House crams healthcare bill down the countries throat.

[dbapig]

[quote=ucodegen]

Since 1974, Hawaii has required all employers to provide relatively generous health care benefits to any employee who works 20 hours a week or more. If health care legislation passes in Congress, the rest of the country may barely catch up.

And Hawaii has almost no high paying businesses other than the military base. It also has a disproportionate number of people living at or below the poverty line. No businesses want to locate there because of all the mandated social costs. My S.O. lived in Hawaii.. she is paid much better on the mainland than she was in Hawaii and she mentioned that jobs are much more plentiful here. Many Hawaiians are relocating to the mainland because of the jobs situation in Hawaii.[/quote]

So by your logic the businesses will leave USA if they are required to insure more employees? Where will they go? Especially the high paying businesses, the ones who can afford to pay for more health insurance coverage?

I disagree businesses are moving out of Hawaii mainly due to the health insurance issue. The bigger reason is that it’s more pensive there because of the distance from the mainland.

[dbapig]

[quote=Ricechex]Health insurance needs to be REGULATED, rather than entire “reform.” What is the point of creating a new program? Fix what we have.

The “public option” will increase revenues for private parties, and we will pay for it. Here is my take on how it will play out:

Government will outsource the “public option” to private company of its choice. Usually, the lowest bidder or a “known” party, such as Halliburton/KBR.

If it is a “fee for service” contract, then the company will employ as little laborers/medical professionals as possible, because the company owners are in it for profit. Thus, if the job calls for 10 M.D.s, only 6 will actually be employed. Of those 6, 5 will be interns, new to the field, and/or stormy and unstable job history. Why? Because the company wants profit, so people of these backgrounds will take a low salary.

The management positions will be government, and those chosen will have little knowledge about medical care and few qualifications, other than to respond to the higher ranking government employees trying to build their empire.

Medical treatment decisions will be decided by a “committee” of people that know little about health care. If any of you are government employees, I correlate this to NSPS “pay pool” and their mission will be to deny care.

As far as the folks getting booted from insurance due to disability, pre-existing conditions, they will take the “public option” for care. Thus, “Halliburton/KBR” will demand more money from the government/taxpayers to pay for long term and or chronic illnesses. However, that will be small potatoes compared with amount of disenfranchised people receiving benefits. That is going to cost us big.

This is just another entitlement program, disguised as “helping everyone”. This is creation of another monster that will spiral out of control. Politicians will herald its success.[/quote]

Good points.
So are you rooting for Single Payer system?

[dbapig]

[quote=Ricechex]Health insurance needs to be REGULATED, rather than entire “reform.” What is the point of creating a new program? Fix what we have.

The “public option” will increase revenues for private parties, and we will pay for it. Here is my take on how it will play out:

Government will outsource the “public option” to private company of its choice. Usually, the lowest bidder or a “known” party, such as Halliburton/KBR.

If it is a “fee for service” contract, then the company will employ as little laborers/medical professionals as possible, because the company owners are in it for profit. Thus, if the job calls for 10 M.D.s, only 6 will actually be employed. Of those 6, 5 will be interns, new to the field, and/or stormy and unstable job history. Why? Because the company wants profit, so people of these backgrounds will take a low salary.

The management positions will be government, and those chosen will have little knowledge about medical care and few qualifications, other than to respond to the higher ranking government employees trying to build their empire.

Medical treatment decisions will be decided by a “committee” of people that know little about health care. If any of you are government employees, I correlate this to NSPS “pay pool” and their mission will be to deny care.

As far as the folks getting booted from insurance due to disability, pre-existing conditions, they will take the “public option” for care. Thus, “Halliburton/KBR” will demand more money from the government/taxpayers to pay for long term and or chronic illnesses. However, that will be small potatoes compared with amount of disenfranchised people receiving benefits. That is going to cost us big.

This is just another entitlement program, disguised as “helping everyone”. This is creation of another monster that will spiral out of control. Politicians will herald its success.[/quote]

Good points.
So are you rooting for Single Payer system?

[dbapig]

[quote=Ricechex]Health insurance needs to be REGULATED, rather than entire “reform.” What is the point of creating a new program? Fix what we have.

The “public option” will increase revenues for private parties, and we will pay for it. Here is my take on how it will play out:

Government will outsource the “public option” to private company of its choice. Usually, the lowest bidder or a “known” party, such as Halliburton/KBR.

