AARP shows its true colors

[srkruzich]

So i looked up HR3200 and found the bill.  Like i said, this isn't the bill thats going to be voted on.  The bill thats going to be voted on is still being written.  I figured, maybe the final bill will be based on HR3200, so i looked up the first section in your list.

I doubt they wrote a entire new bill from scratch. They just took 3200 and started adding things to it.

[larryJ]

I am looking at all these posts and thinking to myself-----------The Government wants to decide what and how much health care you are entitled to-----------I think most insurance plans that exist now do the same thing, in that, they cover what they want to cover. 

The Government would have access to you financial accounts---------Don't they already?  Don't you think the IRS doesn't know where you bank and how much money you have?

The Government would issue a national I.D. health card-----------I can put that one next to my insurance card I have now.

It appears that a lot of these "restrictions" or "rules" or whatever you want to call them already exist to some degree in the private health insurance companies now.  There are differences in certain areas, but it begins to look the same.

I am not for Obama's plan, but I am not seeing a big difference here, other than the government wants to get into the health insurance business.  I don't see anything that says private insurance won't exist anymore, or is this just a step to get us to that point?

Larryj

[srkruzich]

I am looking at all these posts and thinking to myself-----------The Government wants to decide what and how much health care you are entitled to-----------I think most insurance plans that exist now do the same thing, in that, they cover what they want to cover. 

The Government would have access to you financial accounts---------Don't they already?  Don't you think the IRS doesn't know where you bank and how much money you have?

The Government would issue a national I.D. health card-----------I can put that one next to my insurance card I have now.

It appears that a lot of these "restrictions" or "rules" or whatever you want to call them already exist to some degree in the private health insurance companies now.  There are differences in certain areas, but it begins to look the same.

I am not for Obama's plan, but I am not seeing a big difference here, other than the government wants to get into the health insurance business.  I don't see anything that says private insurance won't exist anymore, or is this just a step to get us to that point?

Larryj

larry,
The difference is that insurance companies do not sell their product by use of force.   The government has the distinct priviledge of being able to force people to comply with the threat of a gun.   
IF i don't want to pay for insurance, then i shouldn't have to pay for insurance. Its my life.  Congress has spoken loudly with this legislation, and their statement to us is your our slaves get back on the plantation and do as we say.

[Patriot]

I am looking at all these posts and thinking to myself-----------The Government wants to decide what and how much health care you are entitled to-----------I think most insurance plans that exist now do the same thing, in that, they cover what they want to cover. 

The Government would have access to you financial accounts---------Don't they already?  Don't you think the IRS doesn't know where you bank and how much money you have?

The Government would issue a national I.D. health card-----------I can put that one next to my insurance card I have now.

It appears that a lot of these "restrictions" or "rules" or whatever you want to call them already exist to some degree in the private health insurance companies now.  There are differences in certain areas, but it begins to look the same.

I am not for Obama's plan, but I am not seeing a big difference here, other than the government wants to get into the health insurance business.  I don't see anything that says private insurance won't exist anymore, or is this just a step to get us to that point?

Larryj

Yes, the govt can get our financial info.. sad, but true.  Expanding that power, however, doesn't seem prudent, imho.

Remember, if a private company screws you, you have recourse in the courts and/or can take your business elsewhere.  If the government screws you... you're screwed!

The government 'getting into the insurance business' will eventually put the private concerns out of business.  How?  Government does NOT need to be profitable.  They can take money (at the point of a gun via the IRS) from the public any time they wish.  Private enterprise can not compete with that.  Moreover, such actions are in direct violation of our Constitution.  But who cares, right?  It was the founding principals in that document that allowed this country to become the most prosperous nation in recorded history.

No, you don't see a specific prohibition against private insurance.  But if you read the proposals carefully, and if you listen to the public quotes of people like Obama, his advisors, the likes of Barney Frank... you will hear exactly what their intention is:  Single Payor (government run without private options) healthcare.  The elimination of private insurance.  The proposals contain restraints that say if the plan you have (and like) now are changed (in any way)... you may NOT re-enroll in the changed plan... you MUST join the public option.  If you change jobs after a date certain, you will NOT be allowed to enroll in the private health plan offered by the new employer:  you MUST enroll in the public/government plan.

One of the big reasons that our choices in the private insurance sector are limited now is because of arcane laws the restrict all insurance companies from selling competitive products across state lines.  Open it up, like every other business is free to do, and the consumer will, by choices made, force increased competition.  Thus forcing price stability or reduction... just look at the price of technology.  New product, high price... more people compete, the price comes down.

Another problem is defensive practice.  Tests are done JUST to help in case of a lawsuit.  The trial lawyers make millions from doctors, hospitals, phara companies and their insurers (malpractice/liability insurance writers)... Just were *did* John Edwards make all his money?  Rework tort law, limit liability, etc... and defensive medicine is reduced (reducing costs for each patient and their insurance company).  Also, the reduced cost of medical malpractice insurance will drop as a result.  Further reducing costs (real health care costs, not just insurance policy costs).

The idea of having a bunch of unaccountable bureaucrats who can't be sued if I'm screwed just doesn't set well with me at all.  Bureaucrats & politicians, at large, know little or nothing about running anything.

