Are the town hall protestors the mainstream view of America?

ledvedderman

Flutter Girl, how will opening up the state lines drive the cost of health care down? I've heard the GOP float this around for a while now, and not one person has said HOW it will drive costs down.

blackredyellow

ledvedderman wrote:

Flutter Girl, how will opening up the state lines drive the cost of health care down? I've heard the GOP float this around for a while now, and not one person has said HOW it will drive costs down.

I think that it's one of those things that sound great in a soundbyte, but make no sense.

Knowing all of the insurance headaches and bureaucracy that doctors offices have to put up with, I can't imagine them all of a sudden accepting tens of new companies. I might be able to get a cheaper policy from a company in Arizona, but if no doctors around me will accept it, then what good is it?

And it's not as simple as it sounds... the federal government will have to force all of the individual states to undo or alter their insurance laws and regulations....... so much for conservatives being for states rights.

Flutter Girl

inmytree wrote:

sorry, I don't believe that you've read "the bill"...

I also have to apologize that I don't feel upset for "the rich"...they seemed ok with my help during Bailout time...

opening up state borders will not drive down costs because we will eventually have 1 or 2 major wal-mart like insurance companies to choose from...

I really don't understand the fear of the public option...Insurance companies offer nothing in terms of saving lives, they are only in business to make money...get profit out of health care and things will improve...

I have no reason to lie about it..

I am so not rich, but if I would not get denied due to a medical condition, I would have one of the $250 plans. You don't have to be rich. I'm not stupid enough to be choked with credit cards, the closest I come to that is a check card. My bills are minimum, the utilities and a couple luxuries (satellite tv, AOL..) I'm not rich, I'm responsible, and want the best plan available. But would not be able to afford it with a tax on it and can testify that generic isn't always best. I'm on 2 name brand medications. The generic of one I have an allergic reaction to, and the generic of the other vimply does not work as well as the name brand. The combined cost is hurting me and my dad of whom I have to rely on to help me afford it.

We don't even have just one of 2 walmart-type companies in each state, I have about 10 choices in my state, if I recall correctly. It's been like that for ages. You will never know until you try. At the very least, at first we will all get the benefit of lower costs..But I seriously doubt your over-dramatised fear would come true becauve we have laws against monopolies. One or 2 money-hungry lawyers would file suits against them, just like what happened to Microsoft.

Av to what you said about private health care and their greed, there are already amendments proposed in the bill that would easily solve that issue by making it illegal for them to decline or ditch a person who is sick/disabled, and making it illegal for them to deny treatments. These are amendments that should have been removed from the bill and passed seperately already.

The un-Godly cost of a public option is what the fear is all about.

soulsinging

Flutter Girl wrote:

Jasunmark wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

I am a radical commie socialist.

Um... ok, would you like to explain how that's even possible? Isn't that like being short and tall at the same time?

socialism is like communism-lite..tho if someone is communist, why bother saying socialist too

What if they're not communist, and are just socialist. Do you know what that means? Or is there no such thing in your mind? Just communists and God-fearing, Jesus-loving capitalists?

soulsinging

Flutter Girl wrote:

I have no reason to lie about it..

I am so not rich, but if I would not get denied due to a medical condition, I would have one of the $250 plans. You don't have to be rich. I'm not stupid enough to be choked with credit cards, the closest I come to that is a check card. My bills are minimum, the utilities and a couple luxuries (satellite tv, AOL..) I'm not rich, I'm responsible, and want the best plan available. But would not be able to afford it with a tax on it and can testify that generic isn't always best. I'm on 2 name brand medications. The generic of one I have an allergic reaction to, and the generic of the other vimply does not work as well as the name brand. The combined cost is hurting me and my dad of whom I have to rely on to help me afford it.

What would you do if you didn't have a dad you could rely on to help you afford it?

Prince Of Dorkness

It's when people start using terms like "Un-Godly" that I start to get nervous.

But see.. ok.. yes.. public health care will cost money but it will SAVE money.. fewer people showing up at Emergency rooms with no coverage... needing emergency care instead of cheaper preventative medicine.

And besides.. it's going to cost us a bit (maybe but no necessarily), but it's the right thing to do. I'm fine with paying a bit more money if it means that all Americans have health care insurance.

soulsinging

Flutter Girl wrote:

socialism is like communism-lite..tho if someone is communist, why bother saying socialist too

inmytree - I've read the bill. It's essentially an expansion of medicaid to cover anyone not covered, instead of just the poor...but anyone can plainly see how well medicaid is doing. They are going to add another amendment to the bill that would add taxes to the pricier private health plans (the ones that are around $250 and up), making them unaffordable to everyone but the rich. It seems they are hell bent on getting us all on plans that only offer generic treatments and medicine, which is inferior to what the best private plans pay for...I don't understand the point in that one....

