Ricky0282: He's also going to make the health insurance that government employees use available for those who can't get insurance through their employer. The idea being that if more people join then the cost to remain in that pool will go down, making it more affordable.
He's also going to make the health insurance that government employees use available for those who can't get insurance through their employer. The idea being that if more people join then the cost to remain in that pool will go down, making it more affordable.
This is what I'm talking about. Sounds like a union. This is the stepping stone. Offering health insurance to those who can't get it. Then that will eventually lead to people outside of the employer and into the population as a whole.
Saying it's not fair for those single people who don't go to the hospital yet still have to pay the more to cover people who can't. I think most can agree we are for helping those who needed. But most are against helping those who Don't help themselves because they are spoon fed.
I'm not saying Obama will make socialized medicine. I did say I'm for it but at what cost and service. That's all. Requiring healthcare for everyone is like requiring eveyong to pay for a retirement fund for the old. Wait. that's social secruity!
Please correct me but can you collect more on social security than you put in? I've heard stories you can and that people come over here work a couple years and pull out more than they put in.
I got my new wheels ;)
Shady: well as a person who is in okay shape now (i do get sick a good deal and have been so since thurs.) and i know how to take care of myself there is no reason i need to have health insurance now (maybe when im older like 55+), but i have to pay for everybody who ends up being hypochondriacs to go visit the hospital. IMO no its not as dangerous as driving without car insurance (it is AZ state law to have at least minium coverage) because im not about to have a heart attack because of someone else, but i could get into an accident and be out of a car because some guy didn't stop at a stop sign or red light. i have taken classes about human anatomy and biology plus i keep up on info like disease spreading around and signs to tell if soething is going bad and background hisyory on my family (i took some med classes for a while thinking i wanted to be a doctor or pharmacologist and now im questioning if thats what i want to do).
well as a person who is in okay shape now (i do get sick a good deal and have been so since thurs.) and i know how to take care of myself there is no reason i need to have health insurance now (maybe when im older like 55+), but i have to pay for everybody who ends up being hypochondriacs to go visit the hospital.
IMO no its not as dangerous as driving without car insurance (it is AZ state law to have at least minium coverage) because im not about to have a heart attack because of someone else, but i could get into an accident and be out of a car because some guy didn't stop at a stop sign or red light. i have taken classes about human anatomy and biology plus i keep up on info like disease spreading around and signs to tell if soething is going bad and background hisyory on my family (i took some med classes for a while thinking i wanted to be a doctor or pharmacologist and now im questioning if thats what i want to do).
Nobody is asking you to pay for someone else's health insurance. Obama's plan does not socialize health insurance. His plan simply provides another avenue to get it through the government's health insurance pool and requires that children are covered. I think that's pretty much it.
spooon: Ricky0282: He's also going to make the health insurance that government employees use available for those who can't get insurance through their employer. The idea being that if more people join then the cost to remain in that pool will go down, making it more affordable. This is what I'm talking about. Sounds like a union. This is the stepping stone. Offering health insurance to those who can't get it. Then that will eventually lead to people outside of the employer and into the population as a whole. Saying it's not fair for those single people who don't go to the hospital yet still have to pay the more to cover people who can't. I think most can agree we are for helping those who needed. But most are against helping those who Don't help themselves because they are spoon fed. I'm not saying Obama will make socialized medicine. I did say I'm for it but at what cost and service. That's all. Requiring healthcare for everyone is like requiring eveyong to pay for a retirement fund for the old. Wait. that's social secruity! Please correct me but can you collect more on social security than you put in? I've heard stories you can and that people come over here work a couple years and pull out more than they put in.
You don't have to pay more.
OK let me break it down a little bit further. Let's pretend for a minute that you work for the government. The government offers its employees health insurance through company ABC. You elect to have health insurance so the government deducts an amount from every paycheck. Now let's say you don't work for the government but you want health insurance. They will allow you access to company ABC's health insurance even though you don't work for the government. Get it?
Now, the more employees a company has that have health insurance, the lower the premium, kind of like buying in bulk. The idea is that if you add however many thousands of people to company ABC, the premium will go down and health insurance will be that much more affordable.
Meanwhile, if you already get health insurance through your employer, nothing has to change for you and you don't have to do anything.
This is not socializing healthcare.
