The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: ReardenSteel on October 08, 2009, 04:02:00 PM
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v604/woncothesane/nancy_pelosi_.jpg)
House Democrats are floating the idea of a windfall-profits tax on the private health insurance industry as a way to finance their healthcare overhaul, and to drum up support among members of a divided caucus.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called the windfall profits tax idea "very preliminary," saying she's asked House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) to look at how much the tax could raise.
I have asked Chairman Rangel to see what is in it for us," Pelosi said. "There's more that the insurance companies could contribute to this health care reform. They're going to get 50 million new consumers, many of them subsidized by the taxpayer. They can put more on the table."
The idea was brought up in a leadership meeting on Wednesday night and brought before the entire caucus on Thursday morning, according to Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.).
Connolly said no specific structure or tax rates were discussed, nor was it estimated how much revenue could be brought in through a tax on the profits of the largest health insurance companies, but Connolly said the idea had wide support.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/62211-house-dems-considering-windfall-profits-tax-on-insurance-industry
.....
Maybe one day we'll get that "Windfall profits tax rebate" from Congress we all could use. (not holding breath)
-
Ed Morrissey (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/08/pelosi-wants-windfall-profits-tax-on-insurance-companies/) want's to know:
What constitutes a “windfall†in an industry that averages a paltry 3.3% profit margin (http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/522.html) — free donuts on Fridays? Whatever it is, or rather whatever it is after Congress pounds insurers and providers with previously-proposed excise fees and taxes, Nancy Pelosi and her colleagues want it.
Hat tip to Hot Air for all of the above.
Ed also notes, rightly, that whatever the tax and whatever the means and whatever the name, that cost will simply get passed right on to us in the form of higher prices. (audible sigh)
-
Let's see, we raise taxes on the private insurance companies, they in turn pass the increased costs on to their customers, those customers reach a point that they can no longer afford the premiums, and are forced into the government provided plans. A run on sentence to be sure, but I think I covered their reasoning for this.
-
Well, it's not unprecedented, though you have to go back a couple of decades to the similar tax on the petrochemical industry. Doesn't make it a good idea though. She is kind of putting the cart before the horse, assuming there are going to be windfall profits due to legislative changes producing a whole new regulatory landscape, which was not the case with the oil industry.
-
I have asked Chairman Rangel to see what is in it for us," Pelosi said. "There's more that the insurance companies could contribute to this health care reform. They're going to get 50 million new consumers, many of them subsidized by the taxpayer. They can put more on the table."
Which also means they will have to maintain larger fund balances to meet legal requirements of coverage security I bet.
The whole thinking is just stupid and convoluted...you will get tax dollars for policy premiums so we will take that back from you in a revenue neutral arrangement yet you will be liable for increased coverage needs.
-
Maybe if crooks like Charles Rangel paid their damn taxes ......
-
What a stupid bitch.
How about a useless **** tax? We can start with the 545 useless ****s in Washington giving up 95% of their salaries, along with 95% of any earnings associated with their positions (books, speaking engagements, etc.). Of course, any perks will also be taxed at fair market value.
Please pardon my language. I'm so ****ing fed up with every aspect of life in this country being mangled in some form or fashion by government asshattery. Fed the **** up.
-
We're coming to the end. Congress is trying to actively use a private company's money, via taxes, to put them out of business. These f'n idiots have shit all over the US Constitution.
-
We're coming to the end. Congress is trying to actively use a private company's money, via taxes, to put them out of business. These f'n idiots have shit all over the US Constitution.
Just wait until revenue essentially dries up and there's no one lining up for our Treasury offerings...
Atlas Shrugged will look like an elementary school play.
-
The way these insurance companies have treated my family I'm not about to shed a tear for them, but this strikes me as a futile effort. We're about to give them a trillion dollar handout, what's the point? Here's a bunch of money, but we're going to take a little of it back!
-
The way these insurance companies have treated my family I'm not about to shed a tear for them, but this strikes me as a futile effort. We're about to give them a trillion dollar handout, what's the point? Here's a bunch of money, but we're going to take a little of it back!
Aaaaaaaanndd here we go again! :banghead:
We're giving insurance companies a trillion dollar hand out? :rotf: :rotf: Please read HR3200 and this proposed bill before making patently false statements, mmmmmmmmmmkay?
