Ah yes - this is what sick people get now and the Repubs want it to continue this way

[Itsnotgonnaspankitself...]

Originally Posted by hortysir

Nevermind the $$ numbers.

hahaha...why?

Because you say so...?


Me'thinks not.

Why don't you post the '$$ numbers', and let people decide for themselves...?

[anna_hun]

Originally Posted by Nympheas

Ok. I'm not drawn into the Rep/Dem, US/Non-US thing. At all.

What has always been a head-scratcher for me, from childhood on, was why did it matter if a person was already sick or not for their care to be covered. And if the technology and care is available, why not provide it for those that need it?

I remember asking as a kid, isn't that what health coverage is for?

When my son had a neck injury in school and ended up in a brace and strapped to a gurney and transported by ambulance the thought shouldn't have crossed my mind ... at all.... oh god, will this be covered.

My daughter got diabetis type1 since she s a baby..
yep a bit unsual to get it this young...
if i looked it up..and wanted then to take private healthinsurance for her i got told..i should have applied for it..b4 she developed a chronical illness...but they were welcome to insure the rest of the family who s healthy...
good job we are covered by national health insurance..other wise her treatment/meds would have been difficult to cope with.
I get all her meds and doctor visits free..well we pay tax though for the national health..lol

[hortysir]

Originally Posted by Itsnotgonnaspankitself...

hahaha...why?

Because you say so...?


Me'thinks not.

Why don't you post the '$$ numbers', and let people decide for themselves...?

Because the dollar amount of profit serve only to send people into sticker-shock.
I'm talking about the percentage of profit compared to expenditures.
A 2.2% profit is barely floating.
When you start stating a 28.6 billion dollar profit, it's mis-leading....people immediately say, "Wow, that's too much!"
Nevermind how much they had to spend to make that little bit of profit. (I tried to calculate it, but....)

[indianajoe]

Originally Posted by Iceman

Horty, it was the same with our electricity and phone companies..They had a monopoly and were charging us an ungodly price and after deregulation and other companies started doing business, our utility prices have dropped a lot..

being employed by one of the utility companies for 35 yrs..I can tell you that the notion of lower electric bills is a false sense of security..
Electric companys are able to "lower " you bill because they arent actually a GENERATING company.. meaning they do not have the expense of actually making electricity ..they buy excess power that is available due to the big generating companies being able to generate more than they need for their customers (and charge them dearly) and to maximise the out put of thier units..they sell to non generating companies at a reduced price.
As time goes on , that excess power becomes less and less and eventually all power will theorectically cost the same.
So basically... the reason some get their electricity cheaper is because somewhere, someone is actually paying part of your bill.
Big damn rat race where everyone wants the cheese..but sooner or later we all get caught in the trap.

[Iceman]

[quote=indianajoe;3140072]being employed by one of the utility companies for 35 yrs..I can tell you that the notion of lower electric bills is a false sense of security..
I don't see how you can say it is a false sense of security. I have been saving money for about ten years by shopping around different providers. I saved from three to four hundred dollars a month at my ice plant by changing from one provider to another. Over the period of ten years this would amount to several thousand dollars and there is no false security there..This is not only happening in the electricity industry, but in the phone business, natural gas busines, cable business, gasoline business, and many others..It just pays to shop around..

[Itsnotgonnaspankitself...]

Originally Posted by hortysir

Because the dollar amount of profit serve only to send people into sticker-shock.
I'm talking about the percentage of profit compared to expenditures.
A 2.2% profit is barely floating.
When you start stating a 28.6 billion dollar profit, it's mis-leading....people immediately say, "Wow, that's too much!"
Nevermind how much they had to spend to make that little bit of profit. (I tried to calculate it, but....)

But even so, at least you'd be giving people the whole picture, as opposed to just a piece of it.

28 billion dollars in profit, is still 28 billion dollars in profit...and that is still a sh*tload of money, no matter how you slice it...regardless of the % of profit.

[sybarite]

Your cancer is back. Under the health care bills in Congress, you could apply for coverage through a new high-risk pool that President Barack Obama promises would immediately start serving patients with pre-existing medical problems. Wait a second. Read the fine print. You may have to be uninsured for six months to qualify.

"If you are a cancer patient and have cancer now, you can't wait six months to go into a plan because your condition can go from bad to death," said Stephen Finan, a policy expert with the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network. He called the waiting period in the Senate bill "unacceptable."

Advocates for people with serious health problems, as well as some insurance experts, are raising questions about one of the most important upfront benefits in the Democratic health care legislation: a high-risk pool for the medically uninsurable.

Now, concerns are being raised about the design of the high-risk pools. In addition to the six-month wait, there's a more fundamental issue — whether $5 billion set aside for the three-year program is enough. The money would be used to help people in poor health pay premiums.

If the Democrats' risk pool starts running out of money, the government may have to start a waiting list, raise premiums or take other unpopular measures. Congress could be asked for a bailout.

Several independent experts say concerns about the financing are valid.

"It would seem that ($5 billion) is going to be small relative to the need," said Thomas Buchmueller, a University of Michigan business professor.

Some 30 states now have risk pools for those who can't get health insurance on the private market, covering about 200,000 people at a cost of around $1 billion a year.

"This is clearly not going to be enough money to cover everybody," said Pollitz.