I was forced to explain Health Care (financing) Reform this morning

[ThomWV]

I picked up my wife's car at the local garage just a little bit ago and I hardly got in the door when Darrel hit me with the question: "Well, you're the Democrat (or he may have said Liberal), what's all the health care stuff about?" Les and the new guy Darrel hired stopped and listend too. I didn't see this one coming, wasn't ready for it and so I popped out a two sentence answer. It worked. They got it. Here's what I said as close as I can remember.

"If health care reform passes you guys will get insurance and it won't cost you much. If it doesn't you won't, and none of that bullshit you are hearing and seeing on the radio and TV makes any difference; if it passes you'll get it and if it doesn't you won't."

That's all it took, and now we've got three more hard working country guys on our side.

On Edit: None of these guys has health insurance, all three know they need it, and only one of them has any chance of getting it anytime soon (through his wife's job).

[Soylent Brice]

1. nice work. keep it simple.

and any time some yokel starts spouting off nonsense about ass-cyst talking points, snub that shit!

[lonestarnot]

2. Good job.

:applause:

[pinto]

3. Good straight forward pocket book response. n/t

[Little Star]

4. K&R Keep it simple stupid really works. Good job!

I'll be using this strategy.

[Warpy]

5. Congratulations on such a perfect answer

Keeping it that short was the best thing you could have done.

I manage to think on my feet that well maybe twice a year.

[Mika]

6. You forgot to mention all of the "kind hearts" that will help, if financing doesn't pass.

---

[joeycola]

7. The WH mantra of "affordability" is a bunch of crap. see this....

I think you and the people at the garage will be vastly disappointed.


Senate proposal--Insurers to cover as little as 65% of enrollees bills
Mon Aug-24-09 01:34 PM

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-healthcare-insurers24-2009aug24,0,2392720.story



Healthcare insurers get upper hand



"In May, the Senate Finance Committee discussed requiring that insurers reimburse at least 76% of policyholders' medical costs under their most affordable plans. Now the committee is considering setting that rate as low as 65%, meaning insurers would be required to cover just about two-thirds of patients' healthcare bills. According to a committee aide, the change was being considered so that companies could hold down premiums for the policies.

Most group health plans cover 80% to 90% or more of a policyholder's medical bills, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service. Industry officials urged that the government set the floor lower so insurers could provide flexible, more affordable plans."

[Usrename]

8. There may not be too much wrong with that if...

...if government provides catastophic coverage like what was in Kerry's plan in '04. There is an argument to be made that it could help keep costs down if people actually saw what they are being charged for stuff like aspirins and such. Maybe it's a weak argument, I don't know. It's those catastrophic injuries and illnesses that wipe people out, and that just isn't right.

[joeycola]

9. agree. Yet I am worried that it is a very weak bill as it stands now.

[Usrename]

10. Yeah, it is.

I'm afraid what we are going to get will suck badly, and then that fact will be used to beat up the far left. As if the crappy reform was our idea.

[Orsino]

11. What's in a name?

[Romulox]

12. Why did you lie to them?

"If health care reform passes you guys will get insurance and it won't cost you much."

What are you basing this on? :wtf:

[ThomWV]

14. It will cost them a lot less than having none at all.

You have no idea what it means to live in a poor area do you? This guy lives in Masontown, West Virginia. Masontown is small, but there are a handful of operating businesses here. Not one of them - got that, not a single one - offers health insurance for its employees, and that includes the Slaughter house/meat packer that opened up last year right outside of town. Do you know how badly men get hurt on farm equipment or working on farm equipment? Ever seen what a man looks like after timbering for a couple of years? Do you have any notion what kind of injuries happen in a slaughter house, how badly people get cut butchering a beef? Do you know what happens to an eitire family when the principal bead-winner gets hurt.

And you say I lied to them? What in the name of god is wrong with you?

[Romulox]

15. LOL. So you can't answer what you base your claims on? How about changing the subject?

"You have no idea what it means to live in a poor area do you? "

I know that poor people typically don't have much money for mandatory, for profit health insurance (note: "health INSURANCE", not "health CARE".) :hi:

I still want to know why you feel it's OK to mislead people. :shrug:

[eridani]

24. It will cost them 11% of their family income, NOT including getting hit for up to $10K in copays

This sucks by any conceivable measure. The Dutch have mandatory private insurance with NO age discrimination, NO copays and NO deductibles for 100 euros/adult/month. Sure they could buy the cheapest options, which will suck and provide no coverage to speak of--it will just empty their pockets before the first medical bills come in.

[Gregorian]

16. I thought the purpose of the bill was to make health care affordable.

And to make sure everyone has health care.

I don't think it was misleading. Perhaps hopeful.

[Romulox]

17. "Affordable" is a weasel word. What does it mean?

Early drafters were speaking of a "maximum of 11% of income" that would be required of taxpayers before subsidies kicked in.

11% of a poor person's income is substantial.

"I don't think it was misleading."

Asserting something you do not know to be true is the equivalent of asserting something you know is not true. Neither are honest.

[Gregorian]

18. Affordable in the way that public roads are funded.

In other words, something like Medicare.

In the last month I know two people over 80 who have life threatening illnesses, and who otherwise would be bankrupt if not for their Medicare.

I think that is what we're trying to achieve.

[Romulox]

20. That's not what the President is proposing. He wants mandatory private insurance.

Not "something like Medicare".

[Gregorian]

21. Is that so? I thought the public option was still alive.

If not, I agree with you.

[Gregorian]

13. This just reminded me of another way of saying it. The Medicare analogy.

I know two people who are in their 80's, and who both just got heavy medical care that would without any doubt completely bankrupted them. If it weren't for Medicare, they'd both be bankrupt.

I like your encounter. It always feels good to break through the bs, and educate.

[GreenPartyVoter]

19. Yep. I've explained it to someone recently as well. Not sure if I won him over but I do think I

gave him something to really think about.

[vanbean]

22. You forgot the part about the death panels.

:sarcasm:

[Fumesucker]

23. I sure hope you weren't leading those poor folks down the garden path..

Although I fear you were.

Not deliberately, mind you.

I strongly suspect we are going to end up with mandated private insurance that will be a bonanza for the insurance industry and misery for the rest of us.

And I'm probably more poor than any of the people you were explaining to, I haven't had insurance in a while and have no realistic prospect of having any in the foreseeable future.

Edited because I can't type for shite today..