-
The way these insurance companies have treated my family I'm not about to shed a tear for them, but this strikes me as a futile effort. We're about to give them a trillion dollar handout, what's the point? Here's a bunch of money, but we're going to take a little of it back!
I feel for you, seriously, I do. I'm in this situation. However, we can always change insurance companies. We can also regulate them and mandate them to follow certain guidelines. When the government is your insurance provider?
You are ****ed.
-
DemocRATs never met a tax or an abortionist they didn't love.
-
The way these insurance companies have treated my family I'm not about to shed a tear for them, but this strikes me as a futile effort. We're about to give them a trillion dollar handout, what's the point? Here's a bunch of money, but we're going to take a little of it back!
WTF are ya smokin?
-
WTF are ya smokin?
Insurance companies are not infallible.
-
I see the little Deuce Coup has crapped in another thread. Just how did or does the insurance company treat you? They actually think you should have to pay for a portion of your healthcare? Oh the humanity!!!!!!!11
I've had 7 screws inserted in various places. The bill for the total came out to be damn near a 1/4 million bucks! My share was in the thousands, but sure beat the hell out of having to pay for the whole damn thing!
Every time I change insurance companies I have a one year grace for pre-existing. BFD! I can certainly understand their point of view. Let's see, I make one payment that amounts to around $200, the following week, I go in for $150,000 worth of surgery! Boy what a deal for the insurance company! I sure as hell wouldn't make a deal like that!
Oh, and I still need at least 4 more "interactions" with a scalpel, a good drill motor, and a few stainless steel screws.
edited to add comment
-
Are you people insane?
We're about to provide 35 million+ new customers to insurance companies. They will profit from this. Taxpayer money will even fund a lot of these premiums. "Here's a bunch of tax dollars, but we're going to take some of them back." It doesn't make any sense.
The average customer is profitable for an insurance company. That's how insurance works. The unlucky are subsidized by the lucky. More customers = more profit.
-
Are you people insane?
We're about to provide 35 million+ new customers to insurance companies. They will profit from this. Taxpayer money will even fund a lot of these premiums. "Here's a bunch of tax dollars, but we're going to take some of them back." It doesn't make any sense.
The average customer is profitable for an insurance company. That's how insurance works. The unlucky are subsidized by the lucky. More customers = more profit.
How many of those new customers are going to be signed up and already have an existing condition which will be a net loss on every one of them? If there was that much money to be made from it, then the government would have just rammed through a public option just to make money on it. You also seem to forget that the government will also be setting the price structures for the insurance companies, and will also decide what they have to cover, how much deductibles will be, and how much co-pays and everything else will be. This whole thing is designed to drive people onto the government plan and to take more control of people's lives. If anyone is insane, it's the ones that want this to succeed.
-
The average customer is profitable for an insurance company. That's how insurance works. The unlucky are subsidized by the lucky. More customers = more profit.
The "unlucky"? Care to explain?
-
Are you people insane?
We're about to provide 35 million+ new customers to insurance companies. They will profit from this. Taxpayer money will even fund a lot of these premiums. "Here's a bunch of tax dollars, but we're going to take some of them back." It doesn't make any sense.
The average customer is profitable for an insurance company. That's how insurance works. The unlucky are subsidized by the lucky. More customers = more profit.
Deuce - you are talking about things of which you have no knowledge. Please stop now. You're making yourself look stupid. Stop talking out of emotion, go read the FAWKING BILLS and then comment.
You may think I'm rude - I'm trying to keep you from making yourself look like an idiot.
-
Deuce - you are talking about things of which you have no knowledge. Please stop now. You're making yourself look stupid. Stop talking out of emotion, go read the FAWKING BILLS and then comment.
You may think I'm rude - I'm trying to keep you from making yourself look like an idiot.
Way too late.
-
The "unlucky"? Care to explain?
The unlucky are those who get sick more. The lucky are those who don't.
I'm confused. Are you guys supporting the Baucus health care bill? Or any of the currently proposed bills? Supporting an insurance mandate?
Seriously, educate me. What about all of this is going to be good?
Baucus healthcare plan, family of three, $55,000 total income:
Premium cap at 13% of income: ~$7200 annually.
Deductible cap at $11,900. Being slightly above 300% of the poverty line, no subsidies for deductibles.
