Health insurance companies and dropping customers/raising rates

[KC Elbows]

Do you feel it's okay for insurance companies to drop people or raise rates on people based on that person's updated risk? Like someone pays for insurance for years but doesn't need it, gets cancer, and the conpany raises their premium until they cannot afford it, is that right?

My opinion is it isn't right, it's almost a bait and switch, you buy insurance for future need, they accept your money based on this, and then raise the rates when the need arises, then what was the previous rate representing?

This is a huge danger for people on their own plans, but even small companies have to switch providers often when they have employees who run into need.

If this is a banned topic, I have no problom with its deletion.

If some people bring their flame wars on here, I'll just copy the informative posts and delete the rest, reposting it as a new thread.

Alternatively, have I misunderstood how policies work, feel free to share what you know.

[David Jamieson]

Do you feel it's okay for insurance companies to drop people or raise rates on people based on that person's updated risk? Like someone pays for insurance for years but doesn't need it, gets cancer, and the conpany raises their premium until they cannot afford it, is that right?

My opinion is it isn't right, it's almost a bait and switch, you buy insurance for future need, they accept your money based on this, and then raise the rates when the need arises, then what was the previous rate representing?

This is a huge danger for people on their own plans, but even small companies have to switch providers often when they have employees who run into need.

If this is a banned topic, I have no problom with its deletion.

If some people bring their flame wars on here, I'll just copy the informative posts and delete the rest, reposting it as a new thread.

Alternatively, have I misunderstood how policies work, feel free to share what you know.

I think people are better off saving up and keeping a nest egg to cover their expenses should they die. That is forethought and you can always use the interest.

Life insurance is betting against yourself for a payoff. It's the ultimate in gambling really.

there's no point in buying most life insurance policies as they do not pay what they are stated as paying and apparently outright fraud and forward lies are the standard M.O for all financial corporations these days.

screw em, I'll keep my cash and possessions and will then to who i like and save up enough money to cover my cremation.

done!

[SanHeChuan]

Yes, it is bad. You should be able to get a fixed rate premium, so they can't change it.

Another huge issue is pre-existing conditions. Once you have one you can no longer shop around for a better policy because no one else will take you. Usually your issuance company doesn't try to scru you until something goes wrong. If you can’t switch to a better provider that messes up free market competition. There is no incentive for the issuance companies to compete by providing better service to those who actually need to use their insurance because you can’t do anything about it by then.


Life insurance is betting against yourself for a payoff. It's the ultimate in gambling really.

We're talking health insurance here.

[KC Elbows]

I think people are better off saving up and keeping a nest egg to cover their expenses should they die. That is forethought and you can always use the interest.

Life insurance is betting against yourself for a payoff. It's the ultimate in gambling really.

there's no point in buying most life insurance policies as they do not pay what they are stated as paying and apparently outright fraud and forward lies are the standard M.O for all financial corporations these days.

screw em, I'll keep my cash and possessions and will then to who i like and save up enough money to cover my cremation.

done!

The problem here(in the U.S.) is, at the point in life you usually need medical care, either when you are older or, when younger, due to misfortune, the costs of medical care are huuuuge. It is quite easy to rack up several home's worrth of bills, if it's a serious condition.

Plus, we're Americans. Our savings went into the negative(on average) five or six years ago.

[1bad65]

Health insurance is like car insurance in a way. Your rates go up if your situation changes. Tickets, accidents that are your fault, excessive claims, buying a car with a V8 engine, etc all raise your rates. If you drive bad enough, you get dropped.

And before you say this is not a good analogy, remember the Democrats pushing these healthcare bills have themselves compared mandatory health insurance to mandatory vehicle insurance.

[SanHeChuan]

What about when getting sick is NOT your fault?

[1bad65]

What about when getting sick is NOT your fault?

It is a problem. I cannot deny that.

But what about when it is your fault?

[KC Elbows]

Health insurance is like car insurance in a way. Your rates go up if your situation changes. Tickets, accidents that are your fault, excessive claims, buying a car with a V8 engine, etc all raise your rates. If you drive bad enough, you get dropped.

And before you say this is not a good analogy, remember the Democrats pushing these healthcare bills have themselves compared mandatory health insurance to mandatory vehicle insurance.

The problem with that analogy is that car insurance does not pay for maintenance, health insurance does. In this case, maintenance is way more expensive, to the point of being unpayable for the vast majority of Americans without having a policy.

