You could try to on your own outside of work. But with group coverage, because the risk is spread around, you end up with a median rate for the whole company. EEonly is $100 per pay, EE+Spouse is $130, Family is $200 etc. Some companies I do business with have "healthy living incentives" If you are a non smoker you pay a lowe premium for health insurance than smoker do. I think this is a step in the right direction regarding insurance.

If there were a single payor system in the U.S. and we had to spread the risk of everyone in the country the premiums(taxes) wouldn't be fair or reflective of the individuals risk level, just like group coverage at work

...and why couldn't they? If an individual found that "low taxes, but you are on your own" was objectionable, they would move to a different state.

Again, why are you afraid of this model?

the "model" is a fantasy. i don't think anyone's afraid of it--i'm certainly not. but it's irrelevant to the present debate. it is not a viable counter-model. what it amounts to is acquiescing to the present system while pretending to yourself you're doing something else.
advocating this position is self-exclusion. it's as if a debate is happening inside a building and you're in an adjacent park talking about how nice the park is.
all it's doing in this context is getting in the way of a coherent conversation about actual problems and plausible ways to address them.

Really? REALLY? So if a poor person in State X suddenly has all of their government assistance yanked out from under them, you think they'd have the means to just up and relocate somewhere else? Dude, come on....

cause all those mexicans coming over the border have oodles and oodles of cash, freakin' big old suitcases and backpacks full. not everyone pays off a coyote, many walk across the deserts... I know many who have done both, and I met them in New York City. Hmmmm... gee. They made it.

Actually, illegal immigrants contribute quite a bit to the economy. They work for such low wages that their contributions to the work force are more efficient. Would you pick grapes for $4 a day? I wouldn't. Yet you and I both purchase cheap grapes picked by illegal workers and are happy with the low cost. I suspect that if grapes went for $11 per pound, neither of us would have as many.

/threadjack

If it would shut these absurd protesters up, then fine. Let 'em have Texas. Well, maybe not Austin. But the rest of the state. Hell, I'll even throw in New Mexico. Let the insurance business become 60%, 80% of the economy of those states, God bless. If it means the protestors will shut the fuck up and the rest of us can enjoy a single-payer health care system like most other civilized nations in the world? By all means.

I know this is going to blow your mind, but you should google "NGO". You might learn how "society" helps the poor when the government fails.

---------- Post added at 09:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:45 AM ----------

Well there you have it. Only thing is, and the last I checked, we still have a democracy. Therefore, it might just be (as in this case) that you are in the minority. More Americans DON'T want a single payer than do. In which case, your only recourse would be to go to some more civilized nation. And don't expect us to "shut the fuck up" any time soon. Sorry. I still have a first amendment (for now) and I will keep using it. I know you and Obama find that inconvenient.

Yep there's lots fo non-government agencies that are the saviors of the third world countries, especially when there are very corrupt governments.

ratbastid, why does it get to be states of your choosing? why can't the states themselves decide? again, that's what I believe much of the crux of the issue is.

Because socialists deny freedom of choice.

I just dont get the libertarian mindset.....dreaming about a governmental/economic system that has never existed anytime and anyplace in the world.

Yet you want to apply it to the US?

No government regulation? No government social safety net? No government role in R&D?

Just leave us the hell alone and the country and the world will be a better place?

There is a reason why libertarians have such a (relatively) small following.

actually DC, that's not what I'm implying at all. I'm implying a matter of choice.

California has plenty of government R&D in in the computers and aircraft when I was growing up. There are government social safety nets in place, want to expand them and grow them, great! Do so. Regulation? There should have been left in place for banking...

As a person who's parents emigrated from another country and similarly I left my birthstate for similar reasons, to gain more opportunity and a better quality of life... it's all about choices and consequences of those choices for me.

actually Cynth, my remarks were directed more to Cimarron, who has consistently used libertarian-speak to misrepresent the health reform bills in question.

