• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Interesting Healthcare Vote

A

Anonymous

Guest
I watched some of the Healthcare Reform Bill hearings in the Senate last night....
Interestingly Sen McCain introduced a bill for an amendment to be added allowing Americans to buy prescription drugs from foreign countries ( the act Bush closed for his Pharmaceutical buddies (relatives :???: ) )...A bill he says he has introduced several times- but that the big Drug money always gets killed...

It was almost overwhelmingly supported in debate by the Dems- with stories of people being able to go to Canada and get their cancer drugs for 1/10th the price- and all drugs being 1/3 to 1/2 price...And the billions of $ consumers could save...Only Mikulski of Maryland spoke against it on the Dem side because she said she was worried about terrorists...

But to the Repubs you'd think McCain stuck a knife in their hearts as they squealed (McCain did have that little sneer on his face when he introduced it) And when Repubs (Enzi) tried to talk him out of it- then postpone it- he just walked out- but said he was demanding an up or down vote....
It went down 12-10 with all the Repubs voting against it- joined by Dems Patty Murray and Mikulski....
Sort of tells you who is in the Pharmaceutical lobbiests pockets...

But they say the amendment will reappear on the full Senate floor when the entire bill is debated..Apparently Reid is trying to help McCain get it thru this time....
 

Tex

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
I watched some of the Healthcare Reform Bill hearings in the Senate last night....
Interestingly Sen McCain introduced a bill for an amendment to be added allowing Americans to buy prescription drugs from foreign countries ( the act Bush closed for his Pharmaceutical buddies (relatives :???: ) )...A bill he says he has introduced several times- but that the big Drug money always gets killed...

It was almost overwhelmingly supported in debate by the Dems- with stories of people being able to go to Canada and get their cancer drugs for 1/10th the price- and all drugs being 1/3 to 1/2 price...And the billions of $ consumers could save...Only Mikulski of Maryland spoke against it on the Dem side because she said she was worried about terrorists...

But to the Repubs you'd think McCain stuck a knife in their hearts as they squealed (McCain did have that little sneer on his face when he introduced it) And when Repubs (Enzi) tried to talk him out of it- then postpone it- he just walked out- but said he was demanding an up or down vote....
It went down 12-10 with all the Repubs voting against it- joined by Dems Patty Murray and Mikulski....
Sort of tells you who is in the Pharmaceutical lobbiests pockets...

But they say the amendment will reappear on the full Senate floor when the entire bill is debated..Apparently Reid is trying to help McCain get it thru this time....



Politicians cater to who is paying them off instead of the public interest. It has become all too apparent. This corporatist atmosphere has pushed our nation closer to fascism than anything that I have seen. Politicians have a well deserved reputation. They are selling public interest right and left.

There is value in giving the drug makers patents to help provide for their services but the sell out of politicians to them is extraordinary. It says more about the quality of our politicians than anything else.

We have the best government money can buy. No wonder many of them are seen no better than two dollar whores.

Tex
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
reader (the Second) said:
I wonder if Mikulski is dependent upon the pharmas because of her proximity to NJ or Maryland having a biotech industry? Or some historical reason? I know that the Mid-Atlantic region is one of the two major pharma areas in the US and a big employer.

It's amazing that in the area of healthcare and drugs a country as rich as ours is behind other Western nations due to our political structure and the influence of large lobbies.

The excuse used by all is that you can't trust foreign drugs (not even Canadian)- and the terrorism issue...But ol McCain kind of set them up- as they've used that excuse to back the Pharmaceutical industry many times before....This time he included a very structured licensing and testing regime for FDA to monitor these drugs...And on top of that he apparently gave no one notice of his amendment- because all the Repubs looked shocked- and Enzi as ranking member stammered and stuttered for some time trying to figure out how to keep from going to a vote on it...