Additionally, car insurance premiums do not generally go up except for things that are your fault, but health insurance premiums go up with one condition or another that all Americans will face, especially with age. The car insurance company can claim that they didn't know, in setting your premium, that you were a speeder, so, upon discovery, the rate changes, while the health insurance provider is well aware that you are a human and will someday require thousands of dollars of healthcare, without exception, but backs out as if it were a surprise at the first sign of having to provide substantial service.

additionally, in the case of major problems, the car insurance provider will have to pay for the totalled car and medical bills in the case of some policies, while the health insurance provider will have the capacity to slowly weasel out by raising rates, leaving only those with a lot of expendible income to hope to hold them to their agreement.

[SanHeChuan]

A reasonable Point system. Doc says your cholesterol is too high or you’re too obese. You get points based on severity. More points you pay more. You bring down your cholesterol or weight you get your points back your payment goes down.

Like getting a ticket and taking defensive driving.

With limits to how much it can fluctuate stated up front.

[KC Elbows]

What about congenital defects?
They would be an example of something that is neither the individual's fault, or the insurance company's. So who should pay, if not the state as a fulfillment of it's part of the social contract?

[MasterKiller]

http://cdn.holytaco.com/www/sites/default/files/images/2009/11/hmo-jesus_0.jpg

[1bad65]

Why do you always have to take shots at Christianity? You are not a Believer, and you laugh at those of us who are. We get it.

FYI, if you actually read the Bible, you would see it said He healed the sick and fed the hungry and never asked for a dime. Of course He never called for the Government to give out 'free' healthcare though.

[solo1]

Dont agree with insurance companies raising rates, however since they are being attacked by the Obama admin they have to do something to protect thier interests.
2. the middle men, the "health maintenance companies" , of the world which were created by edict by Teddy Kennedy in the 70s are the real root of the problem. Doctors negotiating directly with the insurance companies were not an issue nor did we have cost escalating at the rate we have today until these parasitic middle men were created.
3. insurance companies must be allowed to compete over state lines. Everyone understands that each state has its own rules and regulations which by fiat keep some companies out but what would you expect to happen to the price of a good if they dont have to compete with anyone, it rises.
4. Cap malpractice insurance and limit the legal issues by mandating malpractice tort reform and do it in such a way as loser pays and limit awards to legal firms who represent the claims. Lawyers involved in the medical field have all but destroyed the profession.
5. My doctor knows whats best for me, he may not be perfect and they are human so mistakes can and will be made but if my doctor wont advise me in such a way as it threatens my health and his ability to do his job it must be changed.
My internist spent 20 years getting thru school to do his job, he is very well paid and when im injured he is worth every dime, on the other hand the lawyers have 1/3 of the education and create 95% of the problems.

[David Jamieson]

Why do you always have to take shots at Christianity? You are not a Believer, and you laugh at those of us who are. We get it.

FYI, if you actually read the Bible, you would see it said He healed the sick and fed the hungry and never asked for a dime. Of course He never called for the Government to give out 'free' healthcare though.

No, but as he was King of the Jews and he gave free health care to whoever did ask, what is the model there?

Is your government imperial roman occupation? :)

[1bad65]

No, but as he was King of the Jews and he gave free health care to whoever did ask, what is the model there?

He gave the free healthcare himself. He didn't take other people's taxes and then hand it out and then talk about how much of a giving, caring person He was.

[1bad65]

Rush made an excellent point today.

Obama is slamming the private insurance companies for denying people care, procedures, tests, etc. Of course alot more people are denied those same things by Medicare and the VA, but Obama never mentions that. And Obama runs those programs.

[MasterKiller]

http://kungfumagazine.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=5624&stc=1&d=1268075033

[1bad65]

We spend the most, because we have the best system.

Which country has the most patents for new drugs?

[David Jamieson]

We spend the most, because we have the best system.

Which country has the most patents for new drugs?

You spend the most because you have the most graft in your system. Not because it's the best.

patents can be purchased whether you came up with the idea or not.

money does not make mind.

[MasterKiller]

We have the best here, but access to the best is usually cost-prohibitive for all but the upper classes. Otherwise, our life-expectancy and infant-mortality rates would fare much better.

According to that chart, other socialized systems fare much better when it comes to the most bang for your buck.

[1bad65]

You spend the most because you have the most graft in your system. Not because it's the best.

patents can be purchased whether you came up with the idea or not.

money does not make mind.

Can you back up that graft assertion please.

You are wrong on patents. BTW, R&D cost is a HUGE factor for our system. See, comapnies only get a few years with a new drug they developed before generics are made available. They have to recoup all the R&D money, and turn a profit, before that time runs out. That is why new drugs cost so much.

[1bad65]

We have the best here, but access to the best is usually cost-prohibitive for all but the upper classes. Otherwise, our life-expectancy and infant-mortality rates would fare much better.