Despite the conservative/libertarian rhetoric and fear mongering, there is no single-payer, government-controlled, socialist type system under consideration. There is choice in every proposed bill, including a government-administered option (to complete with a private option) in the House bill, that is not likely to even be considered in one Senate proposal.

Oh lighten up.

and so here we are again in another little performance of how it is that the debate about health care gets derailed then stalled by the Officially Sanctioned Collective ADD brought to you by your pals in the insurance industry and their media shills on the right.

way to be reflexive, comrades, and not just enact what the op is asking about.

sheesh.

you forgot the Francis.

the quote is:

Sergeant Hulka: Lighten up, Francis.

This where I say "Liar, liar - pants on fire!" Obama, Frank, Schakowsky have all stated that the public option is the first step towards single-payer and that is what they want to see happen. Were it not pub dis, I would send you the link. I have never misrepresented the health reform bill. I challenge you to find one post where I have.

As to choice, it's a matter of arithmetic. If a company pays 15% for private insurance, yet their "penalty" for not providing insurance will be 8% (it's in the bill) - they will drop the private, force their employees to public, and enjoy a 7% gain in income. Enough companies do this and private doesn't have enough base to survive. That puts 10s of millions more people on the public option and less and less competition (choice). Immediately the public system is strained and taxes must be raised. Immediately, the doctors make less money for the same service because medicare (the current system) and the public option (the future system) pays significantly less to the doctor than private insurance. So, the doctors are willing to see less and less new patients on public in leiu of their private customers. This naturally rations care, reduces choice (of doctors), delays diagnosis, and causes more expensive treatment due to decreased early detection and prevention. This is a perfectly rational argument against the private option.

The fact is, there is not one word about tort reform in these bills. Wonder why that is? (53% of congress are lawyers, and the president...)

---------- Post added at 11:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:01 AM ----------

I already put up my proposal (#136). No one has responded to it. I suppose the rest of you are fine with the system proposed in the 5 bills before congress. Don't talk to me about avoiding the OP.

if you read the post you quoted, cimarron, you'd have understood that i didn't say *avoid* i said *enact the problem*--and by *enacting the problem* i meant grinding a coherent debate to a halt with a series of "plans" based entirely in some libertarian fantasy world and insisting that they be understood as actual plans, when the fact is they aren't.

this is now officially tiresome.

In fact, what Obama had said was that if he were to start from scratch, he would support a single payer system...but he also said repeatedly that the employer-based system works for the most part and the intent is to build on that foundation to make universal care more affordable and accesible.

Citing a handful of legislators who want a single payer system doesnt change the fact that the general proposal that Obama offered to Congress and the current bills under consideration are nowhere close to a single payer system.

There is no socialist type plan in the works.

Scare tactics.

This is simply not true. I hate to break the rules, but here's the link.


He clearly states that the goal is to create a public option that will eliminate the private option in 10,15,20 years.

---------- Post added at 11:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:44 AM ----------

My God, I wish I was as smart as you.

Taken in full context, what he said, in fact, is that he supports universal coverage based on the current employer-based system and that MAYBE in 15-20 years, a single payer option might be viable.

Nothing in the current House bill resembles a "socialist" type single payer system.....the Senate is likely to not even include a public option.

Scare tactics.

What he said was that he can't do it all at once, but that is the intent - to get rid of private insurance.

Guess what, 15-20 years from now, Obama will have little say in the direction of health care reform...and today, the proposals on the table in no way resemble "socialism gone wild" or a single payer system.

BTW.. he is planning to take away your guns as well.

Why does one HAVE to have health insurance though? Why will it be illegal not to have it? Could it be the extra money taken out of one's paycheck going to the government? Is it a trick disguised to avoid "raising taxes" yet extracting more money from the citizenry under alternative pretenses? Is it a trap?

Rome wasn't built in a day. As to the gun thing: troll

I'm done. You guys have it all figured out.

