Were the Dems for it or against it in 1974?

One large-scale proposal combined employer-mandates with a subsidy program for the poor. The response on the hill was mixed; Republicans felt the proposal was too expansive and the Democrats felt it was not expansive enough. Furthermore, the administration pointed out that health reform seemed to conflict with their political philosophy and that it alienated conservative politicians. (Wainess:1999) Nixon began to realize that it would be hard to pass any legislation, as Congress was dominated by Democrats and he could rarely find unity among his own party. Democrats began responding to Nixon's partisan politics by showing a surprising degree of party unity (Conlan 1984: 255).

Sure its not as simple as the above paragraphs reads, H Truman and D Eisenhower presented like plans.

Now I knew I was going to have trouble getting people to believe that the Heritage Foundation came up with a national health care plan nearly 25 years ago. But, now you are posting an article that says Nixon proposed one 40 years ago and you want them to believe it?

Come on. You know you are pushing the limits. :rolleyes: :D

Now you've done it. You are officially overboard now. :D

FAIL.

Due to C2012, the DPMP was the ONLY health plan to see premiums decrease (deductible/oopm stayed the same), every single company plan increased in cost.

Additionally, the DPMP actually expanded benefits, unlike the Company plans.

index
 

So, after Obamacare takes full effect you're saying that DPMP premiums will remain the same or decrease and that deductibles/oopm will remain the same as well? That's fantastic news. We'll see how that turns out down the line. I hope you're right.

Not that the current DPMP is such a great plan anymore, but I might just have to take another look after DAL jacks up the rates next year for the other plans.

T.... bail money or bribe money? I need to make a college run to show those kids what it was like to rock before music included boy bands!

You'd have to go pretty far back. The Beatles ... Boy Band (they just didn't suck and could play instruments)

Nixon?

You know what the #2 article of impeachment was for Nixon? If you guess using the IRS against your political enemies, you'd be right... (now follow me here cuz I'll circle back to this)

The thing is right now you can get health care. You may not have insurance and you'll owe someone money, but you'll get care. Under a government system, you will need government(Note 1) permission to get care they deem you need.(Note 2) (Note 3). (Note 4)

So, is everyone up to having a bureaucrat of opposes your political viewpoint/race/gender/persuasion cross referencing your IRS tax returns and where you give money before they, most assuredly in a nonpartisan manner(Note 6) and determine whether or not your three year old daughter will have access to treatment?

Or better yet, according to this ultrasound your child will have xyz problems and that costs $200,000, it costs $250 for an abortion, we'll only pay for that. And if they say no, your recourse is to appeal to the government? Now what if UHC pulls that stunt? You'd sue em', probably win, and still get care in the meantime.

This really isn't much different then saying we'll have a single payer airline and not only control prices but who uses it and when and how much it costs to provide the service. So "free" to the customer, means the one airline could charge a fortune, but the tax payer couldn't afford that, so we'll cap costs at $10M max profit for the airline and cut costs by saying $60K for a 773 A with 8 days off is about right and fair since we're paying a FA $50K. Oh you're going to quit!? Boeing is OTS? Huh. Well then the next thing we know, the airline business is like medicine for our second cousins up north. Where it takes 5 weeks to get you a CT scan that might save your life it only takes 6 days or so to get one for your puppy because while human care is socialized, puppy care is not. (Note 5)


July 15, 2013: representatives of three of the nation’s largest unions fired off a letter to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, warning that Obamacare would “shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class.”

What are we willing to give up in 2015 not to get kicked to an exchange? More seats in RJs? C-Series to Pinnacle? JVs? Section 23? Section 3?

Part of the problem lies within your second paragraph. People (Free Riders) can get free health care right now. They will owe someone money. But, they won't pay what they owe. Also, they will wait to get health care late in the game and present themselves to the system when they are really sick, instead kind of sick. Therefore, the cost of their treatment will be that much more.

When they don't pay "that much more," the hospitals transfer the costs of their non-payment to those who do pay. That's us. Those costs were forecast to just get higher and higher for us, to the point where health care costs were forecast to become a large part of people's ("us" again) budgets. I know my health care costs have been going up every year since NWA declared bankruptcy and my coverage has gotten worse and worse over those years. (I could have started a few businesses over the years with the increase in costs I've paid out since then.)

It's not like the problem just got here. Obamacare, Romney-care, Senator McCain, Newt Gingrich, Hillary-care, The Heritage Foundation, Nixon, and a host of others have recognized and tried to solve this for a long time. And I can tell you, in my opinion, in the last 5 years most of us have voted for a presidential candidate that, if given the chance, would have set up a system pretty close to what we have right now -- twice.

It is obviously a problem, because Republicans and Democrats alike have been talking about this for a long time. Is there anyone else offering a solution to the problem of increased health care costs, besides just repealing Obamacare? Because, that really isn't a solution at all. :rolleyes:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...144786448.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapoth...idual-mandate/


Signing off: (Busy for the next few days.)

Email me if you want to continue the discussion though, FTB. :D