Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
Visit A. Macarthur's column >>

A. MACARTHUR

Digital Artist/Photographer, Author
Articles Posted: 437  Links Seeded: 0
Member Since: 10/2008  Last Seen: 5/20/2012

What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Don't Blame Obama ... Blame Republicans for Being the Shills for Health Insurance and Pharmaceutical Lobbies

Thu Feb 9, 2012 12:29 PM EST
politics, insurance, reform, birth-control
By A. Macarthur
Advertise | AdChoices

 


 

— The Obama administration's new mandate that religious organizations pay for their workers' birth control has become a bludgeon for Republican culture warriors, as social issues have surged to the forefront in the presidential campaign.

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2012/02/09/10358458-analysis-obama-contraceptive-mandate-has-a-price

Republicans, every legislative step of the way, have done whatever they can to dilute or sabotage health reform in America, this to keep the for-profit health care/health insurance and pharmaceutical industry ... fat and happy!

What the right-wing calls "Obamacare" is actually the The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA); and unlike the conservative lie calling it "government-controlled health care," it's actually a law that controls and prevents some of the worst abominations of the health insurance racket ... like canceling coverage for children diagnosed with cancer!

Tragically, the reform does not mean that everyone will have health insurance! Those who lose a job or, who cannot find a job will not have health insurance ... 40 million Americans! This too, can be to a great extent, attributed to Republicans who kill every jobs bill!

This issue of the new mandate that religious organizations pay for their workers' birth control, would not be an issue had republicans not consistently sabotaged every legislative attempt to get REAL REFORM ...

This issue arose because the Catholic Church is an EMPLOYER in many instances and as such, it provides health insurance for employees. End this by ending health care-for profit, everyone purchases insurance via taxes (at lower rates) instead of paying insurance companies.

THIS IS WHAT WE SHOULD HAVE HAD ... but the political whores beholden to the insurance and drug lobbies sold us out ...

LEARN ... UNIVERSAL/SINGLE PAYER

H.R. 676 FAQ

What is H.R. 676?

H.R. 676, also called the United States National Health Insurance Act, is a bill to create a single-payer, publicly-financed, privately-delivered universal health care program that would cover all Americans without charging co-pays or deductibles. It guarantees access to the highest quality and most affordable health care services regardless of employment, ability to pay or pre-existing health conditions.

What is "single-payer"?

The term single-payer describes the kind of financing system that H.R. 676 uses. It means that one entity--in this case, established by the government--handles all billing and payment for health care services. Right now, there are thousands upon thousands of "payers"-- HMOs, PPOs, bill collection agencies, etc. The sheer volume of paperwork required by our current system means that administrative waste accounts for roughly 31% of the money spent on.... The single-payer system would eliminate the wasteful paperwork and administrative costs, redirecting more of our health care dollars to providing care.

Medicare is perhaps the best known single-payer system. Essentially, H.R. 676 would improve Medicare and expand it, so that it covers all Americans, regardless of their income.


Who will be eligible for health care coverage under H.R. 676?

All Americans will be eligible for health care coverage. Every person who enrolls in the program and receive a United States National Health Insurance Card and individual ID number, and that is all anyone will need to receive care.

What health care services are covered?

The program established by H.R. 676 will cover all medically-necessary services without charging co-pays or deductibles. The services covered will include: primary care; inpatient, outpatient and emergency hospital care; prescription drugs; durable medical equipment; hearing, dental and vision care; chiropratic treatment; mental health services; and long-term care.

What about "catastrophic" care? Will I ever reach a limit for coverage?

No. There are no limits on coverage. Just as you will never pay a co-pay or a deductible under the universal national health care program, you will never reach a ceiling on your coverage.

Will I be able to choose my doctor?

Yes. Patients will have their choice of physicians, providers, hospitals and clinics. The financing will be public, but the providers will all remain private.

No co-pays or deductibles-- what's the catch? Will I actually pay less for health care?

There is no catch. Both families and employers will pay significantly less for health care.

Currently, the average family of four covered by an employer-provided health care plan spends roughly $4,225 on health care each year, including premiums, services, prescription drugs and supplies. This figure does not include the annual Medicare payroll tax, currently at 1.45%. Under the plan created by H.R. 676, a family of four making the median income of $56,200 would pay about $2,700 in payroll tax for all health care costs. No deductibles, no co-pays, no worrying about catastrophic coverage.

