question for the anti-public option crowd

[jballscalls]

Hey guys, I have a story and then a question for you, mostly for our right wing base here at PA. I find myself very torn on the healthcare issue in recent weeks, and would appreciate any feedback.

I am a person who suffers with mental illness. I've had panic attacks and severe anxiety for 6 years and have also had several bouts of severe depression sprinkled in. I take one small medication for it, but have also spent thousands upon thousands of dollars on doctors, treatment (outpatient and inpatient) and counselors. I'm insured and they have probably paid for roughly 70% of it over the years. My illness has cost me many things in my life, from relationships, missed opportunities, and even resigning from a job i loved to move home and get help.

Twice a week, i co-facilitate a support group for people with Bi Polar disorder and depression, and it's a really great experience to try and help people who are suffering with these problems. But so so often, almost weekly, people in the group are losing their insurance, or don't have insurance. These are people who need medication and need treatment, and can't afford it.

So my question is, what do we as a country or just as people do to help people like these? I don't really think a public option is the best answer, but insurance and medical costs have gotten completely absurd and so many people who need coverage can't get it. You can't just tell someone who is ill to buck up and go out and get a job or go buy your insurance. that's not necessarily how it works.

Appreciate any feedback, I'm just struggling to think of ways to help these people because so many of them are really wonderful, they are just ill and are struggling, and it seems that insurance companies don't want to help them.

maybe we can start a public option where those of us who want to help donate can, and those of us who don't want to pay in, don't have to?? but i know that still brings government involvement which is not what many people want.

thanks for hearing me out

[Black Ruby]

Jballs, here's what one doctor has to say about the state of health care and what needs to be done. An interesting article. http://www.counterpunch.com/simpson09212009.html
Good luck to you, I know a number of people who've suffered with symptoms like you describe, but have gotten themselves back together with time and support.

[lsbets]

Here is the problem with the the public option, and why those who favor a single payer system so want the public option.

The way it has been discussed (no one knows the final version), companies who do not provide insurance will have to pay a penalty (tax) based on payroll. The number most often thrown around is 8.5%. That money will be used to finance the public option so people who do not have insurance can buy it. Sounds great, doesn't it?

Well, lets say, and this would be the low end for most small businesses, but lets say that insurance costs run 12% of payroll. If I can increase my bottom line by dropping health coverage for my employees, why wouldn't I do that? Most businesses would. So a lot of people will lose their private coverage through work, and when they go to purchase insurance will choose the cheapest option - the public option. That will cause private insurers to in theory lower their rates to be competitive, but in reality, it will drive a lot out of business.

The net effect of the public option would be millions of people lose their coverage through their employer and then buy into the public option, creating a defacto single payer system.

[jballscalls]

Here is the problem withe the public option, and why those who favor a single payer system so want the public option.

The way it has been discussed (no one knows the final version), companies who do not provide insurance will have to pay a penalty (tax) based on payroll. The number most often thrown around is 8.5%. That money will be used to finance the public option so people who do not have insurance can buy it. Sounds great, doesn't it?

Well, lets say, and this would be the low end for most small businesses, but lets say that insurance costs run 12% of payroll. If I can increase my bottom line by dropping health coverage for my employees, why wouldn't I do that? Most businesses would. So a lot of people will lose their private coverage through work, and when they go to purchase insurance will choose the cheapest option - the public option. That will cause private insurers to in theory lower their rates to be competitive, but in reality, it will drive a lot out of business.

The net effect of the public option would be millions of people lose their coverage through their employer and then buy into the public option, creating a defacto single payer system.

great info, thank you

[46zilzal]

STAY away for SSRI's and try to get with older reversible monoamine oxidase inhibitors: they are safer and one can wean themselves off of them easily.

The tried and true Mannerix, when it works, is safe and has been around a very long time without side effects when taken as directed.

[boxcar]

great info, thank you

I would also add to LS's post that additional evidence that the government is lying through its collective teeth to us can be seen with the very punitive excise tax it wants to impose upon people who don't want anything to do with a state-controlled health care system. As you may know ObamanationCare is heavily touted and being marketed as a great tool for providing competition (as though numerous insurance companies don't already compete against one another). It's supposed to provide more options to the consumer -- more CHOICES -- except for one. Consumers would not have the choice of non-participation, unless they're willing to cough up thousands in "refusal" penalities. This harsh disincentive would obviously be designed to force everyone to participate.