If it is a “fee for service” contract, then the company will employ as little laborers/medical professionals as possible, because the company owners are in it for profit. Thus, if the job calls for 10 M.D.s, only 6 will actually be employed. Of those 6, 5 will be interns, new to the field, and/or stormy and unstable job history. Why? Because the company wants profit, so people of these backgrounds will take a low salary.

The management positions will be government, and those chosen will have little knowledge about medical care and few qualifications, other than to respond to the higher ranking government employees trying to build their empire.

Medical treatment decisions will be decided by a “committee” of people that know little about health care. If any of you are government employees, I correlate this to NSPS “pay pool” and their mission will be to deny care.

As far as the folks getting booted from insurance due to disability, pre-existing conditions, they will take the “public option” for care. Thus, “Halliburton/KBR” will demand more money from the government/taxpayers to pay for long term and or chronic illnesses. However, that will be small potatoes compared with amount of disenfranchised people receiving benefits. That is going to cost us big.

This is just another entitlement program, disguised as “helping everyone”. This is creation of another monster that will spiral out of control. Politicians will herald its success.[/quote]

Good points.
So are you rooting for Single Payer system?

[dbapig]

[quote=Ricechex]Health insurance needs to be REGULATED, rather than entire “reform.” What is the point of creating a new program? Fix what we have.

The “public option” will increase revenues for private parties, and we will pay for it. Here is my take on how it will play out:

Government will outsource the “public option” to private company of its choice. Usually, the lowest bidder or a “known” party, such as Halliburton/KBR.

If it is a “fee for service” contract, then the company will employ as little laborers/medical professionals as possible, because the company owners are in it for profit. Thus, if the job calls for 10 M.D.s, only 6 will actually be employed. Of those 6, 5 will be interns, new to the field, and/or stormy and unstable job history. Why? Because the company wants profit, so people of these backgrounds will take a low salary.

The management positions will be government, and those chosen will have little knowledge about medical care and few qualifications, other than to respond to the higher ranking government employees trying to build their empire.

Medical treatment decisions will be decided by a “committee” of people that know little about health care. If any of you are government employees, I correlate this to NSPS “pay pool” and their mission will be to deny care.

As far as the folks getting booted from insurance due to disability, pre-existing conditions, they will take the “public option” for care. Thus, “Halliburton/KBR” will demand more money from the government/taxpayers to pay for long term and or chronic illnesses. However, that will be small potatoes compared with amount of disenfranchised people receiving benefits. That is going to cost us big.

This is just another entitlement program, disguised as “helping everyone”. This is creation of another monster that will spiral out of control. Politicians will herald its success.[/quote]

Good points.
So are you rooting for Single Payer system?

[dbapig]

[quote=Ricechex]Health insurance needs to be REGULATED, rather than entire “reform.” What is the point of creating a new program? Fix what we have.

The “public option” will increase revenues for private parties, and we will pay for it. Here is my take on how it will play out:

Government will outsource the “public option” to private company of its choice. Usually, the lowest bidder or a “known” party, such as Halliburton/KBR.

If it is a “fee for service” contract, then the company will employ as little laborers/medical professionals as possible, because the company owners are in it for profit. Thus, if the job calls for 10 M.D.s, only 6 will actually be employed. Of those 6, 5 will be interns, new to the field, and/or stormy and unstable job history. Why? Because the company wants profit, so people of these backgrounds will take a low salary.

The management positions will be government, and those chosen will have little knowledge about medical care and few qualifications, other than to respond to the higher ranking government employees trying to build their empire.

Medical treatment decisions will be decided by a “committee” of people that know little about health care. If any of you are government employees, I correlate this to NSPS “pay pool” and their mission will be to deny care.

As far as the folks getting booted from insurance due to disability, pre-existing conditions, they will take the “public option” for care. Thus, “Halliburton/KBR” will demand more money from the government/taxpayers to pay for long term and or chronic illnesses. However, that will be small potatoes compared with amount of disenfranchised people receiving benefits. That is going to cost us big.

This is just another entitlement program, disguised as “helping everyone”. This is creation of another monster that will spiral out of control. Politicians will herald its success.[/quote]

Good points.
So are you rooting for Single Payer system?

[jpinpb]

Seems the RNC, Republican National Committee, has covered abortions by employees for a long time as part of their medical coverages. Yet, they are the ones fighting against abortions being covered by public health and this has been one of the hang-ups in the debate?