Employers who provide health insurance currently pay, on average, 74% of employee health premiums. For a family of four, the average employer share is $8,510 per year. Under H.R. 676, the employer pays a 4.75% payroll tax, not a premium to health insurance companies. For an employee making the median family income of $56,200 annually, the employer would pay roughly $2,700.

Estimates taken from: Employer Health Benefits 2006 Annual Survey, Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust; Consumer Expenditure Survey, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics; and Study by the Center for Economic Research and Policy.

How will the transition to the new system work?

The full conversion to a non-profit, single-payer universal health care program will not take place overnight once the bill is passed. The total transition time will be roughly a 15-year period. Important elements of the transition will include:

• Private health insurance companies will be prohibited from selling coverage that duplicates any benefits included in the universal national health care program. The private companies will, however, still be able to sell coverage for services that are not deemed medically necessary, such as many cosmetic surgery procedures. • Private insurance company workers who are displaced as a result of the transition will be the first to be hired and retained by the new single-payer entity. Any of the displaced workers who are not rehired will receive two years of unemployment benefits.

How will the universal program be paid for?

First, switching to a single-payer system will lead to billions of dollars saved in reduced administrative costs. Those savings will be passed on through the system and allow coverage for all Americans. Additional savings in the overall cost of health care will come from annual reimbursement rate negotiations with physicians and negotiated prices for prescription drugs, medical supplies and equipment.

Second, a "Medicare For All Trust Fund" will be created to ensure a dedicated source of funding in addition to annual appropriations. Sources of funding will include:

• Maintain current federal and state funding for existing health care programs
• Closing corporate tax loopholes
• Repealing the Bush tax cuts for the highest income earners
• Establish employer/employee payroll tax of 4.75% (includes present 1.45% Medicare tax)
• Establish a 5% health tax on the top 5% of income earners; a 10% tax on top 1% of wage earners
• One quarter of one percent stock transaction tax

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • A. Macarthur's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: none
  • Public Discussion (58)
Jump to discussion page: 1 2
A. Macarthur

Same as always ... I have been quite specific. Rebuttals are welcomed ... BUT ...

It insults members' intelligence if the article's specifics are "rebutted" with quips and/or that popular zeal-without-knowledge non-response of a response ...

"LOL," or "ROFLMOA."

  • 13 votes
Reply#1 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 12:33 PM EST
hvymtl83

Sorry Mac, but I do blame Obama... for failing to get single payer. All he had to do was coopt the health insurers by offering them the management contracts - gov't pays and insurers or consortiums thereof to manage the billing approval, pay, formulary, and fraud detection for a cut. The insurers would have jumped at the chance since it's low cost, no risk. And, in fact, the insurers are very good at those tasks. The primary problem with private health insurance is the overhead. We have way too many companies resulting in excess overhead and excess bonuses for increasing market share. Add in the laws against crossing state lines, and private US health insurance is a disaster.

    #1.1 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:11 AM EST
    A. MacarthurDeleted
    mstanley2265

    me myself and I....Blame Congress for Not sending a single payor bill to sign to President Obama

    • 3 votes
    #1.3 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 12:39 PM EST
    A. Macarthur

    I deleted #1.2 ... it was in response to ... #1.1 and the comment ...

    Sorry Mac, but I do blame Obama... for failing to get single payer.

    My full response is at ... #23

    • 3 votes
    #1.4 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:02 PM EST
    JmetheSad

    All he had to do was coopt the health insurers by offering them the management contracts

    If he would have offered him the same set up they have now for the medicare and medicaid programs, you're damn right the private health insurances would have jumped all over it. They get money and have no reason to actually pay claims. It would have been the single worst addition to the whole package for small practices and patients.

    Without better regulations on private insurance companies or a separate competitive entity to provide some quality control on both ends, the response I got from palmetto last week will simply continue allowing the insurance company to increase their profits on the backs of hard working doctors and at the expense of patients, who will be denied service due to the insurance company they carry.

