Why do people often vote against their own interests?

Taichiliberal said:
Your link doesn't work.

And once again you repeat the lies of the neocon driven GOP that has NOTHING to do with the public option. You cannot provide any quotation or transcript of a proposal that provides a public option or single payer option that makes a private insurance company match all gov't resources.
Click to expand...
????...dude, I responded to a specific question about a public option.....what are you going on about.....

You keep avoiding the obvious and repeating supposition and conjecture. The example I gave regarding Fedex and UPS competing with USPS is valid. By your "logic", the competition does not exist because there is not a duplication of every service available.
Click to expand...
that is exactly the OPPOSITE of my argument....you are being very dense.....the House proposal that included the public option required that private companies had to provide what the government plan did as a minimum......it also provided that the government plan was subsidized by taxes.....how can any company provide exactly the same services as the subsidized plan, pay for it only with premiums, and compete with the government who is paying for it with premiums plus taxes.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
????...dude, I responded to a specific question about a public option.....what are you going on about.....


that is exactly the OPPOSITE of my argument....you are being very dense.....the House proposal that included the public option required that private companies had to provide what the government plan did as a minimum......it also provided that the government plan was subsidized by taxes.....how can any company provide exactly the same services as the subsidized plan, pay for it only with premiums, and compete with the government who is paying for it with premiums plus taxes.......
Click to expand...

.:lol:.
I see you're finding out just how difficult and frustrating it is to even get a simple point across to this moron.....why even bother...:bang:
Might just as well walk outside and talk to a stick.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
.....how can any company provide exactly the same services as the subsidized plan, pay for it only with premiums, and compete with the government who is paying for it with premiums plus taxes.......
Click to expand...

I'll tell you how. The same way it works in parts of Canada with Blue Cross and the prescription drug plan. In Quebec everyone has drug insurance. (I suppose I should specify prescription drugs. No subsidized pot here.)

One can get a plan through an employer. One can buy coverage through Blue Cross and if neither are available one must purchase the government option. For my wife and myself Blue Cross is cheaper than the government option. Not by much by a bit cheaper.

Larger families or people who require a lot of drugs will pay a hefty price for Blue Cross coverage so they opt for the government plan. Blue Cross saves money because it doesn't have to cover those people.

Simply stated, Blue Cross has the option to not cover someone. Free enterprise reigns.

When a government option is available private companies have an option but they must have a basic level of coverage, otherwise, the idea of universal coverage goes to hell.

The problem isn't with private companies making money. That's a bogus argument that has been used. The problem is opponents don't want a government option in case it costs the government money. That's the bottom line.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Your link doesn't work.

And once again you repeat the lies of the neocon driven GOP that has NOTHING to do with the public option. You cannot provide any quotation or transcript of a proposal that provides a public option or single payer option that makes a private insurance company match all gov't resources.
Click to expand...

PostmodernProphet said:
????...dude, I responded to a specific question about a public option.....what are you going on about.....

Dude, you gave the standard neocon rhetoric that has NOTHING to do with the public option. Nothing in the single payer or public option proposals would force existing insurance companies to "match" all gov't facilities, as you stated/alluded to/asserted. If you like, I can copy and paste what you wrote...or you can just clik back and read it again.


Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
You keep avoiding the obvious and repeating supposition and conjecture. The example I gave regarding Fedex and UPS competing with USPS is valid. By your "logic", the competition does not exist because there is not a duplication of every service available.
Click to expand...

that is exactly the OPPOSITE of my argument....you are being very dense.....the House proposal that included the public option required that private companies had to provide what the government plan did as a minimum......it also provided that the government plan was subsidized by taxes.....how can any company provide exactly the same services as the subsidized plan, pay for it only with premiums, and compete with the government who is paying for it with premiums plus taxes.......
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you're wrong on both counts. Fedex and UPS are prime examples of private companies doing a good job of competing with a gov't agency that provides the same service. Period. And as for your oft repeated mantras about the public option, you have yet to provide proof of what you say. Here's what the President said back in September:


• Individuals would be required to carry basic health insurance. Those who can't afford it would get a hardship waiver.

