response 26 of 96:

Feb 1 20:50 UTC 2006

hillary clinton's health care plan would have been good, but the gop killed
it because it would have created a new cabinet level agency, too much
bureacracy.  So what did the gop then do when they got in power?  They created
a new cabinet level agency with even MORE bureacracy.

response 28 of 96:

Feb 1 20:52 UTC 2006

 Actually as far as I can tell the Medicare Drug Benefit is serving
 its intended constituency brilliantly.  Just don't make the mistake
 of believing the program was created to benefit seniors.  I'm sure
 the insurance and drug companies are loving it..

response 30 of 96:

Feb 1 20:56 UTC 2006

re:26

ey....Oy, vey....Oy, vey....Oy, vey....Oy, vey....Oy, vey....Oy, vey..  


Lunacy and lies.


....Oy, vey....Oy, vey....Oy, vey....Oy, vey....Oy, vey....Oy, vey...O  

response 32 of 96:

Feb 1 21:14 UTC 2006

Ever been in a public health subsidized clinic?  You really want everyone to
have to go there for every ailment?  I'm getting visions of the INS office
in Detroit..everything short of people bringing in their lil caged chickens
and goats.
Hospitals would quickly disappear and be replaced with seedy storefront
clinics where maybe one doctor oversees the whole operation.  In a pandemic
scenario, that would be a catastrophe.

response 34 of 96:

Feb 2 01:04 UTC 2006

Re resp:17: It's an interesting concept, but again I think it would 
cause adverse selection problems.  The people who chose to add their 
parents to their health care plans would be the people with the sickest 
parents.  Maybe if you made it mandatory for everyone to add their 
parents, so it would rope in a large number of healthy people, too... 
 
You simply can't run an economical health insurance program if the 
insured population is allowed to self-select. 
 
 
Re resp:24: Actually, that's an interesting point.  Congressmen already 
have government-run health care, and by all accounts their system works 
pretty well.  That's at least one counterpoint to the "government will 
inevitably screw it up" argument. 
 
 
Re resp:33: I always find it funny when the Republicans come up with 
some poorly-designed government program that's designed to fail, then 
point to it and say, "See?  Government can't do anything right!"  Of 
course government isn't going to work when you elect people who openly 
believe government *can't* work. 

response 36 of 96:

Feb 2 01:52 UTC 2006

Having people add their parents to their health insurance plans isnt
exactly a good solution. For one thing, it isnt exactly fair to people
who cant have kids or to people who only have one kid who dies before
the parents are elderly. 

response 38 of 96:

Feb 2 05:37 UTC 2006

re #36
I didn't suggest that it be the end all solution for old people.  I'm just
suggesting that it would be a nice option for kids that care for their folks.

response 40 of 96:

Feb 2 12:14 UTC 2006

Someone please explain to DB what "in general" means.  I don't think I 
can get through.


I know I can't get through to Curl.  (I never argue religion with him.)

response 42 of 96:

Feb 2 15:35 UTC 2006

Unfortunately, recent events seem to indicate that it's a great way for 
your folks' former employer to become insolvent and go bankrupt.  Given
that I think it's fair to say very few firms will be offering medical
coverage for retirees in the future.

response 44 of 96:

Feb 2 15:42 UTC 2006

re #41 unfortunately you cant even take that for granted anymore, because
numerous companies these days are filing chapter 11 bankruptcy these days for
the purpose of killing their employee pension plans.  

response 46 of 96:

Feb 2 16:32 UTC 2006

Good points. Luckily for my folks, their retirement health care is 
being paid by taxpayers due to a retirement from a public sector job. 

I imagine that since health care is so expensive for older people, 
there simply are no easy solutions. Personally, I can think of a lot of 
reasons why it might be better for everyone if employer based health 
care were switched to a more socialized form of health care. And oddly, 
I imagine that lots of big businesses are going to start to lobby for 
that kind of thing. 

I am very interested in this business of firms getting out of paying 
benefits for retirees. I need to look into it further but it seems to 
me that the auto industry in particular will have a hard time getting 
rid of such obligations because they were part of collective bargaining 
agreements. But then I dont know anything about bankruptcy law. 

response 48 of 96:

Feb 2 17:13 UTC 2006

Academic (and medical, and some other) institutions as a group got out of 
the "pension" business for their employees a long time ago. An investment 
corporation was formed, the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association - 
College Retirement Equities Fund (TIAA-CREF) in which academic employees 
invested part of their income, usually along with a match from the 
employer, to form private retirement portfolios. These retirement funds 
are also transportable between employing institutions. This has worked 
very well for such employees. I don't know why the model hasn't been 
adapted more widely for other groups of employees in other industries. 
There is no governmental involvement (except regulation, and tax exemption 
for the invested funds until they are withdrawn).

response 50 of 96:

Feb 2 17:20 UTC 2006

Gee, Curl thinks that TIAACRF is the greatest thing since sliced bread, 
but when President Bush wants to allow employees to choose to do 
essentially the same thing with their social security contributions he 
goes ballistic.