    Palmetto: "It doesn't matter whose, the provider's or palmetto's, fault that there was no payment despite the repeated re-submissions, you're not going to get paid, under any circumstance, for those surgeries/procedures performed once outside the timely filing window."

    • 2 votes
    #1.5 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:08 PM EST
    johny-388777

    I have said it before. Its sad.

    All the major trading partners of the USA can afford a public option.

    Canada, YES public option.

    Germany , YES public option.

    Japan? 70% public option, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_system_in_Japan

    Then here in the USA we are told with fancy facts and fanciful made up reasons that we can not afford it.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtEXCFrxmL4, Funny Video but true about Republican and whatevercrats.

    • 5 votes
    #1.6 - Wed Feb 22, 2012 1:55 AM EST
    Reply
    tomwcraig

    Actually, the PPACA doesn't make health insurance affordable at all, nor does it actually create coverage for anyone. It just forces everyone to buy "Government-approved" health insurance plans or pay taxes/fees (arguments have been made for classifying the various clauses punishing people for not buying insurance or having a "Cadillac" plan as both a fee and a tax depending on the context). It does not require that all states approve all insurance plans, nor does it allow for insurance plan coverage to be carried from one state to another. Instead, people have to buy whatever plans are available in a particular state and then hope that your out-of-coverage-area fees aren't too high if you need to go to another state for any reason.

    There are some good ideas and some actually well-thought out measures in the PPACA, but it doesn't actually do anything to address the problems that it was meant to address as argued when it was proposed and when the Townhalls occurred. Instead, we are finding out that it eliminates religious freedom as argued by Democratic Senators and Representatives in the past several days. Bob Casey is against the contraceptive portion of the regulations brought down by Kathleen Sebelius as they affect Catholics. She is the only person that can make any regulations regarding health in the Federal Government as set out by the PPACA, and as such has been granted too much power which is, in fact, UNCONSTITUTIONAL power.

    If we are going to radically change our insurance system, we should adopt the German model, not the British, French, or Canadian models. The German model looks to be the best of both single payer and competitive private insurance coverage. And, unlike most of the models that were being bandied about, the German model is quite successful. The other systems are going broke or do not give the coverage that they claim to give.

    • 7 votes
    Reply#2 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 12:48 PM EST
    JBURNS-1894015

    Does the health insurance that is available to Congress and the Senate, which we all pay for, cover birth control or other contraception methods?

    Anything that is available to our Washington legislatures shouldn't be any more unconstitutional to the rest of the country. That goes for the Catholic Church. It is a personal religion, not the will of God. All Catholics are not forced to get birth control. However, Catholics have no business dictating what I believe or how I live my life. I also have a God. We just have direct access and don't need to go through a perceived hierarchy.

    • 13 votes
    #2.1 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 2:07 PM EST
    tomwcraig

    When the government steps in and tells a religious organization how to run itself, it becomes a government ESTABLISHED religion, which is EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN by the 1st Amendment.

    • 3 votes
    #2.2 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 2:33 PM EST
    btco

    If we are going to radically change our insurance system, we should adopt the German model,

    German health care mandates contraceptive coverage. Yes, we should do the same here.

    • 14 votes
    #2.3 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 3:46 PM EST
    evilgenius

    When the government steps in and tells a religious organization how to run itself, it becomes a government ESTABLISHED religion, which is EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN by the 1st Amendment.

    Under current US business law St Whatis Hospital is NOT a religious organization. It has to follow the same rules as Wal-Mart and Joe's Hardware.

    • 12 votes
    #2.4 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 4:15 PM EST
    A. Macarthur

    It has to follow the same rules as Wal-Mart and Joe's Hardware.

    Two entities which, unlike the church which pushes its dogma ...

    Pay taxes.

    • 13 votes
    #2.5 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 4:18 PM EST
    cannonballer

    "Obamacare" is going to dump a whole helluva lot of customers on the insurance companies, Who's the shill again?

    And I think it's ROFLMAO.

    • 3 votes
    #2.6 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 6:07 PM EST
    A. Macarthur

    "Obamacare" is going to dump a whole helluva lot of customers on the insurance companies, Who's the shill again?

    Which will save me and every other American who already has health insurance, some portion of the extra $1100/year we pay in extra premium to cover those who game the system.

