What's So Great About Private Health Insurance?

[chitwnvw]

Belle has a point, what does the war protest have to do with healthcare? Shoot remember when the guys came back from Iraq and gave testimony on what they had gone through, Winter Soldier is what I think it was called. Democracy Now covered it, but not a one of the networks did. I think sometimes it is politically motivated, other times the news providers are looking for a 'story', something that will grab attention. I guess noone really wants to here about all the f&*ked up stuff that happened in Iraq. What is the point of bringing up the war protests? Are you trying to prove that right wing controls the media and only covers what they want?

[ruckman101]

Belle has a point, what does the war protest have to do with healthcare? Shoot remember when the guys came back from Iraq and gave testimony on what they had gone through, Winter Soldier is what I think it was called. Democracy Now covered it, but not a one of the networks did. I think sometimes it is politically motivated, other times the news providers are looking for a 'story', something that will grab attention. I guess noone really wants to here about all the f&*ked up stuff that happened in Iraq. What is the point of bringing up the war protests? Are you trying to prove that right wing controls the media and only covers what they want?

I just found it curious that such a relatively sparsely attended "protest", compared to the numbers that turned out to protest the war, would garner so much media attention. It certainly isn't based on the numbers of folks that turned out.


neal

[pj]

Neal again I'm at a loss in your thinking, does tens of thousands not equal tens of thousands?. Below are 2 articles about two separate events and both start with tens of thousands. The tea party article was from MSNBC, not a noted fan of tea parties and the other from NBC as well.

I know it's hard for you to believe that people who normally go about their business and don't get riled up about much, have been riled. The interesting thing is that they have chosen to play by the rules put down by the other side in their protests. Of course in the tea parties, I didn't see any cars on fire, breaking of windows, matter of fact I hardly saw any litter, unlike the WTO protests in Seattle some years ago.


"Julie Ide of McClean, Va., picks out a sign before the start of an Iraq war protest on the National Mall on Saturday, Jan. 27, 2007, in Washington.

Thousands in capital to protest Iraq war

By LARRY MARGASAK

WASHINGTON – Tens of thousands of anti-war protesters, energized by fresh congressional skepticism about the war in Iraq, were demanding a withdrawal of U.S. troops in a demonstration Saturday featuring a handful of celebrities such as Jane Fonda and Susan Sarandon."


"updated 7:23 p.m. PT, Sat., Sept . 12, 2009

WASHINGTON - Tens of thousands of protesters fed up with government spending marched to the U.S. Capitol on Saturday, showing their disdain for the president's health care plan with slogans such as "Obamacare makes me sick" and "I'm not your ATM."

[hambone]

It's sad really. All because they were asked to care about one another.
Who in their right mind would protest this?

[Velokid1]

For some, caring stops where their checking account begins, freedom stops where their personal comfort zone ends, and tolerance stops where their own religious beliefs begin.

[RussellK]

I know it's hard for you to believe that people who normally go about their business and don't get riled up about much, have been riled.

I have no problem with people that hold opposing views. I expect that and respect their opinions. What I do have a problem with is people that have been given incorrect or outright purposely distorted information and are "riled" to the point they won't listen to the other side at all, often at the expense of what might be to their benefit.

This characteristic doesn't seem to have a political bias.

How do you get "riled" before you've even seen the plan? Has getting "riled" ever added anything to a process? Do you believe the people actually formulating the plan are paying attention to how many "riled" people are marching?

[hambone]

This is all knee jerk from the folks that still can't believe W sucks. Pawns.

Carter says Obama row is 'racist'
BBC NEWS
Jimmy Carter: "There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president"
Former US President Jimmy Carter says much of the vitriol against President Barack Obama's health reforms and spending plans is "based on racism".

Mr Carter told a public meeting there was "an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president".

Republican lawmaker Joe Wilson was rebuked on Tuesday in a House vote.

He shouted "You lie!" while Mr Obama was delivering an address on healthcare to Congress last Wednesday.

The House resolution of disapproval described it as "a breach of decorum".

ANALYSIS

Mark Mardell, BBC North America editor
This debate - which is so difficult to have in America - is beginning to surface. Carter said he thinks an overwhelming proportion of what he calls "the intensely demonstrated animosity" towards President Obama is based on the fact he's a black man.
Regarding Joe Wilson, over the weekend we saw people pointing out that he was once a junior aide to a segregationalist politician - and that he was one of the few politicians to vote for the Confederate flag to fly over the state congress in his home state.

Mr Wilson hasn't answered these allegations.

But conservatives are furious. They think their opponents are playing the race card. They regard it as a cheap shot, because in some ways racism is the worst insult that you can hurl at someone in America.

But Mr Wilson's eldest son, Alan, has denied racism was a factor in his father's outburst.

Some conservatives have accused the president's supporters of playing the race card.

'Abominable'

Angry town hall meetings and a recent taxpayers' demonstration in Washington have been vitriolic towards the president, reports the BBC's North America editor Mark Mardell.

Many have not just protested against the president's policies but have accused him of tyranny, and have promised to "reclaim America".

"Those kind of things are not just casual outcomes of a sincere debate on whether we should have a national programme on healthcare," Mr Carter said at a public meeting at his Carter Center in Atlanta held prior to the Congress vote on Tuesday.

"It's deeper than that."

Responding to a question specifically on Mr Wilson's outburst, he said Mr Obama was the head of state as well as the head of government and - like heads of state elsewhere - he should be "treated with respect".

It was a "dastardly thing to do", he said.

His comments were rejected by Joe Wilson's son, Alan, an Iraq veteran who is running for state attorney general in Georgia.