• Businesses would be required to offer their workers health care or chip in to help cover the cost. Ninety-five percent of small businesses would be exempt because of their size and narrow profit margin.

• Medical malpractice reform is not a "silver bullet," but practicing "defensive medicine" can lead to unnecessary costs; demonstration projects will be reviewed to see what changes to medical malpractice insurance would work best.

• It would be against the law for insurance companies to deny coverage because of a pre-existing condition.

• Promised to protect Medicare and reassured the elderly that Medicare funds would not be used to overhaul health care.

• A public option, or alternative to private insurance, needs to be available to the uninsured to "keep insurance companies honest."

• The public option would not be subsidized by taxpayers, but would be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects; the Congressional Budget Office estimates that fewer than 5 percent of Americans would sign up.
 
bravo said:
.:lol:.
I see you're finding out just how difficult and frustrating it is to even get a simple point across to this moron.....why even bother...:bang:
Might just as well walk outside and talk to a stick.
Click to expand...

Says the man that I've proved time and again to be a liar and not to bright.
 
Dude, you gave the standard neocon rhetoric that has NOTHING to do with the public option. Nothing in the single payer or public option proposals would force existing insurance companies to "match" all gov't facilities, as you stated/alluded to/asserted. If you like, I can copy and paste what you wrote...or you can just clik back and read it again.
Click to expand...

are you denying that HR 3200 set forth the minimum requirements of ALL insurance policies?
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Here's what the President said back in September:
Click to expand...

Southern Man said:
How ironic. :)
Click to expand...

Hey, a "victory" for you! You caught me in a typo!
Now, all you have to do is logically and factually PROVE any of the moronic assertions of your bretheren on this thread, and you may actually be onto something. But aren't you always saying that none of my posts are worth responding to? Ironic, indeed. Carry on.
 
Dude, you gave the standard neocon rhetoric that has NOTHING to do with the public option. Nothing in the single payer or public option proposals would force existing insurance companies to "match" all gov't facilities, as you stated/alluded to/asserted. If you like, I can copy and paste what you wrote...or you can just clik back and read it again.
Click to expand...

PostmodernProphet said:
are you denying that HR 3200 set forth the minimum requirements of ALL insurance policies?
Click to expand...

Here's HR3200....it's 1,017 pages long. So please tell what neocon blogger, pundit, website said as to what specific pages contain what you assert. I'll wait.

http://candicemiller.house.gov/pdf/hr3200.pdf
 
Last edited:
????....what exactly is it that you are denying?.....the minimum standards requirement?......fool...

(a) IN GENERAL.—A qualified health benefits plan
17 shall provide coverage that at least meets the benefit
18 standards adopted under section 124 for the essential ben19
efits package described in section 122 for the plan year
20 involved.
Click to expand...
Section 121, starting at page 25....

own it.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
????....what exactly is it that you are denying?.....the minimum standards requirement?......fool...

(a) IN GENERAL.—A qualified health benefits plan
17 shall provide coverage that at least meets the benefit
18 standards adopted under section 124 for the essential ben19
efits package described in section 122 for the plan year
20 involved.
Click to expand...


Section 121, starting at page 25....

own it.....
Click to expand...

:palm: Try reading something before you comment on it...it'll help.

SEC. 123. HEALTH BENEFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
12 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—
13 (1) IN GENERAL.—There is established a pri14
vate-public advisory committee which shall be a
15 panel of medical and other experts to be known as
16 the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to rec17
ommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced,
18 and premium plans.


3 SEC. 124. PROCESS FOR ADOPTION OF RECOMMENDA4
TIONS; ADOPTION OF BENEFIT STANDARDS.
5 (a) PROCESS FOR ADOPTION OF RECOMMENDA6
TIONS.—

3 (3) REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary may not
4 adopt any benefit standards for an essential benefits
5 package or for level of cost-sharing that are incon6
sistent with the requirements for such a package or
7 level under sections 122 and 123(b)(5).

Now, as you go back and read the HR, please tell me what is so fantastically detrimental to private insurance companies that will put them out of business should the gov't offer a public health care option.....especially since they will have REPRESENTATION IN THE FINAL DECISION MAKING.
 