    Laugh that one off.

    • 7 votes
    #2.7 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 8:28 PM EST
    Reply
    A. Macarthur

    Hey tomwcraig,

    How are you these days?

    I voted your comment up although I disagree with parts of it.

    but it doesn't actually do anything to address the problems that it was meant to address as argued when it was proposed and when the Townhalls occurred.

    Agree with the first portion, but the Townhalls were infiltrated and severely disrupted by the Tea Party ... and information seriously misrepresented ...

    Tea Party Town Hall Strategy: "Rattle Them," "Stand Up And Shout"
    By Brian Beutler - August 3, 2009, 1:33PM

    As for the Constitutionality ... there's the Commerce Clause among other congressional powers; but unless Clarence Thomas whose wife actively lobbies for the health insurance industry ... recuses himself from the case ... it's a farce!

    Justice Thomas’s wife Virginia Thomas now a lobbyist
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/48812.html#ixzz1luOfm24i

    Although we usually differ on political issues, it's always good to see you.

    • 12 votes
    Reply#3 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 12:59 PM EST
    tomwcraig

    A. Mac,

    The Commerce Clause really applies to Congress, not to the Executive Branch. Sebelius has taken too much power for herself, when she can set aside the First Amendment with a Regulation instead of having to abide by it. That's what is Unconstitutional about this.

    I'm doing pretty well. Heading back to Oregon and my wife on the 21st though. Taxes for the farm are done, so that's good.

    • 4 votes
    #3.1 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 1:51 PM EST
    RobPlumley

    So what then is your solution to the health care crisis in this country, and what are the underlining factors driving the rampant inflation?

    I hear a lot on what it won't do, but according to the CBO, it actually saves money over a ten year period. One thing it does is allows me to continue coverage to my children after they turn 18.

    Perhaps, this law could have been better by focusing on "health" than just what affects it would have on insurance company's profits, or the pharmaceuticals bottom line.

    You mentioned "Cadillac" car, and to an extent that is one of the reasons why insurance is so expensive. Perhaps if we sit back (and calmly) discuss how health care - your dealing with quality of care as well as life and death - should be managed on both the private and public sector.

    Our culture also influences how we do things in this country. We are so focused on profit, we often fail to realize that certain activities - though making money is not a bad thing and should be considered - should not be managed always in a for-profit manner. I believe that health care falls under this.

    Unless we can push back those that care only about profits and focus strictly on health care, you will always get water-down laws that do nothing.

    • 4 votes
    #3.2 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 3:39 PM EST
    A. Macarthur

    No one on earth should ever have to choose between life, death and bankruptcy.

    Pro-life and pro birth are far from being synonymous ... health care as a commodity is a crime!

    • 12 votes
    #3.3 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 4:00 PM EST
    tomwcraig

    Rob,

    Actually, part of the PPACA has already been axed (CLASS) and it was the part that was the linchpin on the savings; because there was no way for it to actually save the money it was supposed to save.

    http://www.benefitmall.com/News-and-Events/Industry-Insights/Obama%20Pulls%20PPACAs%20Long-Term%20Care%20Insurance%20Program

    http://www.skloff.com/ltc-class-act-canceled.htm

    • 3 votes
    #3.4 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 4:28 PM EST
    A. Macarthur

    Actually, part of the PPACA has already been axed (CLASS) and it was the part that was the linchpin on the savings; because there was no way for it to actually save the money it was supposed to save.

    And the reason was because of the outrageous cost of for-profit health care. The concept of covering long term care is humane and necessary ... but ...

    Advocates for older Americans and people with disabilities expressed disappointment at the decision, and Ms. Sebelius said Americans still had an “enormous need” for long-term care insurance. “At $75,000 a year for a nursing home and $18,000 a year for home health care, most families cannot afford to pay out of pocket,” she said.