How many of those new customers are going to be signed up and already have an existing condition which will be a net loss on every one of them? If there was that much money to be made from it, then the government would have just rammed through a public option just to make money on it. You also seem to forget that the government will also be setting the price structures for the insurance companies, and will also decide what they have to cover, how much deductibles will be, and how much co-pays and everything else will be. This whole thing is designed to drive people onto the government plan and to take more control of people's lives. If anyone is insane, it's the ones that want this to succeed.
I'm opposing this entire bill sweet lord I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here!
-
The unlucky are those who get sick more. The lucky are those who don't.
I'm confused. Are you guys supporting the Baucus health care bill? Or any of the currently proposed bills? Supporting an insurance mandate?
Seriously, educate me. What about all of this is going to be good?
Baucus healthcare plan, family of three, $55,000 total income:
Premium cap at 13% of income: ~$7200 annually.
Deductible cap at $11,900. Being slightly above 300% of the poverty line, no subsidies for deductibles.
When in the hell will you start linking to your sources?
-
I'm opposing this entire bill sweet lord I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here!
....as are we. Everyone here believes in a Capitalist solution to this situation. Not one by the government.
-
So if you're all opposing this bill why are people calling me an idiot for opposing this bill?
When in the hell will you start linking to your sources?
Sorry!
Premium cap info
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2922
-
Deuce - you are talking about things of which you have no knowledge. Please stop now. You're making yourself look stupid. Stop talking out of emotion, go read the FAWKING BILLS and then comment.
You may think I'm rude - I'm trying to keep you from making yourself look like an idiot.
What have I mentioned, specifically, that is incorrect? Serious question. If I'm misreading something I want to know about it.
-
So if you're all opposing this bill why are people calling me an idiot for opposing this bill?
They call me an idiot all the time. What's your bitch?
-
They call me an idiot all the time. What's your bitch?
In your case it's only partially true part of the time.
:tongue:
-
In your case it's only partially mostly true part of the time.
:tongue:
FIFY
-
Are you people insane?
We're about to provide 35 million+ new customers to insurance companies. They will profit from this. Taxpayer money will even fund a lot of these premiums. "Here's a bunch of tax dollars, but we're going to take some of them back." It doesn't make any sense.
The average customer is profitable for an insurance company. That's how insurance works. The unlucky are subsidized by the lucky. More customers = more profit.
A couple of things here.
First off is that just using your 35 million figure you frame it as all of them landing in one big insurance pool where all the premiums go to one place.
That isn`t how it would be,they will be spread out over hundreds or maybe thousands of companies.
Suddenly the increase in premiums collected against the liabilities of claims paid per company isn`t as lucrative sounding.
Next is the issue that you assume providing subsidized coverage will not encourage use of it.
Right now those of us with insurance are discouraged from using it needlessly by copays and deductibles as well as rates reflecting risk.
Are you going to tell me that a government subsidized policy because a person is too poor to purchase one will still have such checks and balances?
I can hear the outcry now about how the plan the government buys for me wants me to pay 30 dollars that I don`t have as a copay.
It will not work that way and everyone knows it...it will be complete and virtually free coverage to those under a certain income level.
Once again the liability of usage grows greatly.
Now there is the issue of human nature.
I am employed and part of that is a health insurance benefit that I pay a portion of.
How many employees and employers will opt out and selectively reduce income received or paid so one can qualify for a subsidized plan?
No one can answer that but the law of unintended consequences is seldom beneficial in my observation of things through life.
The mistake a liberal always makes is they don`t think things through based on observations of reality and history.
I don`t mean that as an insult either,simply a reflection here on your statements that presume you can radically alter the workings of this industry and the results will only be as you wish them to be despite all evidence showing the opposite will likely be the outcome.
That conclusion is based on the current government involved health care programs.
Medicare is a transfer program and is still going broke.
State plans that have been designed for low income or poor have bankrupted them and or the counties that have to support them.
Will there be a penalty for taking a sniffling child to an ER simply because it is more convenient then getting an appointment in a clinic or private practice?
Doubtful so why the presumption that will change by insuring everyone?
What will be needed as a reserve pool an insurance company has to hold to meet potential liabilities and where will that come from except for increasing rates until a balance is discovered between new customers and increased claims?
On and on it goes with hundreds of more questions that real life poses.
-
What have I mentioned, specifically, that is incorrect? Serious question. If I'm misreading something I want to know about it.
Have you read HR3200 yet?
I'll help you out here. HR3200 makes ZERO mention of any subsidies being provided to insurance companyes by covering the "uninsured." And please, double check your numbers - you're including illegal aliens.
