Mass results are in....

[Pidgey]

The points are:
-you cant MAKE them buy anything
-its wrong to make taxpayers buy it for them
-the legislation does nothing to lower the price of healthcare which is the issue
-they get taken care of via charity (govt or otherwise) who cares if they feel bad about that ?

Oh, don't worry--no sooner would that dog of a batch of legislation get passed than the class-action lawsuits would have begun against the government that would have succeeded. The Constitution does not allow that the government can force private citizens to purchase a product or service from a private provider. The pitchforks and torches would start coming out as soon as the money started going missing from paychecks. I'm serious, it would start getting downright ugly in fairly short order.

The other hidden stuff that's real sweet deals for BigPharma and BigInsurance would probably also come out--believe me, this dog is NOT "po-folk friendly" in any way, shape or form.

The final tally is that the government is basically trying cut total medical outlays by Americans to roughly half of what it is today (yes, by way of less service) so that they can appropriate that money for other things. They're going to get it one way or another, too--that's a foregone conclusion.

 

[BigRob]

What I was going for was getting rid of government-provided insurance for all government employees--let 'em pay for it out of their own pockets.

Why not just eliminate all government jobs and say "it will save us money?" Government employees often provide an essential service that is needed in our society.

Don't want to offer someone in say the DOJ healthcare? Fine, don't do it, just don't act surprised when no one qualified wants to work for them anymore.

 

[ktucan1]

I know some of you want to really get ride of the Government in every way shape and form but one thing you have to remember. When you say "All Government Employee's" do you also mean the Military as well??? I'm just asking because if you mean all government employee's then that would have to include the military. Big Rob is right about one thing. You get ride of the Health Care programs offered to Federal Employee's then Good luck filling those spot's with qualified personal. I mean if a federal employee's Health Care bother's you that much then do your part and join the civil service so you can get the same. It's that easy. You want to punish those who have nothing to do with the way policy is set. As a federal employee I can tell you I get the same kind of Health Care as the rest of you. I get to pick from a list of Health Care provider's and pay the same amount of premiums you all pay. I don't get to have special treatment unlike members of Congress who for all intents and purposes are federal employee's too. They just got the better plan but what I find ironic is while some of them complain about health care it's only because they have the best and don't care to really try and fix it without getting there hands on it and making it worse.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Didn't used to be like this, you know... if you wanted insurance, you bought it yourself. Of course, there weren't such things as "copays" and all that--it only covered more catastrophic stuff. Plans varied, naturally. Employers started offering insurance as a means of attracting employees and because they could get a better deal due to the power of collective bargaining.

The idea that several people would feel a lot better as long as NOBODY got any special treatment is kinda' irritating. That's just destructive envy in its purest form. In a world of peak energy, though, it won't ultimately matter--everyone's going to end up getting screwed, for lack of a better word.

Problem is, if they gave you the value of your health care...it would not buy the same health care plan, because they get discounts you don't.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Why not just eliminate all government jobs and say "it will save us money?" Government employees often provide an essential service that is needed in our society.

Don't want to offer someone in say the DOJ healthcare? Fine, don't do it, just don't act surprised when no one qualified wants to work for them anymore.

Your just pulling our collective legs 'RIGHT'...you aren't serious about that statement.

No, highly qualified human would work for the government if there wasn't a free ride/reduced cost for health insurance...SERIOUSLY Very overly simplified statement...take away the huge corporation {FEDERAL GOVERNMENT} make all of those employees have several options to select from {they pay their own from their own pockets just like 90% of John Q Public does} and you don't think that some health care provider won't be busting the door down to offer them some serious sweet deals just to get the CHANCE to underwrite a huge entity like the FEDERAL EMPLOYEES NO MORE GOVERNMENT PAPER WORK, THE INSURANCE PROVIDER BILLS THE EMPOLYEE DIRECTLY, ya that would just be way to unreal to deal with...GOOD GRIEF

Please - PEOPLE, use that head for something besides to grow hair

 

[Pidgey]

Problem is, if they gave you the value of your health care...it would not buy the same health care plan, because they get discounts you don't.

Yeah, that's what I meant by the "collective bargaining" thing above.

Ever really wonder why that is? Is it because if they offer the same deal to a lot more people then they don't have to keep as many folks on staff to process claims as it can be more automated? Most of us don't get to see what goes on when our HR officers (or whoever gets the assignment) try to compare healthcare package offerings by a plethora of providers, but it's often a nightmare for them. I suppose you can say that the discounting of services in the different packages are weighted differently, trying to appeal to specific demographic groups. I suppose they (insurers) get basic dossiers on the group that they're being asked to quote on and try to match it with their most equitable packages. If you've ever had to compare such packages, it's not going to be an evening that you're going to enjoy.