    • 7 votes
    #3.5 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 4:45 PM EST
    tomwcraig

    A. Mac,

    The entire point is that CLASS was the linchpin on all the savings that made PPACA DEFICIT-NEUTRAL! It was the aspect that was going to pay for a significant portion of the the PPACA's costs. But, if this aspect of the law was that poorly written that there were going to be no savings whatsoever from it, but even more money being spent; then how can the rest of the bill be considered to be implementable? Every day, we learn more and more about PPACA and it keeps turning out to be nothing more than a scam rather than a law that actually benefits Americans and reduces the deficit. The truth is that the PPACA is going to probably triple the deficit on its own, which means that instead of the $1 trillion added to the debt per year since Obama took office, we'll be looking at $3 trillion in debt per year after PPACA becomes fully active.

    • 1 vote
    #3.6 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:27 AM EST
    Jonathan-1917156

    tomwcraig:

    actually the directive was only meant to cover entities that are not primarily of religious intent. So the directive doesn't say that the catholic church itself needed to provide coverage, but that a hospital, whose primary purpose is to provide health care, not religious services, must provide coverage. This is because a catholic hospital is required to hire not just based on their religion, but on qualifications. You can have muslim doctors nurses, etc... working at a catholic hospital.

    Now if a catholic hospital would support a directive that states that catholics can't be hired at non catholic hospitals, then maybe there is something to be said for that extremist view, but they don't.

    As for your debt for year, having fun pulling numbers out of your ass? That number has no sense in reality.

    • 3 votes
    #3.7 - Sat Feb 11, 2012 2:29 AM EST
    Reply
    Better Careful

    There is a national and public interest in a healthy population. Our government has a just and rightful duty in this area. Our government ought not act to help private finance corporations hold American hostage for profit, and at the expense of health and even life.

    Those truths are clear, and provide an effective beacon for what ought to be done. It is obscene that our government not only permits, but supports, a health care finance system which places profits before human welfare and life. That sort of partnership borders on criminal, especially in light of the fact that the politicians who write these laws are corrupt and in the pockets of the people who profit from those laws, that system, and the sickness and even death of Americans.

    • 8 votes
    Reply#4 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 1:11 PM EST
    MalamuteMan

    Great article and a point well made A Mac!

    The thing that really amazes me is that anyone needs to say this. It couldn't be any more obvious if they put a flashing neon sign in Time Square. But as I have said many times, people will do what ever it takes to support "The Truths They Want."

    BTW- Perhaps you will take a peek at the article I just published...

    • 9 votes
    Reply#5 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 1:22 PM EST
    The Grim Creeper

    Don't blame Obama? At what point in his presidency does Barack Obama take responsibility for anything? He's three years into his term yet it's everyone else's fault but the man who got everything he wanted for the first two years or his term.

    • 5 votes
    Reply#6 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 1:46 PM EST
    JBURNS-1894015

    And yet we still hear the same old noise. Obama is 3 years into his term yet it's everyone Else's fault. This is a new one though. The man who got everything he wanted for the first 2 years of his term.

    Tell me, beginning on his first day as President, what bipartisan bills were passed? Why did the President extend the Bush tax cuts? Who said they were happy with getting 98% of what they wanted from the President?

    Everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, attempting to make a point by spewing false statements does nothing for your cause or credibility. Saying the same lie over and over will never make it the truth. You know that, right?

    • 6 votes
    #6.1 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 1:59 PM EST
    A. Macarthur

    Don't blame Obama? At what point in his presidency does Barack Obama take responsibility for anything? He's three years into his term yet it's everyone else's fault but the man who got everything he wanted for the first two years or his term.

    Do you blame the firefighter trying to put out the fire started by an arsonist ... for starting that fire?

    Got everything he wanted, did he?

    When the Democrats regained tenuous control of the 110th Congress in 2007, filibusters by the new Republican minority skyrocketed. Following the landslide victory of Barack Obama and progressive Democrats in 2008, there was a clear mandate for change in reform in America, yet the 111th should set a new record for filibusters as part of a clear pattern of obstruction from those who do not want change or reform.

    http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/03/02/republican-obstruction-at-work-record-number-of-filibusters/

    Please, in the future ...

    DON'T SPIT IN MY FACE AND TELL ME "IT'S RAINING."

    • 11 votes
    #6.2 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 2:04 PM EST
    A. Macarthur

    Doesn't tax-exempt status for religious institutions mean that the American taxpayer subsidizes their operations albeit indirectly?

    So which is it ... keep government out of the church, or, keep government out of the church but underwrite our dogma?

