Now, how 'bout them apples?
- Thread starter Qua
- Start date
TurkeyWithaSunburn
Legendary Member
Wow I didn't see that coming!
"According to the Commonwealth Fund, a public coverage program similar to Medicare would reduce projected health care costs by about $2 trillion over 11 years, and reduce premiums by about 20% on average. Within about a decade, 105 million people would be enrolled in the public plan, and about 107 million would have private insurance, according to the Commonwealth Fund."
Well $2T is a rather big number. The more people in an insurance pool the lower the costs for everyone insured by that organization. That's the way insurance works.
"According to the Commonwealth Fund, a public coverage program similar to Medicare would reduce projected health care costs by about $2 trillion over 11 years, and reduce premiums by about 20% on average. Within about a decade, 105 million people would be enrolled in the public plan, and about 107 million would have private insurance, according to the Commonwealth Fund."
Well $2T is a rather big number. The more people in an insurance pool the lower the costs for everyone insured by that organization. That's the way insurance works.
Why do we need a 1000 page document that no one understands?
The government already supplies a healthcare program to all federal employees, members of congress and the military. It is a private insurance option. In the military, if you are active duty it costs you nothing. You fall under tricare, depending on where you are stationed depends on who runs it. No one asked me about pre-existing conditions for my family, we went to the doctor, showed the ID and got what we needed. Retirees pay about $600 a year for this.
Instead of all this paper and this and that and yada yada yada, why not give this option to everyone? You retire from government service it is free, you are one of the regular masses you pay into it at what is now retiree rates.
Everyone gets what they want.
Cheers
The government already supplies a healthcare program to all federal employees, members of congress and the military. It is a private insurance option. In the military, if you are active duty it costs you nothing. You fall under tricare, depending on where you are stationed depends on who runs it. No one asked me about pre-existing conditions for my family, we went to the doctor, showed the ID and got what we needed. Retirees pay about $600 a year for this.
Instead of all this paper and this and that and yada yada yada, why not give this option to everyone? You retire from government service it is free, you are one of the regular masses you pay into it at what is now retiree rates.
Everyone gets what they want.
Cheers
faceking
Cherished Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2004
- Posts
- 7,426
- Media
- 6
- Likes
- 282
- Points
- 208
- Location
- Mavs, NOR * CAL
- Sexuality
- 100% Straight, 0% Gay
- Gender
- Male
Problem is.. the libtard lemmings here get all their anti-O'Rielly snippets off of some retarded hateful blog, and paint him that color. I disagree with O'Rielly at times, but the guy does bring on opposing viewpoints (something you will RARELY find on MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NPR, ABC, CNN) and the liberal/Dem analysts skewer him.
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2006
- Posts
- 22,256
- Media
- 213
- Likes
- 32,276
- Points
- 618
- Location
- Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Pat Buchanan is an MSNBC pundit, hardly a member of the left wing.
slurper_la
Superior Member
That would be what is referred to as a "Single Payer" system and what many people in the country have been asking for and what President Obama initially suggested. The Republicans in Congress along with Max Baucus and the 6 blue-dog Democrats have blocked that from happening.
slurper_la
Superior Member
beat you by about 8 hours on the post: http://www.lpsg.org/150038-wow-bill-o-flaming-liberal.html
as for Bill-O being bi-partisan and "fair and balanced".... HAH!
For three months the only thing the man has said on this issue has trumpeted the right-wing talking points. Please take note that this new POV of his comes AFTER the Baucus bill emerged from committee and it appeared there would be NO public option.
In fact ass-wipe O'Reilly begins his comments with "there will be no public option" then goes on to endorse the notion. Sneaky way to appear to take a contrary side when in fact he has never endorsed support for public-option or any sort of reform.
B_VinylBoy
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2007
- Posts
- 10,363
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 70
- Points
- 123
- Location
- Boston, MA / New York, NY
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
As with Joe Scarborough. Also Republican and on MSNBC. And has more sense in his head than most of the pundits on Faux, even if I don't always agree with him.
D_Tully Tunnelrat
Experimental Member
With some talk show personas, they change demeanor as soon as you hear "cut." However, O'Rielly, whether you find his comments insightful, or merely spiteful, has only one speed. He's always an asshole.
He may have come out for the public option now, but as soon as some conservatard decides to make a court case that mandatory insurance is illegal, on constitutional grounds, he'll change his mind.
Well if the cut the bill down to a manageable amount of paper and simply said, you get what I get, it might work.
I know I for one look at over 1000 pages of Washington speak and wonder, where in here is the part where they screw me.
Cheers
Similar threads
