Obama offers universal health care plan

Well, from what I read it seems that the government has managed to pretty well match the inflows and outflows associated with Medicare for the forseeable future, so why not have them do the same with everyone's healthcare?

Cb :eek:

Slide15.JPG
 
Cb said:
Well, from what I read it seems that the government has managed to pretty well match the inflows and outflows associated with Medicare for the forseeable future, so why not have them do the same with everyone's healthcare?

Cb :eek:
Click to expand...

Medicare is taking the old and high risk because your local insurance company does not want them. Now if Medicare could also insure the young and healthy the graph would look much different.

There is another side to this. If the government would do away with Medicare a lot more of the baby boomer's would die and that would solve the SS problem. Food for thought!
 
Freein05 said:
Medicare is taking the old and high risk because your local insurance company does not want them. Now if Medicare could also insure the young and healthy the graph would look much different.
quote]

Yeah...politicians would never promise more in bennies than they'd raise in taxes, would they?

Cb ;)
Click to expand...
 
Martha said:
We just came back from the grocery store.
Click to expand...
Clearly stupid pictures of your dog with food are her head don't belong
in this forum or any other in my opinion, since you are a moderator I
can't filter out your posts, how about acting like a moderator?
TJ
 
teejayevans said:
Clearly stupid pictures of your dog with food are her head don't belong in this forum or any other in my opinion, since you are a moderator I can't filter out your posts, how about acting like a moderator?
Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong in my opinion with lightening up a thread with an amusing digression, and it happens all the time here. Why, here's a non-sequitur by one Teejayevans in the Universal Health Care thread:
Speaking of tort reform being needed: Washington DC JUDGE is suing a dry cleaners for losing his pants, for ....drum roll please...
$65,000,000
​
Ignore the posts if you wish. Personally, I'd love to see the little critter wearing Cheetos.
 
teejayevans said:
Clearly stupid pictures of your dog with food are her head don't belong
in this forum or any other in my opinion, since you are a moderator I
can't filter out your posts, how about acting like a moderator?
TJ
Click to expand...

I believe she was doing an incredibly excellent job as a moderator.

Providing a distracting, entertaining piece of subject matter in a thread that features posters with vested interests who continue to spin opinions and snippets of facts into some allegedly whole cloth and the end result is that
the thread keeps chasing its own tail certainly adds far more than locking it.

Nice Berries Martha...I just woke up so I need a little time to fabricate an appropriate response.

At this point it might be a fairly mundane result. A piece of the cedar planked salmon I grilled last night on ted's head. Unfortunately that will have to be a fast snapshot and my lunch will be a sacrificial...uh...lamb?
 
Sooo - second cup of coffee wise I can clearly see the relavance of a dog with food on his head to a politician solving a major problem.

I caught a news snippet that Mitt may take some credit for the MA health experiment - it being good politics and all. The razzberry for me((he's an evil one of 'them' , me being a DEM and all).

So - is a non emotional dynamic simulation model possible? An actual red bead experiment type neutral study?

Nah - now about those lobsters!!!

heh heh heh - :cool: Remember the slosh model showed the levees would go at cat 3!
 
Rich_in_Tampa said:
There's nothing wrong in my opinion with lightening up a thread with an amusing digression, and it happens all the time here. Why, here's a non-sequitur by one Teejayevans in the Universal Health Care thread:
Speaking of tort reform being needed: Washington DC JUDGE is suing a dry cleaners for losing his pants, for ....drum roll please...
$65,000,000
​
Ignore the posts if you wish. Personally, I'd love to see the little critter wearing Cheetos.
Click to expand...
A. Pictures suck up bandwidth for those on dial-up
B. She is a moderator, or suppose to be...
C. Forcing your dog into stupid poses is animal cruelty, I think the dog
should sue!
 
Teejay, as I am a moderator I can make a suggestion: Go to UserCP, then to Edit Options, then to Thread Display Options, and turn off images. Also available for those of you on dialup.

Me, I'm thinking about pulling out my kayak, sitting Judy on top, and putting an entire salad on her head. She will do anything for a piece of cheese. :)
 
Crap! - my dogs have agents - and I can't afford their price.

