On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 19:56:40 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

OK, I accept that this is mostly a political group with occasional
boating posts.
I had an idea I'd like to run past people on all sides.
One thing people dislike about Obamacare is that it compels people to
purchase a product. Here is a way around the problem.
Require people to contribute 10% of their income to a "pension
account". We can get away with this because we already do it with
SS. However, this account could be used at any time to pay for
current healthcare including health insurance. Contributions would be
tax free and payments for qualified healthcare taken from the growth
of the accounts (which you would control) would also be tax free.
This would encourage people to shop around for healthcare and to not
go to the emergency room for a cold. At the end of the year, they
could get back part of what htye put in if it was not taken up by
health care. This would allow each person to put in money when they
are young and in good health and then use the money when they are
older.
Poor people would get contributions from the govt to their account and
they could pay for whatever healthcare they wanted.

It's a bunch of nonsense. Feel free to blame poor people for your
problems.

We need to get away from private insurance companies. They're in it
for the money not for the public health.

In article , payer3389
@mypacks.net says...

Harryk wrote:
Canuck57 wrote:
On 17/04/2011 10:00 AM, Harryk wrote:
Canuck57 wrote:

Who knows, maybe even get eDemocracy if we are lucky. Why let a bribed
politician do the voting when people can vote directly?

You really don't have a frippin' clue, do you?

I know they would not even think about empowering the people. Your
point? Does not mean I don't want to see true democracy. I trust the
people, not the greedy government. Problem with the people is they beave
like herd animals and are managed that way.

Yep, you are a well managed herd animal.


For starters, it is obvious you have never need a piece of proposed
legislation in all its glory. Real life is not as simple as you'd like
to think it is.


not need, seen. sheesh.

Don should be here to chastise you at any time.

On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 10:07:14 -0700, wrote:

We need to get away from private insurance companies. They're in it
for the money not for the public health.

That's liberal/socialist hog wash.

At least with private companies you might have a choice of service
providers driven by competetive forces, not some mindless, faceless
government bureaucrat who could care less, and knows that he can't be
fired.

Wayne B wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 10:07:14 -0700, wrote:

We need to get away from private insurance companies. They're in it
for the money not for the public health.

That's liberal/socialist hog wash.

At least with private companies you might have a choice of service
providers driven by competetive forces, not some mindless, faceless
government bureaucrat who could care less, and knows that he can't be
fired.



"Might" is the operative word. No choice is far more likely, for many
reasons. And the price isn't driven by "competitive forces," but by
whatever the offerers think the traffic will bear. Further, unless you
are a government employee, there's no reasonable way for an individual
to really compare so-called competing plans. It's almost impossible for
individuals to really compare, for example, the so-called Medicare
supplemental programs, and those are somewhat regulated nationally.

About all an individual can get from the private sector health insurance
market is...butt ****ed.

You're such an apologist for the big business private sector, Wayne. And
what has that sector done for us the last 25 years or so? It's helped
destroy the middle class and make the wealthy class wealthier.


It's time to move on from the worship of the private sector.

On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 15:47:06 -0400, Wayne B
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 10:07:14 -0700, wrote:

We need to get away from private insurance companies. They're in it
for the money not for the public health.

That's liberal/socialist hog wash.

At least with private companies you might have a choice of service
providers driven by competetive forces, not some mindless, faceless
government bureaucrat who could care less, and knows that he can't be
fired.

So, you have a "choice" of providers, except that the insurance
companies decide what the providers provide. We don't need
"competitive forces" involved in people's health. What we need are
good outcomes. As it is right now, we're rated very poorly for a
number of factors, including longevity and treatment outcomes vs.
non-private entities.

There is never, nor has there ever been a "faceless" gov't bureaucrat
deciding people's health outcome. If you take away the word gov't,
then I agree. The insurance companys' faceless bureaucrats are
aplenty.

On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 16:13:45 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

Wayne B wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 10:07:14 -0700, wrote:

We need to get away from private insurance companies. They're in it
for the money not for the public health.

That's liberal/socialist hog wash.

At least with private companies you might have a choice of service
providers driven by competetive forces, not some mindless, faceless
government bureaucrat who could care less, and knows that he can't be
fired.



"Might" is the operative word. No choice is far more likely, for many
reasons. And the price isn't driven by "competitive forces," but by
whatever the offerers think the traffic will bear. Further, unless you
are a government employee, there's no reasonable way for an individual
to really compare so-called competing plans. It's almost impossible for
individuals to really compare, for example, the so-called Medicare
supplemental programs, and those are somewhat regulated nationally.

About all an individual can get from the private sector health insurance
market is...butt ****ed.

You're such an apologist for the big business private sector, Wayne. And
what has that sector done for us the last 25 years or so? It's helped
destroy the middle class and make the wealthy class wealthier.


It's time to move on from the worship of the private sector.



Exactly.. might is the operative word. In theory, sure. In practice,
unlikely.

