Big U.S. companies balk at healthcare public option

[rebeccajo 14]

It's completely stupid for health care to be tied to employment.

and car and house ownership too!

I don't have to change my car or my house if I change my job.

I don't have to worry about whether or not my car or house will still be there if I change my job.

Even if I lose my job, I can keep my house and car. Especially if I already own them outright. I could probably recycle enough beer cans to manage to make my house payment.

Edited October 28, 2009 by rebeccajo

[Joseph & Ana 0]

It's completely stupid for health care to be tied to employment.

You should be able to have medical problems taken care with right away, rather than spend time trying to figure out the bureaucracy.

You're right - there'd never be a bureaucracy when the government takes it over! Pshhh

Is that what I said?

I just don't see how anyone can justify the current situation where you have to jump through hoops to find a provider, find out whether its covered under your network (what date did the provider become part of the network) and have a futile back and forth between the insurance and the provider as to how much a procedure is likely to cost.

I've seen from first hand experience that this not only puts people off going to the doctor but makes them apprehensive about the healthcare system in general.

I don't hear anyone trying to justify that specific situation. However, most of us do not believe a government takeover will result in something better.

Perhaps some protections are in order, but a government takeover is the answer to nothing.

A public insurance option is a far cry from a nationalised healthcare system.

It will. THat is the goal of the author's - they say so themselves. Not to mention that language is in the bills. Capping Insurance company profits (like they make so much) - Its in there. Also, revoking compensation for doctors who "over-treat" elderly patients. Not death-panelish I guess.. Cost versus price doesn't matter to the feds.

[natty bumppo 297]

It's completely stupid for health care to be tied to employment.

and car and house ownership too!

I don't have to change my car or my house if I change my job.

I don't have to worry about whether or not my car or house will still be there if I change my job.

Even if I lose my job, I can keep my house and car. Especially if I already own them outright. I could probably recycle enough beer cans to manage to make my house payment.

wouldn't it be better not to buy the beer and save the money?

probably not as fun as drinking the beer to collect beer can recycling money ....

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's completely stupid for health care to be tied to employment.

You should be able to have medical problems taken care with right away, rather than spend time trying to figure out the bureaucracy.

You're right - there'd never be a bureaucracy when the government takes it over! Pshhh

Is that what I said?

I just don't see how anyone can justify the current situation where you have to jump through hoops to find a provider, find out whether its covered under your network (what date did the provider become part of the network) and have a futile back and forth between the insurance and the provider as to how much a procedure is likely to cost.

I've seen from first hand experience that this not only puts people off going to the doctor but makes them apprehensive about the healthcare system in general.

I don't hear anyone trying to justify that specific situation. However, most of us do not believe a government takeover will result in something better.

Perhaps some protections are in order, but a government takeover is the answer to nothing.

A public insurance option is a far cry from a nationalised healthcare system.

It will. THat is the goal of the author's - they say so themselves. Not to mention that language is in the bills. Capping Insurance company profits (like they make so much) - Its in there. Also, revoking compensation for doctors who "over-treat" elderly patients. Not death-panelish I guess.. Cost versus price doesn't matter to the feds.

It might, it might not - certainly not during the next 8-10 years.

Even if it did - there is ample evidence in other countries that healthcare is delivered a lot more cost effectively that way.

It would help to know what you're afraid of before you condemn it.

[Empress of Groovy 373]

It's completely stupid for health care to be tied to employment.

Healthcare coverage evolved as a result of competitive compensation between employers/corporations/companies as they competed for employees in the job market.

Health Care coverage is not the function, or responsibilty of the Federal Government, except of course in Socialist societies......which is where we're headed after having voted in a a far left socialist President.

What is your position on Medicare?

[Peikko 1,575]

The US government couldn't organize a piss up in a brewery, it is that dysfunctional. Time to tear the walls of Jericho down

[SMOKE 1,426]

It might, it might not - certainly not during the next 8-10 years.

Even if it did - there is ample evidence in other countries that healthcare is delivered a lot more cost effectively that way.

It would help to know what you're afraid of before you condemn it.

not to jump in on you & joe's discussion...but

my main concern is this: if it is a gateway to nationalised heathcare (which i'm almost positive it is)

the population of the UK is roughly 62 million, Canada is roughly 34 million. both systems operate in the red & have other issues. with the US population being roughly 310 million....i see a big big train wreck ahead.

