What ObamaCare might mean for you

[Kelly the Dog]

With the right policy a lot of it can be about you. And I have a question for you. What happens to your family if you die at 46?

Maybe we should separate car insurers and health insurers from life insurers. Seems like with life insurance, you don't usually have to go back to them time and time again to see if they will pay.

[IDBillzFan]

With the right policy a lot of it can be about you. And I have a question for you. What happens to your family if you die at 46?

After my son was born, we doubled my life insurance, and my wife suggested maybe covering her. Since she doesn't work, I brushed off the idea. Then she had to make a sudden trip to Germany, we arranged for a babysitter to watch my son while I worked, the babsitter cancelled at the last second, and after a week of simultaneously caring for my 2-year-old and running my business, the first thing we did when she returned was get her covered.

 

If you're married and have property, children, or both, and you don't have life insurance, you're an idiot.

[Delete This Account]

If you own a business, are you or are you not going to maximize profits?

what does that mean, and what don't you get from my previous posts?

if i owned a business, i would hope i was not a greedhead. and i would hope i would not use my business as a personal piggybank and start building a golf course in my backyard. and i would hope that if i owned a business i would not have to tell my employees that they're being laid off two days before christmas because i'm "maximizing profits" and moving some of my manufacturing overseas.

i would hope i could operate a business that could remain competitive here.

of course, what happened over the past 10-15 years in this "global economy" makes it difficult to compete, and thus, just might require certain government oversight. but of course, we know where you stand on that.

 

so, you're absolutely right, if i owned a business i would punt all my employees out the door and move to freakin' sri lanka.

there, i said it, you're right. make you feel better.

 

jw

[ExiledInIllinois]

With the right policy a lot of it can be about you. And I have a question for you. What happens to your family if you die at 46?

 

Nothing... Well except that I will be dead... They will still be pretty much set.

 

My work insurance starts to go down after 45... That doesn't mean they are not WELL protected other ways, which they are. And the cost goes up for me after 45. Right now it is 5 times my yearly wage at a dirt cheap price.

[Chef Jim]

Nothing... Well except that I will be dead... They will still be pretty much set.

 

My work insurance starts to go down after 45... That doesn't mean they are not WELL protected other ways, which they are. And the cost goes up for me after 45. Right now it is 5 times my yearly wage at a dirt cheap price.

 

So you've got a plan where your income continues after you're dead? Sweet..... Oh by the way what if you lose your job? How much protection will you family have then?

[PastaJoe]

Everyone's favorite soundbyte chimes in on healthcare:

 

Sarah Palin is accusing President Obama’s health care plan of looking to create a “death panel” that would weigh whether her parents or son Trig were “worthy of health care.”

 

"And who will suffer the most when they ration care?" she wrote. "The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."

 

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

 

I thought she didn't want her kids involved in political discussions anymore.

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

Everyone's favorite soundbyte chimes in on healthcare:

 

Sarah Palin is accusing President Obama's health care plan of looking to create a "death panel" that would weigh whether her parents or son Trig were "worthy of health care."

 

"And who will suffer the most when they ration care?" she wrote. "The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."

 

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

 

I thought she didn't want her kids involved in political discussions anymore.

 

It's great that this Statesman finally has been freed up to help provide constructive criticism to the urgent need for health care reform in this country. Her knowledge and unique perspective are whats been missing from the debate.

[ExiledInIllinois]

So you've got a plan where your income continues after you're dead? Sweet..... Oh by the way what if you lose your job? How much protection will you family have then?

 

About 4 years in savings... My income. Plus whatever is in my retirement.

 

That is if I lose my job... My wife also works full-time. The Bush years have been very good in making my job secure and the prospect of contracting out went down to almost zero. Something about national interest, defense, and private industry pushing to keep things in-house.

 

Yet... I am still prepared.

[Chef Jim]

About 4 years in savings... My income. Plus whatever is in my retirement.

 

That is if I lose my job... My wife also works full-time. The Bush years have been very good in making my job secure and the prospect of contracting out went down to almost zero. Something about national interest, defense, and private industry pushing to keep things in-house.

 

Yet... I am still prepared.

 

No I'm not talking about how you'll get by financially. My question was if you lose your job then how much insurance will you have? And you say your job is secure and many government jobs are. But what if you get sick and can't work. You lose your job, as well as your insurance. And then what if you were sick to the point of being terminal and then you lost your job. If you die what's the plan then? I've seen it many times.

[DC Tom]

Everyone's favorite soundbyte chimes in on healthcare:

 

Sarah Palin is accusing President Obama’s health care plan of looking to create a “death panel” that would weigh whether her parents or son Trig were “worthy of health care.”

 

"And who will suffer the most when they ration care?" she wrote. "The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."

 

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

 

I thought she didn't want her kids involved in political discussions anymore.

 

I'd still hit it.

 

Even though she's a bloody loon.

[John Adams]

I'd still hit it.

 

Even though she's a bloody loon.

 

+1 to both points. But of course, she's kind of right. There are not enough doctors to treat everyone now. Add 40 million more patients and rationing health care becomes a reality.

[Jim in Anchorage]

Everyone's favorite soundbyte chimes in on healthcare:

 

Sarah Palin is accusing President Obama’s health care plan of looking to create a “death panel” that would weigh whether her parents or son Trig were “worthy of health care.”

 

"And who will suffer the most when they ration care?" she wrote. "The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."

 

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

 

I thought she didn't want her kids involved in political discussions anymore.

She meant not by rabid jackasses such as yourself.

[DC Tom]

+1 to both points. But of course, she's kind of right. There are not enough doctors to treat everyone now. Add 40 million more patients and rationing health care becomes a reality.