    Talk about "using protection!"

    • 12 votes
    #6.3 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 2:12 PM EST
    Reply
    A. Macarthur

    Good point jburns (#6.1) ...

    To which I add ...

    On average, the government pays 72 percent of the premiums for its workers, up to a maximum of 75 percent depending on the policy chosen. For example, the popular Blue Cross and Blue Shield standard fee-for-service family plan carries a total premium of $1,120.47 per month, of which the beneficiary pays $356.59. Washington, D.C.-based employees who prefer an HMO option might choose the Kaiser standard family plan. It carries a total premium of $629.46 per month, of which the employee pays only $157.36.

    THIS INCLUDES MEMBERS OF CONGRESS!

    I challenge all those members of Congress opposed to the mandated requirement to pay for birth control, to reveal their health insurance plans and stipulate whether or not their plan covers birth control.

    Mr. Boehner, Mr. Cantor ... et al.

    Come join the discussion.

    • 10 votes
    Reply#7 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 2:28 PM EST
    tomwcraig

    Congress has the TRUE Cadillac plans, but they probably won't be punished for it.

    • 7 votes
    #7.1 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 2:31 PM EST
    A. Macarthur

    I'm not so sure about that tomwcraig particularly in light of #7's particulars.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac_insurance_plan

    A study published in Health Affairs in December 2009 found that high-cost health plans do not provide unusually rich benefits to enrollees.

    The researchers found that only 3.7% of the variation in the cost of family coverage in employer-sponsored health plans is attributable to differences in the actuarial value of benefits.

    Only 6.1% of the variation is attributable to the combination of benefit design and plan type (e.g., PPO, HMO, etc.). The employer's industry and regional variations in health care costs explain part of the variation, but most is unexplained.

    The researchers conclude "…that analysts should not equate high-cost plans with Cadillac plans, but that in fact other factors—industry and cost of medical inputs—are as important in predicting whether a plan is a high-cost plan. Without appropriate adjustments, a simple cap may exacerbate rather than ameliorate current inequities."[5]

    • 6 votes
    #7.2 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 2:38 PM EST
    Reply
    Lisafrequency

    "

    Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future."

    -JFK

    • 8 votes
    Reply#8 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 2:59 PM EST
    A. Macarthur

    While the quote has philosophical credibility, sadly, in the real world of American politics, it is a platitude.

    And how are you Lisafrequency?

    • 7 votes
    Reply#9 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 3:16 PM EST
    RobPlumley

    I responded above to a comment, but have some more thoughts.

    Ask yourselves this. I take my car to get a tune-up, and such, do I file a claim to my car insurance?

    By the way, I'm required to have car insurance. I guess it's ok at the state level, but if the federal government demanded that I or the State required me to get car insurance, then damn those bastards!

    I'm going to the doctor for a physical. I'm 51 and didn't get one last year, and it's recommended. Though my insurance will pay for this physical, I ask myself this - why?

    I have insurance for cases of emergency or catastrophic care. For the other health care needs I have, should I not buy those myself?

    If we instilled a bit of personal responsibility on purchasing (no insurance) health care services, the market would naturally bring down costs. Now, I'm not advocating that we drop all mandates on health care coverage, but we need to first foster an environment where this could be done, such as investing in the education of potential candidates to become doctors and nurses (which there is a shortage of), and require that hospitals and large medical institutions covert over to a not-for-profit / non-profit operations.

    • 3 votes
    Reply#10 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 3:48 PM EST
    A. Macarthur

    If we instilled a bit of personal responsibility on purchasing (no insurance) health care services, the market would naturally bring down costs.

    Isn't the concept of mandating insurance coverage a move towards incentivizing personal responsibility in that it minimizes the number of individuals likely to game the system?

    Those of us who purchase health insurance pay about $1100/year more to cover those who show up at emergency rooms and clinics ... without insurance?

    • 9 votes
    Reply#11 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 4:04 PM EST
    mstanley2265

    Revoke the Private Health Insurance.... Anti-Trust exemption see how that works too.