That is such a copout. The concept of health care didn't exist when the Constitution was created. Words like "General Welfare" are there so that the Constitution can be interpreted per the standards of current times. Otherwise we'll be using standards and practices developed over 200 years ago that aren't equipped to deal with modern times.

---------- Post added at 10:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:07 AM ----------

For the same reason that we all have to carry auto insurance.

Really? There weren't doctors in the 1780s?...and you didn't have to pay for them? Damn! Now I'm even more impressed with Washington! The man whittled his own TEETH out of ivory! Was there anything that man couldn't do?!?

You're talking out of you fucking ass and you know it. In today's world you can be perfectly healthy and some freak occurrence can occur that will result in injuries that cost more than an average person will make over the course of a lifetime. Don't even fucking act like things are the same as they used to be.

I cant see how the 2 are related. One is active, one is passive. One is the underwriting of user error (avoidable), the other is underwriting the laws of nature (unavoidable).

You know exactly what he means. I doubt they had health insurance back then.

Absolutely they are related. It doesn't matter how you got there, the hospital still treats you and sends a bill. If you don't pay it, the costs are absorbed by everyone else. The effect isn't as direct but they still hit everyone else in the wallet.

---------- Post added at 10:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:44 AM ----------

It's amusing to hear people complain about the fear of rationing. We are rationing right now when insurance companies deny coverage and they don't seem to mind.

Okay, here's the difference. Get cancer in 1778 - die. Get cancer in 2009, probably gonna live. So, yes. The bill in 1778 wasn't as big, but you were dead so it didn't matter. In 2009, the worst thing that can happen to you if you have a "freak occurrence" is NOT huge medical bills. The worst thing that can happen is that you DIE. I prefer the free market system that funds the innovation that allows more and more people to live longer and more productive lives, as opposed to the "pain pill" option that government healthcare will ultimately become.

Since modern health insurance didn't come in to existence until the late 20th century, how on earth did we get so far in medical science for those first 150 years without the "constitutionally-mandated", government-involved healthcare? By your rationale, we should have had the same medical standards and practices as Washington and Franklin until health insurance came into existence. The facts don't seem to jive with your assertion. The question is not "what was it like before health insurance?" The question is "what was it like before the government got involved in health care?" The first question above maintains the spirit of the constitution, the second is where the constitution gets squashed.

Oh, and I didn't say "fuck" so, well, now I have. Just trying to maintain the spirit of the dialog.

I thought you were done

really? last time I heard, pedestrians, bicycle riders, and people without driver's licenses aren't required to have auto insurance. In fact, the years I didn't own a car I saved much more than Geico touts, since I saved 100% of my insurance costs by not having a car.

Wow. That's constructive. Thanks for sharing.

Is it really that important that I qualified the statement with an * saying it only applies to those with cars or are you just looking to add some pointless bullshit?

You think it's normal and OK that a person can get injured or sick and spend the rest of his life slaving to pay for it, or making his family pay for it?

yes, I think it is normal. It's called life. That's why you be careful when you drive, be concerned that there are more assholes out there driving like fucktards.

There's nothing about life where it's supposed to be "and they lived happily ever after."

Life is hard, unequal, and unfair.

Maybe we should make sure that those Africans that Mrs. Clinton is visiting have healthcare in the next 20 years too. Because you know, it's a human right by the statements said here.

more to add to the auto insurance analogy, driving is a privilege, not a right.

so what is it about the cultures of nearly every other industrialized nation that makes them support universal health care while ours doesn't?

I doubt people are going to take the time to fact check some of the statements coming from the President regarding health insurance companies.

Talk about scare tactics, for example today the President is going on about how insurance companies will scour your application to find a reason to deny coverage when you get sick. Legally an insurance company has two years to cancel a policy for a material misrepresentation on the original application. After that two year period they are bound to provide coverage. Also, the misrepresentation has to be "material".

Another example, the President is saying insurance companies are not regulated and that no one is overseeing their actions. Every insurance company is regulated and bound by requirements of each state's laws regarding insurance companies.