RNC SUBSIDIZES ABORTIONS FOR 18 YEARS — AND COUNTING

“The debate over financing of abortions — the basis for the offensive Stupak amendment — is all about money being fungible. Amy Sullivan explained the problem nicely recently: “The problem, they say, is that if any insurance plan that covers abortion is allowed to participate in a public exchange, then premiums paid to that plan in the form of taxpayer-funded subsidies help support that abortion coverage even if individual abortion procedures are paid for out of a separate pool of privately-paid premium dollars.”

But applying this argument can prove problematic. Focus on the Family, for example, one of the nation’s largest religious right organizations and a fierce opponent of abortion rights, has health insurance for its employees through a company that covers “abortion services.” The far-right outfit, by its own standards, indirectly subsidizes abortions.

Apparently, the Republican National Committee has the same problem. Politico reported yesterday afternoon that the RNC — whose platform calls abortion “a fundamental assault on innocent human life” — gets insurance through Cigna with a plan that covers elective abortion. The Republicans’ health care package has been in place since 1991 — thanks, Lee Atwater — meaning that, by the party’s own argument, it has been indirectly subsidizing abortions for 18 years.

Complicating matters, Politico found that Cigna offers customers the opportunity to opt out of abortion coverage — “and the RNC did not choose to opt out.”

The Republican National Committee, not surprisingly, scrambled. By last night, it resolved the issue. Sort of.

The Republican National Committee will no longer offer employees an insurance plan that covers abortion after POLITICO reported Thursday that the anti-abortion RNC’s policy has covered the procedure since 1991.

“Money from our loyal donors should not be used for this purpose,” Chairman Michael Steele said in a statement. “I don’t know why this policy existed in the past, but it will not exist under my administration. Consider this issue settled.”

Steele has told the committee’s director of administration to opt out of coverage for elective abortion in the policy it uses from Cigna.

But does that actually “settle” the matter? The new RNC policy, apparently, is to have insurance through Cigna, opting out of abortion coverage. But let’s not lose sight of the original fungibility problem — the RNC is taking Republican money and giving it to an insurance company through premiums. That company will then use its pool of money to pay for abortion services, not for RNC employees, but for other customers.

In other words, the Republican National Committee will still indirectly subsidize abortions, every time it writes a check to Cigna.

And if the RNC disagrees with this reasoning, and believes the issue is “settled,” then the party has rejected the reasoning of the Stupak amendment at a fundamental level.”

Well, call me crazy, but seems a bit hypocritical.

[jpinpb]

Seems the RNC, Republican National Committee, has covered abortions by employees for a long time as part of their medical coverages. Yet, they are the ones fighting against abortions being covered by public health and this has been one of the hang-ups in the debate?

RNC SUBSIDIZES ABORTIONS FOR 18 YEARS — AND COUNTING

“The debate over financing of abortions — the basis for the offensive Stupak amendment — is all about money being fungible. Amy Sullivan explained the problem nicely recently: “The problem, they say, is that if any insurance plan that covers abortion is allowed to participate in a public exchange, then premiums paid to that plan in the form of taxpayer-funded subsidies help support that abortion coverage even if individual abortion procedures are paid for out of a separate pool of privately-paid premium dollars.”

But applying this argument can prove problematic. Focus on the Family, for example, one of the nation’s largest religious right organizations and a fierce opponent of abortion rights, has health insurance for its employees through a company that covers “abortion services.” The far-right outfit, by its own standards, indirectly subsidizes abortions.

Apparently, the Republican National Committee has the same problem. Politico reported yesterday afternoon that the RNC — whose platform calls abortion “a fundamental assault on innocent human life” — gets insurance through Cigna with a plan that covers elective abortion. The Republicans’ health care package has been in place since 1991 — thanks, Lee Atwater — meaning that, by the party’s own argument, it has been indirectly subsidizing abortions for 18 years.

Complicating matters, Politico found that Cigna offers customers the opportunity to opt out of abortion coverage — “and the RNC did not choose to opt out.”

The Republican National Committee, not surprisingly, scrambled. By last night, it resolved the issue. Sort of.

The Republican National Committee will no longer offer employees an insurance plan that covers abortion after POLITICO reported Thursday that the anti-abortion RNC’s policy has covered the procedure since 1991.

“Money from our loyal donors should not be used for this purpose,” Chairman Michael Steele said in a statement. “I don’t know why this policy existed in the past, but it will not exist under my administration. Consider this issue settled.”

