Ron 10 #1 July 31, 2009 http://fleming.house.gov/images/FLEMING%20HEALTH%20CARE%20RESOLUTION.pdf Basically, if a Rep votes for a public plan then they would have to accept that plan and not the plan they currently get. If it is good for the rest of the US, it should be good enough for them, IMO."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #2 July 31, 2009 Quote http://fleming.house.gov/images/FLEMING%20HEALTH%20CARE%20RESOLUTION.pdf Basically, if a Rep votes for a public plan then they would have to accept that plan and not the plan they currently get. If it is good for the rest of the US, it should be good enough for them, IMO. Heh, heh. I suppose it would be an incentive to draft a bill that really works in practice. Like making one of those home-tract developers who constantly has claims against him for building homes with shitty materials and workmanship, live in one of those homes, instead of the high-quality home he had built for himself. By the way, I fixed the url-link for ya to make it a clicky. I realize that at a mere 11,554 posts, you're still a newbie learning the ropes here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #3 July 31, 2009 It would be faster, easier and simpler to just open up the existing federal employees health program (the one that members of congress use) to open enrollment for anyone in the nation, and have the government pay the premiums for people under a set income amount (like 20k for individuals and 50k for families). The reasons that this bill won't get any traction ("we'll be damned if we're going to take the same care as the unwashed masses") is the same reason that's not happening ("we'll be damned if we let the riff-raff into our system") . It basically boils down to good old fashioned elitism.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #4 July 31, 2009 Used to be a best kept secret, though awareness is growing, that regulators and legislators quite frequently played together and allowed most political subdivisions to be exempt from anything that was at all restrictive. Again, 2 of the most important early steps that should be taken if anybody is serious about reform of health care delivery and health care financing are: <> Regulate at the federal level, and eliminate loopholes based on size, occupation, union status, geographic region, etc. A truly level playing field. <> Remove the employer from the equation. If we are going to have everyone covered, regardless of employment status; employer based groups become completely unnecessary. It's just another layer of bureacracy; added costs and no value." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Beachbum 0 #5 July 31, 2009 Someone emailed this to me a couple of days ago. It is just the typical political bs if you actually read it. The intro says "agree to enroll", but if you read on down in the actual bill, it only says "are urged to forgo their right to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and agree to enroll under that public option". I wish someone really WOULD put up a bill that requires it!!!As long as you are happy with yourself ... who cares what the rest of the world thinks? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #6 July 31, 2009 QuoteUsed to be a best kept secret, though awareness is growing, that regulators and legislators quite frequently played together and allowed most political subdivisions to be exempt from anything that was at all restrictive. Again, 2 of the most important early steps that should be taken if anybody is serious about reform of health care delivery and health care financing are: <> Regulate at the federal level, and eliminate loopholes based on size, occupation, union status, geographic region, etc. A truly level playing field. <> Remove the employer from the equation. If we are going to have everyone covered, regardless of employment status; employer based groups become completely unnecessary. It's just another layer of bureacracy; added costs and no value. Add to that: <> Cut the "pre-existing condition" shit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #7 July 31, 2009 QuoteAdd to that: <> Cut the "pre-existing condition" shit. There would be no such thing if everybody is all in all the time. This is already true in states that have enacted continuous coverage legislation. As long as a person maintains continuous coverage (I believe with no more than a 62 or 93 day maximum gap - somebody should have told the writers that there are no 3 months in a row with 31 days each) it doesn't matter from where it came or to where they go. One glitch is that some of those states also still sell temporary contracts - not very congruent with continuous coverage provisions." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #8 July 31, 2009 Quote If it is good for the rest of the US, it should be good enough for them, IMO. +1We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