Are you talking about the tax on cadillac plans? Don't give me that $250 bullshit... the added tax is on plans that cost upwards of a couple grand in premiums per year. If you're dropping $8000 on your insurance premiums per year and the extra $250 is going to break you, you're already living way outside your means. If there's a public option, you could save that $8000 and just use it to buy the name brand drugs if you don't like the generic stuff offered by the base plan.

Flutter Girl wrote:

What they need to do is break the bill down. Vote on just one amendment at a time. All the bad amendments that they have tried to sneak in there in the hopes it would go unnoticed would never pass. The good stuff would have been passed already. And it would severely cut down on the arguing and altering of the rest of the amendments to make them acceptable to both sides. But, you know, God forbid they do anything intelligent in D.C.

I agree 100% with this. It is ridiculous how bills are packaged and passed today.

Flutter Girl

ledvedderman wrote:

Flutter Girl, how will opening up the state lines drive the cost of health care down? I've heard the GOP float this around for a while now, and not one person has said HOW it will drive costs down.

It's simple..supply and demand. The more supply there is, the less demand. To stay competative, suplliers must lower their cost, or they will be beat out by their competition and be driven out of business. The more competition there is, the lower that cost will go. It's just like with medicine..At first it is exclusive to the name brand company that created it. Because they are the sole provider, they can set the price at whatever they want. But after a certain amount of time, the FDA opens it up and allows other companies to produce generic forms of the same medication. There will be only one thing different between the original and the generic, for instance, with prilosec, they are trademarked as the the purple pill. You will find that the only difference between them and the generic forms is that none of the generics come in purple capsules. Once there are 3 or 4 companies offering the same medication, you notice that the price drops down, cos the generic companies want to steal business away from the name brand, so they offer it at a lower cost, which in turn forces the name brand to lower it's cost or it will lose business.

If you open the borders, it will allow us to go from having access to just, say 10 companies, to having access to hundreds. Cost of living in Florida is high, and health insurance matches that, but in states where people generally make less income, like Georgia right next door to me, the cost of health care has to be lower to match up with the kind of average income made in that state. Having access to Georgia's cheaper insurance means a great deal of Floridian's will ditch their current plans and buy one based in Georgia. Unless Florida providers lower their cost to prevent losing hoards of their customers..

soulsinging

Flutter Girl wrote:

ledvedderman wrote:

Flutter Girl, how will opening up the state lines drive the cost of health care down? I've heard the GOP float this around for a while now, and not one person has said HOW it will drive costs down.

It's simple..supply and demand. The more supply there is, the less demand. To stay competative, suplliers must lower their cost, or they will be beat out by their competition and be driven out of business. The more competition there is, the lower that cost will go. It's just like with medicine..At first it is exclusive to the name brand company that created it. Because they are the sole provider, they can set the price at whatever they want. But after a certain amount of time, the FDA opens it up and allows other companies to produce generic forms of the same medication. There will be only one thing different between the original and the generic, for instance, with prilosec, they are trademarked as the the purple pill. You will find that the only difference between them and the generic forms is that none of the generics come in purple capsules. Once there are 3 or 4 companies offering the same medication, you notice that the price drops down, cos the generic companies want to steal business away from the name brand, so they offer it at a lower cost, which in turn forces the name brand to lower it's cost or it will lose business.

If you open the borders, it will allow us to go from having access to just, say 10 companies, to having access to hundreds. Cost of living in Florida is high, and health insurance matches that, but in states where people generally make less income, like Georgia right next door to me, the cost of health care has to be lower to match up with the kind of average income made in that state. Having access to Georgia's cheaper insurance means a great deal of Floridian's will ditch their current plans and buy one based in Georgia. Unless Florida providers lower their cost to prevent losing hoards of their customers..

Until the big companies just buy out all the little guys and, like happened with the banks and AIG and Walmart, you are left with only one or two huge companies too big to fail and with no competition whatsoever. That is why prices are so high now. If 10 companies in one state is not enough competition to drive prices down, what good is another 90? The problem is they all engage in price fixing... and they'll just take that national. You won't get insurance at Georgia's rates, the one in Georgia will raise it to Florida levels.

