White House open to healthcare co op

layinwood

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 29, 2001
4,771
40
0
Dallas, TX
They're reporting that the WH might be open to a co op instead of gov't run insurance.

I love this idea and thought it was an option for a while. This will do a few things but one of the biggest is that it will keep the large insurance companies prices in check.

Now there are two more parts of healthcare they need to look into before it's ok because insurance companies aren't the only problem

1. Pharm companies and the cost of name brand scripts. Generics are good but you can't get them for everything you need. Some people on here hate Wal Mart but their $4 generic has been a life savor for a lot of people.

2. Mal Practice insurance and cutting out bs lawsuits.

3.(even though I just said 2) The absolute bs billing that hospitals do and the things they do it for.
 

Spytheweb

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 27, 2005
1,171
14
0
This is something that i realized a few days ago and it is flying under the radar. Republicans don't see it coming. I think it may be one result of all the tax cuts the republicans love. The tax cuts have left alot of state governments without much money. One way governments can save a great deal of money is to enact a universal single payer health care system in their state. They are studying this and it is the best cost effective way to save money hands down.

The bottom line is single payer is coming through the backdoor at the state level.

Dennis Kucinich:

Dear Friends,

With your support, your phone calls, your emails, we won a major legislative victory today for a state single payer health care option in the House of Representatives in Washington, DC. The House Education and Labor Committee approved the Kucinich Amendment by a vote of 27-19, with 14 Democrats and 13 Republicans voting yes.

The amendment propels the growing single payer health care movement at the state level. There are at least ten states which have active single payer efforts in their legislatures. They are California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Washington. The amendment mandates a single payer state will receive the right to waive the application of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), which has in the past been used to nullify efforts to expand state or local government health care.

Under the Kucinich Amendment a state's application for a waiver from ERISA is granted automatically if the state has signed into law a single payer plan. With the amendment, for the first time, the state single payer health care option is shielded from an ERISA-based legal attack. Now that the underlying bill has been passed, as amended, by the full committee, we must make sure that Congress knows that we want the provision kept in the bill at final passage!

The state single payer option was one of five major amendments which I obtained support to get included in HR3200. One amendment brings into standard coverage for the first time complementary and alternative medicine, (integrative medicine). Another amendment drives down the cost of prescription drugs by ending pharmaceutical industry's sharp practices manipulating physician prescribing habits. An amendment stops the insurance industry from increasing premiums at the time when people are not permitted to change health plans; and finally an amendment imposing a requirement on insurance companies that they disclose the cost of advertising, marketing and executive compensation expenses (which generally divert money from patient care).

Please make sure you post this message on your social networking site, ask all your friends to get involved and encourage everyone you know to sign up at www.Kucinich.us so we can build full momentum behind this movement for real health care.

Let's do this!

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Den...90717-293.html
__________________
 

layinwood

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 29, 2001
4,771
40
0
Dallas, TX
Ah yes, this sounds like a great idea to me. If the Dems want this then let them do it in their states. From a quick glance it looks like those states have already made great decisions with their money. :shrug:
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,573
225
63
"the bunker"
wouldn`t "co-ops" just be state government run?...isn`t it all just designed to jam the "evil" insurance companies?...

many of the uninsured are younger folks that choose not to buy insurance...many others are illegals who don`t even belong here...

but,they still get care...be it at a clinic or an emergency room...

it`s not even about insuring the uninsured...it`s about control...it`s agenda driven...i can`t see why people willfully ignore this fact....

if it were really about insurance for most,a more "surgical" change to our system, not a sweeping "overhaul" would be the best way to go....roughly 80% are happy with their healthcare...

but,this whole boondoggle,much like the stimulus,the auto bail-out and the cash for clunkers thing is really a mask for a bunch of special interests, and would result in a trade of negatives, at best....

any sweeping change would take four years to implement..but,obama is in a hurry to jam this through because he already sees what happens when the people start understanding what they`re doing to their healthcare....

not the politician`s healthcare...OUR healthcare..

they`re exempt....

when they join in whatever system they foist on america,then i`ll be happy to consider what they`re offering...but as long as the architect`s of the plan write specific legislation exempting themselves(avoiding it like the plague),no thanks...

you`d have to be stupid to accept this crap..
 

layinwood

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 29, 2001
4,771
40
0
Dallas, TX
GW, I totally agree with you.

I understand why people are complaining about healthcare and insurance cost but here's a great example of what happens.

I'll have two jobs to offer someone. One job is in a single doc office that has no benefits but will pay the person 17.00 an hour. The other job is in a multi doc office with benefits but they only make 15.50 or 16.00 an hour plus they have room for advancement within the company because of it's size. Around 7 times out of 10 the person will choose to make a $1 more an hour over having benefits and room for advancement. They'll tell me they need to money to take care of things. They don't think about how much money the benefits are costing the one employer and how much it's worth to them and they could care less about 2 years down the line when if they work hard they could be a supervisor or manager making a lot more. They won't give up their cell phones or other things they think they "have" to have.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
You guys (some of you) keep saying that most people are "happy with their healthcare." I don't think that's the issue here, at least not for most people. I'm happy with my healthcare, and the numbers being thrown around are probably accurate.

The PROBLEM, and what NEEDS to be addressed, is the cost, and where that is going. You can't have one discussion without the other, although Wease and others want to. Are you saying that you think 80% of people are happy with their healthcare, including what they pay for it? If you are, you are wrong, IMO. And currently, there is NOTHING to keep it even the same, and it certainly will continue to go up, and dramatically. There simply is no reason for "it" to not keep going up, unless something is done to change the system.