HR3200 also makes it virtually impossible for insurnace companies to survive 2 years post implementation by preventing the writing of any new policy. There is no new money going to insurance companies and no new customers. The uninsured, and indeed upwards of 90M of the already insured, will be on the gov't program.. run by whom? I'll help yet again. THE FAWKING GOVERNMENT.
Now... go read the bill before making any other rediculous comments. And note - the "other" bills are not published for public consumption, so relying on what Congress is saying will be in the bill is unacceptable in this conversation, because they lied about what was in HR3200 as well.
So run along... you have about 1000 pages of HR3200 to read.
-
This is such a great idea. :whatever: Start off by forcing insurance companies to cover those who will cost the companies a ton of money. Then raise taxes on top of that. The evil insurance companies then will be forced to raise premiums until no one can afford them. Then the 80+ percentage of those happy with what they have now will be crying for a public option because that will be all they can afford.
Obama and the gang are trying like hell to push us into not only accepting but, wanting the public option.
-
Then, there is the barter scociety and the underground economy. Better to deal in cash than earn money on the books that would push you into a higher (reduced subcity) bracket.
The matter also exists of the general subsity of the proposed insurance. The ANNUAL premiums quoted in the tables are LESS than the MONTHLY premiums here in NYS ! Who makes up the differences?
And then there is the matter of the charges made for Hospital, Diagnostics, Nursing, Doctors, Rehabilitation professionals, ambulance services, nursing homes, clinics, malpractice expenses.......how can one do as is stated WITHOUT drawingdown of fees? Well? And if your EXPENSES don't go down but your FEES are determined by gvt decree and prove to be inadequate for your needs, what do you do?
Find a different profession, move to a climate where your needs will be met, simply put, leave the USA. Then , who treats you, the Vetinerian?
t
-
Stuff about HR3200
Nearly every claim you just made about Hr3200 is wrong by my reading. If you have a specific clause that refutes what I say here, please point me to it. The bill is in nice easy sections, so just give me the section I'm missing or misreading.
Have you read HR3200 yet?
Yep. Weeks ago.
HR3200 makes ZERO mention of any subsidies being provided
Section 242 describes individuals qualified for individual affordability credits. These credits can be applied to any plan on the insurance exchange, which would include private plans as well as the public option. These are subsidies to help pay for premiums... premiums paid to insurance companies.
HR3200 also makes it virtually impossible for insurnace companies to survive 2 years post implementation by preventing the writing of any new policy. There is no new money going to insurance companies and no new customers.
This is not correct. Writing a new policy that does not meet the defined acceptable standards is barred.
Section 101 b) Requirements for Qualified Health Benefits Plans- On or after the first day of Y1, a health benefits plan shall not be a qualified health benefits plan under this division unless the plan meets the applicable requirements of the following subtitles for the type of plan and plan year involved:
Next up:
The already insured!
The public option is only available via the health insurance exchange. Period. So who's eligible for the exchange?
(a) Access to Coverage- In accordance with this section, all individuals are eligible to obtain coverage through enrollment in an Exchange-participating health benefits plan offered through the Health Insurance Exchange unless such individuals are enrolled in another qualified health benefits plan or other acceptable coverage.
If you already enrolled in a qualified employer insurance plan you are literally not eligible for the exchange and therefore not eligible for the public option.
1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall establish geographically-adjusted premium rates for the public health insurance option in a manner
(A) that complies with the premium rules established by the Commissioner under section 113 for Exchange-participating health benefit plans; and
(B) at a level sufficient to fully finance the costs of
(i) health benefits provided by the public health insurance option; and
(ii) administrative costs related to operating the public health insurance option.
Huh. It has to fund itself via premiums entirely. That part is news to me.
Anything else you think I'm making mistakes on?
-
Whoopsy..no free ride.
-
Whoopsy..no free ride.
Right. I was previously under the impression that it would make up any losses via taxpayer support. It sounds like it will basically behave like any other insurance company except for being run by government bureaucrats.
-
Here's a quote from HR3200 you didn't mention: "The tax imposed under this legislation shall not be considered a tax."
They are going to tax us, but not call it a tax, sounds fair, right?
Also, who decides what insurance plans are acceptable? The government? How is a private company supposed to offer a fully competing product, in terms of quality and price, when the COMPETITOR for that product can say it's illegal to sell it?