Flutter Girl

soulsinging wrote:

What if they're not communist, and are just socialist. Do you know what that means? Or is there no such thing in your mind? Just communists and God-fearing, Jesus-loving capitalists?

socialist is right between democrat and communist. Want freedoms, but also want the government to take care of you. I'm an independent, myself..I'm not keen on extremes..they don't allow for any grey area
And I am also a fan of capitalism. As are many democrats, and even some socialists. Capitalism is not specific to any party.

Flutter Girl

soulsinging wrote:

Flutter Girl wrote:

I have no reason to lie about it..

I am so not rich, but if I would not get denied due to a medical condition, I would have one of the $250 plans. You don't have to be rich. I'm not stupid enough to be choked with credit cards, the closest I come to that is a check card. My bills are minimum, the utilities and a couple luxuries (satellite tv, AOL..) I'm not rich, I'm responsible, and want the best plan available. But would not be able to afford it with a tax on it and can testify that generic isn't always best. I'm on 2 name brand medications. The generic of one I have an allergic reaction to, and the generic of the other vimply does not work as well as the name brand. The combined cost is hurting me and my dad of whom I have to rely on to help me afford it.

What would you do if you didn't have a dad you could rely on to help you afford it?

Be royally screwed

Prince Of Dorkness

Flutter Girl wrote:

socialist is right between democrat and communist.

Thanks... I needed a laugh today.

Prince Of Dorkness

Flutter Girl wrote:

What would you do if you didn't have a dad you could rely on to help you afford it?

Be royally screwed [/quote]


and yet.. you're against a public option.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say I make more money than you do... but yet, I'm the one who's fine with paying more taxes to help out people like you who need help.

I'm just confused now.

soulsinging

Flutter Girl wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

What if they're not communist, and are just socialist. Do you know what that means? Or is there no such thing in your mind? Just communists and God-fearing, Jesus-loving capitalists?

socialist is right between democrat and communist. Want freedoms, but also want the government to take care of you. I'm an independent, myself..I'm not keen on extremes..they don't allow for any grey area
And I am also a fan of capitalism. As are many democrats, and even some socialists. Capitalism is not specific to any party.

If socialism is between democrat and communist, isn't it by definition not an extreme?

soulsinging

Flutter Girl wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

What would you do if you didn't have a dad you could rely on to help you afford it?

Be royally screwed

What if there was a way to ensure you didn't have to rely on your dad to be able to afford the medicine you needed?

soulsinging

Jasunmark wrote:

Flutter Girl wrote:

Be royally screwed

and yet.. you're against a public option.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say I make more money than you do... but yet, I'm the one who's fine with paying more taxes to help out people like you who need help.

I'm just confused now.

Same for me. I don't think I get anything from a public option. I get paid very well where I work, and I'm reasonably sure my health care package is probably one of those cadillac plans that will be subject to the added tax. But I'm ok with that. I take home more than most people will see in a few years and a few extra dollars into that tax fund is not going to dramatically cut into my lifestyle. I still live a life of comfort that most people the world over can't dream of. So I am not going to throw a shit fit because for the price of a few video games for my ps3, those that aren't as lucky as I am can still see a doctor and get the care they need. I worked fairly hard to get where I am, but that doesn't mean I feel it is right that I have a deluxe package that will pay for a boob job if I decide I want tits while other people are left wondering if they will be able to afford insulin for their diabetic child.

Flutter Girl

Jasunmark wrote:

It's when people start using terms like "Un-Godly" that I start to get nervous.

But see.. ok.. yes.. public health care will cost money but it will SAVE money.. fewer people showing up at Emergency rooms with no coverage... needing emergency care instead of cheaper preventative medicine.

And besides.. it's going to cost us a bit (maybe but no necessarily), but it's the right thing to do. I'm fine with paying a bit more money if it means that all Americans have health care insurance.

How bout "astronomical" instead then

Actually there have been a number of studies done in UK, France, and Germany (I think on the last one, I can't recall for certain) that show that preventative care actually costs more. It's in the numbers. Expensive tests for everyone, or treatment for a few.

Opening the borders would make it more affordable, and therefore, there would be less folks in the ER, cos they would have the insurance..so when they get sick, they would go to their doctors. And when they need an ER, their insurance will cover it, and when they need treatment for things like cancer, their insurance will cover it.

As for your other post...I don't like the restrections in the public option..for instance, it would be pointless, cos they would only offer generic..
If they passed the law making it so private insurers could no longer deny me for my medical condition, then I would get that...$250 is affordable for me. The $729 I'm paying monthly now, is not affordable..not to mention it doesn't come with doctor visits, testing, surgery, and all the other things covered by health care.