According to that chart, other socialized systems fare much better when it comes to the most bang for your buck.

I'm not upper class. Well according to Bill Clinton I am. :rolleyes: I've never had an issue. And both me and my wife have had surgeries under the plan we have.

Socialized medicine systems ration care, private plans do not. Just ask anyone on Medicade or anyone who is dependent on the VA if they are happy with their care....

[sanjuro_ronin]

According to that graph, the US spends the most and has one of the lowest life expectancies.
Not a good ratio.

[MasterKiller]

Can you back up that graft assertion please.

You are wrong on patents. BTW, R&D cost is a HUGE factor for our system. See, comapnies only get a few years with a new drug they developed before generics are made available. They have to recoup all the R&D money, and turn a profit, before that time runs out. That is why new drugs cost so much. LOL! My father-in-law is a general practicioner, and until last year (it's illegal now) he got lunch paid for EVERY DAY for his WHOLE OFFICE by different drug company reps, he got free sports tickets, free computer equipment, etc... All in the name of advertising their product.

That kind of behaviour went on in just about every doctor's office in the U.S. for decades.

THAT is why drugs are so expensive HERE, and not anywhere else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouF3ISihHLM

[MasterKiller]

I'm not upper class. Well according to Bill Clinton I am. :rolleyes: I've never had an issue. And both me and my wife have had surgeries under the plan we have. Gee, a middle class white guy that grew up middle class can afford average health insurance in America. In other news, water is wet.

I have good insurance, too. But sh1t, I pay $189 per paycheck (pretax), and that's just because my company ALSO contributes, and I also have a $2,000 family deductible (I have 2 kids). I make a decent income, but it is above average in the U.S. and certainly above average in Oklahoma.

For MANY people, insurance just costs too much, especially when you know they will raise your rates or even drop you once you make a major claim.

And my wife works in Medical Billing, so I'm not even on the tricks the insurance companies play to reject a claim, yet. Not to mention the immense WASTE that takes place just from doctors trying to get paid for services.

I grew up not being able to go to the doctor. I almost died when my appendix popped because I waited to go to the hospital because I was broke in college.


Socialized medicine systems ration care, private plans do not. Just ask anyone on Medicade or anyone who is dependent on the VA if they are happy with their care.... You tell someone on VA or Medicade that you want to take their plan away, and see how they feel about it then.

[David Jamieson]

Can you back up that graft assertion please.

You are wrong on patents. BTW, R&D cost is a HUGE factor for our system. See, comapnies only get a few years with a new drug they developed before generics are made available. They have to recoup all the R&D money, and turn a profit, before that time runs out. That is why new drugs cost so much.

...wow, willful ignorance.

ok then, you just keep that blindfold on and those fingers in your ears.

Remarkable! Tremendous! Outstanding! :D

[MasterKiller]

According to that graph, the US spends the most and has one of the lowest life expectancies.
Not a good ratio.

QFT, right there.

In 2006, Drug Companies spent 36 billion on R&D.
That same year, they spent 73 billion on advertising.

[SanHeChuan]

We spend the most, because we have the best system.

Can you back up that assertion please. ;)

[MasterKiller]

Complete list of infant mortality rates per 1,000 live births for 2004:

1. Singapore 2.0
2. Hong Kong 2.5
3. Japan 2.8
4. Sweden 3.1
5. Norway 3.2
6. Finland 3.3
7. Spain 3.5
8. Czech Republic 3.7
9. France 3.9
10. Portugal 4.0
11. Germany 4.1
11. Greece 4.1
11. Italy 4.1
11. Netherlands 4.1
15. Switzerland 4.2
16. Belgium 4.3
17. Denmark 4.4
18. Austria 4.5
18. Israel 4.5
20. Australia 4.7
21. Ireland 4.9
21. Scotland 4.9
23. England and Wales 5.0
24. Canada 5.3
25. Northern Ireland 5.5
26. New Zealand 5.7
27. Cuba 5.8
28. Hungary 6.6
29. Poland 6.9
29. Slovakia 6.9
29. United States 6.9
32. Puerto Rico 8.1
33. Chile 8.4
34. Costa Rica 9.0
35. Russian Federation 11.5
36. Bulgaria 11.7
37. Romania 16.8

http://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/news/20081015/infant-mortality-us-ranks-29th

[SanHeChuan]

The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems. (http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html)
from 2000

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
38 Slovenia
39 Cuba
40 Brunei
41 New Zealand
42 Bahrain
43 Croatia
44 Qatar
45 Kuwait
46 Barbados
47 Thailand
48 Czech Republic
49 Malaysia
50 Poland
...