 

Which I've been saying all along: you can't increase demand without addressing supply, and the only way the government can do that is by rationing (they can't exactly increase availability - what, they're going to mandate a certain number of people every year become doctors?)

 

But I highly doubt it's going to be at the behest of some sort of GHSA-like panel of hack doctors straight out of 1940 Berlin.

[ExiledInIllinois]

No I'm not talking about how you'll get by financially. My question was if you lose your job then how much insurance will you have? And you say your job is secure and many government jobs are. But what if you get sick and can't work. You lose your job, as well as your insurance. And then what if you were sick to the point of being terminal and then you lost your job. If you die what's the plan then? I've seen it many times.

 

Oh! Sorry... About half... I have it doubled up outside of my work. Sick may be another thing even though I wouldn't have to piss or get off the pot for about a year... Right now my sick leave on the books is is just about a 3/5 of years worth... I guess we would have to fall on my wife's salary, which we are basically doing right now.

 

Thats leads to one thing. We tend to live well BELOW our means right now... Sometimes the wife doesn't like it and of course I don't like it either, but we understand... Yet, aren't woman the ones that drive the crazy "here and now" economy?? Sorry to stereotype! Even know we do a lot and have fun... Other things we don't get too wrapped up about. Our children's education is number one!

 

 

Now either of us die?... We basically can do what ever we want financially... Within means of course. It is planned out that neither would have to work as hard or as long.

 

The thing is we are blessed with TWO great employers... The way it should be with EVERYONE (if they want)!

[swede316]

The Bush years have been very good in making my job secure and the prospect of contracting out went down to almost zero. Something about national interest, defense, and private industry pushing to keep things in-house.

Say no more. Talk about biting the hand that feeds ya.

[ThereIsNoDog]

Yep, this is a move towards a single payor/socialist system where the government decides who gets what treatment. Expect long delays, no improvement in quality, and a massive increase to the deficit. But hey, it's free, right?

[Wacka]

+1 to both points. But of course, she's kind of right. There are not enough doctors to treat everyone now. Add 40 million more patients and rationing health care becomes a reality.

 

 

And the number of doctors will go down when the govt. controls the reimbursement.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Say no more. Talk about biting the hand that feeds ya.

 

YEP!

 

And it wasn't really Bush personally, his original intent was to do the exact opposite (contract out). It was circumstance during the Bush years that I was alluding to. Namely 911.

 

So really I never bit the hand that fed me. Things just kinda of worked out. I would have gladly accepted it another way (no 911).

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

what does that mean, and what don't you get from my previous posts?

if i owned a business, i would hope i was not a greedhead. and i would hope i would not use my business as a personal piggybank and start building a golf course in my backyard. and i would hope that if i owned a business i would not have to tell my employees that they're being laid off two days before christmas because i'm "maximizing profits" and moving some of my manufacturing overseas.

i would hope i could operate a business that could remain competitive here.

of course, what happened over the past 10-15 years in this "global economy" makes it difficult to compete, and thus, just might require certain government oversight. but of course, we know where you stand on that.

 

so, you're absolutely right, if i owned a business i would punt all my employees out the door and move to freakin' sri lanka.

there, i said it, you're right. make you feel better.

 

jw

 

Nice hyperbole, there. Let's say I own a widget business. I employ 20 people at $10 an hour. How in the heck can I possibly compete with the MooShu widget company out of YangYang China when their workforce is employed at $.15 an hour? I have a competitive disadvantage, especially when the quality of MooShu's widgets are equivalent to mine. So what am I to do? Go bankrupt because I want to feel good about keeping people employed or do what I can to remain competitive?

 

Now guess what...the same thing is going to happen when the gubmint leans in on the insurance business. because the gubmint isn't forced to turn a profit, cost means nothing to them. Therefore, their product will have cheaper upfront costs to the public. Now what person in their right mind will pay more for something that they can get for 50% or more less?

[Kelly the Dog]

Nice hyperbole, there. Let's say I own a widget business. I employ 20 people at $10 an hour. How in the heck can I possibly compete with the MooShu widget company out of YangYang China when their workforce is employed at $.15 an hour? I have a competitive disadvantage, especially when the quality of MooShu's widgets are equivalent to mine. So what am I to do? Go bankrupt because I want to feel good about keeping people employed or do what I can to remain competitive?

 

Now guess what...the same thing is going to happen when the gubmint leans in on the insurance business. because the gubmint isn't forced to turn a profit, cost means nothing to them. Therefore, their product will have cheaper upfront costs to the public. Now what person in their right mind will pay more for something that they can get for 50% or more less?

Because it's not going to cost 50% less but 10% less, and it's going to be less service, and will only cover about 5% of the country.

http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2009/07/14/cbo...5-of-americans/

So House Democrats just released their big health-reform bill. As expected, it includes a new, government-backed health plan — a plan that’s been among the most contentious topics in the health reform debate.

 

As we were poring over the analysis out today from the CBO (the Congressional scorekeeper whose estimates are key in shaping the debate), we were struck by one estimate in particular:

 

…total enrollment in the public plan would equal about 11 million or 12 million, counting both individually purchased policies and employer-sponsored enrollees.

 

That’s about 4% of the current U.S. population, and seems rather small in comparison to how much attention the debate over the public plan has drawn.

 

Of course, the CBO itself notes that its “estimate is subject to an unusually high degree of uncertainty,” which means that the actual number of people who enroll in a public plan could be significantly higher.

 

The plan would pay doctors and other practitioners 5% more than Medicare pays. Rates for hospitals and others would be the same as Medicare. And the public plan would negotiate rates for drugs, according to the CBO. The public plan would have premiums on average around 10% lower than private plans, because of factors including the lower rates it would pay to doctors and hospitals, the CBO says.