[another bloody yank]

Originally Posted by Giantaxe The bulk of the paying is on those that earn more than $200k. Personally, I'll happily pay more if it means we don't have 45m uninsured, inability to pay health care bills isn't the leading cause of personal bankruptcy, and I don't have to live in fear of being uninsurable if I lose my job, as I do at present. Oh, another significant middle class benefit is the removal of the prescription "doughnut hole" from Medicare.

Excellent. That's what they get for being succesful when there are people who haven't been. Bastards.


Giantaxe, I'm being serious, how much more would you pay? Would you happily pay 75% of your gross income? I'm just wondering at what point you would begin to wonder if it was worth it.


Another question to the experts. To me those new benefits seem as though they would put quite a burden on ins. companies. Yet I have been reading that their stock rose after the vote and that they were actually in on designing the deal itself. Those two things don't seem to mesh. What's the truth?

[another bloody yank]

Originally Posted by anotherlimey Really, I'm looking for things that cut the insurance premiums.

Wrong answer. You should be happy to pay more. It's for the greater good.

[fatbrit]

Originally Posted by chartreuse You think? When did politicians ever not create a huge, overinflated, bureaucracy?

I just compare the NHS with the American health care system and I have my answer.

[AmerLisa]

Originally Posted by 1chumly What you said. There are ways to reform health care one step at a time and do it properly, not create a huge great expensive c***up like this bill.

Ah yes.... Say, just when was anyone going to get around to that?

Someone had to start somewhere and I can only hope that this is a building block to better things to come. My vote will be cast to the person who is trying to make a change and not stalemating things in the next election.

[robin1234]

Originally Posted by chartreuse You think? When did politicians ever not create a huge, overinflated, bureaucracy?

Yes, yes,... but not so freakin' overinflated as the ONE WE ALREADY HAVE!!!

[fatbrit]

Originally Posted by another bloody yank Wrong answer. You should be happy to pay more. It's for the greater good.

Every comparable country pays less than us Americans for health care. Fact!

[AmerLisa]

Originally Posted by another bloody yank Another question to the experts. To me those new benefits seem as though they would put quite a burden on ins. companies. Yet I have been reading that their stock rose after the vote and that they were actually in on designing the deal itself. Those two things don't seem to mesh. What's the truth?

I did read, with curiosity, this morning how the insurance companies (who opposed the bill) are now working to make it work. The whole thing makes me nervous (I'm not a trusting person by nature, anyway) but really, something needed to be done.

[Octang Frye]

Originally Posted by dakota44 LMAO. For Christs sakes, nothing like taking something out of context and making it look bad. Typical right wing bullshit. They have no intention of showing the rest of the quote made by a aged individual who was clearly stumbling on his words and even said there were 300 people in the U.S.

Explain how this is taken out of context? Please explain it to me with a straight face.
I read his "clarification" and it's a stretch. Weak-sauce.

[robin1234]

Originally Posted by fatbrit I just compare the NHS with the American health care system and I have my answer.

Yes, and Keith posted a couple of times earlier in this thread about the Canadian system, also with a lower burden of bureaucracy than what we have to support.

[chartreuse]

Originally Posted by another bloody yank Another question to the experts. To me those new benefits seem as though they would put quite a burden on ins. companies. Yet I have been reading that their stock rose after the vote and that they were actually in on designing the deal itself. Those two things don't seem to mesh. What's the truth?

See my earlier post about how it's going to be illegal not to buy their products and they'll be allowed to increase the price.

The difference will be paid as a "government subsidy". Basically, they've adjusted their business model to include rent-seeking funded by the taxpayer.

[Octang Frye]

Originally Posted by chartreuse See my earlier post about how it's going to be illegal not to buy their products and they'll be allowed to increase the price. The difference will be paid as a "government subsidy". Basically, they've adjusted their business model to include rent-seeking funded by the taxpayer.

Yes, it is illegal not to buy their products. I am now being taxed for simply being alive. If I do not choose to participate, I am breaking the law. A criminal.

And this is how freedom dies.

[another bloody yank]

Originally Posted by fatbrit Every comparable country pays less than us Americans for health care. Fact!

That's great for them, but I live here.

[robin1234]

Originally Posted by Octang Frye Yes, it is illegal not to buy their products. I am now being taxed for simply being alive. If I do not choose to participate, I am breaking the law. A criminal. And this is how freedom dies.

Aw, come on, it's not as bad as all that. If you don't like America you're free to leave!

[Boiler]

Look at the bigger picture.

It is a bit misleading to call it Insurance because all the basic principals of Insurance do not apply.

It is sort of like privatised taxation. The Yanks are good at inventing words so now doubt they will come up with something.

From the 'Insurer' perspective it is all about margins, who pays the premium etc does not really matter. The more people in the scheme the more money flowing through the better the margin produces.

The Government does not pay for anything, the people who pay the taxes do. If they get more money directly from premiums and indirectly from taxes that is all well and good.

Premiums were I am are regulated by the State, all you have to do to increase the premium is justify the increase. Lots of unhealthy people in your pool and wider cover is an easy justification.

They do not pay their lobbyists for nothing.

[Giantaxe]

Originally Posted by chartreuse You think? When did politicians ever not create a huge, overinflated, bureaucracy?

The NHS is a paragon of efficiency compared to the US healthcare mess. The US spends around 4% of its GDP on healthcare administration - completely insane.