[1bad65]

According to that graph, the US spends the most and has one of the lowest life expectancies.
Not a good ratio.

We have low expectancies because of our bad habits, not our medical care. Without our healthcare system, it would actually be alot worse. When 62% of your population is obese or overweight, your population will have health issues.

I'd wager that these countries who have "better" healthcare than we do don't have obesety rates near ours.

Source:
http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20100210/percentage-of-overweight-obese-americans-swells?src=rss_usbariatric

[1bad65]

LOL! My father-in-law is a general practicioner, and until last year (it's illegal now) he got lunch paid for EVERY DAY for his WHOLE OFFICE by different drug company reps, he got free sports tickets, free computer equipment, etc... All in the name of advertising their product.

That kind of behaviour went on in just about every doctor's office in the U.S. for decades.

THAT is why drugs are so expensive HERE, and not anywhere else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouF3ISihHLM

So are you telling us that the cost of drugs in the US is high because of free lunches? :rolleyes:

Well since the cause of the problem is illegal now, then the problems of high drug costs should be fixed now. Right? ;)

[1bad65]

...wow, willful ignorance.

ok then, you just keep that blindfold on and those fingers in your ears.

Remarkable! Tremendous! Outstanding! :D

Why not try and refute my post with facts?

Are you denying drug companies do not spend BILLIONS annually on Research and Developement of new drugs?

[1bad65]

And my wife works in Medical Billing, so I'm not even on the tricks the insurance companies play to reject a claim, yet. Not to mention the immense WASTE that takes place just from doctors trying to get paid for services.

And you think there won't be more waste when the Government runs it?!?!

Oh yeah, my bad. They've done such a great job running Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, The VA, the Post Office,....


I grew up not being able to go to the doctor. I almost died when my appendix popped because I waited to go to the hospital because I was broke in college.

And look at yourself now. You've WORKED so you now have insurance. And you have it for your wife and kids. Your lot in life has improved. And you did it on your own. Amazing how that works, isn't it?

[MasterKiller]

And look at yourself now. You've WORKED so you now have insurance. And you have it for your wife and kids. Your lot in life has improved. And you did it on your own. Amazing how that works, isn't it? Actually, I was able to do it because the STATE paid for my surgery because I was a fulltime student. Without state help, I would have had to drop out of school to pay off the surgery, the week in intensive care, the 2 more weeks in the hospital, and the follow up visits to the surgeon. Not to mention all the support bills that came in (anesthesia, etc...).

Because I was UNABLE to pay at the time, and the State paid my bill, I was able to finish college a semester late and get a decent job, so my taxes could be used to help others in need. If I don't live, I can't work, and if I can't work, I can't pay my fair share of taxes to contribute to the society that helped me live in the first place.

Amazing how that works, isn't it?

[MasterKiller]

Why not try and refute my post with facts?

Are you denying drug companies do not spend BILLIONS annually on Research and Developement of new drugs?


In 2006, Drug Companies spent 36 billion on R&D.

That same year, they spent 73 billion on advertising.

[dimethylsea]

Actually, I was able to do it because the STATE paid for my surgery because I was a fulltime student. Without state help, I would have had to drop out of school to pay off the surgery, the week in intensive care, the 2 more weeks in the hospital, and the follow up visits to the surgeon. Not to mention all the support bills that came in (anesthesia, etc...).

Because I was UNABLE to pay at the time, and the State paid my bill, I was able to finish college a semester late and get a decent job, so my taxes could be used to help others in need. If I don't live, I can't work, and if I can't work, I can't pay my fair share of taxes to contribute to the society that helped me live in the first place.

Amazing how that works, isn't it?

Dang Masterkiller.

Are you suggesting that since you were the beneficiary of SOCIALISM.. and you now own a BUSINESS... that assistance from public source has made you a more effective capitalist?

But.. I thought everyone who couldn't afford American medical care was a deadbeat welfare queen.

(end sarcasm)

[Drake]

A socialist cop hater? Isn't that a contradiction?

[MasterKiller]

Dang Masterkiller.

Are you suggesting that since you were the beneficiary of SOCIALISM.. and you now own a BUSINESS... that assistance from public source has made you a more effective capitalist?

But.. I thought everyone who couldn't afford American medical care was a deadbeat welfare queen.

(end sarcasm)

My dad worked his @ss off 6 days a week for as long as I can remember, but just never had much to show for it because he had no education (dropped out of school at 15 to work to help support his family). He never asked for a dime from anyone, and always made sure we had food on the table.

But I was never covered by insurance until I got out of school and started working. There were a few times growing up where either myself or one of my brothers definitely should have seen someone, but my dad just couldn't afford it so we sucked it up most of the time. I once had strep so bad it migrated to my finger and puss exploded out the side.