It appears to me- when he had that snidely grin and demanded an up/down vote that he's going to let Americans know who is in the pockets of this lobby ( he must not have got enough :wink: )-- as it will come up again in the full Senate....

Some of the testimony by Jeffords on why health care costs was extreme--not only the fact that we not only pay for most research on drugs- but we're one of the only countries in the world that doesn't do some type of negotiated price for our consumers, like Canada does...
He also read off a long list of ripoffs of hospitals/doctors/ and the medicare system these paharmaceutical/meidcal supply/insurance companies have been convicted of-- and the huge profits they make...Much of which goes into the pockets of their administrators/CEO's--he listed some--$30-40 million dollar salaries- multi million dollar golden parachutes-- while some folks can't afford to pay for their prescriptions or see a doctor...
As he brought up- insurance companies are not in business to insure people get good health care- or stay well- or care whether they live or die...They are in business for one reason- to make money....
 

Tex

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
reader (the Second) said:
I wonder if Mikulski is dependent upon the pharmas because of her proximity to NJ or Maryland having a biotech industry? Or some historical reason? I know that the Mid-Atlantic region is one of the two major pharma areas in the US and a big employer.

It's amazing that in the area of healthcare and drugs a country as rich as ours is behind other Western nations due to our political structure and the influence of large lobbies.

The excuse used by all is that you can't trust foreign drugs (not even Canadian)- and the terrorism issue...But ol McCain kind of set them up- as they've used that excuse to back the Pharmaceutical industry many times before....This time he included a very structured licensing and testing regime for FDA to monitor these drugs...And on top of that he apparently gave no one notice of his amendment- because all the Repubs looked shocked- and Enzi as ranking member stammered and stuttered for some time trying to figure out how to keep from going to a vote on it...

It appears to me- when he had that snidely grin and demanded an up/down vote that he's going to let Americans know who is in the pockets of this lobby ( he must not have got enough :wink: )-- as it will come up again in the full Senate....

Some of the testimony by Jeffords on why health care costs was extreme--not only the fact that we not only pay for most research on drugs- but we're one of the only countries in the world that doesn't do some type of negotiated price for our consumers, like Canada does...
He also read off a long list of ripoffs of hospitals/doctors/ and the medicare system these paharmaceutical/meidcal supply/insurance companies have been convicted of-- and the huge profits they make...Much of which goes into the pockets of their administrators/CEO's--he listed some--$30-40 million dollar salaries- multi million dollar golden parachutes-- while some folks can't afford to pay for their prescriptions or see a doctor...
As he brought up- insurance companies are not in business to insure people get good health care- or stay well- or care whether they live or die...They are in business for one reason- to make money....


If these companies are convicted of such things, implications should go all the way to the top. It is a bit tiring to see how the richest oligarchs in this country get away with fraud and still make their bank deposits. Part of the problem is the lack of accountability that money can buy.

If we have a system like this, we have no accountability and it is just an economic question on whether or not you put enough Chinese firewalls up and hired enough lawyers for your fraud to be profitable. Courts should break this corporate veil so that we don't have smart crooks running the businesses of America. They will ruin us. Of course that would mean that we have courts that are doing their job in our government system and many of them benefit by not doing their job of enforcing the law but making excuses for the wealthy.



Tex
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tex said:
Oldtimer said:
reader (the Second) said:
I wonder if Mikulski is dependent upon the pharmas because of her proximity to NJ or Maryland having a biotech industry? Or some historical reason? I know that the Mid-Atlantic region is one of the two major pharma areas in the US and a big employer.

It's amazing that in the area of healthcare and drugs a country as rich as ours is behind other Western nations due to our political structure and the influence of large lobbies.

The excuse used by all is that you can't trust foreign drugs (not even Canadian)- and the terrorism issue...But ol McCain kind of set them up- as they've used that excuse to back the Pharmaceutical industry many times before....This time he included a very structured licensing and testing regime for FDA to monitor these drugs...And on top of that he apparently gave no one notice of his amendment- because all the Repubs looked shocked- and Enzi as ranking member stammered and stuttered for some time trying to figure out how to keep from going to a vote on it...

