That congressman was way out of line. However, both Bush and Clinton had to put up with booing and shout outs during some of their speeches to congress. Disrespect has a long term history in Washington.

 

Here is a fact check article from Yahoo:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090910/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_care_fact_check

 

I didn't check your link but I seem to remember booing during a President Bush speech. Its just another sign of the disrespectful times we live in.

Sorry, 23 million lost under existing plans, with a net total loss of 16-17 million.

 

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=293

 

I'm 99.99% positive they came out with another analysis after this one that said the # of privately insured would go up by about 3M to 5M. I'll have to search for it.

I'm 99.99% positive they came out with another analysis after this one that said the # of privately insured would go up by about 3M to 5M. I'll have to search for it.

 

The loss of 30M came from a "Fact Check" article that was on foxnews.com last night, but I can't seem to find it now.

GOP view of specific statements. Titled 'Myth vs. Fact'.

 

http://www.gop.gov/policy-news/09/09/09/myth-vs-fact-president

The loss of 30M came from a "Fact Check" article that was on foxnews.com last night, but I can't seem to find it now.

 

Maybe we're talking about two different measures.

 

CBO says the net effect would be +3M people using private insurance.

 

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10400/07-26-InfoOnTriCommProposal.pdf

 

Go to page 4.

I heard something the other day on local talk radio. Someone stated that the practice of Companies supplying insurance as part of a package came from a different era. This era saw wage limits and salary increase limits. So to get around it, employers paid a salary increase to loyal employees by paying for health care.

 

Anyone ever heard this story?

 

Yes. The practice originated during WWII when salaries were capped. The employer-based insurance system grew from that, regrettably.

Here are the fair questions to ask for reform supporters IMO:

 

1. What are the numbers being used to support how much of the cost will be covered? Where is it coming from? What assumptions are being made?

 

2. Why not advocate selling across state lines?

 

3. CBO says one of the plans (not sure which one) will cost $1T over 10 years but have a lower net effect on the deficit. I think it was $239B over 10 years. Why does the POTUS disagree?

 

4. It doesnt cover illegals. Are we going to deny them service when they walk into the emergency room?

 

5. Please clarify what options businesses will have. What's going to stop them from dumping their employees into the public option? CBO says net will be an increase in people covered by private insurance by 2016. How?

Here are the fair questions to ask for reform supporters IMO:

 

1. What are the numbers being used to support how much of the cost will be covered? Where is it coming from? What assumptions are being made?

I'll have to research this. My capacity for this kind of research, though, is usually on the weekends when I am not mentally exhausted from thinking really hard at the job that provides me health insurance.

 

2. Why not advocate selling across state lines?

I do advocate that. However, isn't that a state issue? For those states (like KY) that aren't disposed to make that change, what recourse is there without a Federal reform?

 

3. CBO says one of the plans (not sure which one) will cost $1T over 10 years but have a lower net effect on the deficit. I think it was $239B over 10 years. Why does the POTUS disagree?

No clue....higher math than I can do. :lol: Not to mention, I'm no economic genius.

 

4. It doesnt cover illegals. Are we going to deny them service when they walk into the emergency room?

That's an interesting question. I guess we would need to if we knew they were illegals. However, with illegal documentation, wouldn't that add a burden to the hospitals, ie require & run I-9 checks or something similar?

 

 

5. Please clarify what options businesses will have. What's going to stop them from dumping their employees into the public option? CBO says net will be an increase in people covered by private insurance by 2016. How?

 

IMO, I don't think there will be the rush to dump the private option. I think that private insurers will be forced to be competitive with the public option. I know that there are insurers out there who, along with the comprehensive health insurance plans, offer limited plans for people who are generally healthy. Maybe more insurers would offer something similar, at rates lower than the private comprehensive plans. I know that one carrier in my past did so, and that's what I carried for several years, until we switched companies and I had no choice but to get a comprehensive plan, that regrettably, doesn't really pay for the things I have had done anyway. :lol:

 

Just my random thoughts....

The guy who is going to run against Joe Wilson has raised $350k since Wilson heckled the POTUS last night.

Yes. The practice originated during WWII when salaries were capped. The employer-based insurance system grew from that, regrettably.