 

[BigRob]

Your just pulling our collective legs 'RIGHT'...you aren't serious about that statement.

No, highly qualified human would work for the government if there wasn't a free ride/reduced cost for health insurance...SERIOUSLY Very overly simplified statement...take away the huge corporation {FEDERAL GOVERNMENT} make all of those employees have several options to select from {they pay their own from their own pockets just like 90% of John Q Public does} and you don't think that some health care provider won't be busting the door down to offer them some serious sweet deals just to get the CHANCE to underwrite a huge entity like the FEDERAL EMPLOYEES NO MORE GOVERNMENT PAPER WORK, THE INSURANCE PROVIDER BILLS THE EMPOLYEE DIRECTLY, ya that would just be way to unreal to deal with...GOOD GRIEF

Please - PEOPLE, use that head for something besides to grow hair

First problem, 90% of the public does not pay for it out of their own pockets. They are covered mostly through their jobs, which cover a large part of the expense.

It is not a stretch to assume that fewer benefits will attract less qualified people. There is a reason people who go to college etc do not work at McDonalds for minimum wage.

As for collective bargaining, couldn't the exact same argument just be made that if the government provided healthcare it could demand seriously sweet deals? I am pretty sure that has been floating around.

I think attempting to argue that if the government did not offer healthcare to its employees they would get a great deal from an insurer on their own, and in the same breath assume they do not get a great deal when the government does it, is somewhat odd.

I personally think the reason government is in such a sorry state is because government perks cannot compete with the private sector perks. Take away one more thing, like health insurance, and I would bet the quality falls even more.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

First problem, 90% of the public does not pay for it out of their own pockets. They are covered mostly through their jobs, which cover a large part of the expense.

It is not a stretch to assume that fewer benefits will attract less qualified people. There is a reason people who go to college etc do not work at McDonalds for minimum wage.

As for collective bargaining, couldn't the exact same argument just be made that if the government provided healthcare it could demand seriously sweet deals? I am pretty sure that has been floating around.

I think attempting to argue that if the government did not offer healthcare to its employees they would get a great deal from an insurer on their own, and in the same breath assume they do not get a great deal when the government does it, is somewhat odd.

I personally think the reason government is in such a sorry state is because government perks cannot compete with the private sector perks. Take away one more thing, like health insurance, and I would bet the quality falls even more.

Well, having interviewed for replacement staff during that 'REAGAN-nomics' period; when we could get more bang-for our buck for all of the unemployed who were in serious need of a job/any job and the perks/bennys weren't the primary issue for everyone needing to get off of their unemployment benefits prior to their benefits running out.

The masses need to be working and any job is better then no job and as this influx of less & less jobs has just continued to roll on from that period {RONNIE REAGAN ERA} more & more white collar employees have done without the perks of major medical health insurance.

And I find it amusing that some seem to think that the health care industry wouldn't have to suck it up and look at what huge number of polices that they are going to lose if they don't step up to the plate and offer up affordable coverage for the masses...SUPPLY & DEMAND and that is just the way business is handled.

The major medical underwriters will be STABBING each other in the backs to get the largest number of Americans covered and recoup their losses if everyone had to be on the same page...but that's just IMO

 

[Pidgey]

Solvency for the big insurers has been kind of a moving target lately. Outlays are funded by investments, not so much by premiums. Investments lately haven't been that stellar. Once again, see "Peak Oil", and its undeniable impact upon the economy.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Solvency for the big insurers has been kind of a moving target lately. Outlays are funded by investments, not so much by premiums. Investments lately haven't been that stellar. Once again, see "Peak Oil", and its undeniable impact upon the economy.

Oh, I quite understand and I can't disagree...BUT it was written up just recently that we only get about 33% of our premiums back for actual coverage and that has been a steady decline for the past 20 plus years.
SO Just where does the rest of the 77% get divided up within the major medical corporation
Drive through some metro areas and see/view the newest buildings that boast the nicest/vistas and largest logos that adorn those premier towers and the odds are that it will be some major medical underwriter that is named on that building. Ever watch the Rose Bowl Parade...quite a few of our largest major medical providers sponsor those enormous floats...so if they aren't making a 'GOOD PROFIT' off of their investments then I don't know who is!!! Their employees don't seem to be suffering any job loss/layoffs/pay scale roll backs/benefit losses!