is the public option healthplan good enough for lawmakers?...

[gardenweasel]

"President Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats in Congress have repeatedly characterized American health care as a broken system that needs to be brought into the 21st century. Their nanny-state solution: a massive trillion-dollar-plus, single-payer health care plan run by the federal government.

We agree with Rep. John Fleming, a Republican from Louisiana?s 4th Congressional district, who says if his colleagues like that idea, they should sign up for it. Fleming, a medical doctor, is circulating a letter and accompanying resolution that calls on members of Congress to demonstrate their faith in government-run health care by abandoning the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and enrolling under the public insurance option they want everyone else to embrace.

What an inspired idea.

Fleming writes: ?As we debate the best way to reform our health care system and ensure that all Americans have access to quality health care, some in Congress insist that a government-run ?public option? is necessary in order to ?keep private insurance honest.? Yet in the draft bill ... members of Congress are curiously exempt from participation in the public plan.

?Many of my colleagues and I believe that an expansion of government-run health care will inevitably lead to rationing of care and higher taxes for the middle class,? he says. ?But for those who are convinced that government-run health care won?t sacrifice quality and won?t lead to rationing, I am introducing a resolution calling on all members of Congress who vote to support the government-run option to automatically enroll in the public plan.

?If members of Congress are convinced that the public, government-run option will deliver the same quality of care as their congressional health plans, then they should be willing to enroll in the public option automatically. Congress should stop asking the American people to make sacrifices they are not willing to make themselves.?

Rep. Fleming?s resolution is a moral challenge that congressional Democrats ought to embrace with gusto ? although we won?t hold our breath on that one.

That said, whether a House or Senate member prefers a government-run health insurance option or private insurance, no member of Congress or their staffs should be allowed to participate any longer in the plush Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.

Come to think of it, there?s really no reason other federal employees should continue to enjoy a high-end health care program at taxpayer expense.

If health care costs are too high, let?s begin by cutting them in Washington."

http://www.timesnews.net/article.php?id=9015238

why not?...(btw,the dems shot the reolution down)...

 

[ferdville]

When pigs fly.............

 

[Lumi]

When pigs fly.............

GREAT ALBUM



Giant flying Pink Floyd pig

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UomeBtCdwSo

 

[Spytheweb]

If a government-run public health plan option is established, Congress should be required to participate in it, Senate lawmakers have decided.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which is in the process of wrapping up negotiations on Sen. Edward Kennedy's Affordable Health Choices Act, narrowly approved by a vote of 12-11 an amendment by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) that would mandate Congress to enroll in the public option outlined in the bill.

?Let's demonstrate leadership?and confidence in the system?by requiring that every member of Congress go into it,? Coburn said, arguing that ultimately, most everyone would end up on the public option. Others on the committee balked at the idea, including Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.). ?I don't know why we should require ourselves to participate in a plan that no one else needs to participate in. This bill goes to great lengths to show that the choice is there for everybody.?

 

[Chadman]

I'm curious, maybe I'm missing something - help me out. What exactly does the word OPTION mean to you guys? Seriously, am I missing something? Doesn't the word option mean that it's one of the things you CAN do, along with some other things? So, exactly how does one exempt oneself from an option? Is there something in the legislation - at least the public option part of it that you're "asking" about - that specifically exempts legislators from participating in the public option?

Wease, others, help me out?

I readily admit that I have not taken the time to read everything or keep up with specific legislation. But I'm honestly asking this question, and would like opinions and an explanation from those who seem to know, and continue to ask this. Maybe there is something specifically prohibiting lawmakers from selecting the option. If not, I don't see why this is a valid argument. There are a lot of people that would not select this option, if provided. I'm guessing a few in here.

And Wease, have you written a letter to your legislators on this? By law, they have to respond to mailed letters, so you might eventually get some kind of response. Would guess it wouldn't be what you want, but I suggest trying it. I can't help but think about how much time is spent typing complaints and voicing opinions in here, when things could actually be done to try to voice an opinion where it could matter. Nothing ever changes for those who don't try - that's for should.

 

[ELVIS]

I'm curious, maybe I'm missing something - help me out. What exactly does the word OPTION mean to you guys? Seriously, am I missing something? Doesn't the word option mean that it's one of the things you CAN do, along with some other things? So, exactly how does one exempt oneself from an option? Is there something in the legislation - at least the public option part of it that you're "asking" about - that specifically exempts legislators from participating in the public option?

Wease, others, help me out?

I readily admit that I have not taken the time to read everything or keep up with specific legislation. But I'm honestly asking this question, and would like opinions and an explanation from those who seem to know, and continue to ask this. Maybe there is something specifically prohibiting lawmakers from selecting the option. If not, I don't see why this is a valid argument. There are a lot of people that would not select this option, if provided. I'm guessing a few in here.