[Peikko 1,575]

Of course, other governments around the world are pretty good at providing affordable health care to their citizens but they are socialist ####### *spits* so we certainly will not be wanting to follow that model!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It might, it might not - certainly not during the next 8-10 years.

Even if it did - there is ample evidence in other countries that healthcare is delivered a lot more cost effectively that way.

It would help to know what you're afraid of before you condemn it.

not to jump in on you & joe's discussion...but

my main concern is this: if it is a gateway to nationalised heathcare (which i'm almost positive it is)

the population of the UK is roughly 62 million, Canada is roughly 34 million. both systems operate in the red & have other issues. with the US population being roughly 310 million....i see a big big train wreck ahead.

Noone would tell you the Canadian or UK systems are flawless, far from it. Neither should the Canadian or UK systems be looked at as the models emulate.

I think we (the collective we) ought to be having an honest discussion about this - and leave the cliches about "inefficient government" behind. Its crazy to me that noone is prepared to demand greater accountability of government, and instead are content to play the party-political game and trap off the same old talking points.

[HAL 9000 96]

It's completely stupid for health care to be tied to employment.

You should be able to have medical problems taken care with right away, rather than spend time trying to figure out the bureaucracy.

You're right - there'd never be a bureaucracy when the government takes it over! Pshhh

Is that what I said?

I just don't see how anyone can justify the current situation where you have to jump through hoops to find a provider, find out whether its covered under your network (what date did the provider become part of the network) and have a futile back and forth between the insurance and the provider as to how much a procedure is likely to cost.

I've seen from first hand experience that this not only puts people off going to the doctor but makes them apprehensive about the healthcare system in general.

I don't hear anyone trying to justify that specific situation. However, most of us do not believe a government takeover will result in something better.

Perhaps some protections are in order, but a government takeover is the answer to nothing.

A public insurance option is a far cry from a nationalised healthcare system.

There are Bolsheviks hiding behind the letters in these reform bills, apparently.

[HAL 9000 96]

It might, it might not - certainly not during the next 8-10 years.

Even if it did - there is ample evidence in other countries that healthcare is delivered a lot more cost effectively that way.

It would help to know what you're afraid of before you condemn it.

not to jump in on you & joe's discussion...but

my main concern is this: if it is a gateway to nationalised heathcare (which i'm almost positive it is)

the population of the UK is roughly 62 million, Canada is roughly 34 million. both systems operate in the red & have other issues. with the US population being roughly 310 million....i see a big big train wreck ahead.

Noone would tell you the Canadian or UK systems are flawless, far from it. Neither should the Canadian or UK systems be looked at as the models emulate.

I think we (the collective we) ought to be having an honest discussion about this - and leave the cliches about "inefficient government" behind. Its crazy to me that noone is prepared to demand greater accountability of government, and instead are content to play the party-political game and trap off the same old talking points.

You'd think that being the innovators that we have been historically... that we'd do some more innovating ya know. And be less feudal about who can and can't access modern medical services without entering serfdom.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

It's completely stupid for health care to be tied to employment.

Healthcare coverage evolved as a result of competitive compensation between employers/corporations/companies as they competed for employees in the job market.

Health Care coverage is not the function, or responsibilty of the Federal Government, except of course in Socialist societies......which is where we're headed after having voted in a a far left socialist President.

What is your position on Medicare?

That its bankrupt?

[rebeccajo 14]

It's completely stupid for health care to be tied to employment.

Healthcare coverage evolved as a result of competitive compensation between employers/corporations/companies as they competed for employees in the job market.

Health Care coverage is not the function, or responsibilty of the Federal Government, except of course in Socialist societies......which is where we're headed after having voted in a a far left socialist President.

What is your position on Medicare?

That its bankrupt?

Darn.

I was betting you'd answer 'doggie-style'..............

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I challenge the libruls to come up with one answer that has nothing to do with meaningless sentiment for the following question:

If you can't earn your own health care, what makes you think you're worth it?

[Empress of Groovy 373]

It's completely stupid for health care to be tied to employment.

Healthcare coverage evolved as a result of competitive compensation between employers/corporations/companies as they competed for employees in the job market.

Health Care coverage is not the function, or responsibilty of the Federal Government, except of course in Socialist societies......which is where we're headed after having voted in a a far left socialist President.

What is your position on Medicare?

That its bankrupt?

Darn.

I was betting you'd answer 'doggie-style'..............

While taking it, of course...