On 4/17/2011 1:07 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 19:56:40 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

OK, I accept that this is mostly a political group with occasional
boating posts.
I had an idea I'd like to run past people on all sides.
One thing people dislike about Obamacare is that it compels people to
purchase a product. Here is a way around the problem.
Require people to contribute 10% of their income to a "pension
account". We can get away with this because we already do it with
SS. However, this account could be used at any time to pay for
current healthcare including health insurance. Contributions would be
tax free and payments for qualified healthcare taken from the growth
of the accounts (which you would control) would also be tax free.
This would encourage people to shop around for healthcare and to not
go to the emergency room for a cold. At the end of the year, they
could get back part of what htye put in if it was not taken up by
health care. This would allow each person to put in money when they
are young and in good health and then use the money when they are
older.
Poor people would get contributions from the govt to their account and
they could pay for whatever healthcare they wanted.

It's a bunch of nonsense. Feel free to blame poor people for your
problems.

We need to get away from private insurance companies. They're in it
for the money not for the public health.

We need to get away from private financial institutions. They're in it
for the money, not for the public wealth. We need to get away from
public officialdom. They are in it for the money, not the public good.
We need to get away from public and private sector employment. They are
in it for the money as well. You are such a dumb ass

On Apr 17, 4:55*pm, HenryK wrote:
On 4/17/2011 1:07 PM, wrote:



On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 19:56:40 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
*wrote:

OK, I accept that this is mostly a political group with occasional
boating posts.
I had an idea I'd like to run past people on all sides.
One thing people dislike about Obamacare is that it compels people to
purchase a product. *Here is a way around the problem.
Require people to contribute 10% of their income to a "pension
account". *We can get away with this because we already do it with
SS. *However, this account could be used at any time to pay for
current healthcare including health insurance. *Contributions would be
tax free and payments for qualified healthcare taken from the growth
of the accounts (which you would control) would also be tax free.
This would encourage people to shop around for healthcare and to not
go to the emergency room for a cold. *At the end of the year, they
could get back part of what htye put in if it was not taken up by
health care. *This would allow each person to put in money when they
are young and in good health and then use the money when they are
older.
Poor people would get contributions from the govt to their account and
they could pay for whatever healthcare they wanted.

It's a bunch of nonsense. Feel free to blame poor people for your
problems.

We need to get away from private insurance companies. They're in it
for the money not for the public health.

We need to get away from private financial institutions. They're in it
* for the money, not for the public wealth. We need to get away from
public officialdom. They are in it for the money, not the public good.
We need to get away from public and private sector employment. They are
in it for the money as well. You are such a dumb ass

Odd, I talked to someone from Switzerland two weeks ago about this
topic and he told me that they have private health insurance but are
required to have it. He specifically said it was private.

Frogwatch wrote:
On Apr 17, 4:55 pm, wrote:
On 4/17/2011 1:07 PM, wrote:



On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 19:56:40 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:
OK, I accept that this is mostly a political group with occasional
boating posts.
I had an idea I'd like to run past people on all sides.
One thing people dislike about Obamacare is that it compels people to
purchase a product. Here is a way around the problem.
Require people to contribute 10% of their income to a "pension
account". We can get away with this because we already do it with
SS. However, this account could be used at any time to pay for
current healthcare including health insurance. Contributions would be
tax free and payments for qualified healthcare taken from the growth
of the accounts (which you would control) would also be tax free.
This would encourage people to shop around for healthcare and to not
go to the emergency room for a cold. At the end of the year, they
could get back part of what htye put in if it was not taken up by
health care. This would allow each person to put in money when they
are young and in good health and then use the money when they are
older.
Poor people would get contributions from the govt to their account and
they could pay for whatever healthcare they wanted.
It's a bunch of nonsense. Feel free to blame poor people for your
problems.
We need to get away from private insurance companies. They're in it
for the money not for the public health.
We need to get away from private financial institutions. They're in it
for the money, not for the public wealth. We need to get away from
public officialdom. They are in it for the money, not the public good.
We need to get away from public and private sector employment. They are
in it for the money as well. You are such a dumb ass

Odd, I talked to someone from Switzerland two weeks ago about this
topic and he told me that they have private health insurance but are
required to have it. He specifically said it was private.

In Switzerland, private health insurance companies all offer the same
basic health insurance to all comers at the same price. It doesn't
matter whether you pick Company A, B, or C. If you can afford the
premiums, you pay. There are different deductibles. If not, the premiums
are subsidized. The insurance companies are not allow to make a profit
on these plans. Young and old pay the same basic premium. No one can be
refused coverage.

In exchange for offering the same basic policies, the insurance
companies are able to offer their customers various kinds of
supplemental health insurance policies at market rates and on these they
can make a profit.

That's certainly better than what we have here. Interesting that the
Swiss, the most capitalistic people in the world, regulate their health
insurance industry so closely.

Oh...the Swiss live longer than we do, too.

The system we have...stinks.

In article c807a431-e0c1-4a2b-8a61-435d07f7e4e3
@p6g2000vbn.googlegroups.com, says...


Odd, I talked to someone from Switzerland two weeks ago about this
topic and he told me that they have private health insurance but are
required to have it. He specifically said it was private.

No reason not to educate yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland
For basic health care no profit allowed for the insurers.
They can make profit on supplementals.
After 8% of a persons income goes toward the basic premium, the
government pays the rest.
It's socialism to you, so fuggetaboutit.
Switzerland is a civilized country of intelligent people.
That's why the same health care there doesn't take 18% of GDP.
About half that. Because they are smart and civilized.
So it won't work here.
And you're just one example on this newsgroup that proves that.