I guess we'll probably have folks putting on white hoods and white uniforms again and riding through the countryside intimidating people

Rep. Henry Johnson (Georgia)

Apology

In Tuesday's vote, lawmakers voted 240-179 in favour of the resolution to censure Mr Wilson.

The move was backed by most Democrats, but dismissed by many Republicans as a distraction from more serious issues.

"My goodness, we could be doing this every day of the week," said Republican Minority Leader John Boehner.

But Democratic Majority Leader Steny Hoyer insisted that Mr Wilson's outburst could not be ignored.

"At issue is whether we are able to proceed with a degree of civility and decorum that our rules and our democracy contemplate and require," he said.

The moment Republican lawmaker Joe Wilson heckled President Obama
Mr Wilson himself maintained that his personal apology to Mr Obama should have been enough to resolve the matter.

Mr Obama "graciously accepted my apology and the issue is over", he said.

Mr Wilson's remark came in response to a passage of Mr Obama's speech in which he asserted that his reforms "would not apply to those who are here illegally".

Under the terms of Mr Obama's reform package, undocumented immigrants would not be able to claim healthcare subsidies, but they also would not be explicitly barred from buying private insurance through the new health insurance exchanges.

[ruckman101]

Uhm, tens of thousands, vs tens of millions.


neal

[Manfred]

I have no problem with people that hold opposing views. I expect that and respect their opinions. What I do have a problem with is people that have been given incorrect or outright purposely distorted information and are "riled" to the point they won't listen to the other side at all, often at the expense of what might be to their benefit.

My next tattoo. Well done.

[BellePlaine]

Now we have something to debate. Here is the Baucus Plan.

A look at Baucus health care plan
By The Associated Press (AP) – 3 days ago

A look at a health care overhaul plan from Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., under discussion by six senators on the Finance Committee.

WHO'S COVERED: Around 95 percent of Americans. Illegal immigrants would not receive government benefits.

COST: Under $900 billion over 10 years.

HOW'S IT PAID FOR: Fees on insurance companies, drug makers, medical device manufacturers and insurers. Tax of 35 percent on insurance plans costing more than $8,000 for individuals and $21,000 for families, applied to premium amounts over the threshold. Cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. A fee on employers whose workers receive government subsidies to help them pay premiums. Fines on those who fail to get coverage.

REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS: Everyone must get coverage through an employer, on their own or through a government plan.

REQUIREMENTS FOR EMPLOYERS: Not required to offer coverage, but companies with more than 50 full-time workers would pay a fee if the government ends up subsidizing employees' coverage.

SUBSIDIES: Tax credits for individuals and families making up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level, which computes to $66,150 for a family of four. Households up to 400 percent of poverty line could also get some relief. Tax credits for small employers.

BENEFITS PACKAGE: The government would set four benefit categories ranging from coverage of around 65 percent of medical costs to about 90 percent. No denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions. All plans sold to individuals and small businesses would have to cover basic benefits, including primary care, hospitalization and prescription drugs.

GOVERNMENT-RUN PLAN: None. Would create nonprofit, member-owned co-ops to compete with private insurers.

HOW YOU CHOOSE YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE: Self-employed people and small businesses could pick a plan offered through new state-based purchasing pools. No changes for people working in larger companies.

CHANGES TO MEDICAID: Income eligibility levels raised to 133 percent of poverty for parents and children 6 and older. Childless adults making up to 133 percent of poverty would be eligible for the first time. The expansion would be delayed until 2014.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

[RussellK]

How do we debate a plan with no details? Its like arguing over the phone with someone who says "I'm a bird"

Not a criticism of you BP but of its presentation to us by the media with so little of what is contained.

I'm concerned about supporting a plan when so little is known of what the long term effects will be. I wholeheartedly believe we need reform. Jumping willy nilly behind a plan simply because the cover proclaimed it as a reform package is not my idea of critical thinking.

[BellePlaine]

How do we debate a plan with no details? Its like arguing over the phone with someone who says "I'm a bird"

Not a criticism of you BP but of its presentation to us by the media with so little of what is contained.

I'm concerned about supporting a plan when so little is known of what the long term effects will be. I wholeheartedly believe we need reform. Jumping willy nilly behind a plan simply because the cover proclaimed it as a reform package is not my idea of critical thinking.

I understand what you mean, but I don't believe congress will even know the details until after the vote. Don't we have to mull over the idea in order to flush out the potential pros and cons?

What is our thoughts about not-covering illegals? Some might say that it is a moral issue that illegals must be covered and not dying in the streets, others have a problem giving benefits to those breaking the law. What about the 35% tax on family's making over $66K? I wish we knew how much the premiums would be for the 4 government benefit packages. It probably would be similar to the state pools already available today.

[Manfred]

What is our thoughts about not-covering illegals?

What are you talking about? They are the only ones that have universal health care.

Seriously, they should be covered to. It will be cheaper in the long run.

[RussellK]

What about the 35% tax on family's making over $66K? I wish we knew how much the premiums would be for the 4 government benefit packages. It probably would be similar to the state pools already available today.

The 35% tax is on high priced insurance plans.
The 66k is the cap for families qualified for credits.

Illegals are illegal - if we keep making exceptions - how is illegal residency eventually going to be defined. I'm fine with this plan not being available to them. Should they recieve healthcare if they are here and are ill? Yes. Our sense of humanity demands it but wrapping their care in a national system legitimizes their prescence and send the wrong message. What to do with illegals is an entire discussion on its own.

[Ritter]

My wife was giving me the cliff notes version of an article in Rolling Stone re: The Baucus Plan (hey, it was a road trip and we needed entertainment). The author thinks he's the health care devil, bought and paid for by the current system. Thoughts (or has this already been covered?)?