    A Human Being says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    We worry about losing commission if health care reform becomes a reality.

    Well if our insureds cannot work or perish due to lack of medical treatment, every body loses.

    http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2008/02/health_coverage_is_it_affordab.html

  • June 10, 2009 at 4:32 am
    IA Agent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Wow! This is moving at scary speed. I cannot keep up with all the government take overs going on. We are being bombarded from every angle and before we can protest, we are hit with yet another power grab.
    I’m not saying that we don’t have a need for reform of some type, but to introduce a government plan that is in direct competition with private plans leads to one inevitable conclusion: the death of private plans due to the under-cutting of the government plans premiums, as these will surely be subsidized (at least until all competition is removed). $1.2 Trillion in cost! This is a problem. Wait until there is no one left to defend capitalism and we are all in trouble.

    This cannot and should not happen.

    Conservatives of the world, unite!

  • June 11, 2009 at 7:33 am
    Bubba says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    People needing insurance, and reform of healthcare are two separate things that don’t have to go together in my opinion. But as the whitehouse said, a crisis is a terrible thing to waste. They can drum up an insurance crisis and use it to takeover healthcare, just like they’ve taken over other industries that they didn’t want to takeover.
    My question on insurance is why is this the answer? Why do we need to force people who don’t want it to take it anyway? Why do we need to force employers to provide it? Why do we need to fine anyone who doesn’t take it or provide it? Why do we need to tax healthcare benefits? Why do we need a health advisory board? Why, why, why?
    Wouldn’t it be better and cheaper to target only those who want and need insurance but can’t afford it? Give them the money for private insurance. Leave everyone else out of it, and leave the system alone. There’s only one reason the Gov’t wants to do what they are proposing.
    Just some thoughts.

  • June 11, 2009 at 7:54 am
    Scared says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This whole administration targeted the people that were scared, uninsured and out of work. The problem is they want help and they don’t seem to care were it comes from. The BIG PICTURE is that if Uncle Sam takes over the healthcare system they will find themselves in a worse place. Let’s look at what Uncle Sam runs now….social security? Welfare? Medicare? If they can’t handle this and do a 1/2 !@!@ job what makes the US citizen or illegal think they can handle the WHOLE system.

    Spend a trillion and work on what you have…maybe make it like an assigned risk program. We have heard about “BIG BROTHER” for years……..Well Hello people…Big Brother is knocking on your door and if you don’t open it he will just knock it down.

    Wake up America!!!

  • June 11, 2009 at 11:03 am
    BILL says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    THE REPUBLICANS AND THE INSURANCE COMPANIES SHOULD NOT BE OVERLY CONCERNED WITH THE ‘GOVERNMENT’COMPETING WITH THEM.

    IRELAND IS A VERY GOOD EXAMPLE OF WHY ANY GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM HAS NOT SUCCEEDED, DOES NOT, AND WILL NOT SUCCEED.
    SICK PEOPLE DEPENDING ON THE GOVERNMENT INSURANCE PLAN ACTUALLY DIE WAITING FOR TREATMENT.
    NOT SO THOSE WITH PRIVATE INSURANCE.

    AND IRELAND IS NOT THE ONLY COUNTRY.

    CHECK IT OUT AND STOP OUR GOVERNMENT BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE

  • June 11, 2009 at 11:10 am
    Ins Worker says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I don’t know what the big deal is…the government is not planning on doing AWAY with private health plans….but it will certainly make them reassess and hopefully be more competitively priced and more fair in their practices than they currently are. I think this can only be a positive for the American people. They don’t HAVE to take the Public Health Care plan…but would have an option. I find it interesting that the private companies are so scared….tells me there’s waaaaay too much ‘fat’ in their current pricing. It’s not going to be cheap for the PHC plan either…it’s certainly not going to be free. So all you whining private companies just price your commodity fairly and treat people fairly and you won’t have anything to worry about.

  • June 11, 2009 at 11:35 am
    IA Agent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The big deal is that they will not be using actuarially sound pricing models and the difference between cost to the uninsured and true cost to the hospitals, and the like, will be passed to tax payers. Each year, the number will grow that require the government plan. Sooner or later, they WILL price out the competition since they have the able pocket books of tax-payers to do so. Wellmark does not have that option. I am not fighting for my commission here, I am fighting against the tax base, which will (is) going to increase tremendously. In a perfect world, you may have a point, but we do NOT live in the midst of a benevolent government.

  • June 11, 2009 at 11:39 am
    AL Agent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Well put, IA Agent. Thank you.

  • June 11, 2009 at 11:58 am
    brad says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Nicely put IA agent. The funding issue and the expansion of gov. both scare me.

  • June 11, 2009 at 12:03 pm
    Ins Worker says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    and I also failed to reiterate my thought that the PROVIDERS need overhauled just as much as the carriers do. It’s a joke how much health care and medication costs and who gets the short end of the stick, IMHO.