It appears to me- when he had that snidely grin and demanded an up/down vote that he's going to let Americans know who is in the pockets of this lobby ( he must not have got enough :wink: )-- as it will come up again in the full Senate....

Some of the testimony by Jeffords on why health care costs was extreme--not only the fact that we not only pay for most research on drugs- but we're one of the only countries in the world that doesn't do some type of negotiated price for our consumers, like Canada does...
He also read off a long list of ripoffs of hospitals/doctors/ and the medicare system these paharmaceutical/meidcal supply/insurance companies have been convicted of-- and the huge profits they make...Much of which goes into the pockets of their administrators/CEO's--he listed some--$30-40 million dollar salaries- multi million dollar golden parachutes-- while some folks can't afford to pay for their prescriptions or see a doctor...
As he brought up- insurance companies are not in business to insure people get good health care- or stay well- or care whether they live or die...They are in business for one reason- to make money....


If these companies are convicted of such things, implications should go all the way to the top. It is a bit tiring to see how the richest oligarchs in this country get away with fraud and still make their bank deposits. Part of the problem is the lack of accountability that money can buy.

If we have a system like this, we have no accountability and it is just an economic question on whether or not you put enough Chinese firewalls up and hired enough lawyers for your fraud to be profitable. Courts should break this corporate veil so that we don't have smart crooks running the businesses of America. They will ruin us. Of course that would mean that we have courts that are doing their job in our government system and many of them benefit by not doing their job of enforcing the law but making excuses for the wealthy.



Tex

Problem is all they do is fine them- millions and billions of $ (one company paid over a Billion $ in penalties and fines in two cases over two years where the states had filed against them)- which is just more incentive to go out and screw a few more folks to make up what you lost...And nothing was done to the CEO's allowing this- except for them to get their $30-40 million salaries....
 

fff

Well-known member
Drug CEOs can't be convicted of anything because they're not doing anything illegal! The Bush Adminstration and the Republican Congress handed them a gift in refusing to allow Americans to get their drugs from Canada....and all the while the VA was getting drugs for vets from Canada! It's a disgrace that you can buy the same drugs from Canada for half or one third the price Americans pay for them in their local drugstore.

There does seem to be a shift since Obama took office and Dems have said they're going to reform health care. I think they really have put fear in the hearts of some drug companies. I notice ads on TV saying "if you can't afford your drugs, XXXX drug company may be able to help."

Putting the brakes on big drug companies is only another small step in fixing some of the stuff Bush left us. The Democratic Congress did pass credit card reform. But it's going to take years to undo the sell out of this country by Bush/Cheney.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The talk in the Senate is that the Kennedy/Dodd bill they are now holding hearings on will be "melded" with the Baucus/Grassley bill to get the Health Care Reform bill that will come out of the Senate by the end of the year...

I think its interesting that while the Insurance Industry, Pharmaceutical Industry, and Medical Products Industry and many Republican lawmakers oppose a "government" insurance plan to put some competition back into the insurance industry- they support "mandatory" insurance for all so they have more folks involved to rip off with their "monopoly industry" ...

Baucus holds health care details close
By MIKE DENNISON
Gazette State Bureau

HELENA - While Sen. Max Baucus declined Friday to release details of the latest dealings on a comprehensive health reform bill in the U.S. Senate, President Barack Obama's health secretary told reporters that Obama strongly supports a national "public option" insurance plan.

"The president supports a true public option that would be a (health) benefits program run by the government that can compete side-by-side with private insurers, and help hold down costs and offer some choice to consumers," said Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of health and human services.

Sebelius spoke at a news conference with reporters from around the country, including the Gazette State Bureau.

