Comments on: Sucking on the government tit and health care reform. http://www.hillaryclintonquarterly.com/village/sucking-on-the-government-tit-and-health-care-reform/ The human side of politics and media. Tue, 03 Jan 2012 17:08:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Tom Douglas http://www.hillaryclintonquarterly.com/village/sucking-on-the-government-tit-and-health-care-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-24 Tom Douglas Thu, 13 Aug 2009 08:46:53 +0000 http://www.hillaryclintonquarterly.com/village/?p=140#comment-24 I have to say that your perspective is one that I've not run into. Subsidized? Hmm... I guess "The Man" is the enemy then too? I know that my judgment is clouded because I have evidence in the current government sponsored programs and their failures, fraud, waste and abuse. Not to mention that I know what will happen when the government gets involved with the private sector and tries to recreate the wheel - by a bunch of bureaucrats that know nothing about health system management or insurance responsibility. No, by and large they don't cherry pick, they align their risk with the health of the individual. Someone has to pay for health care. If it's going to be the government, a private insurance company or the individual. That being the case, a company, as anyone would do, has to make sure that if they are responsible for the bills of an individual, and that individual is in bad health, that they based on the averages, can afford to pay the bills. If hey didn't do that, they would let down the people that they have agreements with. As far as their profits? Most (obviously not all) are in line with what is considered a reasonable margin for business. Biased? Yes, I am because I am paying a great deal for insurance and have lost confidence that these programs can be properly managed by our government. I've seen how private business succeeds over government time and time again. Short of the military, there are very few things that the private sector doesn't do better than the government. However, I'm not spouting the Limbaugh line or any other. I'm sharing what years of business practice and history has taught me. Someone has to pay for it. If it's a government program, then it's all of us via taxes and it's also obvious through the overwhelming response, that most don't think this method of reform is the right one. The AARP won't even endorse this program. I think everyone agrees that something must change, but this is too drastic and too much in the hands of the government instead of the people that pay for it. The trillion dollar price tag is too great a burden for us to ask our children to bear. We're better off to deal with the percentage that need it, rather than overhaul the entire process. As much as that needs to happen, we also have to increase the personal responsibility of the individuals. We have some of the issues in health care costs, because we have way too many unhealthy people that don't take the personal responsibility to do something about it. All in all, I know we need to provide an alternative, and I want everyone to have access to good health care. However, asking one percentage of the population to pay for another percentage of the populations costs, while also threatening what they currently feel is acceptable, is not right, just or the proper way to do it. If those that have insurance are going to bear the costs, then they should be able to say no to making their own changes or to a system they don't believe in. If you or the congress and Obama can't see that, then we're in for hard times ahead. I have to say that your perspective is one that I’ve not run into. Subsidized? Hmm… I guess “The Man” is the enemy then too?

I know that my judgment is clouded because I have evidence in the current government sponsored programs and their failures, fraud, waste and abuse. Not to mention that I know what will happen when the government gets involved with the private sector and tries to recreate the wheel – by a bunch of bureaucrats that know nothing about health system management or insurance responsibility.

No, by and large they don’t cherry pick, they align their risk with the health of the individual. Someone has to pay for health care. If it’s going to be the government, a private insurance company or the individual. That being the case, a company, as anyone would do, has to make sure that if they are responsible for the bills of an individual, and that individual is in bad health, that they based on the averages, can afford to pay the bills. If hey didn’t do that, they would let down the people that they have agreements with. As far as their profits? Most (obviously not all) are in line with what is considered a reasonable margin for business.

Biased? Yes, I am because I am paying a great deal for insurance and have lost confidence that these programs can be properly managed by our government. I’ve seen how private business succeeds over government time and time again. Short of the military, there are very few things that the private sector doesn’t do better than the government. However, I’m not spouting the Limbaugh line or any other. I’m sharing what years of business practice and history has taught me.

Someone has to pay for it. If it’s a government program, then it’s all of us via taxes and it’s also obvious through the overwhelming response, that most don’t think this method of reform is the right one. The AARP won’t even endorse this program. I think everyone agrees that something must change, but this is too drastic and too much in the hands of the government instead of the people that pay for it. The trillion dollar price tag is too great a burden for us to ask our children to bear. We’re better off to deal with the percentage that need it, rather than overhaul the entire process.

As much as that needs to happen, we also have to increase the personal responsibility of the individuals. We have some of the issues in health care costs, because we have way too many unhealthy people that don’t take the personal responsibility to do something about it.

All in all, I know we need to provide an alternative, and I want everyone to have access to good health care. However, asking one percentage of the population to pay for another percentage of the populations costs, while also threatening what they currently feel is acceptable, is not right, just or the proper way to do it. If those that have insurance are going to bear the costs, then they should be able to say no to making their own changes or to a system they don’t believe in. If you or the congress and Obama can’t see that, then we’re in for hard times ahead.

]]> By: Frank Marafiote http://www.hillaryclintonquarterly.com/village/sucking-on-the-government-tit-and-health-care-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-23 Frank Marafiote Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:59:55 +0000 http://www.hillaryclintonquarterly.com/village/?p=140#comment-23 Call it a business expense or a tax deduction, it still serves to reduce taxable income of the business and is therefore a subsidy of your health insurance costs, i.e. a big tit for you and your employees. You also make it sound as if you are the only one who works hard. Millions of the uninsured work hard, too, but are either denied coverage or can't afford it because of outrageous premiums. <br> You forget to mention that one of the reasons health insurance companies are so profitable is that they cherry-pick who they will cover, and then deny claims when they are made. The insurance industry has been rationing health care in this country for years. Their rampage of the American public will soon be over. <br> Finally, I don't think you have read or understand the proposals if you can say that the government intends to dictate your insurance choices. Either that or your ideology has so clouded your judgment that it doesn't matter how many facts are put before you -- you will continue to spout the Limbaugh line. Call it a business expense or a tax deduction, it still serves to reduce taxable income of the business and is therefore a subsidy of your health insurance costs, i.e. a big tit for you and your employees. You also make it sound as if you are the only one who works hard. Millions of the uninsured work hard, too, but are either denied coverage or can’t afford it because of outrageous premiums.

You forget to mention that one of the reasons health insurance companies are so profitable is that they cherry-pick who they will cover, and then deny claims when they are made. The insurance industry has been rationing health care in this country for years. Their rampage of the American public will soon be over.

Finally, I don’t think you have read or understand the proposals if you can say that the government intends to dictate your insurance choices. Either that or your ideology has so clouded your judgment that it doesn’t matter how many facts are put before you — you will continue to spout the Limbaugh line.

]]> By: Tom Douglas http://www.hillaryclintonquarterly.com/village/sucking-on-the-government-tit-and-health-care-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-22 Tom Douglas Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:20:51 +0000 http://www.hillaryclintonquarterly.com/village/?p=140#comment-22 A tax deduction? No - speculation I guess. It is an expense of doing business applied against profit, but not a deduction. I fail to see how that supports your point. We bust our @$$ for what we earn so we can afford to pay for insurance expecting nothing more than to take care of the people that work within our organization. Seems to fly in the face of your point. I have read and understand the proposals. But for anyone to assume that when the government goes into competition with the private sector (and directly or indirectly they will), that it won't effect, if not abolish, the ability for me to purchase the plan of our choice, you are sadly mistaken. Like it or not, all programs like this run better in the private sector, not the public sector. It's been proven time and time again. Our license bureau is even contracted out now because they can do it and make it profitable, faster and have a higher customer satisfaction level. A tax deduction? No – speculation I guess. It is an expense of doing business applied against profit, but not a deduction. I fail to see how that supports your point. We bust our @$$ for what we earn so we can afford to pay for insurance expecting nothing more than to take care of the people that work within our organization. Seems to fly in the face of your point.
I have read and understand the proposals. But for anyone to assume that when the government goes into competition with the private sector (and directly or indirectly they will), that it won’t effect, if not abolish, the ability for me to purchase the plan of our choice, you are sadly mistaken. Like it or not, all programs like this run better in the private sector, not the public sector. It’s been proven time and time again. Our license bureau is even contracted out now because they can do it and make it profitable, faster and have a higher customer satisfaction level.

]]>