So, on the one hand there's the "backdoor" incentive approach aimed at businesses to encourage them to drop their insurance part of their benefits package which would save them a ton of money, and this in turn would force newly uninsured employees to run out the front door to seek coverage in the only place they can, i.e. through the public option plan. What needs to be understood is that once a consumer drops a private insurance plan or is dropped from one (either way), they will also NOT have the option of seeking another private plan.

The whole "public option" or "public insurance" plan is being wrapped up in slick marketing and packaging that is full of deception -- the primary one being that a public plan will provide competition to the insurance companies, when in fact, the government incentives for companies to drop their insurance plans will have just the opposite effect.

Boxcar

[Show Me the Wire]

Simply. Health insurance is the main reason, along with new expensive medical equipment diagnostic tools health care has gone up.

Mandating everyone have health care insurance, will only increase the costs, not reduce them.

Bottom line: Health insurance co.'s are losing customers (employers and individuals) because the product is too expensive. How do you regain customers? One way is to cut prices, but that is unfeasble, which means you need another alternative.

Get Congresss to mandate everyone in th U.S. to participate. Problem solved.

Any progressive especially should be agianst any bill with mandatory participation as it benefits the fat cat robber baron types and not the needs of the people.

[Black Ruby]

I'm not really in favor of mandated insurance. But if you don't mandate insurance, are you going to deny care to those who won't buy insurance, or are the rest of us still going to pick up the tab when they have to have expensive procedures? Do you think we should stop mandating that people have auto insurance?

[Show Me the Wire]

Auto insurance is entirely different.

First you can opt out of having a car if you don't want to pay for insurance. You can't opt out of not having a body.. oh that is right death panels :)

Second the mandatory coverage under auto insurance does not cover the operator's injuries (insert your medical expenses here) or the car. The mandatory coverage pays for injuries to the victim's (insert other person's body) body and property caused by your irresponsible act.

Mandatory health care means you pay to insure your own body. Mandating you to pay to insure your own body is not even applied under mandatory car insurance. Do you know why? Because such mandatory coverage would be too costly to the auto insurance companies. The companies could possibly lose money if they are forced to insure both parties.

See the differences and similatiies. The only similarity is the ability for the fat cat insurance companies to make a big profit with the least benefit to the people.

[Black Ruby]

Auto insurance is entirely different.

First you can opt out of having a car if you don't want to pay for insurance. You can't opt out of not having a body.. oh that is right death panels :)

Second the mandatory coverage under auto insurance does not cover the operator's injuries (insert your medical expenses here) or the car. The mandatory coverage pays for injuries to the victim's (insert other person's body) body and property caused by your irresponsible act.

Mandatory health care means you pay to insure your own body. Mandating you to pay to insure your own body is not even applied under mandatory car insurance. Do you know why? Because such mandatory coverage would be too costly to the auto insurance companies. The companies could possibly lose money if they are forced to insure both parties.

See the differences and similatiies. The only similarity is the ability for the fat cat insurance companies to make a big profit with the least benefit to the people.

But if you find a car necessary in your life, and someone without insurance is driving and hits you, and they have no resources that you or your insurance company could recover, then you're out your deductible. So, like those who would choose not to have health insurance but would expect to get treatments but couldn't pay when they were ill, it's going to cost you something.

Again, the question to me is, what do you do with those who refuse to buy health insurance, then need health services that run $100000 per day or more? Are they denied health services, or will the cost of that care get passed along to the rest of us in higher premiums and/or higher charges at the hospital like they are now?

[Tom]

Like now with all the illegals using our HC system for free?
Like those who will not work force us to buy them food and housing?

[Black Ruby]

So Tom, if you don't mandate health insurance, what do you do with someone who's chosen not to buy health insurance when they need big time health care and can't afford it? Do you deny them the care, or give them the care and pass the expense along to everybody else?

[Show Me the Wire]

But if you find a car necessary in your life, and someone without insurance is driving and hits you, and they have no resources that you or your insurance company could recover, then you're out your deductible. So, like those who would choose not to have health insurance but would expect to get treatments but couldn't pay when they were ill, it's going to cost you something.

Again, the question to me is, what do you do with those who refuse to buy health insurance, then need health services that run $100000 per day or more? Are they denied health services, or will the cost of that care get passed along to the rest of us in higher premiums and/or higher charges at the hospital like they are now?


That is why the traditional system of non-profit hospitals and charity worked so well. People that needed treatment received it without burdening the taxpayers and government.

The real solution is to mandate all hospital charters and health insurance companies be non-profit organizations. Take the profit out.

Also, don't you think Obama's good buddy Warren Buffet is salivating at the thought of mandatory coverage, as his investment fund is into insurance ownership.