  • June 12, 2009 at 7:11 am
    brad says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I think the reason they don’t only target the people who need it as you suggested is for the administration to appear to appeal to majority. Does this kind of “sweeping legislation” have better support if the major overhaul is drawn out to benefit everyone, or just a certain group that can’t find/afford insurance. That may be considered partisan or be in “special interest”, but after we see through the mirage, this may be the end result.

  • June 12, 2009 at 9:08 am
    Bubba says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    That’s why term limits might be good. So we get people who will focus on doing what is right, and what makes sense, not what will get them reelected. They create these entitlements, which they have to punish Americans to ultimately pay for them, and then come election time they can scare the people getting those entitlements by saying that the other guy wants to take them away.
    It’s amazing that with a lot of these Gov’t programs or interventions, minimum wage being a great example, the people they claim to be helping end up getting screwed, yet they don’t see it. Sometimes everyone gets screwed. If you could pay the guy working the counter at Burger King $10 an hour and not affect anything else, that would be great. That’s fantasy land though. If the Gov’t forces that, the cost of living and doing business goes up for him and everyone else. He makes more money, but his cost of living has gone up, thus eating up his increase. You look at countries that have tried this healtchcare model. Who is getting screwed? The people who it is supposed to help, along with everyone else who didn’t need or want this model. (I still maintain that we don’t need any Gov’t model, we just need assistane for a few people to buy their own insurance) You’ve got people being put on waiting lists for routine procedures. People on one end or other, and maybe in between, being told it’s too expensive to keep them alive.
    I believe there are countries that have gone further down the road into population control in terms of the number of children you can have, and the degree of health they must have to be declared viable.
    Gov’t help is one thing. Gov’t takeover of any industry is the wrong thing. I’m afraid that at the end of the day, the only thing that will be solved is the destruction of America as we know it.
    Just some more thoughts.

  • June 12, 2009 at 10:45 am
    brad says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Good points Bubba. The minimum wage is a great example of how we don’t try to see or understand the big picture or consequences that may arise from a seemingly great idea. Is it that people don’t care enough to do so; aren’t able to understand the complexity of defecits, economics,etc; or they trust our government too much?

  • June 12, 2009 at 11:12 am
    AL Agent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Brad, its funny you say that b/c my husband and I were just talking about that this morning.

    I think many people in our country have become complacent regarding politics and its impact on their daily lives. They’re so caught up in reality TV or YouTube that they don’t spend time reading and learning about the decisions being made in Washington that will have huge implications on our futures.

    Back during the elections, I talked with quite a few people who are in their early 20’s about the importance of getting to the polls and voting. An overwhelming majority of them had one of two attitudes– either they didn’t know/understand enough about it to take action, or they thought theirs was just one vote so it didn’t really matter if they voted or not.

    I have made a decision to take as active a roll as I possibly can to GET OUT THE VOTE in 2010 and 2012. If we are going to stop the current government’s trends toward socialism and away from the freedoms our founding fathers fought for, we need to do it now.

    The media calls every election the most important election of our lifetimes, but I sincerely believe the upcoming elections will have a profound impact on my childrens lives and I intend to fight for the outcome I believe will serve them best. I hope you all will do the same. We can stop this, but we each have to make an effort.

  • June 12, 2009 at 11:51 am
    IA Agent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Nicely put. I agree with AL Agent. For years I held the belief that my vote, my opinion didn’t matter, but I’m running across so many folks with like minds at this point, that we need to come together collectively and vote these politicians out. We desparately need term limits as was stated earlier so lawmakers make the correct laws as opposed to appeasing special interests. Anymore, the terms democrat and republican have lost the dichotomous meanings they once held. I think this can be a good thing as the people will begin to see this and will start to classify ourselves as simply Americans with a will and desire to return to our founding principles. I also believe that now may be the time that a strong 3rd and 4th party step up to the plate and challenge the current system.

    The next election cycle will be one of the most important in our history, insofar as people with courage, character, and a belief in the strength of the individuals of the nation can raise up and get in power.

  • June 12, 2009 at 12:46 pm
    brad says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I agree with both IA and Al agents. It is promising that during the ’08 elections 3rd parties did better than ever. I think people will be divided between big gov. vs limited gov. The current Republican and Democratic parties both stand for big government and more people are beginning to see this.
    I also get quite a kick out of how parties and special interest groups, even though promote Socialist ideas, deny they do so because of the negative vibe from that term. From Webster Dictionary:::::SOCIALISM: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. 1) Governmental Ownership-AIG, GM, etc. 2) Administration of means of production: GM/Chrysler, UAW, closing dealers. 3) Distribution of Goods: Stimulus Plan full of earmarks even down to the $6.2 Billion designated to help low income families improve their home’s energy efficiency…and the soon to come Health Care Program with distribution of goods. So how can one argue that we are not or are not heading toward Socialism?

  • July 24, 2009 at 9:31 am
    Michael says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    All of the talk I have heard re Healthcare in America has been Health Insurance coverage and premiums. None have addressed the actual cost of health care which continues to rise. Insurance coverage means very little since coverage may allow what you and your doctor decide on or NOT; if not then you pay(if allowed)or no treatment.Lousy plans are no better than no plans.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*