And Wease, have you written a letter to your legislators on this? By law, they have to respond to mailed letters, so you might eventually get some kind of response. Would guess it wouldn't be what you want, but I suggest trying it. I can't help but think about how much time is spent typing complaints and voicing opinions in here, when things could actually be done to try to voice an opinion where it could matter. Nothing ever changes for those who don't try - that's for should.

chad, i contact my congresswoman on a regular basis, but it doesn't matter - she is conservative as they come and typically votes the way i want her too. a few of our reps are democratic to the core and they will vote along party lines . i live in TN - so we are mostly a red state anyway.

the problem that i have with the option - what incentive does my co have to provide healthcare benefits when the gov is providing it ? in the end, if the private rates will continue to go up or companies will charge me more for coverage, or co pays will go up, or percentage of bills covered will go down. these companies are not going to lose money - they will gouge me and you . the gov will set limits on spending and the compensation will decrease for those in the medical field.

just wait until the gov dr. removes the wrong kidney - will uncle sam pay you out a ridiculous sum of money after you sue ? i doubt it.

the system is a wreck and needs to seriously overhauled, but there is no possible way a good healthcare plabn can be unveiled and implemented by washington in such a short time. the man has been in office 150 days.... ?

the poor are the only people that benefit and i am sorry, but i am sick of the gov helping the poor. 90% of the new gov housing in memphis have better homes than i did when i got married and almost everyone of them have a satellite dish. the point, the people that do not work will continue to sit on their collective assess and produce nothing. the gov system will continue to waste money, but the names of the people that profit will change - that is about the only difference that i see. jmo

 

[Chadman]

I appreciate your thoughts, Elvis. The reason I suggested Weasel send a letter is to try to get an answer to his question. And I know at least on the state legislature, the reps around here are in tune with what people think, and all of them are supposed to answer your letters. I'm always surprised when I get one back, at least I feel like I'm in the process, and the answers that come back are sometimes interesting.

I know what you're saying about the companies situation and the healthcare. However, healthcare as is it is now is killing companies, just like you and me. Companies, especially small ones, are changing their plans for the worse because they have to NOW, let alone if things keep going up - which they will, unless something is done. It's not a normal situation, it's far more escalation than in other areas, and it's never going to stop unless we all figure out how. Companies will have to make choices, and more and more will stop offering it - or the ones that do will remain a more attractive employer option for prospective employees. It's not a right, I keep hearing, it's a benefit that people pay for. So, companies can chose, just like they do now. I don't think that forcing companies to offer it is the right idea at face value, though. That doesn't make sense to me.

I still think the government has a stronger say as a collective as far as cost than you or I do individually, and I'd think they could drive a better bargain and actually cause some competition in these companies that have complete control over what we pay - we could never do that now.

Again, we as taxpayers are paying for the people we complain about NOW. And I doubt (without thinking more deeply about it) that my taxes or cost of receiving a public option would be greater than what my current costs are, and definitely would be down the road. I just don't see that quickly. And I'm not as concerned as some that we'd be worse off with a government in charge of things as say, an insurance company executive and management team who actually has a vested interest in denying me care and paying for it. There's no serious bottom line for the government agency, compared to insurance and pharma companies. Or healthcare facilities and providers.

Kind of a broad post from me - but, some things just don't add up when looking at this. And I think it's positive that we're finally talking about it.

I agree with you, it's too much, too soon, too quickly. Let's slow it down and figure out something that will at least make things better.

 

[ELVIS]

i don't really disagree with you, and i hope that you are right.

i just don't care for uncle sam's involvement in general. i think the taxes are too high, on everything and greedy politicians (this goes for all of them) are more worried about getting re-elected by their personal groups, than they are the good of the country's future.

in the end, they will do whatever they want and i am forced to make the most of it.

The VA is the best example that i can think of to describe a gov hospital and that scrares me. the tenncare system implemented in TN several years ago went bankrupt and was scammed to death, also troubling.

i am also concerned over the illegals becoming even more rampant once this is in place. :violin:

peace.

 

[Lumi]

Their Own Medicine

Their Own Medicine

Their Own Medicine

Senators prefer the insurance they have.

In the health debate, liberals sing Hari Krishnas to the "public option" -- a new federal insurance program like Medicare -- but if it's good enough for the middle class, then surely it's good enough for the political class too? As it happens, more than a few Democrats disagree.

On Tuesday (14 JUL), the Senate health committee voted 12-11 in favor of a two-page amendment courtesy of Republican Tom Coburn that would require all Members and their staffs to enroll in any new government-run health plan. Yet all Democrats -- with the exceptions of acting chairman Chris Dodd, Barbara Mikulski and Ted Kennedy via proxy -- voted nay.