Mandating insurance coverage to benefit the wealthy is against progressive ideals. Any true progressive should rally against mandatory coverage as the policy will cause harm to the people, to reward the big business interests.

Curing and caring for ill people should not be a profitable enterprise for institutions, corporations, investment funds, etc.

[Black Ruby]

Thanks for the reply, showme. Did you read the article at the link I posted in this thread? That doctor says something similar, basically take the profit out of healthcare. If you've got a sec, at least read his last paragraph.

[Show Me the Wire]

No I did not read the article. At your request I did. The M.D. is correct about removing the profit motive. The traditional non-profit motive strategy is proven.

As far as universal single payer I am not there yet. Too many problems with the realities in the basement, leaving aside the issue of larger government and privacy issues. The fact is there are not enough medical professionals to deliver adequate care to everyone. Additionally, the federal government does not have money left to fund single-payer.

Currently there are severe shortages of nurses and physicians, even without everyone having access to a physician. An over supply of new patients will overwhelm the existing limited pool of medical care givers and lessen health care for everyone.

The insurance companies will not mind though. Think about it, mandatory insurance means collecting premiums for all and limited payouts equaling big profits. Why do I say this? The insurance companies understand the shortage of medical professionals and realizing new premium paying people will be barred from seeking coverage due to the laws of supply and demand.

More cash flow in and probably the same amount of cash flow out as now. BIG profits for insurance companies. Don't fall for it my progressive fellow citizens.

Demand your congress critter to vote against mandatory insurance, don't let them sell us out to big insurance profiteers.

[DRIVEWAY]

Here is the problem with the the public option, and why those who favor a single payer system so want the public option.

The way it has been discussed (no one knows the final version), companies who do not provide insurance will have to pay a penalty (tax) based on payroll. The number most often thrown around is 8.5%. That money will be used to finance the public option so people who do not have insurance can buy it. Sounds great, doesn't it?

Well, lets say, and this would be the low end for most small businesses, but lets say that insurance costs run 12% of payroll. If I can increase my bottom line by dropping health coverage for my employees, why wouldn't I do that? Most businesses would. So a lot of people will lose their private coverage through work, and when they go to purchase insurance will choose the cheapest option - the public option. That will cause private insurers to in theory lower their rates to be competitive, but in reality, it will drive a lot out of business.

The net effect of the public option would be millions of people lose their coverage through their employer and then buy into the public option, creating a defacto single payer system.

The overwhelming majority would not put their employees at risk for 3.5% of payroll. Additionally, if a significant percentage did drop coverage, what prevents the 8.5% from becoming 12% or more in later legislation?

The new trick for small/medium sized employers is to transition a significant percentage to part-time employees only. No benefits no-hassle and no penalties. This is already happening.

[boxcar]

The overwhelming majority would not put their employees at risk for 3.5% of payroll. Additionally, if a significant percentage did drop coverage, what prevents the 8.5% from becoming 12% or more in later legislation?

And just why would the government shoot itself in the foot and in essence, provide disincentives for its own public option -- and ultimately a single payer system? :bang: :bang: The whole idea is to undercut the payroll expanse, not to match it or exceed it. :rolleyes:

And in a very poor economy like this one (with no tangible signs of real, lasting improvement), that 3.5% savings would mean a lot to most businesses. Employers are looking for every possible way to cut costs -- to cut overhead, as evidenced by the growing unemployment rate. :rolleyes:
Too bad the government is following their lead.

Boxcar

[Tom]

So Tom, if you don't mandate health insurance, what do you do with someone who's chosen not to buy health insurance when they need big time health care and can't afford it? Do you deny them the care, or give them the care and pass the expense along to everybody else?

The government has no right to force anyone to buy anything, Period.
Do we force people to buy homeowner's insurance, flood insurance?
It is not the responsibility of the government to provide anyone with health care.

[hazzardm]

That will cause private insurers to in theory lower their rates to be competitive, but in reality, it will drive a lot out of business.

I don't much care for govt intrusion, but the slime-ball insurance industry should be cut back.

[lsbets]

The overwhelming majority would not put their employees at risk for 3.5% of payroll.

Are you kidding me? Have you ever had to make payroll? 3.5% would be a significant cost savings. Also, for small businesses with low wage hourly employees, that number would be much closer to 20%.

If it were cheaper to pay the penalty, the vast majority of businesses would stop offering insurance coverage to their employees.

