A quick comparison of the Obama, House and Senate health care plans

Sometimes things get lost in the shuffle. Sometimes we shuffle along with the lost.

But, I ran across this quick comparison of the 3 major health care bills ( Obama's, House and Senate) and thought it good info to share.

A quick comparison of the White House's health care proposal to that of the House and Senate.

Oh at times I yearn for the ability to make a table here. But, my yearnings aside - the 3 are compared in handy table format at the above link.

Well, I've carefully reviewed the link and have come to a conclusion - ALL 3 PROPOSALS SUCK!!!!!!

They are all likely $1T PLUS in cost, will NOT reduce premiums for a vast majority of Americans - in fact it states that it will likely INCREASE premiums for families making more than $55K a year, and does NOTHING to "reform" healthcare. It simply allows the government to take complete control of it. It allows the government to build a database to track your health and treatments that you are receiving. It allows the government instant access to your finances whenever it sees fit. It allows the government to sequester YOUR money if it deems so appropriate. Creates government mandates on private industry - AKA fascism! And does NOT address ANY of the issues that are making healthcare so expensive - i.e. tort reform, interstate sales, PRIVATE cooperatives etc...

This is BOVINE EXTREMENT to the extreme and the STUPID liberal Democrats are going to pay DEARLY this November - count on it!!!

Oh, and to be proactive against any of your stupid liberal shills - I am NOT a Republican and do NOT have employer provided healthcare. I pay 100% of my healthcare for my family right out of my own pocket and I want NOTHING to do with the sorryassed excuse for a bill!

reply to post by kozmo


Easy there - I'm not a shill, liberal or otherwise.

I'm not a fan of either 3 bills myself. However, the link seems to be a good comparison. Some will like the bills, some will not. I thought this was a good, quick way for folks to get a glimpse of all 3 - and make up their own minds about them.

It is a nice table...too bad that all three versions are as unconstitutional as all get out. But all three versions share another commonality. They do absolutely nothing to address the problem at hand...rising cost of healthcare. All three versions are carefully worded tax increases that provide no real foreseeable benefit.

Oh sure they claim there will competition in pricing in the insurance pool, but there seems no price control for the companies putting policies in the pool.

But for 2.5% of the GDP, I will cover everyone in the entire world 100%, once they meet their individual deductible of $10 million. Exaggerated and off scale, sure but then I am not an insurance company. Their deductible and co-pay may be a bit more fair. But I doubt it. 2.5% of $30,000 is $750 or $62.50 per month ($14.32 per week). Not bad, but I know that A) Not everyone makes $30K. B) Many to most union members pay less or nothing for better care (assuming 80%-20% coverage).

Even my crappy (minimum wage) job pays for what is a supplemental policy. Just a little something to reduce the co-pay a bit further if I had a real policy. As is, that policy may prevent me from qualifying for a "public option" if one is ever offered.

Sadly the rest of the socialized healthcare world thinks we are turning down what they have. The proper comparison would be having to settle for smelling a fart instead of eating a steak dinner.

reply to post by Frogs


Frogs...

My rant wasn't directed at you, at all. No, it was directed at the obvious mouth-breathing dolts who believe that it's the government's job to provide for them!

We are in agreement - this entire proposal SUCKS!!! Obama had better yank his head out of his arse and start focusing on JOBS!