Joe Lieberman: I'll block vote on Harry Reid's plan

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


I wasn't going to reply..but I've changed my mind.

Non-Profit? Gee, now who do you WANT to work for free? The doctors, the government workers?

That's not what I meant by non profit. I'm talking about CEO's and stockholders raking in millions/billions of dollars in profits. Why would you think I want doctors to work for free? That's silly to even imply that.....although I do hope that most doctors become doctors to help people...and not to just make lots of money.

You say "Many of us have nothing". When you use the pronoun "us", you are including yourself. Earlier you said you have employer provided health insurance, and that it provides 80%. I would guess that such insurance is actually considered a "Cadillac Plan". Whether you know it or not, 80% coverage is considered EXCELLENT today. You may be only paying a small premium, but my guess is that the value of that plan is over $21,000 for a family plan. That makes it eligible for the 40% excise tax.

It was 80 percent for my ER visit...not everything and I dn't have my insurance policy to go through it with you....and no..it's not cheap...but it's all I have. I've been uninsured before after losing a job because of NAFTA...Cobra is unaffordable to those who are paying a mortgage and raising a family. A single person..who lives with another with few bills can do it though. Most people will just hope they don't get sick and keep their fingers crossed.

The point is...I'd rather pay a higher premium for full coverage. I'd gladly pay another 20 percent in premiums to cover it. Why is it no one can get that? Even with what I have...I'll stay away from the doctor unless it is something I can no longer ignore just to avoid the bills.

Actually, last March 1, the government passed a law providing laid-off employees the ability to buy Cobra coverage for only 35% of it's actual cost. With unemployment, most workers should have no trouble covering that. If not, then I suggest that you bought a house for much more than you could afford, if you cannot cover the mortgage on unemployment.

I know they have. Unemployment benefits vary by state. When I was on unemployment in Indiana (the only time) I received the maximum...322 a week..compared to the I was bringing home before with insurance/dental/eye care included. Now I have only medical as my employer does not provide the others.

I just find it crazy that you fault someone for buying a house they could afford when they were working...then lost their job and are unemployment...bringing in far less income...paying more for insurance...yet it's their fault they can no longer afford their home?

1.) Forbidding companies from rejecting applicants because of pre-existing conditions. 2.) Allowing people to port their coverage from one job to the next. 3.) Allowing insurance companies to sell insurance across state lines.

The first one is a given..no matter who is providing health insurance. The second...why do you have to work to have it the first place?

The third...as I stated...will not work. In the short run it may have a positive effect and lower costs...but since there are basically 5 health insurance companies running a monopoly on the industry..they will wipe out all competition by bringing prices to low...they will merge and become even larger powerhouses than they already are. Health insurance should not be profitable...ever. Health providers..such as doctors etc...should of course profit. They are helping people and saving lives. Insurance companies provide nothing. It's an illusion. They don't hold a personal relationship with you...just as the government wouldn't. You are nothing but a statistic to them.

Your statement that ending state restrictions will lead to fewer companies, flies in the face of logic. In fact, such a proposal would actually allow smaller companies to grow bigger, as their potential market place would expand greatly.

Wrong. The insurance industry has an anti-trust exemption. They can undercut any smaller provider. This is what has happened to all of our manufacturing jobs (along with NAFTA). They are linked. No President has enforced an anti-trust law since Jimmy Carter.

This is why all of our government is completelly corrupted because corporations can fill politicians campaign coffers. Often those same politicians become lobbyists after they leave or are voted out of office for those SAME corporations.

Furthermore, I guess you do not understand what a corporation is. Most corporations are stock corporations, and as a result have stock holders. Those stock holders actually control much of the activity of those corporations.

Really? I had no idea. Come on Prof! I lost my last job because of stockholders who realized they could save on labor costs by moving my plant to Mexico. It was done for them to profit and get a boosts in stock prices. Yes...the CEO is the frontman...just as the President of the United States is. This has been happening all over the country for years and it's why everything has been falling apart.

I would suggest that you spend more time researching this area, before you post. Using profanity such as damnit does not enhance your argument, but shows that you are arguing from emotions, and not logic and facts

Are you stating that Lieberman isn't a fraud? Where's your logic in that? Al Gore picked him for VP for cripes sake. He voted for NAFTA. The banks loaded him up with campaign contributions. This man is no savior...he's a liar and a fraud. He doesn't care about the American people. He cares about himself. The only thing this man has ever stood strong on is Israel. He is not a PRO-USA politician and never has been.

BTW...he also voted FOR the bank bailouts.

I want healthcare reform. I think it should be available and easily affordable to every citizen in this country as everyone has the right to live. Unfortunately, I do not trust the current politicians to pass something that is surely to benefit all American citizens....too many are bought.

Campaign finance reform is needed before any real legislation is passed and then they would have to stop and/or control illegal immigration. Amnesty has to be given to those already here as we cannot just force over 10 million people out of the country. That cannot be done until the borders are protected however.

Corporate money needs to be taken out of government. Government is supposed to protect from enemies foreign and domestic...whether wearing business suits or guns. Unfortunately....they do NEITHER...just make things worse...yet someone is always profiting and it's not us.

Enjoy your retirement...I most likely will never get one.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


Yes but is control by the government on what they pay for treatments, meaning that the insurance is restricted on how they bill and I still don't have to pay for the differences in those charges.

Do you you knew that? is heavily regulated.

But they are not when is offered to regular people that need insurance.

Get it what is the differences here is none, if you think that what is been offered in favor of health care run by private insurance is going to be regulated you are for big disappointment and at the end you will have to pay for fines also.

You have no idea what is heading our way without a public option.

When was the last time the government has enforced any regulations in this nation when they have pimps in congress filling up their pockets.

If we have not learned by now we will never will.

reply to post by David9176

The point is...I'd rather pay a higher premium for full coverage. I'd gladly pay another 20 percent in premiums to cover it. Why is it no one can get that?

The reason that such a provision cannot be found, is that such a provision would completely kill the incentive to only get medical care, when it is really needed.
Based on what you said, I know you are not the kind of person that would abuse it. However, there are people who are complete hypochondriacs, who would go to the emergency room every time that they get the sniffles. That would clog up the health care system to the point, that those, such as you, who need it, would not be able to get the care they really need.

As for companies, stock holders, and control, unfortunately, that is capitalism. I don't like that aspect either, but the alternative is where Obama is going with his direction, government control of all aspects of business, i.e. , Socialism. We all know how well that worked in the Soviet Union and Cuba.

As for NAFTA, although I agree with you, that has nothing to do with this thread, even though there is probably no difference between us there. I don't defend Lieberman on other things he's done. My thread is only defending the action he has taken on this bill. I truly believe that the government option will eventually eliminate any public choice, and at that point, the government will control every aspect of your life. I don't think that is what our Founding Fathers envisioned.