[sally]

This whole insurance debate pisses me off- I DO NOT want to be forced by anyone to give the insurance companies MORE of my money so they can turn around and deny me service anyway-- I've had so many friends tell me about paying their insurance every month, but then when they see the doctor, the insurance company contests the bill and doesn't pay-- then, the doctor hits up the patient, and if the patient doesn't pay the doctor says "ok, we'll just eat it this time". Do you think if I went into a doctor's office without insurance and decided not to pay the bill they would say "ok, we'll just eat it this time"? Heck no! I'd have the bill collector's at my door!!

I hate insurance companies....:mad:

[DRIVEWAY]

And just why would the government shoot itself in the foot and in essence, provide disincentives for its own public option -- and ultimately a single payer system? :bang: :bang: The whole idea is to undercut the payroll expanse, not to match it or exceed it. :rolleyes:

And in a very poor economy like this one (with no tangible signs of real, lasting improvement), that 3.5% savings would mean a lot to most businesses. Employers are looking for every possible way to cut costs -- to cut overhead, as evidenced by the growing unemployment rate. :rolleyes:
Too bad the government is following their lead.

Boxcar

You honestly believe the Government is consistent. Read your own posts over the years.:bang:

Most small employers have a personal relationship with their employees. The destruction of employee morale for a meager 3.5% isn't worth it.

The employer penalty is nothing but a sideshow.

[boxcar]

You honestly believe the Government is consistent. Read your own posts over the years.:bang:

No, you need to re-read my posts. The state is pretty consistent when it comes to dipping its greedy fingers into other people's pockets -- most especially since liberal politicians have already admitted that the "public option" would be the best path to the single-payer system. So, there's an agenda -- a sought after goal in view here.

Most small employers have a personal relationship with their employees. The destruction of employee morale for a meager 3.5% isn't worth it.

The employer penalty is nothing but a sideshow.

In a pig's eye it is! When the rubber meets the road, all the company has to do istell its employees is that its the company way because its necessary to reduce overhead, or its the highway for them. You're evidently out of touch with the economics realities of today if you believe for a nanosecond that it's an employees labor market out there. What are the employees most likely to do: Quit in this kind of market or keep their job while losing a valuable benefit? For most of us, the answer is a no-brainer. For most of us... :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[DRIVEWAY]

No, you need to re-read my posts. The state is pretty consistent when it comes to dipping its greedy fingers into other people's pockets :rolleyes:

Boxcar

So you agree the greedy politicians would then raise the penalty from 8.5% to 10/12/15 or whatever they want!!

You can't have it both ways.

[boxcar]

So you agree the greedy politicians would then raise the penalty from 8.5% to 10/12/15 or whatever they want!!

You can't have it both ways.

No, I didn't say that and you know it. What I said (for the benefit of reading comp-impaired) is that they wouldn't shoot themselves in the foot now because their ultimate goal is a one-payer system in which they would stand to make even more money.

Got it straight, now? Or do you want to try putting more words in my mouth?

Boxcar

[Black Ruby]

The government has no right to force anyone to buy anything, Period.
Do we force people to buy homeowner's insurance, flood insurance?
It is not the responsibility of the government to provide anyone with health care.

People are forced to buy car insurance if they're going to drive, right? Isn't the government forcing us to pay for healthcare for the uninsured if they get care they can't pay for, in the forms of higher premiums and/or higher fees for doctors and hospital services?

[boxcar]

People are forced to buy car insurance if they're going to drive, right? Isn't the government forcing us to pay for healthcare for the uninsured if they get care they can't pay for, in the forms of higher premiums and/or higher fees for doctors and hospital services?

So...when are you going to start subsidizing the premiums for my car insurance?

Boxcar

[46zilzal]

I continually bend over with laugher with all the overt lies when the opponents of universal health care talk about how bad our medical system is here.

I have had the same family doctor for 32 years. I have been hospitalized twice, right away through the ER. I have had one elective surgery and that was a non-emergency which took place about a week after I saw the specialist. The specialist visit was arranged for a week after the referral from my GP. Never waited more than a week for Cat scans or radiographs. Medications here are about 50% of what my family payrs for the SAME MEDICATIONS in the U.S.

My wife was admitted multiple times over the last ten years of her life, in a semi-private room with first rate care, via ambulance service several times, with programs where nurses came into our home to help her with her own IV medications.

We paid a flat fee of about $49.00 per month for both of us and currently my wife's employer pays for both our medical and dental insurance. I just had a second crown on a tooth today and the fee was about $310.00 for the whole thing.

Real life the way it really is, not the horror stories you hear the advocates against universal health insurance tell you. It is all about keeping their blood sucking system intact.

