QOTE

Comments (21)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

1. Brian Shields says:

   June 23, 2009 at 9:25 pm

   Small businesses will drop their coverage for their employees because they don’t feel the obligation to continue with the added cost.

   Better benefits, by comparison, will give larger corporations a competitive advantage for talent.

   Your doctor’s office’s private practice is a small business. Having the government dictate to them on a large scale their payments for services, not unlike what happened with Delaware and Happy Harry’s recently, will put them at a competitive disadvantage as well if they decide to drop the public plan.

2. pandora says:

   June 23, 2009 at 9:33 pm

   Doctors fight insurance companies everyday – for many hours – to get their patients procedures covered. I’m a little confused where your vision of our health care system is coming from, Brian.

3. liberalgeek says:

   June 23, 2009 at 9:36 pm

   And larger companies already have better benefits. Small businesses usually have the crappiest healthcare.

4. Brian Shields says:

   June 23, 2009 at 9:37 pm

   I am not saying the system doesn’t need to be fixed. I am just answering the question.

5. anonone says:

   June 23, 2009 at 9:40 pm

   Because repubs say so.

6. liberalgeek says:

   June 23, 2009 at 9:55 pm

   Brian – my point is that the facts run counter to your argument.

7. Unstable Isotope says:

   June 23, 2009 at 9:56 pm

   Not having to pay for employee health care will help business’s bottom line. One reason American car companies were so uncompetitive is because of all the health care costs in each car. Other countries don’t have to bear these costs because they have universal health care.

   I think small businesses could have big benefits. They could attract higher quality employees since people could leave larger companies without having to worry about being uninsured (or underinsured).

8. pandora says:

   June 23, 2009 at 10:17 pm

   Not to mention that a lot of small business lose their health insurance plan due to one sick employee.

   Here’s how that works. Small business has x number of employees who form their health insurance “group.” One of the employees becomes ill – health insurance company then raises rates. Some employees can no longer afford the new rates and drop out. The health insurance company then drops the entire small business because they no longer constitute a “group.”

   One illness in a small business can equal lost coverage for all. Well, I guess the business could just fire the sick person. Nice system, eh?

9. Brian Shields says:

   June 23, 2009 at 10:20 pm

   The words “public option” is so vague. What are we talking here?

   One big ass group policy people can buy into? Expanding Medicare to cover everybody? somewhere in between?

   Everybody is talking how great it is without saying what “it” is..

10. Unstable Isotope says:

    June 23, 2009 at 10:32 pm

    I favor something like “Medicare for all.” Obama talked of letting people buy into the same plan that Congress people get.

    The major parts of the public plan are a large group of people, no disqualification for pre-existing conditions, no recission.

    The advantage of public plan is that, like Medicare now, there is a large group with bargaining power. This can help lower costs for everyone. Plus, a public plan does not have the large overhead costs of the for-profit companies and removes layers of bureaucrats (the paper pushers between the doctors and the insurance bureaucrats).

11. Brian Shields says:

    June 23, 2009 at 11:07 pm

    I don’t see how creating a government layer replaces any bureaucrats. Swaps one for another really.

    Medicare is nearing bankruptcy, isn’t it? Don’t budget projections have Medicare and Social Security engrossing a majority of the budget in oncoming decades?

    How will all this be paid for?

12. Delaware Republican says:

    June 23, 2009 at 11:57 pm

    Watch and learn.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsV2_gEsmr0

    The public option is the government option. The patient is not the focus of the plan, there are more government rules and hassles and there is little choice. BAD IDEA.

    Remember social security has had 19 tax increases over the years and Medicare is twenty times the original projected cost.

    mike protack

13. Phil says:

    June 24, 2009 at 3:39 am

    I can’t wait until one of your parents or grandparents die because the government says they are to old ot receive treatment. Awesome!

    He already has signed legislation that will create age based rationing. Sounds like a great public option! The time of your life when you need medical treatment, you’re not gonna get it.

    Everyone will have healthcare, but it will be on a cost – effectivness standard.

    “…the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). ”

    Just remember, Obama is wants to kill your parent.

    Oh, and where is all the flak about him golfing while soldiers are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan? I mean the media got on Bush so much, that he stopped golfing in 2003. Where is the fairness doctrine when you need it? oh wait, thats coming soon….

14. Donsquishydishimaharishi says:

    June 24, 2009 at 7:25 am

    I’m sure in your sick way you can’t Phil. Just like you hope we get attacked to prove Obama wrong

    it’s a disease. get it checked out

15. Progressive Mom says:

    June 24, 2009 at 7:42 am

    Actually, Phil, the federal gov’t’s right to “kill your parents” was codified under St. Ronnie Reagan. It’s called the DRGs. It’s the manual, now used not only by Medicare but by all insurers, to determine what care is “necessary and appropriate” and how long hospital stays “should” be. In layperson’s terms, it’s the reason that my mother stayed in the hospital 3 to 5 days post-partum and I stayed 12 hours. Dems argued at the time that DRGs would “kill old people” and that Medicare docs would have to practice “cook book medicine” and would leave the program.

    But, in fact, the DRGs haven’t “killed” anyone’s parents and the “cook book medicine” has helped many patients in rural areas secure out-of-area technology that insurers didn’t want to pay for. And docs and hospitals love Medicare because it actually generates less paperwork and fewer problems than many major carriers.

    Deeming care “cost effective” is not the same as “age-based rationing.” Cost effective doesn’t mean no care. And rationing has nothing to do with it.

    However, all those talking points sound really good and facts should never get in the way of someone who’s argumentation includes “Obama wants to kill your parents.”

    Carry on.

16. pandora says:

    June 24, 2009 at 8:02 am

    You tell ’em, Progressive Mom. Not understanding what they’re talking about never stops the fear brigade.

    And nobody – nobody – does rationing better than the health insurance industry. And when rationing isn’t enough for them, there’s always rescission.

17. Progressive Mom says:

    June 24, 2009 at 8:31 am

    Pandora, thanks — and you’re right. People seem to forget that, while they might be able to “see” any cardiologist, the doc can’t do a thing without insurance approval. Some folks with insurance can’t “see” the cardiologist without prior approval. And those approvals aren’t guaranteed.

    Somehow, anti- public plan folks don’t call it rationing when the private sector does it.

    They call it prudent business.

18. h. says:

    June 24, 2009 at 10:06 am

    Getting back to “why it would be bad for business”. I think it actually encourage more entrepreneurs to start a business.

    How many won’t or can’t because they are unwilling to go without,or be able to pay for medical coverage for their families?

19. pandora says:

    June 24, 2009 at 10:15 am

    h., if there’s a public option that won’t be the case. Check out this article.

20. h. says:

    June 24, 2009 at 10:25 am

    Pandora, I don’t have the time right now to read the article, but I think it’s saying what I’m thinking.

    A public option would encourage more people to start their own business. I’m all for that.

    I’m actually one of those who have been discouraged from buying,or starting a business because I didn’t want to risk not having, or not being able to afford coverage for my family……..
    especially in Delaware, where the premiums are high, and the coverage shitty.

21. Phil says:

    June 24, 2009 at 5:59 pm

    wow prog mom. Thats a lot of info! too bad it doesn’t compare to HR1, Title 13. Before you wiki anymore info, maybe you should read what passed recently, not 18 years ago. They just happen to be a little bit different. Or you could read Daschle’s book which is pretty much the blueprint for O’s healthcare reform plan.