Taichiliberal said:
:palm: Try reading something before you comment on it...it'll help.

SEC. 123. HEALTH BENEFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
12 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—
13 (1) IN GENERAL.—There is established a pri14
vate-public advisory committee which shall be a
15 panel of medical and other experts to be known as
16 the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to rec17
ommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced,
18 and premium plans.


3 SEC. 124. PROCESS FOR ADOPTION OF RECOMMENDA4
TIONS; ADOPTION OF BENEFIT STANDARDS.
5 (a) PROCESS FOR ADOPTION OF RECOMMENDA6
TIONS.—

3 (3) REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary may not
4 adopt any benefit standards for an essential benefits
5 package or for level of cost-sharing that are incon6
sistent with the requirements for such a package or
7 level under sections 122 and 123(b)(5).

Now, as you go back and read the HR, please tell me what is so fantastically detrimental to private insurance companies that will put them out of business should the gov't offer a public health care option.....especially since they will have REPRESENTATION IN THE FINAL DECISION MAKING.
Click to expand...
Pure PWNGE by Thaichi! LOL
 
Taichiliberal said:
:palm: Try reading something before you comment on it...it'll help.

SEC. 123. HEALTH BENEFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
12 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—
13 (1) IN GENERAL.—There is established a pri14
vate-public advisory committee which shall be a
15 panel of medical and other experts to be known as
16 the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to rec17
ommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced,
18 and premium plans.


3 SEC. 124. PROCESS FOR ADOPTION OF RECOMMENDA4
TIONS; ADOPTION OF BENEFIT STANDARDS.
5 (a) PROCESS FOR ADOPTION OF RECOMMENDA6
TIONS.—

3 (3) REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary may not
4 adopt any benefit standards for an essential benefits
5 package or for level of cost-sharing that are incon6
sistent with the requirements for such a package or
7 level under sections 122 and 123(b)(5).

Now, as you go back and read the HR, please tell me what is so fantastically detrimental to private insurance companies that will put them out of business should the gov't offer a public health care option.....especially since they will have REPRESENTATION IN THE FINAL DECISION MAKING.
Click to expand...

?????....Section 123 doesn't change Section 121 or 122.....you didn't even bother to read it did you.....
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
especially since they will have REPRESENTATION IN THE FINAL DECISION MAKING.
Click to expand...

besides, why do you assume insurance companies are going to be on the committee....they are not specifically mentioned...
(3) MEMBERSHIP.—The Health Benefits Advi23
sory Committee shall be composed of the following
24 members, in addition to the Surgeon General:
VerDate Nov 24 2008 23:22 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
31
•HR 3200 IH
1 (A) 9 members who are not Federal em2
ployees or officers and who are appointed by
3 the President.
4 (B) 9 members who are not Federal em5
ployees or officers and who are appointed by
6 the Comptroller General of the United States in
7 a manner similar to the manner in which the
8 Comptroller General appoints members to the
9 Medicare Payment Advisory Commission under
10 section 1805(c) of the Social Security Act.
11 (C) Such even number of members (not to
12 exceed 8) who are Federal employees and offi13
cers, as the President may appoint.
Click to expand...
 
PostmodernProphet said:
?????....Section 123 doesn't change Section 121 or 122.....you didn't even bother to read it did you.....
Click to expand...

:palm: This is what YOU highlighted

(a) IN GENERAL.—A qualified health benefits plan
17 shall provide coverage that at least meets the benefit
18 standards adopted under section 124 for the essential ben19
efits package described in section 122 for the plan year
20 involved.

Subsequently:

SEC. 124. PROCESS FOR ADOPTION OF RECOMMENDA4
TIONS; ADOPTION OF BENEFIT STANDARDS.
5 (a) PROCESS FOR ADOPTION OF RECOMMENDA6
TIONS.—

3 (3) REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary may not
4 adopt any benefit standards for an essential benefits
5 package or for level of cost-sharing that are incon6
sistent with the requirements for such a package or
7 level under sections 122 and 123(b)(5).

Section 123 is PART OF THE WHOLE PROPOSAL. It is an INTEGRAL part, that outlines part of the FINAL DECISION MAKING PROCESS.