Ricky0282: spooon: Ricky0282: He's also going to make the health insurance that government employees use available for those who can't get insurance through their employer. The idea being that if more people join then the cost to remain in that pool will go down, making it more affordable. This is what I'm talking about. Sounds like a union. This is the stepping stone. Offering health insurance to those who can't get it. Then that will eventually lead to people outside of the employer and into the population as a whole. Saying it's not fair for those single people who don't go to the hospital yet still have to pay the more to cover people who can't. I think most can agree we are for helping those who needed. But most are against helping those who Don't help themselves because they are spoon fed. I'm not saying Obama will make socialized medicine. I did say I'm for it but at what cost and service. That's all. Requiring healthcare for everyone is like requiring eveyong to pay for a retirement fund for the old. Wait. that's social secruity! Please correct me but can you collect more on social security than you put in? I've heard stories you can and that people come over here work a couple years and pull out more than they put in. You don't have to pay more. OK let me break it down a little bit further. Let's pretend for a minute that you work for the government. The government offers its employees health insurance through company ABC. You elect to have health insurance so the government deducts an amount from every paycheck. Now let's say you don't work for the government but you want health insurance. They will allow you access to company ABC's health insurance even though you don't work for the government. Get it? Now, the more employees a company has that have health insurance, the lower the premium, kind of like buying in bulk. The idea is that if you add however many thousands of people to company ABC, the premium will go down and health insurance will be that much more affordable. Meanwhile, if you already get health insurance through your employer, nothing has to change for you and you don't have to do anything. This is not socializing healthcare.
Okay, that makes sense but I have just 1 question. Even with this hypothetical ABC company that the govt employees are getting they're health insurance from, the govt itself has to be putting up some cash I would think. That's how it works for other companies, you pay so much, the company pays the rest of the premium.
Therefor if they offer it to other people who don't work for the govt, are these people gonna be responsible for 100% of that fee since they are not actually an employee? If so, fine i don't have a problem with this. But if the govt has to use taxpayer money to cover the other percentage then that bothers me. I don't know how they plan to do this, just curious.
fjfabrygel: Ricky0282: spooon: Ricky0282: He's also going to make the health insurance that government employees use available for those who can't get insurance through their employer. The idea being that if more people join then the cost to remain in that pool will go down, making it more affordable. This is what I'm talking about. Sounds like a union. This is the stepping stone. Offering health insurance to those who can't get it. Then that will eventually lead to people outside of the employer and into the population as a whole. Saying it's not fair for those single people who don't go to the hospital yet still have to pay the more to cover people who can't. I think most can agree we are for helping those who needed. But most are against helping those who Don't help themselves because they are spoon fed. I'm not saying Obama will make socialized medicine. I did say I'm for it but at what cost and service. That's all. Requiring healthcare for everyone is like requiring eveyong to pay for a retirement fund for the old. Wait. that's social secruity! Please correct me but can you collect more on social security than you put in? I've heard stories you can and that people come over here work a couple years and pull out more than they put in. You don't have to pay more. OK let me break it down a little bit further. Let's pretend for a minute that you work for the government. The government offers its employees health insurance through company ABC. You elect to have health insurance so the government deducts an amount from every paycheck. Now let's say you don't work for the government but you want health insurance. They will allow you access to company ABC's health insurance even though you don't work for the government. Get it? Now, the more employees a company has that have health insurance, the lower the premium, kind of like buying in bulk. The idea is that if you add however many thousands of people to company ABC, the premium will go down and health insurance will be that much more affordable. Meanwhile, if you already get health insurance through your employer, nothing has to change for you and you don't have to do anything. This is not socializing healthcare. Okay, that makes sense but I have just 1 question. Even with this hypothetical ABC company that the govt employees are getting they're health insurance from, the govt itself has to be putting up some cash I would think. That's how it works for other companies, you pay so much, the company pays the rest of the premium. Therefor if they offer it to other people who don't work for the govt, are these people gonna be responsible for 100% of that fee since they are not actually an employee? If so, fine i don't have a problem with this. But if the govt has to use taxpayer money to cover the other percentage then that bothers me. I don't know how they plan to do this, just curious.
I think they pay 100%, kind of like Cobra. I could be wrong though. Something to keep an eye on.
BTW, not all companies pay for a portion of their employee's health insurance, although I'm sure the government does.
gotcha.
just weird cause when i worked with a small private company the insurance was way cheaper and when I went to my current job with thousands more people in it the cost skyrocketed.
I was told by HR the premiums changed for the small company I worked for was because someone died and other were old and needed a lot of medical attention.
