Democratic Congressman Describes Republican Health Care Plan: "Die Quickly"

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Dude, as I said earlier, all it takes is the ability and willingness to look at available data with an open mind. Funny as it may seem to you, the patients most satisfied with their health care - overall as well as in terms of service received and access to care - are those that have government run health insurance and little, if any, alternatives to that - our seniors on medicare. I would like to be able to buy a health insurance plan that gives me these higher satisfaction levels - likely at a better cost. If you don't want it, fine, then don't opt for it.

I see. If someone is paying for your healthcare, your patient satisfaction goes up. I'll bet free lunches are more popular, too. So there's no comparison to private vs. public healthcare...

Again, you're ill informed. It ain't about a free lunch - it's about better access to care.

More importantly, the higher scores for Medicare are based on perceptions of better access to care. More than two thirds (70 percent) of traditional Medicare enrollees say they "always" get access to needed care (appointments with specialists or other necessary tests and treatment), compared with 63 percent in Medicare managed care plans and only 51 percent of those with private insurance.

BTW, who cares if Medicare is going broke since it's so successful, right?

Medicare contributions have remained flat on income at 2.9% shared between employer and employee since 1986. The population of medicare recipients, on the other hand, has been and continues to grow. The trust fund could be balanced for the next 75 years if the contributions would be raised 134% from 2.9% to 6.78%. This is a one time raise after keeping rates flat for 13 years.

If the private insurance had to have kept their premiums flat over the last 13 years (during which time they actually raised their premiums by roughly that 134% amount - gross not on income so it would be somewhat less considering that wages have risen during that time period) they would have been bust years ago. In terms of cost efficiency, when you'd compare apples to apples, the private insurance industry is the clear loser.

You really should do a fact check on your last sentence. I could opt out but I'll pay a fine or go to jail.

Bullshite! You can buy private health insurance if you don't like the public option. That's why it's called an option. It's a really easy concept. Even you should be able to grasp it.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Doesn't matter what any of you want. There will be no public option. Because a majority of Americans don't want socialism.

Reform? Perhaps.. Socialism? No. Which is what the public option is.

Obama has said repeatedly that he wants a single-payer system. So stop trying to act as if he is a moderate and only wants to compromise with everyone.

I'd respond to BY's post, but I only have a few minutes at work to post here. I come to read brief posts, not 50 page essays that have many words but little substance.

Detroit is not an example of why we need communist medicine.

[Peikko 1,575]

Fear the red devil socialistic communism!

Why do you always need to justify why/how you post Joe? That's very odd behaviour on a message board.

[Heracles 417]

I'd respond to BY's post, but I only have a few minutes at work to post here. I come to read brief posts, not 50 page essays that have many words but little substance.

Detroit is not an example of why we need communist medicine.

Who is healthier and is ranked by the WHO as having a better system? The status quo you want to protect or people under NHS. How is that for simplicity? I'd also say checkmate on that one.

Detroit is a great example as they too wanted to keep the status quo rather than change; rather than modernize; rather than adapt. Bye Bye Detroit and don't let the door hit you on the way out. Oh wait, it no longer has doors.

Edited October 2, 2009 by Booyah!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Doesn't matter what any of you want. There will be no public option. Because a majority of Americans don't want socialism.

You don't make any sense. A public insurance option is very popular in America. We have it in the National Flood Insurance Program which the Congress reauthorized with broad bi-partisan support. The Senate vote on that one was 92-6 in favor. In your little uniformed bubble, that's socialism. And this socialism enjoys strong bi-partisan and public support.

Come down to Florida where people were squeezed by private insurance companies on their home insurance after the busy 2004/05 Hurricane seasons. The answer to the problem that the GOP controlled state government here came up with? Socialism! A public insurance option for home owners - Citizens Insurance. Very popular with this very conservative state. So, according to your argument, it is clear that conservatives love Socialism.

[Heracles 417]

it is clear that conservatives love Socialism.

Well they love the military and how more socialistic can it get. I actually put that on par with communism since they also tell you what to do and think.

[chri'stina 190]

Doesn't matter what any of you want. There will be no public option. Because a majority of Americans don't want socialism.

You don't make any sense. A public insurance option is very popular in America. We have it in the National Flood Insurance Program which the Congress reauthorized with broad bi-partisan support. The Senate vote on that one was 92-6 in favor. In your little uniformed bubble, that's socialism. And this socialism enjoys strong bi-partisan and public support.

Come down to Florida where people were squeezed by private insurance companies on their home insurance after the busy 2004/05 Hurricane seasons. The answer to the problem that the GOP controlled state government here came up with? Socialism! A public insurance option for home owners - Citizens Insurance. Very popular with this very conservative state. So, according to your argument, it is clear that conservatives love Socialism.

Popular or the only option? LOL For us it was the ONLY option we were given because no other insurance would insure new customers here. I am thankful that yeah we have something because of Citizens. But I hear all different things about them, mostly negative. We are dealing with them now in a long sinkhole process. We are at the lawyer stage.

