Holly,
That is because you " CHOSE " to ! Nice try at
your usual " stop & spin " though. The American people are not given
a choice in this bill !
*************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
On Aug 6, 11:55 am, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote:
> Sage2,
>
> Thought we were talking about access. My social security check is
> directly deposited into my bank account, guess the govt. has access.
> My house mortgage is also handled that way, guess my Mortgage company
> has access to my account. Etc. etc. etc.
>
> On Aug 6, 10:26 am, Sage2 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Holly,
>
> > Only by legal action and garnishing wages
> > for tax purposes, not direct deposit style where they would take
> > ( steal ) at will without accountability. You your ilk and the PIMP
> > ( president in my pocket ) are going to hit a brick wall on this one.
> > Time to wake up before you guys hit that wall!
>
> > ****************************************************************************************************************************
>
> > On Aug 6, 11:16 am, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Sage2,
>
> > > "The Govt." already HAS direct acess to your bank account and has for
> > > years. Ask anyone that has had accounts seized by the IRS. You didn't
> > > know this?
>
> > > On Aug 6, 1:15 am, Sage2 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Holly ,
>
> > > > When you get to page 58, see how the government
> > > > will have direct access to your bank account. My insurance company
> > > > does not have access to my account!
>
> > > > *************************************************************************************************************
>
> > > > On Aug 6, 12:23 am, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > Richard,
>
> > > > > Frankly, I'll have to pull up HR 3200 and examine it closer before i
> > > > > can make an objective and informed comment on it's contents. To date
> > > > > I've only read what others CLAIM it contains.
>
> > > > > On Aug 5, 11:14 pm, RichardForbes <[email protected]>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > I am trying to keep an open mind about this and look for the good
> > > > > > ideas imbedded in the proposals. I am not very excited about HR
> > > > > > 3200,
> > > > > > but the one idea they have correct is the Health Insurance Exchange.
> > > > > > The problem is that they take it too far. There is no need to do
> > > > > > that. Feel free to challenge me on my ideas, as I can only improve
> > > > > > them with input from other people with open minds about the topic.
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > am not opposed to good reform, but I really do not think that HR
> > > > > > 3200
> > > > > > is the answer.
>
> > > > > > On Aug 5, 10:55 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Richard,
>
> > > > > > > Very good idea.
>
> > > > > > > On Aug 5, 10:53 pm, RichardForbes <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > We have attempted to make our pension benefits portable. The
> > > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > idea is important for healthcare, though the implementation is
> > > > > > > > a bit
> > > > > > > > different. I think that the combination of a government
> > > > > > > > clearing
> > > > > > > > house for small employers and individuals along with a federal
> > > > > > > > exemption similar to ERISA would provide a bsais for the
> > > > > > > > capacity to
> > > > > > > > create a more portable system. Any person teminated could gain
> > > > > > > > access
> > > > > > > > through the clearing house and any person changing employers
> > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > have the same capacity. It would eliminate much of the need for
> > > > > > > > insurers to have pre-existing condition clauses because the
> > > > > > > > size of
> > > > > > > > the group would be large enough to limit the risk of adverse
> > > > > > > > selection.
>
> > > > > > > > On Aug 5, 10:46 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Richard,
>
> > > > > > > > > That you have. Nor was my question to you loaded. I do not
> > > > > > > > > believe we
> > > > > > > > > have to copy the system of any one nation, not France or
> > > > > > > > > germany or
> > > > > > > > > the Swiss, etc. I feel we should, and should have been doing
> > > > > > > > > this for
> > > > > > > > > years, carefully examine the systems or several of the
> > > > > > > > > nations that
> > > > > > > > > seem to have the most effective systems and "borrow" the best
> > > > > > > > > ideas
> > > > > > > > > from each of them and adopt them to our own country. There
> > > > > > > > > is, I
> > > > > > > > > believe, no one "magic bullet". One thing, and one thing
> > > > > > > > > only, that
> > > > > > > > > would help a great deal is to not link health insurance to
> > > > > > > > > one's
> > > > > > > > > employer. A working man/woman should be able to retain the
> > > > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > > insurance he/she has AT THE SAME PRICE from employer to
> > > > > > > > > employer
> > > > > > > > > without interuption of coverage or benefits. Let a county,
> > > > > > > > > state,
> > > > > > > > > whatever take competitive bids from competing insurance
> > > > > > > > > companies to
> > > > > > > > > insure perhaps either all it's citizens or perhaps just those
> > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > already covered by Medicare. Let the premium be paid out some
> > > > > > > > > sort of
> > > > > > > > > interest bearing fund owned by that entity and have
> > > > > > > > > safeguards in
> > > > > > > > > place that prevent that fund for being used for ANYTHING
> > > > > > > > > else. Fund it
> > > > > > > > > by taxes levied on all the citizens of that entity. Sure
> > > > > > > > > there will be
> > > > > > > > > administrative expenses. Thik we're NOT paying for the
> > > > > > > > > administrative
> > > > > > > > > expensives of the insurance companies? Well managed
> > > > > > > > > (hopefully) the
> > > > > > > > > interest accumulated by such a large fund should off-set a
> > > > > > > > > goodly
> > > > > > > > > portion of those administrative costs.
