"thunder" wrote in message
t...
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:52:49 -0700, nom=de=plume wrote:


Unfortunately, he's still angling to include a bogus trigger or a state
opt-out.

It really isn't much of an opt-out, as I understand it. A state could
only opt-out until 2014.


That's what I heard, but when does the plan start? They were talking about
2013? Why does it take so long to get it going? That's crazy. It took less
than a year to get Medicare going and only double to get a moon landing.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On 10/27/09 10:24 AM, Tosk wrote:
In ,
says...

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:36:12 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:09:20 -0400, H the K
wrote:



If some few red states want to opt out, that'll be the utter end of the
GOP in those states.

Yep. Good Dem play.
If they really have the balls to get it.
Ain't done yet.
What's important to a lot of people is job mobility.
Me for instance.
Since we can't ensure that either one of us can get a job that offers
a health care policy, the wife stays where she is.
Might convince her to move to Florida with a new insurance regime.
Though I must say there are other reasons for staying put, including
family, seasons, and plain old inertia.
She says a number of people at her work - the ones that don't use the
ER for health care - are there only for the health policy.
Job market and wages might undergo quite a bit of change.
Could invigorate the economy.
But then maybe Florida will opt out.
Their choice, given state rights and all.
hehe.

--Vic

I don't believe Florida would opt out but you might see a lot of the
relatively healthy center of the country where they have a low
uninsured rate anyway.
Unfortunately that pool of healthy people will not be there to balance
the coasts in the public company.

It's a red herring. Who is going to "opt out" and still end up paying
half their income for the part of the country that doesn't pay any taxes
at all? Right...


Well, if you got a job, you could be paying taxes.

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:37:09 -0400, H the K
wrote:

On 10/27/09 10:24 AM, Tosk wrote:
In ,
says...

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:36:12 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:09:20 -0400, H the K
wrote:



If some few red states want to opt out, that'll be the utter end of the
GOP in those states.

Yep. Good Dem play.
If they really have the balls to get it.
Ain't done yet.
What's important to a lot of people is job mobility.
Me for instance.
Since we can't ensure that either one of us can get a job that offers
a health care policy, the wife stays where she is.
Might convince her to move to Florida with a new insurance regime.
Though I must say there are other reasons for staying put, including
family, seasons, and plain old inertia.
She says a number of people at her work - the ones that don't use the
ER for health care - are there only for the health policy.
Job market and wages might undergo quite a bit of change.
Could invigorate the economy.
But then maybe Florida will opt out.
Their choice, given state rights and all.
hehe.

--Vic

I don't believe Florida would opt out but you might see a lot of the
relatively healthy center of the country where they have a low
uninsured rate anyway.
Unfortunately that pool of healthy people will not be there to balance
the coasts in the public company.

It's a red herring. Who is going to "opt out" and still end up paying
half their income for the part of the country that doesn't pay any taxes
at all? Right...


Well, if you got a job, you could be paying taxes.

Dickbrain doesn't understand that it'd be the Red States opting out,
who statistically return the least amount of federal tax/capita.

It'd certainly be more equitable on a state-by-state basis if they did
opt out.

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:52:40 -0700, jps wrote:


Dickbrain doesn't understand that it'd be the Red States opting out, who
statistically return the least amount of federal tax/capita.

Yeah, but I want to see who is actually going to pay. It wouldn't be the
first federally underfunded mandate the states have to carry.

In article ,
says...

"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:36:12 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:09:20 -0400, H the K
wrote:



If some few red states want to opt out, that'll be the utter end of the
GOP in those states.

Yep. Good Dem play.
If they really have the balls to get it.
Ain't done yet.
What's important to a lot of people is job mobility.
Me for instance.
Since we can't ensure that either one of us can get a job that offers
a health care policy, the wife stays where she is.
Might convince her to move to Florida with a new insurance regime.
Though I must say there are other reasons for staying put, including
family, seasons, and plain old inertia.
She says a number of people at her work - the ones that don't use the
ER for health care - are there only for the health policy.
Job market and wages might undergo quite a bit of change.
Could invigorate the economy.
But then maybe Florida will opt out.
Their choice, given state rights and all.
hehe.

--Vic

I don't believe Florida would opt out but you might see a lot of the
relatively healthy center of the country where they have a low
uninsured rate anyway.
Unfortunately that pool of healthy people will not be there to balance
the coasts in the public company.

It's a red herring. Who is going to "opt out" and still end up paying
half their income for the part of the country that doesn't pay any taxes
at all? Right...


I believe opt-out means that you don't pay and you don't get. Personally, I
think that should not be allowed, at least not for the first several years

Why not require every living, breathing human to be a part of the plan.
No opt-outs, no special plans for union employees, no special plans for
federal employees, no special plans for Congress.

This could be called the screw everyone option.

On 10/28/09 11:46 AM, BAR wrote:
In ,
says...

wrote in message
...
In ,
says...