She also released a state-by-state report on the health care "status quo," saying it shows the dire need for reforming America's health care system.
Out of reach
The Montana report, available at http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/statehealthreform/montana.html, says that affordable health coverage "is increasingly out of reach in Montana."

"All it takes is a stroke of bad luck to become one of the 46 million people without insurance or the millions who are not able to afford" health care, Sebelius said. "We know that every day in America, families are being crushed by the high cost of health care."

In the Senate, Baucus said he's continuing to work on crafting a bill to be released this summer.

The Associated Press reported Thursday that a group of bipartisan senators led by Baucus has made progress on holding the cost of the legislation to a $1 trillion target and determining how to finance it.

Yet Baucus, a Montana Democrat and chairman of the influential Senate Finance Committee, wouldn't talk Friday about what's being specifically discussed.


Getting details
"Since there is no bill, it is too early to determine what will or won't be in any legislation, and it would be premature to release details until a bill has been completed," Baucus spokesman Ty Matsdorf said. "In the coming weeks, after all the details are hammered out, Senator Baucus will release a bill that he is confident will increase coverage, lower costs and make sure that every Montanan has access to quality, affordable health care."

Congress began a weeklong break Friday, during which Baucus will "continue to analyze, study and develop the reform options as he prepares for the upcoming legislative action on health care," Matsdorf said.

Sebelius told reporters that health reform bills in the House and Senate may mandate that individuals have or purchase health insurance.

She also said creation of a new "health insurance exchange," which would include the public-option plan, should give small businesses and individuals more affordable choices in shopping for health insurance.

Obama also supports tax incentives that would help small businesses purchase health insurance, she added.

"Health reform, I think, offers a lot to small-business owners," Sebelius said. "They are the ones bearing the brunt of the cost increases."

During the news conference, Sebelius twice emphasized that Obama "feels very strongly" about having a government-sponsored insurance plan to compete with private insurers, on a national level.

Congressional Republicans, health insurance companies, drug companies and other components of the health industry adamantly oppose such a plan, saying it could end up wiping out private health insurance.


While many Republican leaders have been critical of Democratic proposals, Sebelius and Baucus said they hope for at least some bipartisan support for a health reform bill, even though Democrats command big majorities in Congress.

"I would hope that this doesn't break down on partisan lines," Sebelius said. "It's an American issue; we want an American solution. ... This isn't really a Democratic issue, and it shouldn't really be just a Democratic bill, and I hope it could be supported by people" in both parties.

"Health care reform is for everybody," Matsdorf said on behalf of Baucus. "We shouldn't have to revisit health care reform year after year, and a bipartisan bill will be more sustainable, which is good for everyone."


THE HEALTH CARE STATUS QUO:
Why Montana Needs Health Reform
Congress and the President are working to enact health care reform legislation that protects what works about health care and fixes what is broken. Montanans know that inaction is not an option. Sky-rocketing health care costs are hurting families, forcing businesses to cut or drop health benefits, and straining state budgets. Montanans are paying more for less. Families and businesses in Montana deserve better.

MONTANANS CAN’T AFFORD THE STATUS QUO

Roughly 500,000 people in Montana get health insurance on the job1, where family premiums average $12,806, about the annual earning of a full-time minimum wage job. 2
Since 2000 alone, average family premiums have increased by 83 percent in Montana. 3
Household budgets are strained by high costs: 22 percent of middle-income Montana families spend more than 10 percent of their income on health care.4
High costs block access to care: 12 percent of people in Montana report not visiting a doctor due to high costs.5
Montana businesses and families shoulder a hidden health tax of roughly $2,100 per year on premiums as a direct result of subsidizing the costs of the uninsured.6
AFFORDABLE HEALTH COVERAGE IS INCREASINGLY OUT OF REACH IN MONTANA

