Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

Public Option Resurfaced By House Democrats As Deficit Reduction Measure


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
39 replies to this topic

#25 thefuzz

thefuzz

    coppin a feel

  • Joined: 12-December 08
  • posts: 9,343
  • Reputation: 1,514
SUPPORTER

Posted 18 January 2013 - 04:58 PM

Or he could fairly compensate his workers. Taking away health coverage is equivalent to forcing a pay cut.



Fairly.....you must be young.

No, it's not. You won't lose your house and car over changing health coverage.

I can tell you have never run a business before.

#26 Kral

Kral

    Internet Legend

  • Joined: 28-February 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 6,942
  • Reputation: 274
HUDDLER

Posted 18 January 2013 - 05:06 PM

Fairly.....you must be young.

No, it's not. You won't lose your house and car over changing health coverage.

I can tell you have never run a business before.


In the same way that I can tell you are selfish and probably unpleasant to interact with. Which is not at all. Beer summit?

The business I run has one employee.

#27 google larry davis

google larry davis

    fleet-footed poster

  • Joined: 06-August 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,846
  • Reputation: 1,430
HUDDLER

Posted 19 January 2013 - 02:38 AM

That's what you do when you are the BOSS.

Or he could be taxed to death, shut his doors, and lose 20 years of hard work.

Either way.


yep that's literally the only two things that can possibly happen

#28 Guest_Tom Cat_*

Guest_Tom Cat_*
Guests

Posted 19 January 2013 - 07:55 AM

http://www.huffingto..._n_2483499.html



not that this has a chance in hell of ever passing a congress dominated by the insurance lobby, but it's nice to think about


Youve obviously never been to a veterans administration hospital have you?

#29 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 23,824
  • Reputation: 3,106
HUDDLER

Posted 19 January 2013 - 08:02 AM

let me make sure i follow this. people were up in arms because the uninsured when they went to the ER, no matter who, what, where and when, were treated. then, those costs were more or less covered by hospitals or other people?

so that was bad?

now, there won't be any uninsured and when they go to the ER, no matter who, what, where or when, it's paid for by....someone else?

what part of the first system was adding to the deficit and what part of the second one will tangibly reduce the deficit?

#30 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 18-October 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,152
  • Reputation: 2,341
HUDDLER

Posted 19 January 2013 - 04:25 PM

the way I have had it explained to me by people pushing for single payer in Vermont, the bigger problem wasn't uninsured going to the ER at all, it's the uninsured going to the ER instead of going to an appropriate place of care, because the ER was the only place they could get treatment really - so they'd go for basic care that they could get at a doctor if they had the medical coverage needed for that. that could have been exclusive to vermont, though.

#31 Panthro

Panthro

    aka Pablo

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 25,714
  • Reputation: 6,837
Moderators

Posted 19 January 2013 - 05:17 PM

Fairly.....you must be young.

No, it's not. You won't lose your house and car over changing health coverage.

I can tell you have never run a business before.


So you would be fine with a smaller commission rate because your boss wants more money.



#32 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 23,824
  • Reputation: 3,106
HUDDLER

Posted 19 January 2013 - 05:45 PM

the way I have had it explained to me by people pushing for single payer in Vermont, the bigger problem wasn't uninsured going to the ER at all, it's the uninsured going to the ER instead of going to an appropriate place of care, because the ER was the only place they could get treatment really - so they'd go for basic care that they could get at a doctor if they had the medical coverage needed for that. that could have been exclusive to vermont, though.


right. i get that on the medical practical level. but how is that adding to the deficit?

#33 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 18-October 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,152
  • Reputation: 2,341
HUDDLER

Posted 19 January 2013 - 05:47 PM

right. i get that on the medical practical level. but how is that adding to the deficit?


ER visits are far, far more expensive than normal doctor's visits. When the patient of that ER visit does not pay, that cost is shifted to people who are paying.

Instead, if the patient went to a primary care physician they could have gotten cheaper treatment. Still not paying, but relieving the rest from shouldering as much of the cast.

#34 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 23,824
  • Reputation: 3,106
HUDDLER

Posted 19 January 2013 - 05:49 PM

costs were added at local and state level. i just don't see how it was adding the Fed deficit.

#35 thefuzz

thefuzz

    coppin a feel

  • Joined: 12-December 08
  • posts: 9,343
  • Reputation: 1,514
SUPPORTER

Posted 20 January 2013 - 01:21 PM

So you would be fine with a smaller commission rate because your boss wants more money.



Nope. But comparing changing health benefits to an actual pay decrease is not quite the same.

And by the way, am I hearing a liberal who wanted this bill to pass say that it's not nearly as nice as the current healthcare plan that you are on? And you would want to be compensated more to have to use the healthcare that you wanted?

#36 Kral

Kral

    Internet Legend

  • Joined: 28-February 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 6,942
  • Reputation: 274
HUDDLER

Posted 20 January 2013 - 01:28 PM

Nope. But comparing changing health benefits to an actual pay decrease is not quite the same.

And by the way, am I hearing a liberal who wanted this bill to pass say that it's not nearly as nice as the current healthcare plan that you are on? And you would want to be compensated more to have to use the healthcare that you wanted?


So you won't acknowledge that changing health benefits to an inferior plan costs money for the end user?