How many businesses will maintain insurance coverage for their employees when they will have a competitive advantage dropping coverage and letting the taxpayers subsidize it rather than premiums coming from their own revenue stream?
Yes, you quote the bill, but you refuse to follow it's provisions through to their logical end. That pattern is typical of a liberal.
-
Here's a quote from HR3200 you didn't mention: "The tax imposed under this legislation shall not be considered a tax."
They are going to tax us, but not call it a tax, sounds fair, right?
Also, who decides what insurance plans are acceptable? The government? How is a private company supposed to offer a fully competing product, in terms of quality and price, when the COMPETITOR for that product can say it's illegal to sell it?
How many businesses will maintain insurance coverage for their employees when they will have a competitive advantage dropping coverage and letting the taxpayers subsidize it rather than premiums coming from their own revenue stream?
Yes, you quote the bill, but you refuse to follow it's provisions through to their logical end. That pattern is typical of a liberal.
You quote the bill, but fail to quote the rest of the sentence.
"The tax imposed under this legislation shall not be considered a tax, for the purposes of determining the amount of any credit under this part.
Changes the meaning rather significantly doesn't it?
The government does decide what the "acceptable standards" are, by placing caps on premiums and co-pays, and requiring certain things to be covered. (like ER visits or pregnancy) However, the public option would have to meet the same standards.
2) ENSURING A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD- Consistent with this subtitle, the public health insurance option shall comply with requirements that are applicable under this title to an Exchange-participating health benefits plan, including requirements related to benefits, benefit levels, provider networks, notices, consumer protections, and cost sharing.
If a $20,000 deductible is illegal for Aetna it's illegal for the public option.
Businesses larger than a certain number of employees will be required to offer insurance, so they can't drop coverage without taking a payroll tax penalty. That tax would pay for those subsidies.
You quote the bill even though you obviously have not read it.
I oppose HR3200.
-
Deuce - I've decided you're not worth arguing with. You have your opinions that are made up by liberal talking points and seem to lack the critical though to recognize that past behavior will dictate future behavior; gov't healthcare will NOT help prices, the free market, quality... But you continue to go on believing what you need to apease your anger against the free market.
-
The government does decide what the "acceptable standards" are, by placing caps on premiums and co-pays, and requiring certain things to be covered. (like ER visits or pregnancy) However, the public option would have to meet the same standards.
If a $20,000 deductible is illegal for Aetna it's illegal for the public option.
Businesses larger than a certain number of employees will be required to offer insurance, so they can't drop coverage without taking a payroll tax penalty. That tax would pay for those subsidies.
There is nothing in the bill that says the public option will be the standards for private companies. In fact the government can require higher and more coverage from private companies, but that force them to lose money, because they have caps on premiums/deductibles/co-pays.
It's also been pointed out the the payroll tax penalty will be lower than what most companies are paying for employee insurance, which is another reason for employers to boot their workers to the PO.
It must suck to have read the bill and understand so little of it, but not read what others that have read and UNDERSTAND the bill think of it.
Deuce - I've decided you're not worth arguing with. You have your opinions that are made up by liberal talking points and seem to lack the critical though to recognize that past behavior will dictate future behavior; gov't healthcare will NOT help prices, the free market, quality... But you continue to go on believing what you need to apease your anger against the free market.
I think you're right.
-
Deuce - I've decided you're not worth arguing with. You have your opinions that are made up by liberal talking points and seem to lack the critical though to recognize that past behavior will dictate future behavior; gov't healthcare will NOT help prices, the free market, quality... But you continue to go on believing what you need to apease your anger against the free market.
Bingo.
-
Deuce - I've decided you're not worth arguing with. You have your opinions that are made up by liberal talking points and seem to lack the critical though to recognize that past behavior will dictate future behavior; gov't healthcare will NOT help prices, the free market, quality... But you continue to go on believing what you need to apease your anger against the free market.
I don't think government healthcare will help things. Nor do I think forcing people to buy insurance they can't afford will help things. I oppose HR3200. How many times do I have to explain that? I am categorically against being forced to buy health insurance that may or may not be worthwhile or even affordable. I fall right into the income level where a mandate could push my teetering finances over the edge but I don't receive any subsidies.
There is nothing in the bill that says the public option will be the standards for private companies. In fact the government can require higher and more coverage from private companies, but that force them to lose money, because they have caps on premiums/deductibles/co-pays.