16 percent of people in Montana are uninsured, and 69 percent of them are in families with at least one full-time worker.7
The percent of Montanans with employer coverage is declining: from 56 to 53 percent between 2000 and 2007.8
Much of the decline is among workers in small businesses. While small businesses make up 86 percent of Montana businesses,9 only 31 percent of them offered health coverage benefits in 2006.10
Choice of health insurance is limited in Montana. Blue Cross Blue Shield MT alone constitutes 75 percent of the health insurance market share in Montana, with the top two insurance providers accounting for 85 percent.11
Choice is even more limited for people with pre-existing conditions. In Montana, premiums can vary based on demographic factors and health status, and coverage can exclude pre-existing conditions or even be denied completely.
MONTANANS NEED HIGHER QUALITY, GREATER VALUE, AND MORE PREVENTATIVE CARE

The overall quality of care in Montana is rated as “Average.”12
Preventative measures that could keep Montanans healthier and out of the hospital are deficient, leading to problems across the age spectrum:
12 percent of children in Montana are obese.13
26 percent of women over the age of 50 in Montana have not received a mammogram in the past two years.
43 percent of men over the age of 50 in Montana have never had a colorectal cancer screening.
73 percent of adults over the age of 65 in Montana have received a flu vaccine in the past year.14
The need for reform in Montana and across the country is clear. Montana families simply can’t afford the status quo and deserve better. President Obama is committed to working with Congress to pass health reform this year that reduces costs for families, businesses and government; protects people’s choice of doctors, hospitals and health plans; and assures affordable, quality health care for all Americans.
 

fff

Well-known member
Yeah, on one hand: "the government can't run anything" but on the other hand, insurance companies are pushing hard not to have to compete with that incompetent government. A public option is the only way we're going to get insurance companies' attention. They don't want to insure anyone who might actually need their insurance.
 

leanin' H

Well-known member
The Federal government has bankrupted social security, got us into TRILLIONS of dollars in debt, Started unjust wars(liberals feelings, not mine) and messed up everything from education to global warming! And you really want some breaucrat telling you which doctor to go to and what drugs you qualify for? Big insurance companys have issues. I know as I buy all my own insurance like a lot of peopel in agriculture do. But getting government to fix it is a giant mistake! Unless paying way higher taxes to get way lower quality is your idea of a good idea! :roll:
 

fff

Well-known member
leanin' H said:
The Federal government has bankrupted social security, got us into TRILLIONS of dollars in debt, Started unjust wars(liberals feelings, not mine) and messed up everything from education to global warming! And you really want some breaucrat telling you which doctor to go to and what drugs you qualify for? Big insurance companys have issues. I know as I buy all my own insurance like a lot of peopel in agriculture do. But getting government to fix it is a giant mistake! Unless paying way higher taxes to get way lower quality is your idea of a good idea! :roll:

There's absolutely not a program being touted that would tell you which doctor to go to. That's a scare tactic being put out there by the insurance companies.

If you want to stay with your insurance company, that's fine. But the proposed plan will offer options to people who ARE NOT happy with their current insurance company. Choice. That's what it offers. Why should the insurance companies worry about that?

If it's a bad program, people won't go for it. Apparently the insurance companies don't think it's a bad program or they wouldn't be fighting it so hard.

As someone who used government insurance (CHAMPUS and TRICARE) for a lot of years, I'd tell people not to be afraid of CHANGE.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
fff said:
leanin' H said:
The Federal government has bankrupted social security, got us into TRILLIONS of dollars in debt, Started unjust wars(liberals feelings, not mine) and messed up everything from education to global warming! And you really want some breaucrat telling you which doctor to go to and what drugs you qualify for? Big insurance companys have issues. I know as I buy all my own insurance like a lot of peopel in agriculture do. But getting government to fix it is a giant mistake! Unless paying way higher taxes to get way lower quality is your idea of a good idea! :roll:

There's absolutely not a program being touted that would tell you which doctor to go to. That's a scare tactic being put out there by the insurance companies.