SEC. 123. HEALTH BENEFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
12 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—
13 (1) IN GENERAL.—There is established a pri14
vate-public advisory committee which shall be a
15 panel of medical and other experts to be known as
16 the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to rec17
ommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced,
18 and premium plans.

Now understand, you can't just excerpt bits and parts of this or any House Resolution...as each layer compliments and effects each other. This is why there is so much wrangling before the final proposal is put forth. My point stands....your assertion does NOT stand up to scrutiny, as the very resolution itself provides measures to counteract that which you fear.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
especially since they will have REPRESENTATION IN THE FINAL DECISION MAKING.
Click to expand...

PostmodernProphet said:
besides, why do you assume insurance companies are going to be on the committee....they are not specifically mentioned...

(3) MEMBERSHIP.—The Health Benefits Advi23
sory Committee shall be composed of the following
24 members, in addition to the Surgeon General:
VerDate Nov 24 2008 23:22 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
31
•HR 3200 IH
1 (A) 9 members who are not Federal em2
ployees or officers and who are appointed by
3 the President.
4 (B) 9 members who are not Federal em5
ployees or officers and who are appointed by
6 the Comptroller General of the United States in
7 a manner similar to the manner in which the
8 Comptroller General appoints members to the
9 Medicare Payment Advisory Commission under
10 section 1805(c) of the Social Security Act.
11 (C) Such even number of members (not to
12 exceed 8) who are Federal employees and offi13
cers, as the President may appoint.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Well, it's not so much an assumption as it's WHAT I READ, as such on page 32 of the resolution regarding membership. Observe:

(5) PARTICIPATION.—The membership of the
24 Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall at least
25 reflect providers, consumer representatives, employ-
1 ers, labor, health insurance issuers, experts in health
2 care financing and delivery, experts in racial and
3 ethnic disparities, experts in care for those with dis4
abilities, representatives of relevant governmental
5 agencies. and at least one practicing physician or
6 other health professional and an expert on children’s
7 health and shall represent a balance among various
8 sectors of the health care system so that no single
9 sector unduly influences the recommendations of
10 such Committee.

Unlike you, I just don't stop reading at what I like. And also unlike you, I understand that this is INCLUSIVE towards the final outcome, NOT separate
 
Taichiliberal said:
:palm: This is what YOU highlighted

(a) IN GENERAL.—A qualified health benefits plan
17 shall provide coverage that at least meets the benefit
18 standards adopted under section 124 for the essential ben19
efits package described in section 122 for the plan year
20 involved.

Subsequently:

SEC. 124. PROCESS FOR ADOPTION OF RECOMMENDA4
TIONS; ADOPTION OF BENEFIT STANDARDS.
5 (a) PROCESS FOR ADOPTION OF RECOMMENDA6
TIONS.—

3 (3) REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary may not
4 adopt any benefit standards for an essential benefits
5 package or for level of cost-sharing that are incon6
sistent with the requirements for such a package or
7 level under sections 122 and 123(b)(5).

Section 123 is PART OF THE WHOLE PROPOSAL. It is an INTEGRAL part, that outlines part of the FINAL DECISION MAKING PROCESS.

SEC. 123. HEALTH BENEFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
12 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—
13 (1) IN GENERAL.—There is established a pri14
vate-public advisory committee which shall be a
15 panel of medical and other experts to be known as
16 the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to rec17
ommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced,
18 and premium plans.

Now understand, you can't just excerpt bits and parts of this or any House Resolution...as each layer compliments and effects each other. This is why there is so much wrangling before the final proposal is put forth. My point stands....your assertion does NOT stand up to scrutiny, as the very resolution itself provides measures to counteract that which you fear.
Click to expand...

first of all, I didn't highlight anything, I quoted section 121, which was the statement that no insurance policy may be sold which does not meet the minimum requirements of the government plan.....those minimum requirements are spelled out in section 122.....section 123 provides a method of adding more requirements.....section 124, which you just quoted states that no standards may be set which do not meet with the requirements of BOTH 122 and 123.....my assertion is clearly true....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top