Steele has told the committee’s director of administration to opt out of coverage for elective abortion in the policy it uses from Cigna.

But does that actually “settle” the matter? The new RNC policy, apparently, is to have insurance through Cigna, opting out of abortion coverage. But let’s not lose sight of the original fungibility problem — the RNC is taking Republican money and giving it to an insurance company through premiums. That company will then use its pool of money to pay for abortion services, not for RNC employees, but for other customers.

In other words, the Republican National Committee will still indirectly subsidize abortions, every time it writes a check to Cigna.

And if the RNC disagrees with this reasoning, and believes the issue is “settled,” then the party has rejected the reasoning of the Stupak amendment at a fundamental level.”

Well, call me crazy, but seems a bit hypocritical.

[jpinpb]

Seems the RNC, Republican National Committee, has covered abortions by employees for a long time as part of their medical coverages. Yet, they are the ones fighting against abortions being covered by public health and this has been one of the hang-ups in the debate?

RNC SUBSIDIZES ABORTIONS FOR 18 YEARS — AND COUNTING

“The debate over financing of abortions — the basis for the offensive Stupak amendment — is all about money being fungible. Amy Sullivan explained the problem nicely recently: “The problem, they say, is that if any insurance plan that covers abortion is allowed to participate in a public exchange, then premiums paid to that plan in the form of taxpayer-funded subsidies help support that abortion coverage even if individual abortion procedures are paid for out of a separate pool of privately-paid premium dollars.”

But applying this argument can prove problematic. Focus on the Family, for example, one of the nation’s largest religious right organizations and a fierce opponent of abortion rights, has health insurance for its employees through a company that covers “abortion services.” The far-right outfit, by its own standards, indirectly subsidizes abortions.

Apparently, the Republican National Committee has the same problem. Politico reported yesterday afternoon that the RNC — whose platform calls abortion “a fundamental assault on innocent human life” — gets insurance through Cigna with a plan that covers elective abortion. The Republicans’ health care package has been in place since 1991 — thanks, Lee Atwater — meaning that, by the party’s own argument, it has been indirectly subsidizing abortions for 18 years.

Complicating matters, Politico found that Cigna offers customers the opportunity to opt out of abortion coverage — “and the RNC did not choose to opt out.”

The Republican National Committee, not surprisingly, scrambled. By last night, it resolved the issue. Sort of.

The Republican National Committee will no longer offer employees an insurance plan that covers abortion after POLITICO reported Thursday that the anti-abortion RNC’s policy has covered the procedure since 1991.

“Money from our loyal donors should not be used for this purpose,” Chairman Michael Steele said in a statement. “I don’t know why this policy existed in the past, but it will not exist under my administration. Consider this issue settled.”

Steele has told the committee’s director of administration to opt out of coverage for elective abortion in the policy it uses from Cigna.

But does that actually “settle” the matter? The new RNC policy, apparently, is to have insurance through Cigna, opting out of abortion coverage. But let’s not lose sight of the original fungibility problem — the RNC is taking Republican money and giving it to an insurance company through premiums. That company will then use its pool of money to pay for abortion services, not for RNC employees, but for other customers.

In other words, the Republican National Committee will still indirectly subsidize abortions, every time it writes a check to Cigna.

And if the RNC disagrees with this reasoning, and believes the issue is “settled,” then the party has rejected the reasoning of the Stupak amendment at a fundamental level.”

Well, call me crazy, but seems a bit hypocritical.

[jpinpb]

Seems the RNC, Republican National Committee, has covered abortions by employees for a long time as part of their medical coverages. Yet, they are the ones fighting against abortions being covered by public health and this has been one of the hang-ups in the debate?

RNC SUBSIDIZES ABORTIONS FOR 18 YEARS — AND COUNTING

“The debate over financing of abortions — the basis for the offensive Stupak amendment — is all about money being fungible. Amy Sullivan explained the problem nicely recently: “The problem, they say, is that if any insurance plan that covers abortion is allowed to participate in a public exchange, then premiums paid to that plan in the form of taxpayer-funded subsidies help support that abortion coverage even if individual abortion procedures are paid for out of a separate pool of privately-paid premium dollars.”

But applying this argument can prove problematic. Focus on the Family, for example, one of the nation’s largest religious right organizations and a fierce opponent of abortion rights, has health insurance for its employees through a company that covers “abortion services.” The far-right outfit, by its own standards, indirectly subsidizes abortions.