You know who diagnosed it?

The doctor at my 9th grade football physical (which was free).;)

[dimethylsea]

A socialist cop hater? Isn't that a contradiction?

Not that I'm a socialist but no.. it's not.

Lots of socialists feel the police are tools of the tyrants. There is a longstanding tradition of friendship between conservatism and the police, and of antagonism between the Left and the police.

If the cops are used to bust unions for example... or if agitation for socialist change brings out the riot troops...

[David Jamieson]

My dad worked his @ss off 6 days a week for as long as I can remember, but just never had much to show for it because he had no education (dropped out of school at 15 to work to help support his family). He never asked for a dime from anyone, and always made sure we had food on the table.

But I was never covered by insurance until I got out of school and started working. There were a few times growing up where either myself or one of my brothers definitely should have seen someone, but my dad just couldn't afford it so we sucked it up most of the time. I once had strep so bad it migrated to my finger and puss exploded out the side.

You know who diagnosed it?

The doctor at my 9th grade football physical (which was free).;)

free? who pays for that school? who pays for your football at school? who pays that coach? free? no such thing man.

Is that like Glenn Backs Library is "free"?

or are highways "free"?

Police? Fire? free?

I think people need to recognize that communism is not socialism and there are aspects of socialism that serve a society more so than hinder it. It is obviously ridiculous to argue against some socialized platforms and programs in a free and open society whereby everyone puts into the commons for the benefit of all.

Speaking of which, anyone watching the great hypocrite Palin in the last couple of days? Apparently her family used to sneak over into Canada to get healthcare.

Now that's free! To americans that is because she isn't even a Canadian but apparently is ok with using our healthcare while bashing it to people who want to hear the other side.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/03/08/palin-canada-health.html

You guys need some socialized healthcare. Argue and bluster all you want, but I'd rather you got your own version of it instead of stealing it from us like Palin admits to. lol

[MasterKiller]

free? who pays for that school? who pays for your football at school? who pays that coach? free? no such thing man.

Is that like Glenn Backs Library is "free"?

or are highways "free"?

Police? Fire? free?l Property taxes pay for school funding in the United States, including sports programs, but doctors here (at least where I live) volunteer for physical examinations for sports as a community service.

So, yeah, it was free.

[Drake]

So why don't we fix the problem with the private medicine sector and find ways of fixing it without simply throwing up our hands and handing it off to the government. Are we really such children that we need the government to fix this? There ARE successes in private medicine providing care for all. It's a false choice error.

[1bad65]

Actually, I was able to do it because the STATE paid for my surgery because I was a fulltime student.

Because I was UNABLE to pay at the time, and the State paid my bill, I was able to finish college a semester late and get a decent job, so my taxes could be used to help others in need.

I'm not upset they paid YOUR bill. You were trying to improve your life, you were a full time student. But under socialized medicine, people doing nothing get 'free' care, and that is wrong. I believe in helping people who help themselves. Nothing wrong with that. But helping lazy bums is another story.

[1bad65]

Speaking of which, anyone watching the great hypocrite Palin in the last couple of days? Apparently her family used to sneak over into Canada to get healthcare.

Now that's free! To americans that is because she isn't even a Canadian but apparently is ok with using our healthcare while bashing it to people who want to hear the other side.

How is she a hypocrite? Last I checked, we judge people based on their actions, not their family's actions.

[1bad65]

So why don't we fix the problem with the private medicine sector and find ways of fixing it without simply throwing up our hands and handing it off to the government. Are we really such children that we need the government to fix this? There ARE successes in private medicine providing care for all. It's a false choice error.

Very well said.

And remember, the Government's record of fixing things is not good. As matter of fact, they are batting .000. Social Security, Medicare, the VA, Medicaid, the Post Office, etc are all epic failures. Can you guys calling for the Government to fix healthcare name one Government program that has fixed what it was designed to do, and at the cost it was projected to cost? I'm betting not....

[SanHeChuan]

Drake/1bad65

What specifically in the senate bill do you object too? The public option is out, and a single payer system was never on the table. What are we giving over to the government?

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BK0KA20091221


So why don't we fix the problem with the private medicine sector and find ways of fixing it without simply throwing up our hands and handing it off to the government.

Whose we? We are the government. How do we fix an industry without legislation? Do you think the companies should fix themselves? Why haven't they done so already?

[Drake]

Drake/1bad65

What specifically in the senate bill do you object too? The public option is out, and a single payer system was never on the table. What are we giving over to the government?

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BK0KA20091221



Who is we? We are the government. How do we fix an industry without legislation? Do you think the companies should fix themselves? Why haven't they done so already?