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:36:12 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:09:20 -0400, H the K
wrote:



If some few red states want to opt out, that'll be the utter end of the
GOP in those states.

Yep. Good Dem play.
If they really have the balls to get it.
Ain't done yet.
What's important to a lot of people is job mobility.
Me for instance.
Since we can't ensure that either one of us can get a job that offers
a health care policy, the wife stays where she is.
Might convince her to move to Florida with a new insurance regime.
Though I must say there are other reasons for staying put, including
family, seasons, and plain old inertia.
She says a number of people at her work - the ones that don't use the
ER for health care - are there only for the health policy.
Job market and wages might undergo quite a bit of change.
Could invigorate the economy.
But then maybe Florida will opt out.
Their choice, given state rights and all.
hehe.

--Vic

I don't believe Florida would opt out but you might see a lot of the
relatively healthy center of the country where they have a low
uninsured rate anyway.
Unfortunately that pool of healthy people will not be there to balance
the coasts in the public company.

It's a red herring. Who is going to "opt out" and still end up paying
half their income for the part of the country that doesn't pay any taxes
at all? Right...


I believe opt-out means that you don't pay and you don't get. Personally, I
think that should not be allowed, at least not for the first several years

Why not require every living, breathing human to be a part of the plan.
No opt-outs, no special plans for union employees, no special plans for
federal employees, no special plans for Congress.

This could be called the screw everyone option.



That's what the Swiss have, basically. You know, Switzerland, the most
free-market country in the world.

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
says...

"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:36:12 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:09:20 -0400, H the K
wrote:



If some few red states want to opt out, that'll be the utter end of
the
GOP in those states.

Yep. Good Dem play.
If they really have the balls to get it.
Ain't done yet.
What's important to a lot of people is job mobility.
Me for instance.
Since we can't ensure that either one of us can get a job that offers
a health care policy, the wife stays where she is.
Might convince her to move to Florida with a new insurance regime.
Though I must say there are other reasons for staying put, including
family, seasons, and plain old inertia.
She says a number of people at her work - the ones that don't use the
ER for health care - are there only for the health policy.
Job market and wages might undergo quite a bit of change.
Could invigorate the economy.
But then maybe Florida will opt out.
Their choice, given state rights and all.
hehe.

--Vic

I don't believe Florida would opt out but you might see a lot of the
relatively healthy center of the country where they have a low
uninsured rate anyway.
Unfortunately that pool of healthy people will not be there to balance
the coasts in the public company.

It's a red herring. Who is going to "opt out" and still end up paying
half their income for the part of the country that doesn't pay any
taxes
at all? Right...


I believe opt-out means that you don't pay and you don't get. Personally,
I
think that should not be allowed, at least not for the first several
years

Why not require every living, breathing human to be a part of the plan.
No opt-outs, no special plans for union employees, no special plans for
federal employees, no special plans for Congress.

This could be called the screw everyone option.



It's called single payer. Works fine. I'm in favor of it. There are two ways
to reduce healthcare costs. You can have a public option (or better yet
single payer). This (the PO) gives the ins. companies motivation to compete.
The other way is for heavy regulation. Germany does this I believe, and they
do it quite successfully. Since we believe in capitalism first and foremost,
then I think the competitive approach is more desireable.


--
Nom=de=Plume

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
says...

"Tosk" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:36:12 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:09:20 -0400, H the K
wrote:



If some few red states want to opt out, that'll be the utter end of
the
GOP in those states.

Yep. Good Dem play.
If they really have the balls to get it.
Ain't done yet.
What's important to a lot of people is job mobility.
Me for instance.
Since we can't ensure that either one of us can get a job that offers
a health care policy, the wife stays where she is.
Might convince her to move to Florida with a new insurance regime.
Though I must say there are other reasons for staying put, including
family, seasons, and plain old inertia.
She says a number of people at her work - the ones that don't use the
ER for health care - are there only for the health policy.
Job market and wages might undergo quite a bit of change.
Could invigorate the economy.
But then maybe Florida will opt out.
Their choice, given state rights and all.
hehe.

--Vic

I don't believe Florida would opt out but you might see a lot of the
relatively healthy center of the country where they have a low
uninsured rate anyway.
Unfortunately that pool of healthy people will not be there to balance
the coasts in the public company.

It's a red herring. Who is going to "opt out" and still end up paying
half their income for the part of the country that doesn't pay any
taxes
at all? Right...


I believe opt-out means that you don't pay and you don't get. Personally,
I
think that should not be allowed, at least not for the first several
years

Why not require every living, breathing human to be a part of the plan.
No opt-outs, no special plans for union employees, no special plans for
federal employees, no special plans for Congress.

This could be called the screw everyone option.



Oh, I forgot to add... yes, no special plans for Congress! They have a
choice of 12 different plans. How come they have that and the rest of us
don't.

--
Nom=de=Plume