Apparently, the Republican National Committee has the same problem. Politico reported yesterday afternoon that the RNC — whose platform calls abortion “a fundamental assault on innocent human life” — gets insurance through Cigna with a plan that covers elective abortion. The Republicans’ health care package has been in place since 1991 — thanks, Lee Atwater — meaning that, by the party’s own argument, it has been indirectly subsidizing abortions for 18 years.

Complicating matters, Politico found that Cigna offers customers the opportunity to opt out of abortion coverage — “and the RNC did not choose to opt out.”

The Republican National Committee, not surprisingly, scrambled. By last night, it resolved the issue. Sort of.

The Republican National Committee will no longer offer employees an insurance plan that covers abortion after POLITICO reported Thursday that the anti-abortion RNC’s policy has covered the procedure since 1991.

“Money from our loyal donors should not be used for this purpose,” Chairman Michael Steele said in a statement. “I don’t know why this policy existed in the past, but it will not exist under my administration. Consider this issue settled.”

Steele has told the committee’s director of administration to opt out of coverage for elective abortion in the policy it uses from Cigna.

But does that actually “settle” the matter? The new RNC policy, apparently, is to have insurance through Cigna, opting out of abortion coverage. But let’s not lose sight of the original fungibility problem — the RNC is taking Republican money and giving it to an insurance company through premiums. That company will then use its pool of money to pay for abortion services, not for RNC employees, but for other customers.

In other words, the Republican National Committee will still indirectly subsidize abortions, every time it writes a check to Cigna.

And if the RNC disagrees with this reasoning, and believes the issue is “settled,” then the party has rejected the reasoning of the Stupak amendment at a fundamental level.”

Well, call me crazy, but seems a bit hypocritical.

[jpinpb]

Seems the RNC, Republican National Committee, has covered abortions by employees for a long time as part of their medical coverages. Yet, they are the ones fighting against abortions being covered by public health and this has been one of the hang-ups in the debate?

RNC SUBSIDIZES ABORTIONS FOR 18 YEARS — AND COUNTING

“The debate over financing of abortions — the basis for the offensive Stupak amendment — is all about money being fungible. Amy Sullivan explained the problem nicely recently: “The problem, they say, is that if any insurance plan that covers abortion is allowed to participate in a public exchange, then premiums paid to that plan in the form of taxpayer-funded subsidies help support that abortion coverage even if individual abortion procedures are paid for out of a separate pool of privately-paid premium dollars.”

But applying this argument can prove problematic. Focus on the Family, for example, one of the nation’s largest religious right organizations and a fierce opponent of abortion rights, has health insurance for its employees through a company that covers “abortion services.” The far-right outfit, by its own standards, indirectly subsidizes abortions.

Apparently, the Republican National Committee has the same problem. Politico reported yesterday afternoon that the RNC — whose platform calls abortion “a fundamental assault on innocent human life” — gets insurance through Cigna with a plan that covers elective abortion. The Republicans’ health care package has been in place since 1991 — thanks, Lee Atwater — meaning that, by the party’s own argument, it has been indirectly subsidizing abortions for 18 years.

Complicating matters, Politico found that Cigna offers customers the opportunity to opt out of abortion coverage — “and the RNC did not choose to opt out.”

The Republican National Committee, not surprisingly, scrambled. By last night, it resolved the issue. Sort of.

The Republican National Committee will no longer offer employees an insurance plan that covers abortion after POLITICO reported Thursday that the anti-abortion RNC’s policy has covered the procedure since 1991.

“Money from our loyal donors should not be used for this purpose,” Chairman Michael Steele said in a statement. “I don’t know why this policy existed in the past, but it will not exist under my administration. Consider this issue settled.”

Steele has told the committee’s director of administration to opt out of coverage for elective abortion in the policy it uses from Cigna.

But does that actually “settle” the matter? The new RNC policy, apparently, is to have insurance through Cigna, opting out of abortion coverage. But let’s not lose sight of the original fungibility problem — the RNC is taking Republican money and giving it to an insurance company through premiums. That company will then use its pool of money to pay for abortion services, not for RNC employees, but for other customers.

In other words, the Republican National Committee will still indirectly subsidize abortions, every time it writes a check to Cigna.

And if the RNC disagrees with this reasoning, and believes the issue is “settled,” then the party has rejected the reasoning of the Stupak amendment at a fundamental level.”

Well, call me crazy, but seems a bit hypocritical.

[Author]

Posts