Salaries being capped caused it? I've always heard that employer-based insurance system was a free-market phenomena. Tack one more reason why government interference, not always, but frequently has a tendency to cause problems, even if they are impossible to see at first.

2. Why not advocate selling across state lines?

 

I do advocate that. However, isn't that a state issue? For those states (like KY) that aren't disposed to make that change, what recourse is there without a Federal reform?

Not sure about the technical aspects, but President Obama opposes selling insurance across state lines:

 

And the reason that it's a problem to go shopping state by state, you know what insurance companies will do? They will find a state -- maybe Arizona, maybe another state -- where there are no requirements for you to get cancer screenings, where there are no requirements for you to have to get pre-existing conditions, and they will all set up shop there.

 

Essentially, he is saying that the Federal Government can't regulate each individual state's insurance legislation, so he opposes it, as far as I can tell.

From the top of my head Germany, Switzerland, and France all have both public and private options that are required to have minimum standards of coverage (allow pre-existing conditions, no dropping coverage, etc.).

 

Don't know about the others but I seem to recall Germany charges premiums at around 15% of your salary up to a certain limit. At least it was that way several years ago for our subsidiary.

Don't know about the others but I seem to recall Germany charges premiums at around 15% of your salary up to a certain limit. At least it was that way several years ago for our subsidiary.

 

Their premiums are determined by how much they can pay, so it's based on income rather than a set price. Most Germans opt for a non-profit insurance company with that. I'm not sure if those who opt for the profitable options are penalized or can parlay their contribution into that. I'll have to look into it further.

Salaries being capped caused it? I've always heard that employer-based insurance system was a free-market phenomena. Tack one more reason why government interference, not always, but frequently has a tendency to cause problems, even if they are impossible to see at first.

 

As far as my understanding goes, that was the case. Salaries were capped to help the war effort so companies used insurance benefits as a way to get around that and incentivize employees. I may be wrong though.

Not sure about the technical aspects, but President Obama opposes selling insurance across state lines:

 

And the reason that it's a problem to go shopping state by state, you know what insurance companies will do? They will find a state -- maybe Arizona, maybe another state -- where there are no requirements for you to get cancer screenings, where there are no requirements for you to have to get pre-existing conditions, and they will all set up shop there.

 

Essentially, he is saying that the Federal Government can't regulate each individual state's insurance legislation, so he opposes it, as far as I can tell.

 

 

The states have tried a lot of what is proposed in this bill. There ARE track records of what works and what does not. The cost of insurance varies widely between states due to individual state laws.

 

 

Here is an interesting link:

 

http://www.heartland.org/publications/health%20care/article/20381/State_Laws_Can_Cripple_Market_for_Health_Insurance_CAHI.html

 

From this link:

Poor Decisions

 

In the 1990s, state legislatures largely focused on accessibility of health insurance. Many reforms were passed in an effort to increase access for groups perceived to be shut out of the existing health insurance market. While the 1996 federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) standardized many approaches, states remained free to keep existing laws and to continue to experiment.

 

Unfortunately, their reform efforts have led to numerous problems.

 

For example, several state legislatures have implemented a type of price control, known as "community rating" or "modified community rating," that severely limits premium variation. The result is that the young and healthy--typically those with lower incomes and little need for insurance--are forced to subsidize the rates of older and generally wealthier individuals who have more health problems.

 

States also passed other damaging reforms, such as guaranteed issue and so-called "groups of one" (treating an individual as though he is a "group" for insurance purposes).

 

But they also passed positive reforms such as high-risk pools--a state-created health insurance plan that provides health insurance to uninsurable individuals in the state. High-risk pools provide a safety net for the uninsurable while allowing the health insurance market to function for the vast majority of people.

 

Parts of this article hit home here in Kentucky:

 

For example, when Kentucky passed guaranteed issue and community rating legislation in the 1990s, more than 30 health insurers left the state, leaving only three. Insurance premiums quickly rose to unaffordable levels.

 

....

 

 

...Over the past few years, Kentucky and South Carolina have passed reforms aimed at un-doing changes made in the late 1990s that had devastated their health insurance markets. Insurers are returning to both states, with more options at affordable prices, and more people are getting coverage once again.