Those who wish to wait are "right" in there with the Republicans, good luck with that. :)

Ernie,

You know me and that I am not a radical on either side but per this gem or yours: A misconception that nothing happens with the Health Care reform for years. Some items begin immediately some are phased in over time. Another often used misconception is we will be paying taxes immediately and yet receive no benefits for four years. Same thing, it will be phased in. Would you rather wait another decade or century rather than four years?

I believe I would opt for the century or even a millenium. Our first health care was a witch doctor who used rocks to remove bad teeth and small flesh eating dinosaurs to remedy everything else and all it cost was two small pebbles. Of course the more serious cases never returned.

Ron :LOL:

I don't know Ron, sheeshh a millenium is just WAY far out for me.

How about a compromise, lettuce say, phase it in slowly, like, over the next four years? :)

:eek:
1. millennium
2. too
3. let's

Corrected, feel better now? :)

:D

Ernie,

You should be able to handle a millennium with no trouble. After all you are just a kid. At least that gives you an excuse for some of your posts. :LOL:

Ron :)

:rolleyes:
1. too
2. let's

never mind

Excaliber reminds me of a Ronald Reagan quote: "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; It's just that they know so much that isn't so".

The Republicans HAVE come up with suggestions, good suggestions. Summarily rejected by the power hungry Democrats in control.

TORT REFORM, a Republican suggestion-REJECTED!
Allow interstate insurance competition. a Republican idea-REJECTED

That second one would interfere with States Rights, but then so do hundreds of pages of the Democrat bills under consideration.

A true solution to both health care and insurance costs, NO POLITICIAN CAN PUT FORTH.
That is catastrophic coverage instead of today's first dollar coverage.

Lets use $1000 a month as a family coverage cost or $12,000 per year. A tough number for an individual or a business to pay. Take HALF of that and make it the individual's responsibility. So the insurance company pays nothing until the insured has spent $6000 for the year. Relieved of the first dollar coverage, the insurance company could easily drop the other half from $6000. to $3000. [$250. a month instead of $1000.]
2 or more things happen, 1. people pay for all the little things, AS THEY SHOULD. And 2. They begin to EXAMINE all medical costs and SHOP for the best deal. Which puts competitive downward pressure on medical costs. [this is proven by the cost drops seen in medical procedures not covered by insurance]

Net by 2014, Family spends [covered by insurance $4000 in 2010] now in 2014 they spend $3000 for the same care, but out of pocket. $3000 out of pocket plus $3000. catastrophic coverage premium=$6000. in 2014 when the normal insurance would have climbed to $14,000 or $16,000.

Dan,

Lets use $1000 a month as a family coverage cost or $12,000 per year. I like your ideas but that would be more than 1/2 of many retired and disabled peoples incomes around here. And with no Cost of Living increase on their Social Security for two years many of them are really hurting as they raised their Medicare Premiums and that lowered the amount they do get. And contrary to what the politicians said, the cost of living for seniors did go up just as it did for them. Myself I would never use my insurance for anything but a huge hospital or medical bill, and believe me I have paid a ton of medical bills the past few years. I would like to see some fair way to have people covered but this pork bill is not it IMHO.
But some of the people that I know get around $1500 a month and that is all they have for income and they still have to pay the ever increasing utility, grocery, and other bills. Take even $500 of that away from them and they are not going to be able to make it. And I am talking of people that own their homes and don't have house payments or car payments but exist within their means. I am more fortunate than many and know it, but I still hate to see people forced to buy something they can't afford.

Ron :)

Tort reform wasn't rejected by the Democrats because it's a bad idea, but because it's add's to much controversy to an all ready controversial reform package. The idea will return when the time is right. The lawyer lobby is strong in the force, it will be a very tough battle to win.

I've looked in to the interstate insurance idea myself, I'm not convinced it will really help that much, if any. I think it would benefit a small select group of healthy people and still leave out those who cannot get insurance at a decent rate. There is simply no motivation, reason or law for the insurance companies to change their actuary tables. They are not going to offer better prices to someone who is high risk regardless of what state he lives in. Some companies may choose to focus on a certain age group, young and healthy and offer a low cost plan Nation wide for that group. Leaving out the same people they leave out today. The end result may well be an increase in rates to those folks who remain in a high risk group.

I would support catastrophic health insurance over no health insurance. The cost has to be based on a sliding scale however if it is going to reach those currently without insurance. Perhaps those with a "Cadillac Plan" would be willing to contribute a little more via a tax of some kind to help out their neighbors? :)

:3DSMILE:

Ernie,

I think my insurance by your standards would be considered a PINTO plan.

Ron :D

Well Ron, if you don't have a Cadillac plan, your not helping. Hopefully Dan40 can kick in enough to make up for that. :)

The majority of people with the "cadillac" plans are the blue-collar, middle class union workers, who had previously negotiated these high benefit plans instead of increased wages. I say tax them.

I was referring to Ernie's imaginary group that cannot afford insurance. Not those on Medicare. If the Government wanted to help those on Medicare all they have to do is eliminate Medicare Supplement insurance so people would stop wasting money on supplements. [the same supplements that made me over $100,000.00 a year by themselves.] and which I do not own one now that I'm on Medicare. Supplements cost Medicare beneficiaries from $100 to $400 per month. A waste of money, Medicare is good insurance by itself.
Supplements are part of the first dollar coverage problem. Same as Major Medical Plans, Cadillac or not, for people under 65.
It is simple, if any insurance is going to cover anyone from the first dollar on, the insurance company MUST charge more than a dollar for every dollar covered. Regardless if they ever have to pay a claim or not.
Catastrophic coverage means the sick have an exposure LESS than their un-affordable insurance premium. The healthy save that premium expense. Those that cannot afford coverage now have a shot at a much lower premium. (Some would remain uncovered, but perhaps fewer than REMAIN exposed under the ridiculous plans proposed by our idiot legislators). And MEDICAL costs would be pressured down by competition.

Insist on first dollar and Government coverage as Ernie does and costs and problems are GUARANTEED to increase. 200 years of Government programs history has taught all but the liberals, that is a certainty.

Dan40, while not the first, has proposed the ONLY method to lower the overall cost. If people have to pay (OK on some sliding scale based upon income) the market will provide the pressure to lower costs. The "no one should be bankrupted by illness" crowd will get a solution. Also isn't this the kind of coverage us old guys used to call major medical. Combine that with a tax exempt MSA for the initial payments & you've got something that even the healthy people might want.

That "imaginary" group I speak of is the same one Ron mentions. Those folks living on $1,200 or $1,500 a month that can't presently afford health coverage. They don't qualify for Government aid like Medicaid or Medicare or even food stamps or whatever. They need a sliding scale for affordable insurance.

One way to supplement the income requirements for the insurance companies to remain solvent is to spread the risk out to a larger group. Another way is to raise taxes. There are several plans/ideas within the current health reform bill that meet these objectives.

Are they enough to cover the cost? Maybe, of course there will always be skeptics, nothing wrong with that.

The Constitution does not say PROVIDE FOR the general welfare. It says promote the general welfare.
To have what you want, you need to live in some other country.

I and many other's like myself consider good quality health care a right citizens of this nation are entitled to. I'm willing to raise taxes to make that happen, raise an army to preserve and protect it and do what else is necessary to see that Americans enjoy it.

If you don't like it, feel free to move out of the country and don't let the screen door hit you on the way out. :)