Wease, Wayne, Skul, Hedge, and others keep screaming about why do we all think the legislators are trying to be exempt from the new OPTION (not overall plan, and option for one way to do it). My point is, why do you think insurance companies, big pharma, major healthcare providers, and some other special interest groups are organizing so dramatically against ANYthing that will examine change? Do you really think it's THIS bill specifically, although that is a part of it? It's because they don't want anything to rock the money-printing machine they currently are using, and will continue to use more aggressively, unless it's unplugged.

This isn't a business profit or "happy with my healthcare" issue. It's an unfettered cost issue, and a near-monopolistic issue, that's costing ALL of us dearly. To ignore dealing with it, is costing YOU money, right now. More and more money, with no end in sight. To me, that's the issue.

I agree this is too much, too fast. But to do what you guys have suggested, and some continue to suggest, that most people are happy with the current situation, and we should leave well enough alone, is just wrong, IMO.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,573
225
63
"the bunker"
You guys (some of you) keep saying that most people are "happy with their healthcare." I don't think that's the issue here, at least not for most people. I'm happy with my healthcare, and the numbers being thrown around are probably accurate.

The PROBLEM, and what NEEDS to be addressed, is the cost, and where that is going. You can't have one discussion without the other, although Wease and others want to. Are you saying that you think 80% of people are happy with their healthcare, including what they pay for it? If you are, you are wrong, IMO. And currently, there is NOTHING to keep it even the same, and it certainly will continue to go up, and dramatically. There simply is no reason for "it" to not keep going up, unless something is done to change the system.

Wease, Wayne, Skul, Hedge, and others keep screaming about why do we all think the legislators are trying to be exempt from the new OPTION (not overall plan, and option for one way to do it). My point is, why do you think insurance companies, big pharma, major healthcare providers, and some other special interest groups are organizing so dramatically against ANYthing that will examine change? Do you really think it's THIS bill specifically, although that is a part of it? It's because they don't want anything to rock the money-printing machine they currently are using, and will continue to use more aggressively, unless it's unplugged.

This isn't a business profit or "happy with my healthcare" issue. It's an unfettered cost issue, and a near-monopolistic issue, that's costing ALL of us dearly. To ignore dealing with it, is costing YOU money, right now. More and more money, with no end in sight. To me, that's the issue.

I agree this is too much, too fast. But to do what you guys have suggested, and some continue to suggest, that most people are happy with the current situation, and we should leave well enough alone, is just wrong, IMO.

i know one thing....when i was younger, i had insurance that "I" paid for, and never used for 20 years . ...i budgeted for it for myself and my family... . and now "I" need coverage, and "I" have it........ and it's in "MY" control to pay for the type of coverage "I" have and seek the type of care "I" wish to seek....

not some 3rd world socialist system in which i have to stand in line behind some younger illegal alien or some reprobate who never paid a dime because he figured he`d never get sick(just because it makes some politicians feel good about themselves or they want more control over people`s lives)...

i don`t want the government mandating my healthcare...making those decisions for me...

anyhoo,congress can already rewrite private insurance regulations to accomplish any necessary reform they want....if reform were their goal....

the only legitimate reason for a "public option" is as a stalking horse for a single payer system, period....

and that`s where my hackles raise..
 

Duff Miver

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 29, 2009
6,521
55
0
Right behind you
i know one thing....when i was younger, i had insurance that "I" paid for, and never used for 20 years . ...i budgeted for it for myself and my family... . and now "I" need coverage, and "I" have it........ and it's in "MY" control to pay for the type of coverage "I" have and seek the type of care "I" wish to seek....

not some 3rd world socialist system in which i have to stand in line behind some younger illegal alien or some reprobate who never paid a dime because he figured he`d never get sick(just because it makes some politicians feel good about themselves or they want more control over people`s lives)...

i don`t want the government mandating my healthcare...making those decisions for me...

anyhoo,congress can already rewrite private insurance regulations to accomplish any necessary reform they want....if reform were their goal....

the only legitimate reason for a "public option" is as a stalking horse for a single payer system, period....

and that`s where my hackles raise..

Guess what? If you go to the Emergency Room, you're going to stand in a very long line behind the uninsured.

As Bush said, "They can go to the ER."

40 million+ are now insured under the socialist single-payer Medicare system. Of those 40 million, can you name just one who has chosen to forgo Medicare in favor of for-profit insurance?

No you can't. Tell you anything? Duh.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,573
225
63
"the bunker"
Guess what? If you go to the Emergency Room, you're going to stand in a very long line behind the uninsured.

As Bush said, "They can go to the ER."

40 million+ are now insured under the socialist single-payer Medicare system. Of those 40 million, can you name just one who has chosen to forgo Medicare in favor of for-profit insurance?

No you can't. Tell you anything? Duh.

when you turn 65,for most medicare becomes your primary coverage(unless you`re still employed) and your regular coverage becomes your supplemental....there won`t be any supplemental once single payer puts private insurers out of business...

duh?...

and medicare is strapped right now...so lets throw another 260 million into a single payer system?...
:rolleyes:

if i give you that the figures for the uninsured being tossed about -say 30 to 40 million - are true(which is b.s.), we now have a private-sector system that covers around 90% of the population....

why is is necessary to junk that entire system and turn every aspect of health care over to government control? ...i mean,they run everything so cost effectively and efficiently,don`t they?...that`s why we`re ass-deep in debt...

just look at cash for clunkers...1 billion outlay...now it`s gonna cost another 2 billion to help obama`s cronies in the uaw.....who knows where it will end?

who says it`s necessary to completely retool a system from top to bottom that has such a stunning success rate in the first place?....

why junk the system?...and force people into a single payer, third world system?....

`cause it`s really not about healthcare or insurance...it`s about an agenda...

duh?
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top