The public option is out due to GOP pressure. I think we should start by trying to persuade the industry to fix itself. These are people with PhDs who already swore to protect their patients. Why not hit them and the industry up for ideas and plans? The problem is, if you try to regulate them too heavily, you'll stifle research and development, as much motivation for this lies in profit. I'd say there should be more stringent oversight should be applied to some insurance companies, but handing the entire business over to the government makes me think Venezuela.

[MasterKiller]

The public option is out due to GOP pressure. Which is mostly political. The GOP has been trying to dismantle Medicare and Social Security because these are popular programs that Democrats routinely win on. They know allowing Democrats to pass another popular program would cost them in future elections.


I think we should start by trying to persuade the industry to fix itself. These are people with PhDs who already swore to protect their patients. Why not hit them and the industry up for ideas and plans? A study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine concluded that 59% of physicians "supported legislation to establish national health insurance" while 9% were neutral on the topic, and 32% opposed it.

[SanHeChuan]

but handing the entire business over to the government makes me think Venezuela.

Still looking for specifics about the current bill. What part of the current bill is handing things over to the government?


I think we should start by trying to persuade the industry to fix itself. These are people with PhDs who already swore to protect their patients.

How do you persuade them without legislation? We are persuading them to fix themselves by telling them they can't do what they are doing.


The problem is, if you try to regulate them too heavily, you'll stifle research and development, as much motivation for this lies in profit.

As far as I am aware the drug companies are not targeted in the bill. The insurance companies are, and they only research and develop ways to take your money without giving anything back. :p

[1bad65]

Drake/1bad65

What specifically in the senate bill do you object too? The public option is out, and a single payer system was never on the table. What are we giving over to the government?

Many things.

The Federal Government has no right to FORCE every citizen to purchase anything. This bill FORCES every American to purchase health insurance.

It FORCES insurance companies to accept anyone, controls their ability to set their rates, and FORCES them to accept people with pre-existing conditions. In short, it will destroy private insurance, thus forcing us into a singe-payer (the Government) system. The terrifying thing is that this is a planned destruction of a private industry by the Government. The Founders never intended this. And everyone should be terrified about this. How does that old saying go...'First they came for the...'


Whose we? We are the government. How do we fix an industry without legislation? Do you think the companies should fix themselves? Why haven't they done so already?

It's not the Federal Governments job, or right, to fix anything in the private sector. If they don't fix themselves, let them fail and go bankrupt.

[1bad65]

Which is mostly political. The GOP has been trying to dismantle Medicare and Social Security because these are popular programs that Democrats routinely win on. They know allowing Democrats to pass another popular program would cost them in future elections.

Please explain how the Federal Government has locked Bernie Madoff in prison for running a Ponzi scheme, yet they do the exact same thing in Social Security. And Madoff never used the threat of prison if you didn't give him money. The Government does.


A study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine concluded that 59% of physicians "supported legislation to establish national health insurance" while 9% were neutral on the topic, and 32% opposed it.

I don't care if 100% of them are for it. The Constitution does not grant the Government the power to force every American to purchase anything.

[1bad65]

Which is mostly political. The GOP has been trying to dismantle Medicare and Social Security because these are popular programs that Democrats routinely win on. They know allowing Democrats to pass another popular program would cost them in future elections.

So we should continue to just let one Party run roughshod over the rule of law so they can purchase votes?

What if we all just decided to stay home and let the Democrats take care of us?

[sanjuro_ronin]

I don't care if 100% of them are for it. The Constitution does not grant the Government the power to force every American to purchase anything.

The consititution doesn't give the govenment the right to tax income or anything for that matter, does it?

[1bad65]

As far as I am aware the drug companies are not targeted in the bill. The insurance companies are, and they only research and develop ways to take your money without giving anything back. :p

Just shut up with that class warfare garbage. They develop excellent, life-saving drugs. You may despise success, but do not deny their success in their feild just because you are envious of success.

What if you came up with an invention that saved lives and/or improved the lives of millions of people and your reward was to be vilified and have the Government try to force you into bankruptcy? How would you feel? What is your problem with rewarding, rather than punishing, success?

[1bad65]

The consititution doesn't give the govenment the right to tax income or anything for that matter, does it?

That's another debate. Let's stick with healthcare on this one. Again, I challenge anyone who supports this bill to show me where the Constitution allows the Federal Government to FORCE every American to purchase anything...

[Drake]

The consititution doesn't give the govenment the right to tax income or anything for that matter, does it?

It does, actually.

[Drake]

Article I - Section 2. And then there's also the 16th amendment, which clarifies the legitimacy of income tax.