If you want to stay with your insurance company, that's fine. But the proposed plan will offer options to people who ARE NOT happy with their current insurance company. Choice. That's what it offers. Why should the insurance companies worry about that?

If it's a bad program, people won't go for it. Apparently the insurance companies don't think it's a bad program or they wouldn't be fighting it so hard.

As someone who used government insurance (CHAMPUS and TRICARE) for a lot of years, I'd tell people not to be afraid of CHANGE.

Yep- and you don't see any of the Senators, Congressmen, bureaucrats, or government workers wanting to dump their government provided plan...
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
fff said:
leanin' H said:
The Federal government has bankrupted social security, got us into TRILLIONS of dollars in debt, Started unjust wars(liberals feelings, not mine) and messed up everything from education to global warming! And you really want some breaucrat telling you which doctor to go to and what drugs you qualify for? Big insurance companys have issues. I know as I buy all my own insurance like a lot of peopel in agriculture do. But getting government to fix it is a giant mistake! Unless paying way higher taxes to get way lower quality is your idea of a good idea! :roll:

There's absolutely not a program being touted that would tell you which doctor to go to. That's a scare tactic being put out there by the insurance companies.

If you want to stay with your insurance company, that's fine. But the proposed plan will offer options to people who ARE NOT happy with their current insurance company. Choice. That's what it offers. Why should the insurance companies worry about that?

If it's a bad program, people won't go for it. Apparently the insurance companies don't think it's a bad program or they wouldn't be fighting it so hard.

As someone who used government insurance (CHAMPUS and TRICARE) for a lot of years, I'd tell people not to be afraid of CHANGE.

How in the hell is it "competitition" when one entity pays no taxes and gets to make the rules?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
fff said:
leanin' H said:
The Federal government has bankrupted social security, got us into TRILLIONS of dollars in debt, Started unjust wars(liberals feelings, not mine) and messed up everything from education to global warming! And you really want some breaucrat telling you which doctor to go to and what drugs you qualify for? Big insurance companys have issues. I know as I buy all my own insurance like a lot of peopel in agriculture do. But getting government to fix it is a giant mistake! Unless paying way higher taxes to get way lower quality is your idea of a good idea! :roll:

There's absolutely not a program being touted that would tell you which doctor to go to. That's a scare tactic being put out there by the insurance companies.

If you want to stay with your insurance company, that's fine. But the proposed plan will offer options to people who ARE NOT happy with their current insurance company. Choice. That's what it offers. Why should the insurance companies worry about that?

If it's a bad program, people won't go for it. Apparently the insurance companies don't think it's a bad program or they wouldn't be fighting it so hard.

As someone who used government insurance (CHAMPUS and TRICARE) for a lot of years, I'd tell people not to be afraid of CHANGE.

How in the hell is it "competitition" when one entity pays no taxes and gets to make the rules?

Happening right now in the postal and freight business with the Post Office- and they seem to have developed lots of competition-- UPS, Federal Express, DHL, etc.- with many private entities competing....

Even Congressman Burgess (a very conservative MD) said that if the insurance companies can't regulate themselves- and come up with their own rules giving ALL insurance at equal affordable rates-with no exemptions or dropping of patients because they get a serious disease like they do now - there will be no alternative but a government plan....
 

Texan

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Happening right now in the postal and freight business with the Post Office- and they seem to have developed lots of competition-- UPS, Federal Express, DHL, etc.- with many private entities competing....
And taxpayers are having to bail out the Post Office...

WASHINGTON — The post office was $1.9 billion in the red for the second quarter of the fiscal year and continues to face the possibility of running out of money before year's end. The agency cited the recession and movement of mail to electronic communications in announcing the loss today. Postal rates go up on Monday, but the increase -- to 44 cents for first-class mail -- is unlikely to cover the entire shortfall.