:D Pssst - long ago and far away I once had webtv/slow dialup - brings back memories.
 
tjevns - don't you get it - the dog is a metaphor - duh!

fruit= answer to healthcare

us= dogs

very relevant!
 
This is the most popular thread I've ever started! 10 pages already. I never want it to end!
 
I don't want to appear to be in support of a moderator . . . but . . .

I view one of the posters involved in this thread as an internet troll. Trolls are very difficult to discourage. They take up everyone's time. They mislead many posters who are not savvy about a particular subject. They hurt the board. You can't have a meainingful discussion with a troll because they don't stick to a point, don't keep to the facts, and will argue in circles endlessly. They misinterpret other poster's arguments and beat their dead horse mercilessly.

I'm generally against censorship on the boards, so how do posters gain control from a troll? . . . One answer is to show how ridiculous they feel the thread has become using kayaks and animals with food on their heads. I think this is an excellent use of bandwidth.

Good work, Martha. :)
 
Thank God(tm) for broadband...

As someone whose primary function on this board is to make wise[-]assed remarks[/-]cracks, I wholly approve of any comedic relief that provides a pleasant diversion from the [-]endless diatribes[/-] [-]pissing contests[/-] [-]rants[/-] serious dialog...

Farthermore, Martha was posting a herself, not as a moderator...
 
HFWR said:
Thank God(tm) for broadband...
Farthermore, Martha was posting a herself, not as a moderator...
Click to expand...
But I can't put her on my ignore list, so it doesn't matter how she posted.
Nevermind, I'll solve the problem another way....
TJ
 
Trek said:
"Under Obama's proposal, everyone would be able to obtain health insurance, and the Illinois senator would create a National Health Insurance Exchange to monitor insurance companies in offering the coverage. In essence, Obama's plan retains the private insurance system but injects additional money into the system to pay for the expanded coverage. Those who can't afford coverage would get a subsidy on a sliding scale depending on their income, and virtually all businesses would have to share in the cost of coverage for their workers. The plan that would be offered would be similar to the one covering members of Congress.

His package would prohibit insurance companies from refusing coverage because of pre-existing conditions.

"My plan begins by covering every American. If you already have health insurance, the only thing that will change for you under this plan is that the amount of money you will spend on premiums will be less," Obama said. "If you are one of 45 million Americans who don't have health insurance, you will after this plan becomes law."

Obama offers universal health care plan - Yahoo! News
Click to expand...



Insurance companies are just an unnecessary middleman. Get rid of the middleman, they don't have them in Canada and per capita cost of healthcare is lower.
 
In the 20 pages of this thread there has been very little discussion of what Obama's plan entails. From what I understand, his plan would not require people to have health insurance. If that is the case, it is problematic. People may not choose to buy insurance until they have a health problem and under his plan they cannot be turned down. The ultimate adverse selection problem.
 
Martha said:
In the 20 pages of this thread there has been very little discussion of what Obama's plan entails. From what I understand, his plan would not require people to have health insurance. If that is the case, it is problematic. People may not choose to buy insurance until they have a health problem and under his plan they cannot be turned down. The ultimate adverse selection problem.
Click to expand...

I have to tell ya, I don't like government programs much, but if the health care industry doesn't figure out how to reduce costs so everyone can afford health care, I am going to vote someone in that can get it done. I would be willing to pay higher taxes for it, yes.

Health care technology keeps advancing, which should normally reduce costs in any other industry, but it doesn't seem to apply here - why?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

misanman
Accountable Care Organization
Replies
2
Views
236
misanman
misanman
sengsational
Medigap Shopping: Closing the Book & Rate Increases
2 3
Replies
71
Views
3K
CRLLS
C
J
Newbie Here Regarding the ACA
Replies
20
Views
2K
johkar
J
R
Healthcare Gap Support Recommendation
Replies
11
Views
340
badatmath
B
Amethyst
Federal retirees: Florida Blue denying my claim b/c I don't have Medicare
Replies
23
Views
811
Amethyst
Amethyst

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom