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 diplomacy and politics. Tue, 15 Dec 2009 23:35:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 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.

]]> By: Frank Marafiote http://www.hillaryclintonquarterly.com/village/sucking-on-the-government-tit-and-health-care-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-21 Frank Marafiote Tue, 11 Aug 2009 15:41:12 +0000 http://www.hillaryclintonquarterly.com/village/?p=140#comment-21 You are really making my point for me, aren't you? As a small business owner, you receive a significant tax deduction for the health care benefits that you provide to employees. That means that the real cost of insurance is being SUBSIDIZED by the taxpayers -- i.e. it is indeed a government tit. <br> And certainly your employees, who pay nothing for health insurance, have their costs subsidized entirely -- another big tit to suck on. <br> One final thought, the oft-repeated lie that the government is going to tell you, a small business owner, what kind of insurance to buy is a complete fabrication, a scare tactic by the far right. I suggest you go to http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck to get the truth about health care reform. You are really making my point for me, aren’t you? As a small business owner, you receive a significant tax deduction for the health care benefits that you provide to employees. That means that the real cost of insurance is being SUBSIDIZED by the taxpayers — i.e. it is indeed a government tit.

And certainly your employees, who pay nothing for health insurance, have their costs subsidized entirely — another big tit to suck on.

One final thought, the oft-repeated lie that the government is going to tell you, a small business owner, what kind of insurance to buy is a complete fabrication, a scare tactic by the far right. I suggest you go to http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck to get the truth about health care reform.

]]> By: Tom Douglas http://www.hillaryclintonquarterly.com/village/sucking-on-the-government-tit-and-health-care-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-20 Tom Douglas Tue, 11 Aug 2009 03:56:53 +0000 http://www.hillaryclintonquarterly.com/village/?p=140#comment-20 I'll contribute and be one that doesn't have the tit or teat that you suggest. I am a small business owner that employees 35 people that support over 80 to include their families. Our company pays for insurance for 100% of our employees and 75% of their families. I know that our health plan is more the exception than the rule, by far. However, I can tell you with no hesitation, that it is not the governments place to take away the ability for me to provide this benefit to my employees, or for me or them to be taxed for having it in place. Government run or mandated policies would inundate our healthcare systems, create yet another area of fraud waste and abuse and leave only the ultra-wealthy with access to good health care. When the majority of the population indicates that they are happy with their benefits, that is not a call for complete overhaul. That is a place where you analyze the minority that don’t have access to a plan now and (because we all truly want to provide a solution to the problem), make adjustments to adapt for that minority. As a person who leans to the right, I would be glad to have a tax that made sense to pay for these, as long as there was true oversight. There is currently billions in fraud in the government sponsored programs that would fund large portions of these issues if the programs were properly managed. It’s my feeling that this should be privatized and not nationalized. If you look at insurance companies in general, they know how to make money doing this. So, allow them to run the Medicare and Medicaid and/or Obama care coverage, bonus the managers (within reason) for successfully managing the programs, then with the surplus, utilize it like a electrical coop. Either carry it over for the major hits and requirement based on 10 year projections, or refund it back to the contributors based on the percentages that they have contributed when that is applicable. Privatization of this will make it better, not nationalization. It is the free enterprise that makes our society the most productive in the world. When you start taking benefits from the people, you start taking away the reasons to be that productive. Also, I understand the notion that we're all Americans and we want to take care of our own. But the idea that health insurance is a right and not a privilege sounds to me like you may as well move to France. I pay for it (likely about 60 times more than the average person) and don't for one second believe it is a right. It is a privilege afforded me by the men and women who died in formation of this nation and the established free enterprise that funds the health insurance industry directly or in-directly through tax dollars. I do believe that we have to reform health care as the current system will not be sustainable over an extended period of time and we have to figure out a way to assist those that aren't as fortunate as we. However, when the government starts thinking that it knows what is better for its citizens than the majority population, it is the beginning of the end of that government. I’ll contribute and be one that doesn’t have the tit or teat that you suggest. I am a small business owner that employees 35 people that support over 80 to include their families. Our company pays for insurance for 100% of our employees and 75% of their families. I know that our health plan is more the exception than the rule, by far. However, I can tell you with no hesitation, that it is not the governments place to take away the ability for me to provide this benefit to my employees, or for me or them to be taxed for having it in place. Government run or mandated policies would inundate our healthcare systems, create yet another area of fraud waste and abuse and leave only the ultra-wealthy with access to good health care. When the majority of the population indicates that they are happy with their benefits, that is not a call for complete overhaul. That is a place where you analyze the minority that don’t have access to a plan now and (because we all truly want to provide a solution to the problem), make adjustments to adapt for that minority. As a person who leans to the right, I would be glad to have a tax that made sense to pay for these, as long as there was true oversight. There is currently billions in fraud in the government sponsored programs that would fund large portions of these issues if the programs were properly managed.

It’s my feeling that this should be privatized and not nationalized. If you look at insurance companies in general, they know how to make money doing this. So, allow them to run the Medicare and Medicaid and/or Obama care coverage, bonus the managers (within reason) for successfully managing the programs, then with the surplus, utilize it like a electrical coop. Either carry it over for the major hits and requirement based on 10 year projections, or refund it back to the contributors based on the percentages that they have contributed when that is applicable. Privatization of this will make it better, not nationalization. It is the free enterprise that makes our society the most productive in the world. When you start taking benefits from the people, you start taking away the reasons to be that productive.
Also, I understand the notion that we’re all Americans and we want to take care of our own. But the idea that health insurance is a right and not a privilege sounds to me like you may as well move to France. I pay for it (likely about 60 times more than the average person) and don’t for one second believe it is a right. It is a privilege afforded me by the men and women who died in formation of this nation and the established free enterprise that funds the health insurance industry directly or in-directly through tax dollars.
I do believe that we have to reform health care as the current system will not be sustainable over an extended period of time and we have to figure out a way to assist those that aren’t as fortunate as we. However, when the government starts thinking that it knows what is better for its citizens than the majority population, it is the beginning of the end of that government.

]]>