Prince Of Dorkness

Flutter Girl wrote:

Actually there have been a number of studies done in UK, France, and Germany (I think on the last one, I can't recall for certain) that show that preventative care actually costs more. It's in the numbers.

OK, this isn't the Glen Beck show. You can't just say "oh.. there was a study done.. I don't remember where..." and then let out some "fact" to support your position. Back up your statements or don't make them.

Opening the borders would make it more affordable, and therefore, there would be less folks in the ER, cos they would have the insurance..so when they get sick, they would go to their doctors. And when they need an ER, their insurance will cover it, and when they need treatment for things like cancer, their insurance will cover it.

OK, and here again we have that "Step 1, open borders... step 3, big savings.." problem. You need to explain step 2 to us because nobody seems to know what that is.

As for your other post...I don't like the restrections in the public option..for instance, it would be pointless, cos they would only offer generic.

And you heard his where?

blackredyellow

Flutter Girl wrote:

ledvedderman wrote:

Flutter Girl, how will opening up the state lines drive the cost of health care down? I've heard the GOP float this around for a while now, and not one person has said HOW it will drive costs down.

It's simple..supply and demand. The more supply there is, the less demand. To stay competative, suplliers must lower their cost, or they will be beat out by their competition and be driven out of business. The more competition there is, the lower that cost will go. It's just like with medicine..At first it is exclusive to the name brand company that created it. Because they are the sole provider, they can set the price at whatever they want. But after a certain amount of time, the FDA opens it up and allows other companies to produce generic forms of the same medication. There will be only one thing different between the original and the generic, for instance, with prilosec, they are trademarked as the the purple pill. You will find that the only difference between them and the generic forms is that none of the generics come in purple capsules. Once there are 3 or 4 companies offering the same medication, you notice that the price drops down, cos the generic companies want to steal business away from the name brand, so they offer it at a lower cost, which in turn forces the name brand to lower it's cost or it will lose business.

If you open the borders, it will allow us to go from having access to just, say 10 companies, to having access to hundreds. Cost of living in Florida is high, and health insurance matches that, but in states where people generally make less income, like Georgia right next door to me, the cost of health care has to be lower to match up with the kind of average income made in that state. Having access to Georgia's cheaper insurance means a great deal of Floridian's will ditch their current plans and buy one based in Georgia. Unless Florida providers lower their cost to prevent losing hoards of their customers..

But what incentive is there for already overbooked doctors to accept a hundred different plans (and deal with 100 different bureaucracies, policies and forms) ? If I can get a cheaper plan from Georgia, but can't find a doctor in NY to accept it, then what good is it?


You can say that if enough people buy other insurance companies, then doctors will eventually have to accept them, but who in their right mind would buy a policy that their doctor doesn't take, just to start that trend?

soulsinging

Flutter Girl wrote:

Jasunmark wrote:

It's when people start using terms like "Un-Godly" that I start to get nervous.

But see.. ok.. yes.. public health care will cost money but it will SAVE money.. fewer people showing up at Emergency rooms with no coverage... needing emergency care instead of cheaper preventative medicine.

And besides.. it's going to cost us a bit (maybe but no necessarily), but it's the right thing to do. I'm fine with paying a bit more money if it means that all Americans have health care insurance.

How bout "astronomical" instead then

Actually there have been a number of studies done in UK, France, and Germany (I think on the last one, I can't recall for certain) that show that preventative care actually costs more. It's in the numbers. Expensive tests for everyone, or treatment for a few.

Opening the borders would make it more affordable, and therefore, there would be less folks in the ER, cos they would have the insurance..so when they get sick, they would go to their doctors. And when they need an ER, their insurance will cover it, and when they need treatment for things like cancer, their insurance will cover it.

As for your other post...I don't like the restrections in the public option..for instance, it would be pointless, cos they would only offer generic..
If they passed the law making it so private insurers could no longer deny me for my medical condition, then I would get that...$250 is affordable for me. The $729 I'm paying monthly now, is not affordable..not to mention it doesn't come with doctor visits, testing, surgery, and all the other things covered by health care.

You think if they pass a 'no denial for prior conditions' law you're suddenly going to get those things cheaper? The first thing they're going to do is raise the rates on everyone to compensate for having to take on people that aren't in the shape of a championship level tennis player. You'll be paying over a grand. And you may still run into problems like being dropped halfway through chemo or being told the company won't cover treatment or certain tests.