The second quarter loss brings the total loss for the fiscal year -- which began Oct. 1 -- to $2.3 billion.



http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2009/05/post_office_has_19_billion_los.html
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Montana businesses and families shoulder a hidden health tax of roughly $2,100 per year on premiums as a direct result of subsidizing the costs of the uninsured

And right now the taxpayers have to bail out those that don't have insurance or that the monopoly complex of the US insurance industry won't insure or pay benefits for...In Montana thats to the tune of $2100 per year on eachs premiums...
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
fff said:
There's absolutely not a program being touted that would tell you which doctor to go to. That's a scare tactic being put out there by the insurance companies.

If you want to stay with your insurance company, that's fine. But the proposed plan will offer options to people who ARE NOT happy with their current insurance company. Choice. That's what it offers. Why should the insurance companies worry about that?

If it's a bad program, people won't go for it. Apparently the insurance companies don't think it's a bad program or they wouldn't be fighting it so hard.

As someone who used government insurance (CHAMPUS and TRICARE) for a lot of years, I'd tell people not to be afraid of CHANGE.

How in the hell is it "competitition" when one entity pays no taxes and gets to make the rules?

Happening right now in the postal and freight business with the Post Office- and they seem to have developed lots of competition-- UPS, Federal Express, DHL, etc.- with many private entities competing....

Even Congressman Burgess (a very conservative MD) said that if the insurance companies can't regulate themselves- and come up with their own rules giving ALL insurance at equal affordable rates-with no exemptions or dropping of patients because they get a serious disease like they do now - there will be no alternative but a government plan....


The U.S. Postal Service is going broke.

Postmaster General John Potter told the House that the post office may run out of money by the end of the year if it does not get aid.

He said that the post office is "facing losses of historic proportion. Our situation is critical."

The office simply cannot pay all its bills.

The postmaster said he will pay all the salaries, but that other bills might just have to wait. He also asked that mail delivery drop to five days per week.

Last year, the post office lost $2.8 billion, Fox News reported. This year, it is poised for even bigger losses.

Oldtimer the US Postal service can't compete without a goverment bailout so what makes you think the government run Health care system is not going to be any different? If the government has an endless amount of money to bail out the Government plan how can any private company compete in the long term?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
How in the hell is it "competitition" when one entity pays no taxes and gets to make the rules?

Happening right now in the postal and freight business with the Post Office- and they seem to have developed lots of competition-- UPS, Federal Express, DHL, etc.- with many private entities competing....

Even Congressman Burgess (a very conservative MD) said that if the insurance companies can't regulate themselves- and come up with their own rules giving ALL insurance at equal affordable rates-with no exemptions or dropping of patients because they get a serious disease like they do now - there will be no alternative but a government plan....


The U.S. Postal Service is going broke.

Postmaster General John Potter told the House that the post office may run out of money by the end of the year if it does not get aid.

He said that the post office is "facing losses of historic proportion. Our situation is critical."

The office simply cannot pay all its bills.

The postmaster said he will pay all the salaries, but that other bills might just have to wait. He also asked that mail delivery drop to five days per week.

Last year, the post office lost $2.8 billion, Fox News reported. This year, it is poised for even bigger losses.

Oldtimer the US Postal service can't compete without a goverment bailout so what makes you think the government run Health care system is not going to be any different? If the government has an endless amount of money to bail out the Government plan how can any private company compete in the long term?

So how come UPS, Federal Express, DHL, etc, etc compete so well?

If you can provide a better product- you will get the business....
Choice of health insurance is limited in Montana. Blue Cross Blue Shield MT alone constitutes 75 percent of the health insurance market share in Montana, with the top two insurance providers accounting for 85 percent.11
Choice is even more limited for people with pre-existing conditions. In Montana, premiums can vary based on demographic factors and health status, and coverage can exclude pre-existing conditions or even be denied completely.

Problem is- just like in the Packing Industry- there is NO Competition with 2-3 companies providing all the differing insurance policies around the country....
 
Top