In other words, Sherrod Brown and Sheldon Whitehouse won't themselves join a plan that "will offer benefits that are as good as those available through private insurance plans -- or better," as the Ohio and Rhode Island liberals put it in a recent op-ed. And even a self-described socialist like Vermont's Bernie Sanders, who supports a government-only system, wouldn't sign himself up.

Of course, they also qualify now for generous Congressional coverage. Most Americans won't have the same choice. Some will be transferred to the new entitlement as it uses its taxpayer bankroll to dominate insurance markets. Others work for businesses that will find it easier to dump their policies and move employees to the federal rolls. Democrats also know that the public option will try to control health spending by squeezing payments made to doctors and hospitals, and by not paying for treatments that Washington decides are too expensive, which will result in inferior care.

No doubt Mr. Dodd acceded to the Coburn amendment to blunt such objections, and in any case he'll strip it out later in some backroom. Judd Gregg was the only GOP Senator to oppose it, on humanitarian grounds. As he told us in an interview, the public option "will be so bad that I don't think anyone should be forced to join."

 

[Trench]

I appreciate your thoughts, Elvis. The reason I suggested Weasel send a letter is to try to get an answer to his question. And I know at least on the state legislature, the reps around here are in tune with what people think, and all of them are supposed to answer your letters. I'm always surprised when I get one back, at least I feel like I'm in the process, and the answers that come back are sometimes interesting.

I know what you're saying about the companies situation and the healthcare. However, healthcare as is it is now is killing companies, just like you and me. Companies, especially small ones, are changing their plans for the worse because they have to NOW, let alone if things keep going up - which they will, unless something is done. It's not a normal situation, it's far more escalation than in other areas, and it's never going to stop unless we all figure out how. Companies will have to make choices, and more and more will stop offering it - or the ones that do will remain a more attractive employer option for prospective employees. It's not a right, I keep hearing, it's a benefit that people pay for. So, companies can chose, just like they do now. I don't think that forcing companies to offer it is the right idea at face value, though. That doesn't make sense to me.

I still think the government has a stronger say as a collective as far as cost than you or I do individually, and I'd think they could drive a better bargain and actually cause some competition in these companies that have complete control over what we pay - we could never do that now.

Again, we as taxpayers are paying for the people we complain about NOW. And I doubt (without thinking more deeply about it) that my taxes or cost of receiving a public option would be greater than what my current costs are, and definitely would be down the road. I just don't see that quickly. And I'm not as concerned as some that we'd be worse off with a government in charge of things as say, an insurance company executive and management team who actually has a vested interest in denying me care and paying for it. There's no serious bottom line for the government agency, compared to insurance and pharma companies. Or healthcare facilities and providers.

Kind of a broad post from me - but, some things just don't add up when looking at this. And I think it's positive that we're finally talking about it.

I agree with you, it's too much, too soon, too quickly. Let's slow it down and figure out something that will at least make things better.

Nicely stated Chad. It's mind-boggling to me that ANYONE can look at their medical statements anymore and NOT see a system that's broken. It's just as curious to me that anyone could possibly believe that this system will not eventually collapse under it's own weight, just as the the housing bubble and derivitives markets came crashing down last year.

Insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and Big Healthcare are gouging big business, small businesses, the working class and the government. The ripple effect of a runaway healthcare system throughout our entire economy is staggering. Without a complete overhaul or at least serious reform, our current healthcare system will...

a) Bankrupt Medicare/Medicaid.
b) Continue to play a major role in the bankrupting of big business (like G.M. and Chrysler).
c) Continue to discourage small business startups and growth within existing small businesses, while forcing more and more small business owners to succumb to the reality that they cannot provide healthcare benefits to their employees.
d) Continue to place more and more economic strain on the working class via higher premiums, higher co-pays and out-of-pocket expenses.
e) Allow insurance companies to continue to expand their growing trend of maximizing profits through recission.
f) Continue to increase budget deficits caused by the ever-escalating and exhorbitant billing practices of our runaway healtcare industry, which in turn will continue to force the federal government to increase the size of it's safety net while the health of the overall economy is sacrificed for the benefit of the few -- the executives of Big Insurance, Big RX and Big Healthcare.

 

[Trench]

Btw Chad... I enjoy reading your posts, not only because you express your thoughts clearly, but because, like mine, your posts are your own thoughts and words. This forum's populated by too many cut & paste artists.

 

[Lumi]

Btw Chad... I enjoy reading your posts, not only because you express your thoughts clearly, but because, like mine, your posts are your own thoughts and words. This forum's populated by too many cut & paste artists.