[Tom]

People are forced to buy car insurance if they're going to drive, right? Isn't the government forcing us to pay for healthcare for the uninsured if they get care they can't pay for, in the forms of higher premiums and/or higher fees for doctors and hospital services?

Car insurance is optional, as is driving. Should people in NYC who do not drive pay a higher tax to pay for drivers?

The government is STEALING money from all of us who work to pay for anchors and illegals. I have no use for this government and highly support its overthrow. The government is the enemy and I do not support it on any level.

[Tom]

Hey 46, how come you guys have to hold lotteries up there to pick a few people to be able to have a doctor at all?

Do the losers get to have you? :lol:

[DRIVEWAY]

No, I didn't say that and you know it. What I said (for the benefit of reading comp-impaired) is that they wouldn't shoot themselves in the foot now because their ultimate goal is a one-payer system in which they would stand to make even more money.

Got it straight, now? Or do you want to try putting more words in my mouth?

Boxcar

Their ultimate goal aside. They will create a penalty of 8.5% of payroll for companies that do not provide healthcare. There are many companies now that do not provide healthcare. They will either pay a penalty of 8.5% or provide some level of reasonable healthcare. Now those that pay the 8.5% penalty will help provide funding for the "Public Option". Employers that terminate employee healthcare will also be subject to the penalty. As the cost of the Public Option goes up then it's logical for the penalty to increase. Do you honestly believe that the government will not increase this penalty?

Now you claim that the government will not shoot themselves in the foot now because their ultimate goal is a one-payor system.

Before they increase their premiums to "Public Option" policyholders above what the private sector charges, they will definitely increase the employer penalty to prevent that contingency. If they don't increase the penalty then private insurance may be less expensive or the "Public Option" benefits will have to be cut.

Consequently, your claim that the penalty will not increase is on poor footing.

[46zilzal]

Hey 46, how come you guys have to hold lotteries up there to pick a few people to be able to have a doctor at all?


More fantasy world baloney as is most of the propaganda that keeps the status quo of the fat cats (the bean counters actually) denying care to people but taking all those premiums..

The only lotteries are the ones at the sports bars: 649 Super 7 and Sports lotto

[Tom]

You deny the lottery?

[46zilzal]

You deny the lottery?
Never heard of it ever and I practiced here 32 years.
None of my family in Toronto have ever had anything like that either as was the case when my father in law died just last August: right into the ER and to intensive care.

PURE FANTASY from idiots who have no idea what they are talking about.

[HUSKER55]

tHE ONLY WAY I can see, to solve the problem is to have a national sales tax for health care. I think that if that were happen to cover emergencies then the policies that cover maintenance and special needs would come down and be affordable for all.

The biggest problem is that not everyone pays into the system but everyone wants the benefits.

Mandatory anything is not going to work. Everyone has to pay or it will not work for anyone.

jmho

[Tom]

PURE FANTASY from idiots who have no idea what they are talking about.

Like you, ya mean?

http://www.foxbusiness.com/search-results/m/26161513/need-a-doctor-better-win-the-lottery.htm

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0013191

http://www.intermedglobal.com/news_canadian_doctors_shortage.html

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2008/07/15/gander-lottery.html



Paul Gaenge was one of about 4,000 people who entered their names for a lottery held earlier this month by the Gander Medical Clinic, following the hiring of two new general practitioners.

Because so many people in the area have not had a primary care physician, the clinic determined the fairest way to respond to its waiting list was a lottery — a move that attracted national headlines.

[cj's dad]

STAY away for SSRI's and try to get with older reversible monoamine oxidase inhibitors: they are safer and one can wean themselves off of them easily.

The tried and true Mannerix, when it works, is safe and has been around a very long time without side effects when taken as directed.


Thank you so much DOCTOR :lol: :lol: :lol:

The check is in the mail:

Dr. Zilly
46 Rod Serling Ave.
Anywhere, Canada

[witchdoctor]

STAY away for SSRI's and try to get with older reversible monoamine oxidase inhibitors: they are safer and one can wean themselves off of them easily.

The tried and true Mannerix, when it works, is safe and has been around a very long time without side effects when taken as directed.


Say WHAT????


You haven't had to take care of someone that decides that they want to kill themselves by having wine and cheese. Spent most the night working on one of these guys and saved his life. He turned around and sued the psychiatrist that put him on them. I am surprised I wasn't sued for saving him.

[witchdoctor]

Like now with all the illegals using our HC system for free?
Like those who will not work force us to buy them food and housing?


Those cost get passed on to those with insurance.