2) ENSURING A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD- Consistent with this subtitle, the public health insurance option shall comply with requirements that are applicable under this title to an Exchange-participating health benefits plan, including requirements related to benefits, benefit levels, provider networks, notices, consumer protections, and cost sharing.
Exchange eligible plans must meet the acceptable standards defined by this bill. The public option must meet exchange eligibility. Therefore, the public option must meet the acceptable standards defined by this bill.
8% of payroll is nothing to sneeze at for a penalty for not offering insurance, but you're right, some companies will likely drop coverage and just pay the tax, mine included.
It's another reason I've been emailing my representatives and explaining why they should vote against this bill.
-
I don't think government healthcare will help things. Nor do I think forcing people to buy insurance they can't afford will help things. I oppose HR3200. How many times do I have to explain that? I am categorically against being forced to buy health insurance that may or may not be worthwhile or even affordable. I fall right into the income level where a mandate could push my teetering finances over the edge but I don't receive any subsidies.
Yet in another thread you don't understand why people should have to pay for plastic surgery.
Does your left hand not know what your right hand is typing?
Exchange eligible plans must meet the acceptable standards defined by this bill. The public option must meet exchange eligibility. Therefore, the public option must meet the acceptable standards defined by this bill.
And what will those standards be exactly? There are sections of this train wreck that aren't even written in the specific language that end up screwing everyone.
The standards have yet to be set but somehow we're supposed believe that what they are selling us is a GOOD thing?
8% of payroll is nothing to sneeze at for a penalty for not offering insurance, but you're right, some companies will likely drop coverage and just pay the tax, mine included.
And in turn force the insurance companies OUT of business which will leave people with no other option BUT the Government one.
It's another reason I've been emailing my representatives and explaining why they should vote against this bill.
:whatever:
-
Yet in another thread you don't understand why people should have to pay for plastic surgery.
No, in another thread you completely misunderstood what I was typing.
And what will those standards be exactly? There are sections of this train wreck that aren't even written in the specific language that end up screwing everyone.
The standards have yet to be set but somehow we're supposed believe that what they are selling us is a GOOD thing?
Pre-existing condition exclusions banned, age/location/family the only variations allowed for premiums, section 122 defines the "essential benefits package" and the cost-sharing and actuarial value requirements. Requirements for "basic," "enhanced," and "premium" benefits packages defined.
You're right, the law as written does leave a lot of power to change things in the hand of the Administrator, but there's quite a bit already defined to give you an idea of what would happen at least.
And in turn force the insurance companies OUT of business which will leave people with no other option BUT the Government one.
People dropped from their employer plan will still have to buy insurance. If it happened to you, would you pick the public option or a private plan?
-
No, in another thread you completely misunderstood what I was typing.
Pre-existing condition exclusions banned, age/location/family the only variations allowed for premiums, section 122 defines the "essential benefits package" and the cost-sharing and actuarial value requirements. Requirements for "basic," "enhanced," and "premium" benefits packages defined.
You're right, the law as written does leave a lot of power to change things in the hand of the Administrator, but there's quite a bit already defined to give you an idea of what would happen at least.
People dropped from their employer plan will still have to buy insurance. If it happened to you, would you pick the public option or a private plan?
What if you couldn't get a private plan, at any price, because the insurance companies wouldn't be allowed to write new policies? Read the bill, that's in there too. Where do you go then, right into the public option, like they planned all along. As more and more companies drop their coverages due to higher and higher premiums from insurers trying to stay afloat against a competitor subsidized by taxpayer money, the speed of enrollment in the PO gets faster and faster. Once one of the big insurers, i.e. BCBS, goes belly up, everyone will be on the PO, and they will have what they wanted, single payer. At that point, they may not own your soul or (all of your) labor, but they do own your body, and can and will decide when you've served your purpose and are no longer worth the effort to keep alive.
-
Why are we discussing thte matter of the number of angles who can dance on the head of a pin?
BETTER HEALTH CARE IS NOT, THAT'S NOT, AGAIN NOT what is going on. What is going on it an attempt to extend government control over the indivigual WAY WAY WAY past Constitutional limits! i CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHY anyone with the goal of better quality health care with a b roader base would subscribe to this covernmental attempt to extort money and compliance in an area that is none of their constitutional business. Fact is, except those who think serfdom is superior to freedom would go for this pile of stench.
There are ways the feds could help make health care better, more available and less expensive, but none are under consideration by the Congress.