Welcome to the modern world, I have automatic withdrawal for all my monthly bills.
On Aug 6, 2:15 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 people,if > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > suppliers of those car dealers and manufacturers and banks > > > > > > > > > > lay off > > > > > > > > > > people whose money do you think will be used to pay for > > > > > > > > > > unemployment > > > > > > > > > > checks, food stamps if they need it, etc? > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 5, 8:42 pm, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Mark, > > > > > > > > > > > > No kidding. I'm willing to bet I can drive the sales up > > > > > > > > > > > on just about > > > > > > > > > > > anything by offering to help pay for it with someone > > > > > > > > > > > else's money. > > > > > > > > > > > What's the point? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 5, 8:49 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > auto sales are up over 25% in europe under an identical > > > > > > > > > > > > program....it is > > > > > > > > > > > > working > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 5:37 PM, VT VirtualTruth > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I got news for you, the fact that the program was > > > > > > > > > > > > > depletedr an identical > > > > > > > > > > > > > program....it is working. > > > > > > > > > > > > > so quickly shows there was a need and as a stimulus > > > > > > > > > > > > > the earnings numbers for the auto industry says > > > > > > > > > > > > > it worked. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 4, 1:17 pm, Sage2 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Doc, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You and VT should take the advice of Senato > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sales or Schumer ( > > > > > > > > > > > > > D-NY ) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who said of the cash for clunkers program " don't > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fix what ain't broke > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " . Health Care ain't broken , it just needs a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > little adjustment, but > > > > > > > > > > > > > > guys like Obama and his ilk want to crush it ! > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
