Reuters Poll: Most in U.S. want public health option

Originally posted by crmanager

I love the arguement you socialists trot out..."You have more them me so give it to me."

Here is a thought...Work harder. Earn more. You need help there is Medicare and Social Security.

Ahh, the old argument that people can simply solve their health coverage problem by either barely working and maybe popping out kids to get medicare or working harder. Which ignores the fact that many people without health care are denied medicare from earning too much while often working several jobs to get by. Though I suppose if they work three jobs and go without sleep they may be able to afford the ever increasing health care premiums.

reply to post by Kaploink


Yes, do what out Grandparents did. WORK HARDER. Work 3 jobs if you have to. I do. My parents did.

You obviously don't think that work is good. You think work is a "necessary evil"

Yes, YOU must work. I should NOT have to work FOR YOU to not lose your house. People fail all the time. It sucks but it is a fact that WILL ALWAYS be.

Lose your house? Get an apartment. Rent a room in a house. I help people all the time. I have a charity to do just this.

You expect people to be FORCED to help. Doesn't work and never will.

reply to post by crmanager


life would be so simple if work was the way it used to be when my grandparents were in their productive age or when my father was in a productive age.

My grandfather had its own land, farm animals and products all grown in his land, he shared with all his sons and sons in law, that were the old good days.

My father work one job, enough to raise and educate 4 children and my mother to stay home.

Today the denigration of the working class is rampant, middle class is almost gone, you need two people to work two or three jobs to get enough to pay for what one job did in my fathers days.

Children are raised alone, in day cares and in the streets society is denigrating in our own eyes.

Capitalism has become a one class status and its now control by those with wealth.

I wish it was that easy but its not, things run deeper that we can only imagine.

Originally posted by crmanager

50 MILLION seniors will see Medicare cuts. Your advice to them is simply "Shut up old rich people?"

You are aware, of course, that medicare is a "socialist" program? Isn't socialism your avowed enemy? That was the point I was trying to make.

And no, I don't think that all old people are rich. Many would not be able to afford healthcare if it were not for medicare, and that should continue. It's one of the best things the government ever did.

What Congress is proposing cutting is waste and fraud in the medicare system, and things like the advantage plans, which have not proven to be effective.

Originally posted by crmanager

Here is a thought...Work harder. Earn more. You need help there is Medicare and Social Security.

May I remind you that the earliest age for collecting Social Security or Medicare is 62?

It is good that we take care of our senior citizens.

We still need access to basic, affordable health care for every citizen.

I have no idea what your age is, but in general I find that callousness toward suffering is in inverse ratio to one's actual experience of hardship or want. The young sons and daughters who have grown up in privilege are usually the ones who believe Ayn Rand is the greatest prophet since Elijah.

The school of hard knocks teaches us a little humility.

If the "Robust" public option from the Senate HELP committe bill is
eventually adopted, the premium for each family who chooses this
plan will be $367 a month, said the committee chairman.

Usually, these pollster groups like Reuters fail to divulge to the
people being polled that there is significant cost to the Govt
health insurance plan..(the public option). I think most Americans
think that the Government Option cost almost nothing to join, or is
totally free.

If a Non-Robust public option is included in the final bill, the monthly
cost per family member will be even higher, because it will have to
pay the medical providers more for their services.

I work as a consultant in the area of health insurance plan design.
If the current bill goes through as is, millions of people will lose their
health insurance. Aetna is forcing 600,000 out of its plans in 2010
and a Blue Cross VP said today that he's going to follow Aetna's
lead. These companies can't afford the coverage mandates that
are in the healthcare legislation. They want to get rid of their "sickest"
customers ASAP, with the expectation that they will sign up for the
Government run Public Option..or take them back at a later date
as government subsidized customers. -cwm

[edit on 4-12-2009 by carewemust]

reply to post by carewemust

Yes, $367 per month for a family plan seems high. But I paid that much per month just for myself when I was on a Cobra program. I also paid $350 a month for an individual policy way back in the eighties. So that amount for a family, while still too high, is low compared to what a family would be charged by private insurers.

A public option cannot be free, because it wouldn't be a program like Medicaid or Medicare (although it should be) and has to pay for itself to some extent.

Presumably, the cost of the public option would be subsidized for those who simply cannot afford insurance, and/or Medicaid would be expanded to cover more people.

What Congress is proposing cutting is waste and fraud in the medicare system, and things like the advantage plans, which have not proven to be effective.

reply to post by Sestias


Why hasn't that been done before? Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Clinton...all have said they will do the same but your messiah is the one that will make it happen? PALEESE!

This is simply the transfer of wealth.

I work 2 jobs. My wife works. We are struggling but we will make it.