The larger company with this philosophy should make it even cheaper right? More people, more premiums to the company, but why the way higher health care? I hope I am in a minorty with this and just that my company is getting screwed over. It could be that my current job's average age is like 55.
If what you say worked I'm down with that. Just that with my company they subsidize a ton per employee insured. Just because you pay a premium doesn't mean that permium covers the cost of health care. So if the government is the employer (distributes health care) that means per person they will have to pay.
Example.
I pay $2400 in premiums per year. we don't have a copayment. we have to hit $1000 before the insurance starts to do the 80/20 split..
My company pays $9,000 for my family.
This is PPO.
Does the governement do something different? The government will have to pay additional per covered person. My company actually lists the $9,000 in medical coverage as a total benefit package.
Like say I make 50,000. It tries to convince me that the total compensation for me is $59,000 because they cover medical on my family.
I hope my company is in the minority or maybe it's a texas thing because everyone i've spoken with has their company pay a LOT more than what we pay in premiums and deductibles to cover the employee.
When I got laid off in 2000. I think the cobra rate was subsized for 6months and after that I was on my own to pay for cobra which was in the range of $700-1000/month. I don't know many people who would pay for health insurance at that rate cause most can't afford that. Cause I can't
well i was typing when you posted ricky .
Now though i really doubt my taxes won't be going towards that, because the government is probably going to either buy up health insureance companies and employ people to work for those companies which would be paid by tax dollars. If not they will still be paying tons of people for labor to make this happen and when a government trys to regulate private owned companies they end up wasting a bunch of tax payers money, just like with oil requlation, airline regulation, and housing regulation.
A second part would be even if i didn't have to pay for these other people i would still get punished if i didn't have health insurance even if i didn't need it. this is another example of why the school system is failing, because parents don't care because the government is picking up the slack. people want the government to hold there hand and baby them along when they need to get their stuff straight and not need help.
an avenue i haven't seen a politician tackle would be welfare today, im not saying that the governemnt shouldn't help people but they need to fix major problems on how they distribute it. for example when my mom lost her job when i was younger she again was still a single parent and had 2 kids but the government only gave her $400 a month for both of us because she was white, when one of my friends mom who was a single mom to just him got $650 a month because she was hispanic. Another example would be how there is this family of 4 who visits the corner store and pays with food stamps while their kid is wearing 8cm gold rope chains, has a pair of gold grills, nice clothes nice watch and the parents are driving a new hummer sitting on 24's.
Being from Scotland, I have experienced both systems and there a plusses and minuses to both. Operation waiting times and loosing good doctors to the privatized system seems to be the biggest complaint in Scotland, but I would much rather these problems than the situation I am in now where I just prey I don’t get seriously sick because I don’t earn enough money to cover what my health insurance doesn’t.
It’s possible that Obama’s plan will lead to socialized health care, if it does trust me we will be better off.
Shady, I don't think you'll be penalized for not having health insurance. It's only children that are required to have it. I don't really know much about the Welfare program in this country as thankfully no one I know has ever needed it.
Spooon, I have a friend who works for a professional sports franchise (won't say which because for all I know this information is supposed to be confidential). Two employees happened to be diagnosed with HIV in the same year, and my friend's premiums doubled. So yeah something like that could drive the cost up unfortunately.
There's obviously not going to be any one solution that everyone is going to be able to get behind because there are so many different situations. I do think that the current system where a lot of people who want/need health insurance can't get it is not working and something needs to change. Look at the bright side, if Obama's plan doesn't work, the next President will probably institute another one.
The thing that bothers me the most about elections is how much party politics comes into play. Obama and McCain both vote with their party over 95% of the time. McCain has only started voting with the party this much in the past 2 years, probably for the purpose of getting the nomination. Both of them are too smart to honestly believe their party is right 95% of the time. There are obvious flaws in both schools of thought, and for them to vote with their party that much just makes me think that the great "bipartisan" effort they both say they will have is a load of crap. Only problem is if they disagreed they would not get the funding from the party, so they would not even be in the election.
I believe the main problem with the country is the economy. My generation (I am 24) has grown up on the economy of cheap and easy credit. The problem is that the people and the government have gone crazy with credit. The housing crisis is worst in large cities where everybody has to compete with their neighbor, so they max out their credit cards as soon as they come in the mail. Likewise, the government does the same thing with ridiculous spending programs not balanced by cuts or tax increases.