Just a few thoughts.  The devil is always in the details!

As to the constitutional issues... here is a rather long quote that's worth reading (Credit to Neal Boortz, http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/index.html ):

We are just adding to the list of people in Washington who see our Constitution as nothing but a limit to what they can do with the power of government. First it was Nancy Pelosi scoffing at a question from reporters about healthcare and how it is constitutional. Then we had Robert Gibbs who wasn't concerned in the least about the Constitution and didn't believe White House lawyers needed to look into the Constitutionality of Obamacare.

Now we have Illinois Senator Roland Burris. There's a waste of a Senate seat. He'll be gone soon, so maybe there will be an improvement. Burris was asked to specify which part of the Constitution authorizes Congress to implement an individual mandate on individuals to buy health insurance. Burris' answer? It is the responsibility of the federal government "to provide for the health, welfare and the defense of the country."

Here's the quote: "Well, that's under certainly the laws of the--protect the health, welfare of the country ... That's under the Constitution. We're not even dealing with any constitutionality here. Should we move in that direction? What does the Constitution say? To provide for the health, welfare and the defense of the country."

Well guess what? The word "health" does not appear in the Constitution. The guy is wrong. Rather than worrying about reading 2,000 page healthcare bills, Roland Burris and his Democrat buddies should try and refresh themselves on our Constitution - the foundations of this country and what make this country great.

[Diane Amberg]

I thought all this was an "Option" that wouldn't actually be available for years. As far as the Gov't having access to my bank account...sure, as long as I give permission. I have a number of things taken out automatically as it is, as  my Medicare payments will be.  I just learned how to do all that. I planned for this for many, many years ago so I won't get blind sided. Some of you keep saying that we should plan for whatever may come....I actually did. In fact my investments have recovered all that they had lost.( I did some careful switching around). AARP is much like NRA, huge, powerful and a good source of information.

[srkruzich]

I thought all this was an "Option" that wouldn't actually be available for years. As far as the Gov't having access to my bank account...sure, as long as I give permission. I have a number of things taken out automatically as it is, as l my Medicare payments will be.  I just learned how to do all that. I planned for this for many, many years ago so I won't get blind sided. Some of you keep saying that we should plan for whatever may come....I actually did. In fact my investments have recovered all that they had lost.( I did some careful switching around). AARP is much like NRA, huge, powerful and a good source of information.

Hate to tell you diane, the government has access to your bank account.  THey get a report EVERY TIME you withdraw or deposit a certain amount of money.  lets say you save up 6 or 7 thousand to put down on a new car, you withdraw it or write a check the bank sends a copy of your transactions and bank account information to the government.

Think the government needs permission?  Nope they don't.  A average citizen out here, with the knowlege can withdraw every penny from your account without your permission or signature.  Its relatively simple to do.  There are no safeguards on your bank account whatsoever.   All a person has to have is your account number and you give that to people all the time when you write a check.

The safest place for your money is literally in a safe in your home. Not the bank.

[Diane Amberg]

Yes, I know. One of my friends is a bank VP and has told me what is safe and what is not.
Money not working for you is just losing value. I do have some here if we ever have to bug out, but the rest is invested in one way or another. The older I get the more conservative I am, as I have fewer years to ride a market back up after a falling cycle, so I do change my stock to bond ratio. I just today wrote a check for more than $10,000 for our new fancy furnace and air conditioner. I'm not worried about it.

[Patriot]

Yes, I know. One of my friends is a bank VP and has told me what is safe and what is not.
Money not working for you is just losing value. I do have some here if we ever have to bug out, but the rest is invested in one way or another. The older I get the more conservative I am, as I have fewer years to ride a market back up after a falling cycle, so I do change my stock to bond ratio. I just today wrote a check for more than $10,000 for our new fancy furnace and air conditioner. I'm not worried about it.

It has been said that if you're not a liberal in your 20's you have no heart and that if you aren't a conservative by 40 you have no brains.

Gee, Diane... since you're writing checks......   

[Diane Amberg]

 

[Anmar]

You all are completely misreading the section in question.  Furthermore, this is why people call the right wing extremists liars.  Whomever came up with that list that warph posted is either a liar or an idiot.

Lets start with the fact that these sections outline the governance of the PUBLIC OPTION.  That means that people can choose to participate or not participate in this program.  It's not a takeover because they are not actually taking anything over, rather they are creating an alternative that any citizen can choose (or choose not to) participate in.  If you don't understand that much, I can't help you, and you probably shouldn't be involved in political discourse.

Secondly, the section quoted is discussing Co-pay limits for preventive care.  What it means is, you go into the hospital for an annual checkup, the docters run some tests on you, and as long as you are under the limit, the plan will cover you.  After you use $5,000 of preventive care in one year, the plan will not cover costs for the remainder of the year.  You will have to pay out of pocket.  Unless you are paranoid and go for a checkup ever 2 months, $5,000 is plenty.  THIS IS NO DIFFERENT FROM ANY OTHER INSURANCE PLAN.  They all have the same kind of limits.

Now again i ask, how is this a government takeover of healthcare?  That question is still not answered.  And seriously, stop throwing talking points up here that you heard some lying jackass spout on TV or the radio.  Use your brains and think for yourself.