Do you have so little faith in yourself that you believe that you are unable to make it without this overt THEFT from ME? From your children?

Will you tell your children that "You are unable to make it wothout almighty government." If it all falls apart today I and my children will know that the only thing in their way is people like you who want to be a lamprey on society.

reply to post by Sestias


Do you know that Medicare and Medicaid are only free for those that never worked and never get to collect SS in their old age?.

My Father work all his life since age 16 to age 70. He earned SS at age 62, my mother decided to work for a period of 6 years in her fifties to qualify for SS to pay for medications as she has hart condition, my sister pay for private insurance for her, to compensate for what the Medicare doesn't pay, but do you know that both my mother and father get deducted two hundred dollars a month from their SS to pay for Medicare?.

That was thanks to Bush reconstructing of Medicare during his time.

Still those that never worked and those that never did anything good for society in their productive lives will still get free Medicare.

My parents still have to pay.

So where is the waste and abuse? only in the big profiteer groups that are cashing out on medicare benefits.



[edit on 5-12-2009 by marg6043]

Originally posted by vermonster
ooooooh, a Reuters poll? who owns Reuters again?

"they do"


fixed link



[edit on 3-12-2009 by vermonster]

Who owns Ras???

they do!

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by Sestias

 

Do you know that Medicare and Medicaid are only free for those that never worked and never get to collect SS in their old age?.

Yes, I did know. My parents have to pay for drug insurance under Medicare part D and also a co-pay for medication. Then they are usually billed by doctors and hospitals for an additional amount over and above what Medicare covers, so they have to have what is called "medigap" insurance too.

The Bush administration did make it possible for Americans on Social Security to get some help with drug costs, so the program was not a complete failure, although it could have been cheaper and cover more if it hadn't been privatized.

As far as Medicaid is concerned, in my state only children and the disabled (those who are mentally or physically totally unable to work) can get medicaid, and even then they have to have less than $700 a month in income--in other words, be desperately poor.

There are people in our society who CANNOT work or provide for themselves and there always will be. A person born with down's syndrome, for example, may never even be able to talk clearly, and may have to be institutionalized for much of their lives, much less work a cash register at Wal-Mart. There are social programs which provide a VERY meager existence for them and there should be.

Some social Darwinists say we as society should just let these individuals starve because they are not contributing to society. But only a monster would be that callous.

reply to post by Sestias


That is why I believe in public option.

reply to post by Sestias


I'm definitely for creating a more efficient Medicare. I worked for a company that specifically processed Part D insurance claims between patient and pharmacy. The intricacies of the program were so convoluted and interwoven that it required a third party company that made millions of dollars a year simply on ensuring prescriptions, claims, copays, and reimbursements met government guidelines.

Interesting that people who scream about socialists and communists would so quickly defend an obviously socialist program.

Makes you wonder what they'd be saying if Medicare was Reagan or Limbaugh's idea. Partisanship at its finest.

Health Insurance companies should never have been allowed to operate as for profit businesses to begin with. They exist solely as a middleman dedicated to maintaining their own agenda. The practices they use are aimed at taking as much money form you as possible and putting out the smallest amount that they can possibly get away with regardless of what your doctor says or wants.

As for the current plan Congress has. It is simply the right general idea but really to me comes across as going as going the wrong way. I dont personally think a government run plan is the right idea, it will become a bloated behemoth that is just as bad as the current insurance debacle we currently have increasing costs to support its own bloated weight.

reply to post by Jovi1

Both Medicare and Social Security are government-run programs, and the American public would never give them up. Yes, Medicare, in my opinion, needs to be more streamlined and Part D never should have been "privatized," but it is being fought for by the anti-health-care-reform Republicans as well as the Democrats and the public at large.

IMO a single-payer plan, like Medicare or Medicaid, would be a more efficient and cost-effective way to go than anything else proposed thus far. But that seems to be off the table, so while a public option is a pale second-best, it is still the best solution among the ones that are likely to pass.

I do not see government as always the problem, as is the mantra of the Reaganites. There are some things, like the military and social security, that are better done by a centralized, not-for-profit entity.

I don't want this crap. Tell you what, if the people in congress get this new health care as well, I might consider it.

Why cant they make this a pool? If you want it, you pay premiums for it and receive health care, if you don't want it, you pay nothing and don't get it.

I'm all for lowering costs, but the gooberment rarely has a positive effect on anything it runs.

Originally posted by crmanager


You expect people to be FORCED to help. Doesn't work and never will.

Not exactly. It worked very for the oil companies during the Bush administration when big oil received taxpayer paid subsidies and at the same time showing record profits.



zfacts.com...

I would much rather see my tax dollars go to helping poor sick people than paying for corporate welfare.