Most of my stuff is Trench, I am a Copy and Paste Guru !

I try to keep all the sports stuff updated on top of getting my poli fix, and I do have my own thoughts, strange thoughts :142smilie

 

[ELVIS]

no, one thinks that the system isn't garbage. what we don't agree on is that obama's going to make it better.

currently, my wife works as a pharmacist. they have a few gov contracts now - that they do not make profit on. every female gov employee that wants to get pregnant can go to the dr, and get a prescription to help her get pregnant. i do not know why my taxes pay for this. furthermore, there is a national back order on the generic medicine. the gov employee still get there meds. so, every prescription that my wife fills of with the brand name (which is all of them at this point) her company loses $65 each. they also eat the fed ex charge as well. they are in business to make money - not lose it.

her company does make a lot of money, but they are responsible for so many regulations it is ridiculous. there are tons of people that try to scam for growth hormones, etc. it is her job to catch these people as well.........

btw, we carry insurance on the wife in case somone's wife takes these pregnancy pills and is allergic to peanuts..........

on another side note, is somone going to cancel my wife's student loan debt because she is forced to take a pay cut in the near future ? who wants to chip in on the 69k we owe ?

i know she didn't go to school for 7 yrs to work for an average salary, nor did any other dr, lawyer, etc.

 

[Chadman]

Quick thought, elvis - why is there such a backlog on generic drugs? Could the pharmaceutical company be controlling this, to make sure they can overcharge EVERYBODY, including your wife's company, and continue to do this? My guess would be yes, that's the case, and that's completely at the issue we're talking about. That's the point... there are a select few sectors that are gauging everyone they can, and they can use the money that we all give them to continue perpetuating their money-printing businesses. I can appreciate your point about the student loans, my wife has them as well (law firm partner), and I will have a few coming up, most likely. Seems a more even, equitable healthcare system would address the problem you're talking about with the government workers and their benefits, too. And, if that is something that is maintained, then working for the government should be an attractive option for individuals, just like working for a company that provides nice benefits. (Just some random, short-sighted thoughts... probably off the mark - I definitely need a beer today.).

 

[ELVIS]

we will see. always appreciate your posts.

out of curiosity, do you guys have the illegals in minny like we do ?

part of the angst for me is the amnesty piece that i truly believe is coming after the healthcare....

either way, gl with qb of yours......


have a good weekend.

 

[Chadman]

Elvis, not sure about your illegals, and it's tough to know for sure here. I know there is a very extensive Somali population in parts of the Twin Cities. I understand and agree with your concerns on the illegal situation. I just don't understand the logic in ILLEGAL aliens having options now, or later. Do what it takes to become a legal alien, and then I have no problem.

 

[gardenweasel]

I'm curious, maybe I'm missing something - help me out. What exactly does the word OPTION mean to you guys?
.

chad,my buddy..the gov`t makes the rules...all the pres has to do is impose heavy regulations on the insurance companies.....tax em...cancel any pre-existing conditions clauses...cap out of pocket expenses...

sounds great doesn`t it?...of course it will bankrupt private insurers....

what`s left then?...obamacare for everyone....if there is a government "option", every private business in the usa will immediately dump their private health insurance coverage......

result?...you have no choice...and when you have no choice.....well,you have no choice...

except for congress and the yayyo`s that made this mess...let me say it slowly......congress and the president and the politicians will be "EXEMPT"(BY LAW) from any public healtcare plan......

if it`s so great,why?....

here`s a nice read...but leave the lights on...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204886304574306693989102298.htmll

just so i don`t leave everyone totally bummed out....

weasel/"hey doc, my eye hurts when i drink my morning coffee"....

doc: "take the spoon out of the cup".

 

[ELVIS]

chad,my buddy..the gov`t makes the rules...all the pres has to do is impose heavy regulations on the insurance companies.....tax em...cancel any pre-existing conditions clauses...cap out of pocket expenses...

sounds great doesn`t it?...of course it will bankrupt private insurers....

what`s left then?...obamacare for everyone....if there is a government "option", every private business in the usa will immediately dump their private health insurance coverage......

result?...you have no choice...and when you have no choice.....well,you have no choice...

except for congress and the yayyo`s that made this mess...let me say it slowly......congress and the president and the politicians will be "EXEMPT"(BY LAW) from any public healtcare plan......

if it`s so great,why?....

all reasons i am very concerned.

 

[layinwood]

I've asked this question before but never gotten a response.

Why can't there be government oversight on pricing and profits of health insurance companies like there are on property and casualty insurance companies(Allstate, State Farm, etc. and of course this is actually done by our state government on a state by state basis)?