McCain renounces endorsements

Originally Posted by vrblackwell

If they are paying your health care, they are paying you why you are at home.

Most employers only pay a portion of people's health insurance. The premium is on the employee, along with the deductible. Yet these companies think they can demand you live as they command or they can send you packing. I say if you can tell an employee what to do 24/7 the company should pay 100% of all health care expenses including premiums and deductibles.

Originally Posted by pelathais

No, the businessman would have to worry about doing business in an environment where there was excessive government regulation, Chr... I mean, Grasshopper.

I took the Grasshopper title because people were saying the most insulting things to me because I disagreed with them. In the past I've had people at my previous church read my posts on another site and they actually confronted me and almost got violent with me calling "commie" and abortionist because I was pulling for a Democrat. I realized that as Ferd and others began to harass me with insults and denigrations I better go with a name other than my real name for my own peace of mind. At the time Baron referred to me as "young grasshopper" so I took the Grasshopper handle.

Right now the "health care industry" makes up approximately 1/5 of GDP. Nationalizing 1/5 of GDP would have a considerable effect upon the other 4/5's. Removing what elements of the free market that still exist within our health care system would immediately drive up costs.

I think you're not understanding the plans on the table in this election. The Democratic plan wouldn't nationalize the system. First, employers could continue using what they have if they wish. If you wanted to keep the insurance you have right now you could. But if you were an employer and couldn't afford to insure your employees you would pay into the subsidized system for significantly less than what it would cost to insure your employees. The public system would actually be through private insurance companies in the industry. If you wanted the public program the government would essentially pick you up like you were an employee of the government and subsidize your insurance and you'd only pay a low negotiated premium. The premium would be very low because you'd belong to a pool of tens of millions of people, so they get those lower group rates (larger groups have buying power and can get better rates). The coverage would be exactly what is offered to members of Congress. The plan wouldn't be removing anything from the private market...in fact it would benefit the private market by bringing tens of millions of customers who are currently not customers into the program. The insurance companies will actually see business boom.

Think of it like this...Ohio passed a law stating all motorists had to purchase auto insurance. Do you think that hurt or helped the auto insurance market? Essentially the Democrats are making it law that you have to be insured, rather it's through your employer, personally purchased plan, or part of the public system...whichever is cheaper for you. Oh...you'd still see your doctor and go where you wish. And to top it off...you keep the public policy if you change jobs.

A national medical records database may or may not reduce costs, but it would also provide information for the social engineers to start making other decisions for you as well. Just look at what Hillary did when she was able to get the FBI files of her husband's political enemies. And you then want me to trust these same people with my genome?

Bro...it's a well known and documented fact that 30% of America's health care costs are administrative due to all the duplication. Every hospital, doctor, clinic, or office you go to you have to fill out paper work for each one. The same thing over and over and over and over. Those files are then filed and managed independently in each location and under each doctor. A national database is currently in the works and it's not the government pushing it....it's the private industry because they want to cut their overhead costs. A national health records database would help the health care industry streamline their entire office process. It would be like LexusNexus for doctors. Upon signing into the clinic you would authorize them to pull your record and they wouldn't have to send for records from another office or specialist. It will save the health care industry millions of dollars in office costs. You'd also not have to fill out all the forms you need to fill out every time you visit another office, specialist, or when checking in for your annual visit. The database is already being designed and it will be managed by the industry...not the government.

Health care should be a matter between me and my doctor - NOT me and my "elected representatives," Chr... I mean Grasshopper. My "elected representatives" are supposed to clean my streets - my doctor and I have discussions that are fundamentally more private in nature.

It's obvious you're not up to date on what's going on. You've been convinced that the national health care plans we're working on here are like that in Canada...their not. It's all through private insurance companies and health care providers. All the government does is negotiate your lower premiums with the group rates they can get by negotiating for millions and millions of people.

It's all market driven and with private insurers and providers.

I have a question for some of you who own your own businesses. If you help pay for your employees health insurance...would you continue providing insurance if the government took away the tax benefit you get for paying a portion of their costs?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Grasshopper

I took the Grasshopper title because people were saying the most insulting things to me because I disagreed with them. In the past I've had people at my previous church read my posts on another site and they actually confronted me and almost got violent with me calling "commie" and abortionist because I was pulling for a Democrat...

Grasshopper, your thoughts are compelling and you articulate your views well. You have no reason to put up with harassment or insults, however, that is the nature of this "game" too.

The Internet began with a coy sort of anonymity and then briefly there was an actual cloak. Now any determined investigator can find out just about who anyone else is so we're back to a coy sort of pseudo-anonymity.

I wouldn't take the "name calling" here too much to heart. It's simply easier for me to call you a "commie" than it is for me to counter your single payer argument. So, you're a "commie."

But I'm left to wonder if a more centrally administered system wouldn't be more efficient? And everyone else sees our arguments for what they are.

Pelathais, thanks for the civility bro. I love ya, you're a good man.

When it comes to health care...no system is perfect. But right now America is falling far behind other western nations. We have a system that is excellent. The problem with health care in the US is that 140 million people can't receive the full benefits of this great system.

As it is the uninsured go to the ER and get treated. They can't pay the bills and that loss is passed down to us in higher premiums. I know a man who's paying a $900 premium every month for his family. Why is his premium so high? Redundant administrative costs, excessively expensive malpractice insurance, and above all the fees and bills of the uninsured that drive the cost of health care higher and higher each year as more and More people loose coverage. (Please note: an estimated 25,000 people declare bankruptcy each year because they can't pay medical bills.) Right now our premiums are so high because we're paying for those who aren't paying a dime toward their own health care.

And consider this...those with pre-existing illnesses often can't get approved for coverage. Or if they are approved it's so expensive because they're high risk they can't afford it. Ultimately the result is that the sick, those that need it most, can't afford coverage. There's something morally wrong with that. I know a girl named Julie that my wife works with. She's fighting cancer and their department is facing layoffs. She's terrified that if she gets laid off she'll never be able to get the coverage she needs to continue treatments through insurance at a new job. Bro...there's something morally wrong with this. And it's happening all the time to people.