Woody, Why not?
CW ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hollywood" <[email protected]> To: "PoliticalForum" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 07:09 Subject: Re: Health Care Reform is NEEDED NOW! The Republican party is becoming the party of hatred and the destruction of the American dream. Cold, Yes. Why? On Aug 7, 6:51 am, Cold Water <[email protected]> wrote: > Your Social Security disability check? > > CW > > On Aug 6, 11:55 am, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Sage2, > > > Thought we were talking about access. Mysocialsecuritycheckis > > 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 > > ... > > 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