[1bad65]

It does, actually.

And taxes are specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Nowhere does it say the Government has the right to force every citizen to purchase anything. And from a PRIVATE company no less. It's scary that people are falling for this.

[MasterKiller]

It's not the Federal Governments job, or right, to fix anything in the private sector. If they don't fix themselves, let them fail and go bankrupt.

The government shouldn't mandate minimum pay wages, because if people don't want to work for $2/hour they don't have to?

The government shouldn't mandate child labor, because if kid's don't want to work they don't have to?

The government shouldn't regulate monopolies, because if people don't buy their services they will just go out of business?

The government shouldn't regulate waste disposal in public waterways, because if people don't like drinking cancer-agents they won't buy the products from that company?

The goverment shouldn't inspect meat-processing plants because if people don't want bad meat, they won't buy it?

[Drake]

And taxes are specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Nowhere does it say the Government has the right to force every citizen to purchase anything. And from a PRIVATE company no less. It's scary that people are falling for this.

And that's the problem with universal health care. I believe it can be accomplished without that degree of interference. Sure, maybe they need a few laws and rules dictating how they operate, much like the telecomms... but a complete takeover?

Sure, it's not in the CURRENT bill, but that's because the dems were pressured out of it.

[Drake]

The government shouldn't mandate minimum pay wages, because if people don't want to work for $2/hour they don't have to?

The government shouldn't mandate child labor, because if kid's don't want to work they don't have to?

The government shouldn't regulate monopolies, because if people don't buy their services they will just go out of business?

The government shouldn't regulate waste disposal in public waterways, because if people don't like drinking cancer-agents they won't buy the products from that company?

The goverment shouldn't inspect meat-processing plants because if people don't want bad meat, they won't buy it?

That does not justify the complete takeover initially proposed. You could justify taking over any business due to incidents of corruption or misuse.

[MasterKiller]

And that's the problem with universal health care. I believe it can be accomplished without that degree of interference. Sure, maybe they need a few laws and rules dictating how they operate, much like the telecomms... but a complete takeover?

I'm not arguing for the complete takeover; however, 1bad65 is essentially saying there is nothing wrong to fix. His insurance is good, so therefore people should do what he does and everything will be fine.

If the market should be able to dictate control, I should be able to order prescription drugs from Canada or Mexico. If competition is allowed, U.S. prices would be forced to fall inline to compete.

What we have now is the government telling me WHERE to buy drugs for which I have a prescripton, essentially locking out fair competition and guranteeing a huge markup for the same product to drug manufacturers.

The argument that "they have to make their money somewhere" is bullsh1t. It's the same argument Hollywood uses to justify $30 DVDs in America that cost $3 in Hong Kong, which is why they use DVD region codes to prevent you from buying cheaper Hong Kong DVDs, essentially locking you into a price-fixed market and eliminating your right to choose. And they wonder why people bootleg their products so much?

If it's profitable at $3, then anything more is gouging.

[dimethylsea]

As long as the government is in the business of keeping medicine "safe" (i.e. licensing doctors and nurses) and restricting people's access to pharmaceuticals (i.e. I can't purchase my hypertension medications without paying an M.D. or equiv) then it's not a free market and you can't act like it is.


Since America is not ready for truly free medicine arguments about freedom and what not are kinda silly. What is going to be most effective at keeping the most people alive and healthy?

If America were serious about health care we would pick 1 of the THREE ways we still have to nuke the USSR (bombers, ICBMs, submarines) to keep as a deterrent and scrap the other two.

We could easily pay for universal healthcare under current taxation levels if we just stopped spending more money than anyone else in the world on the military.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Article I - Section 2. And then there's also the 16th amendment, which clarifies the legitimacy of income tax.

Ah, thanks.

[Reality_Check]

From the non-partisan Congressional Research Service:

http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R40725_20090724.pdf


Certain health insurance mandate proposals could rely on Congress's spending and taxing authority. For example, if Congress chose to require individuals to have health insurance by levying a tax, then using the revenue for funding health benefits, this could be viewed as an appropriate use of Congress's taxing and spending power. Or, if Congress were to require individuals to purchase health insurance, and then enforce this requirement by conditioning receipt of a tax benefit (e.g., a tax credit) on compliance, this also could be seen as a legitimate exercise of Congress's taxing authority. Similarly, if Congress were to enact a proposal under which individuals who did not purchase health insurance were subject to a tax penalty (e.g., a loss of a tax deduction), this also could be seen as valid under this clause of the Constitution.