    • 5 votes
    Reply#12 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 4:21 PM EST
    Zero-

    here here

    • 3 votes
    #12.1 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 4:30 PM EST
    Reply
    A. Macarthur

    Those entities exempt from paying taxes should not be simultaneously exempt from following the rules of the entity that lets them ride for free.

    If government was a bus and it allowed some to ride for free, should the free-riders be logically entitled to set the fare for those who pay to ride?

    Can't have it both ways.

    • 8 votes
    Reply#13 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 5:12 PM EST
    mstanley2265

    A Mac, that's too much math for some people /sarc....Private Health Insurance has one goal...their bottom line, it is Not providing Health care to or for the American Public as a whole. They only provide for a section that can afford their premiums.

    • 7 votes
    #13.1 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 5:16 PM EST
    Reply
    notsojingo

    A. Macarthur

    Thank You for this expose'/lesson of clarity.

    I have taken issue with the lack of single payer in the ACA, as well as the fact it was a watered down distraction. The Republicans could not have made a better divisive and ill-timed issue up themselves! Of course, that may be a stretch. Too bad the economy took the back seat during these heady first months/year of President Obama's focus.

    Yet it is certainly more than the Republicans would ever do on their own accord.
    Go to this site and try to search for single-payer healthcare...then be prepared for a lot of nothing. Mostly references to some States showing interest in future consideration of it.
    http://www.healthcare.gov/foryou/betterbenefitsbetterhealth

    Peace, and FR Sent.

    • 4 votes
    Reply#14 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 8:11 PM EST
    A. Macarthur

    Universal Health Care was never Obama's objective ... it was Rep. Jon Conyers'. Obama said as a candidate, that if he was starting from scratch on healthcare, he'd go for Single Payer.

    The real disappointment was that he and democrats cave on the public option.

    • 5 votes
    #14.1 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 8:31 PM EST
    notsojingo

    I absent mindedly neglect to include that the Public Option was horribly/obviously excluded, but truly just omitted typing it.

    Duh.

    And the fervor with which the Health Care Reform was pushed did hit with a dull thud of disappointment. And Universal Health Care never appeared an option with out sweeping limitations placed on Profiteering Insurance, Care Providers' and Pharma ever-escalating fees, and the Lawyers that feast/vote (read: Our Politicians) along with them would never allow that!

    Thank you for catching that, Sir. Feel free to correct me at any time! ;-)

    Peace

    • 2 votes
    #14.2 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 9:30 PM EST
    Reply
    mstanley2265

    The deflect was for the Republicans to howl about the PPACA,.... while the private health insurance companies ...to buy time....renegotiated policy coverage and premiums with employers ....to the determent of employees and private policy holders...to also buy time to negotiate buying medical practices, negotiate hospital, doctor, outpatient surgeries and laboratories contracts ....with them. It's working.. They aren't going to lose any slice of that money making pie they can get.

    • 4 votes
    Reply#15 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 9:38 PM EST
    A. Macarthur

    I figured I'd wait until the Obama-haters checked in before dropping these fact-bombs ...

    For starters ...

    • Under the mandate, CHURCHES ARE EXEMPT!

    • Currently, 77% of all Catholic Law Schools provide health insurance that covers women's contraceptives

    • Twenty-eight states already allow employers to cover contraceptives

    • 98% of Catholic women use some form of contraception

    But wait ... there's more ... tomorrow maybe.

    Unlike what the right-wing politicians would lead us to believe ... their politicizing of the mandate will crush them.

    • 6 votes
    Reply#16 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 9:40 PM EST
    maria lyn

    I hit the notsojingo button and I got you are you notsojingo? Maria-Lyn

    • 3 votes
    Reply#17 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:41 AM EST
    A. Macarthur

    I hit the notsojingo button and I got you are you notsojingo? Maria-Lyn

    Not sure I understand this question ... to whom is it directed and who are you looking for?

    • 4 votes
    Reply#18 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 8:19 AM EST
    maria lyn

    I'm asking you if you & notsojingo one in the same? And it is so true that the Repubs: kiss butt to the insurance & pharmacy companies.

    • 1 vote
    #18.1 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:02 AM EST
    Reply
    imsovain

    Blame yourselves for being fool enough to believe in either party,or communism or fascism which only differ from capitalism in the methods by which wealth is redistributed.Your arguments are as weak as your education.On the bright side we all have the ability and the means to educate ourselves,if only we had the faith in ourselves to do it.