> > > > > > > > > that is ONE idea only, and pretty much just off the top of my
> > > > > > > > > head.
>
> > > > > > > > > And FORCE Medicare and Medicaid to go out on competive bids
> > > > > > > > > for all
> > > > > > > > > the drugs and other supplies. You want to be on the list of
> > > > > > > > > approved
> > > > > > > > > suppliers of "XYZ" medications? You better have the best
> > > > > > > > > price. if
> > > > > > > > > Walgreens or CVS does not want to buy from that company? Well
> > > > > > > > > to bad,
> > > > > > > > > guess some other drug store will get all the medicare
> > > > > > > > > business. Hell,
> > > > > > > > > how many people would start a drug store just to have all the
> > > > > > > > > medicare/
> > > > > > > > > medicaid reciepents in a city, county or state?
>
> > > > > > > > > And I like many of the ideas that you propose. Your thinking,
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > that's more than i can say for most people here and in our
> > > > > > > > > government.
>
> > > > > > > > > On Aug 5, 9:49 pm, RichardForbes
> > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > Hollywood -
>
> > > > > > > > > > I would hope that I have earned enough of your trust to
> > > > > > > > > > merit an
> > > > > > > > > > honest reply to my question. I do not believe it was
> > > > > > > > > > loaded and it
> > > > > > > > > > reflected what I think is a significant issue. I would
> > > > > > > > > > like your
> > > > > > > > > > reply.
>
> > > > > > > > > > As to the question you asked, (I hope this is an adequate
> > > > > > > > > > answer),
> > > > > > > > > > from my perspective it is pretty simple. We need to do the
> > > > > > > > > > following:
>
> > > > > > > > > > First, you let the government create a clearing house for
> > > > > > > > > > small group
> > > > > > > > > > and individual purchases. That would give those the
> > > > > > > > > > capacity to
> > > > > > > > > > obtain insurance at group rates and would require little
> > > > > > > > > > time to
> > > > > > > > > > implement or a significant bureaucracy for oversight. In
> > > > > > > > > > fact, much
> > > > > > > > > > of the cost could be directly passed to the insurers.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Second, you allow the federal government to exempt insurers
> > > > > > > > > > from state
> > > > > > > > > > laws and thus make
> > > > > > > > > > them free to sell across state lines. That would increase
> > > > > > > > > > competition
> > > > > > > > > > and reduce prices.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Third, you utilize tax incentive to encourage employers to
> > > > > > > > > > provide a
> > > > > > > > > > minimal level of coverage while disincentivizing them from
> > > > > > > > > > providing
> > > > > > > > > > the "Cadillac policies".
>
> > > > > > > > > > Last of all, you focus on assuring that all Americans have
> > > > > > > > > > catastrophic coverage and flexible spending accounts so
> > > > > > > > > > that they can
> > > > > > > > > > self-insure against minor health needs and still be
> > > > > > > > > > protected against
> > > > > > > > > > the biggest risks and thus make them healthcare consumers.
>
> > > > > > > > > > It would take about FOUR pages to draft my bill and most
> > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > understand it and it would
> > > > > > > > > > actually reduce the cost of healthcare. Obviously, I am
> > > > > > > > > > opposed to
> > > > > > > > > > ALL government bureaucracy without a very good reason.
> > > > > > > > > > But, I
> > > > > > > > > > recognize they can help in some ways. I just think it is
> > > > > > > > > > best to
> > > > > > > > > > limit their involvement to those rare areas where they can
> > > > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > > > value.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Please let me know what you think of the ideas.
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Aug 5, 9:31 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Richard,
>
> > > > > > > > > > > I'll counter that with a question of my own. Do you
> > > > > > > > > > > really think that
> > > > > > > > > > > American's are the ONLY modern, industrialized nation in
> > > > > > > > > > > the world too
> > > > > > > > > > > corrupt and/or stupid to be able to figure out a system
> > > > > > > > > > > to supply
> > > > > > > > > > > universal health care for their citizens?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 5, 9:18 pm, RichardForbes
> > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hollywood -
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > I did not read through the entire thread and I have no
> > > > > > > > > > > > idea what you
> > > > > > > > > > > > may have said in prior posts. With that said, I have a
> > > > > > > > > > > > question for
> > > > > > > > > > > > you. Do you think that the federal government will
> > > > > > > > > > > > more efficiently
> > > > > > > > > > > > administer the healthcare in our country?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 5, 9:05 pm, Hollywood
> > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > frankg,
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If the car dealers lay off people, if the car
> > > > > > > > > > > > > manufacturers lay off
> > > > > > > > > > > > > people, if the banks that make car loans lay off
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