Neither candidate has said how they will make cuts (or tax increases) to institute their plans (over $250 billion dollars each), which makes me believe they will do what the government has done for the past 20 years - spend the money and not cut a dime out.
I want a President who has the courage to say to speak the truth that the only way to have an economoically bright future is to make sacrifices to our way of life and cut out the luxury that has become commonplace. If everyone does that, we can pay down the debt of the nation (by we I mean each of us as individuals pay our own way - not just the wealthiest 1% pay the way for everyone), and put ourselves in a good standing again.
Neither one of these candidates has the marbles to say that. I'll be upset no matter who wins.
cbyler: The thing that bothers me the most about elections is how much party politics comes into play. Obama and McCain both vote with their party over 95% of the time. McCain has only started voting with the party this much in the past 2 years, probably for the purpose of getting the nomination. Both of them are too smart to honestly believe their party is right 95% of the time. There are obvious flaws in both schools of thought, and for them to vote with their party that much just makes me think that the great "bipartisan" effort they both say they will have is a load of crap. Only problem is if they disagreed they would not get the funding from the party, so they would not even be in the election. I believe the main problem with the country is the economy. My generation (I am 24) has grown up on the economy of cheap and easy credit. The problem is that the people and the government have gone crazy with credit. The housing crisis is worst in large cities where everybody has to compete with their neighbor, so they max out their credit cards as soon as they come in the mail. Likewise, the government does the same thing with ridiculous spending programs not balanced by cuts or tax increases. Neither candidate has said how they will make cuts (or tax increases) to institute their plans (over $250 billion dollars each), which makes me believe they will do what the government has done for the past 20 years - spend the money and not cut a dime out. I want a President who has the courage to say to speak the truth that the only way to have an economoically bright future is to make sacrifices to our way of life and cut out the luxury that has become commonplace. If everyone does that, we can pay down the debt of the nation (by we I mean each of us as individuals pay our own way - not just the wealthiest 1% pay the way for everyone), and put ourselves in a good standing again. Neither one of these candidates has the marbles to say that. I'll be upset no matter who wins.
Are you crazy? Expecting people to take personal responsibility for their actions? This is America, 99% of the people have to blame someone else for their short comings. We come up with all kinds of medical excuses these days to justify why people do stupid stuff that way it wasn't there fault, just the suffer from some chemical unbalance. One that always cracked me up. Living in the gulf coast area when Katrina hit and people were saying Bush made the hurricane come here like he has magical weather powers to direct it. Gotta play the blame game.
Someone gets into financial trouble, was it their fault. Oh heck no, it's the bank who gave them the credit cards fault. Someone gets a loan on a house they can't afford with a adjustable rate mortage then they fill it with furniture and electronics on credit and now they can't afford it. Not their fault, someone from the government or the bank should have told them not to do that right?
It's just sad to see that in less than 100 years this country has gone from having some of the hardest working, self sufficient people to the biggest group of whiners. Maybe our elders worked to hard and made it too easy for some so now they don't know the value of a dollar and a honest days work.
As far as the 2 party system, i do believe it was George Washington who warned them way back in the day that it was bad. It will always stunt progress and force people into stupid sides instead of working together.
fjfabrygel: As far as the 2 party system, i do believe it was George Washington who warned them way back in the day that it was bad. It will always stunt progress and force people into stupid sides instead of working together.
Are you suggesting just the one party or more than two?
There should definitely be more than two. It's hard with the two because unless you're a die-hard Republican or Democrat, neither one of the parties will cover all of your values. The Republican and Democratic parties have done everything they can to hold down the other parties.
I think people tying themselves to parties in general does no good. Cause there is not a single person who can say they agree with every detail of what their party believes in.
So if they try to create legislation in Congress, and people stick to voting for a party instead of how they feel, or what they promised to the people who elected them then the system fails. There is no democracy there, just people sticking with what their group wants.
I know people are almosted forced to join parties to they can become recognized and get the support because without it, it has become very very difficult to be elected. Then voting with that party is almost a form of paying dues.
That's why when the few times i see elected officials cross party lines to get legislation passed that needs to be i feel good finally. That brings back the "United" into the name of our country. This divisive crap that has been going on for years has to end.
fjfabrygel:I think people tying themselves to parties in general does no good. Cause there is not a single person who can say they agree with every detail of what their party believes in.
Of course that same exact same thing can be said for every organization, anyplace, ever.
-- Mike
Catch my stuff at GearDiary,com!