    • 1 vote
    Reply#19 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:01 AM EST
    Lisafrequency

    I hate insurance and everything it stands for.

    • 2 votes
    Reply#20 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:14 AM EST
    Franklin Paine

    C'mon, get serious with this post. Obama and his democratic majorities in congress sold out to big pharma and the insurance companies to the tune of hundreds of billions in subsidies while including a myriad fine print items that rendered the bill essentially toothless. This "landmark" legislation does little or nothing to lower the overall cost of healthcare or prescriptions which is the fundamental issue that needed to be addressed. While obstructionist conservatives clearly were of little or no help on the healthcare front, it's both false and hypocritical to put this debacle of a bill squarely on the shoulders of the GOP.

    • 2 votes
    Reply#21 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 10:25 AM EST
    Linda Luke

    Maybe wages wouldn't have been so stagnant if this health insurance issue wasn't put on employers.

    • 2 votes
    Reply#22 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:03 AM EST
    A. Macarthur

    Linda Luke,

    Exactly part of my article's key points.

    • 3 votes
    #22.1 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:51 AM EST
    Reply
    A. Macarthur

    For the record, somewhere in this thread I express my disapproval of Obama/Democrats' dropping the ball on single payer and the public option.

    And, for the record, this article is not about either although they came up in the discussion and I and others responded.

    But perhaps you missed a few things ... while I agree that Obama and the Democrats caved, let us not forget the environment created by Republicans during the reform negotiations, and, going forward to the present. And recall the Republican filibuster that was narrowly avoided?

    Some of the history.

    G.O.P. to Fight Health Law With Purse Strings

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/health/policy/07health.html?hp

    And crap like ...

    Republican Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina was quoted as telling the group Conservatives for Patients Rights, which opposes Obama's health care plan, that "if we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him."

    And here's one ...

    GOP sponsored single-payer guaranteed Health Care in Iraq, but not in US (there's also a JOB GUARANTEE FOR IRAQIS in their constitution - thanks to Bush 43 - ain't that a kick in the ass?)

    http://current.com/community/90903072_gop-sponsored-single-payer-guaranteed-health-care-in-iraq-but-not-in-us.htm

    And ...

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/are-republicans-about-to-commit-medicare-suicide.php?ref=fpa

    The Ryan Plan, loved by Republicans would destroy Medicare ... that's SINGLE PAYER ... so how does it compute that Republicans would have been amenable to single payer when the Affordable Health Care bill provisions were being negotiated?

    As for ...

    This "landmark" legislation does little or nothing to lower the overall cost of healthcare or prescriptions

    With more individuals having to be insured, the additional $1100/year I and others have had to pay on our premiums to cover those who have gamed the system, should and could be mitigated.

    And this article IS ABOUT PRESCRIPTION COVERAGE COST REDUCTION for individuals (as it relates to contraceptives), so, that kind of dulls one of your points.

    • 5 votes
    Reply#23 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:31 AM EST
    Don Overton

    A. Macarthur

    Unfortunately nothing you or I post that includes facts will get through to those whose minds are closed and locked because they view their brand of religion as the only one and the word above all words. Facts don't matter to concrete.

    Love your posts.

    • 5 votes
    Reply#24 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:00 PM EST
    A. Macarthur

    Unfortunately nothing you or I post that includes facts will get through to those whose minds are closed

    No argument on this ... but while they'll deny and distort ... the record shows where I stand and that I took a stand.

    • 5 votes
    Reply#25 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:04 PM EST
    Jump to discussion page: 1 2
    Leave a Comment:
    You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
    You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
    (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
    Newsvine Privacy Statement
    As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
    FUN STUFF:
    • Leaderboard |
    • E-Mail Alerts |
    • Top of the Vine |
    • Newsvine Live |
    • Newsvine Archives |
    • The Greenhouse |
    COMPANY STUFF:
    • Code of Honor |
    • Company Info |
    • Contact Us |
    • Jobs |
    • User Agreement |
    • Privacy Policy |
    • About our ads
    LEGAL STUFF:
    • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
    • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
    • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com