[Peikko 1,575]

I'll take a shot in the dark, it's the only option because there is no profit in home insurance in Florida because of all the natural disasters. There isn't any profit in health insurance if the only people who are insured are old and very sick people. Why else would insurance companies have whole departments who's sole purpose is to deny coverage?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Doesn't matter what any of you want. There will be no public option. Because a majority of Americans don't want socialism.

You don't make any sense. A public insurance option is very popular in America. We have it in the National Flood Insurance Program which the Congress reauthorized with broad bi-partisan support. The Senate vote on that one was 92-6 in favor. In your little uniformed bubble, that's socialism. And this socialism enjoys strong bi-partisan and public support.

Come down to Florida where people were squeezed by private insurance companies on their home insurance after the busy 2004/05 Hurricane seasons. The answer to the problem that the GOP controlled state government here came up with? Socialism! A public insurance option for home owners - Citizens Insurance. Very popular with this very conservative state. So, according to your argument, it is clear that conservatives love Socialism.

Popular or the only option? LOL For us it was the ONLY option we were given because no other insurance would insure new customers here. I am thankful that yeah we have something because of Citizens. But I hear all different things about them, mostly negative. We are dealing with them now in a long sinkhole process. We are at the lawyer stage.

You should then be able to understand what those uninsurable people deal with - only for them it's not merely a place to live but their very life that's at stake. You control where you live - if one place doesn't offer property insurance options, you can always live in a place where home owners insurance is available and affordable. In Florida, all that takes is to choose a residence a few miles away from the coastline - which is what this here commie did.

On the other hand, you can't necessisarily control whether you have or develop one of these "pre-existing conditions" that tosses you out of the private health insurance market. And you know that you can't help but age which means that every single person has this cost prohibitive factor that will put private health insurance out of your reach at some point in time.

So why is it right and good to offer public insurance options to home owners that choose to live in a place where the private insurance market has figured that the risk of offering insurance is too great but not to individuals that have - often through no fault of their own - been displaced by the private health insurance market? Why is the latter labeled as an evil and socialist scheme while the former is so very welcome in the most "conservative" of states?

The main beneficiary of the National Flood Insurance Program, by the way, is no other than the Great Socialist State of Texas followed by the Great Socialist States of Louisiana, Iowa, Indiana and Missouri.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I'll take a shot in the dark, it's the only option because there is no profit in home insurance in Florida because of all the natural disasters.

That's true in parts of Florida. There are plenty of places in the state where private homeowners insurance is available. I have private coverage and picked the best from many offers when I bought it and I keep getting offers from providers to switch my coverage to them. As a resident of Florida, however, in addition to buying insurance for my house, I am now also covering the risk for those that can't live close enough to the coastline while they can't really afford it. And those same folks then want to complain about the shared risk of and a public option in health insurance? What hypocrisy.

[Peikko 1,575]

Got it, not state wide but just the riskiest parts like coastline. I agree, it's very similar to excluding pre existing conditions but worse because as you say, despite the personal responsibility Calvinism of the far right, most illness is not a result of risky behaviour.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

I also saw him on CNN this evening. He was very defiant, not at all apologetic and in fact added more insults to the mix! I'd say that's not very helpful. He even tried a tad bit of backtracking in the midst of new insults. He is feisty eh.

How about that holocaust comment.

“I would like to apologize,” he said. “I apologize to the dead and their families that we haven't voted sooner to end this holocaust in America.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/...l#ixzz0SnfbCFpM

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Got it, not state wide but just the riskiest parts like coastline. I agree, it's very similar to excluding pre existing conditions but worse because as you say, despite the personal responsibility Calvinism of the far right, most illness is not a result of risky behaviour.

Exactly. And the other thing that throws you out of the private health insurance market - age - is most certainly not something that results from any personal irresponsibility.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I also saw him on CNN this evening. He was very defiant, not at all apologetic and in fact added more insults to the mix! I'd say that's not very helpful. He even tried a tad bit of backtracking in the midst of new insults. He is feisty eh.

How about that holocaust comment.

“I would like to apologize,” he said. “I apologize to the dead and their families that we haven't voted sooner to end this holocaust in America.”

The holocaust reference was a bad choice and inappropriate. The Congressman said as much.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I'll take a shot in the dark, it's the only option because there is no profit in home insurance in Florida because of all the natural disasters.

That's true in parts of Florida. There are plenty of places in the state where private homeowners insurance is available. I have private coverage and picked the best from many offers when I bought it and I keep getting offers from providers to switch my coverage to them. As a resident of Florida, however, in addition to buying insurance for my house, I am now also covering the risk for those that can't live close enough to the coastline while they can't really afford it. And those same folks then want to complain about the shared risk of and a public option in health insurance? What hypocrisy.

Stupidity shouldn't be insured against, unless you find a really stupid insurance company, or an irresponsible government.