In addition, Congress's Spending Clause authority could be invoked if a proposal to require individuals to purchase health insurance involves state participation. Congress has frequently promoted its policy goals by conditioning the receipt of federal funds on state compliance with certain requirements. Accordingly, if Congress were to condition payment of certain funds to states based on whether that state requires its residents to have health insurance, this could also be seen as acceptable under the Spending Clause. While the Court has recognized that Congress cannot force states to take certain courses of action because of state sovereignty protected under the Tenth Amendment, the conditioning of funds can be a legitimate inducement to get states to follow the will of Congress. Thus, if Congress were to grant federal funds to states that enacted laws which required individuals to purchase health insurance, this type of law would likely be considered a legitimate use of Congress's spending clause authority.

[1bad65]

I'm not arguing for the complete takeover; however, 1bad65 is essentially saying there is nothing wrong to fix. His insurance is good, so therefore people should do what he does and everything will be fine.

Can you please show where I have said the current system has "nothing wrong to fix"?

[1bad65]

If the market should be able to dictate control, I should be able to order prescription drugs from Canada or Mexico. If competition is allowed, U.S. prices would be forced to fall inline to compete.

What we have now is the government telling me WHERE to buy drugs for which I have a prescripton, essentially locking out fair competition and guranteeing a huge markup for the same product to drug manufacturers.

But a complete Government takeover of the healthcare system should fix this? :eek:

[1bad65]

That does not justify the complete takeover initially proposed. You could justify taking over any business due to incidents of corruption or misuse.

Exactly.

And notice how the GREED of the unions essentially bankrupted 2 of the Big 3 automakers. And I don't see the Democrats proposing the Government pass new laws to control union corruption and misuse.

Face it, this issue is not about fixing problems, it's about power and control.

[MasterKiller]

But a complete Government takeover of the healthcare system should fix this? :eek:

If the government is paying for the drugs, it's in it's own interest to negotiate lower rates rather than allow pharmaceutical lobbyist to push for laws that guarantee them much higher profits in the U.S. than they get elsewhere.

Of course, our socialist military buys $150 hammers, so maybe not.

[SanHeChuan]

Originally Posted by SanHeChuan
As far as I am aware the drug companies are not targeted in the bill. The insurance companies are, and they only research and develop ways to take your money without giving anything back.

Just shut up with that class warfare garbage. They develop excellent, life-saving drugs. You may despise success, but do not deny their success in their feild just because you are envious of success.

What if you came up with an invention that saved lives and/or improved the lives of millions of people and your reward was to be vilified and have the Government try to force you into bankruptcy? How would you feel? What is your problem with rewarding, rather than punishing, success?

Are you addled?

What does my post have to do with class warfare?
And I wasn't saying anything bad about drug companies.
I was talking about insurance companies, what inventions have they come up with? Should we reward monopolies too, how about a successful coup by a military dictator?

[1bad65]

If the government is paying for the drugs, it's in it's own interest to negotiate lower rates rather than allow pharmaceutical lobbyist to push for laws that guarantee them much higher profits in the U.S. than they get elsewhere.

Of course, our socialist military buys $150 hammers, so maybe not.

You may be starting to figure out why Government never fixes anything....

I'll give you another hint. You speak of how monopolies are bad for the consumer. Yet you espouse socialized medicine where the Government has a monopoly. And a monopoly protected by the law at that. :eek:

[1bad65]

Are you addled?

What does my post have to do with class warfare?
And I wasn't saying anything bad about drug companies.
I was talking about insurance companies, what inventions have they come up with? Should we reward monopolies too, how about a successful coup by a military dictator?

Much like I just told MK; you do not like monopolioes, but yet you sing the praises of countries where the Government has a monopoly on an industry, and whose monopoly is protected by the law. You are not being consistant.

[David Jamieson]

the 150 dollar hammers were to pay for the SR-71 blackbird

the 740 toilet seats were to pay for the space shuttles.

seriously, when you run a company as big as the usa and it's subsidiaries McDonell- Douglas, Lockheed, and the rest.

when you fund NASA, when you fund Skunk Works and you are one of maybe 5 countries in the world taht is doing it, you are gonna see a lot of missing dollars.

do you realize what a space shuttle costs? ok, now what do you think a spy sattellite costs?

how much of the stuff is tabled on an open budget? Why table the thnigs you use as weapons against your enemies on an open budget?

I swear, Americans can be their own worst enemy and in fact for the most part they really are just that.

[1bad65]

I swear, Americans can be their own worst enemy and in fact for the most part they really are just that.

If we keep giving away "free" goodies to those who produce nothing, we are going to destroy ourselves from the inside.

[SanHeChuan]

Much like I just told MK; you do not like monopolioes, but yet you sing the praises of countries where the Government has a monopoly on an industry, and whose monopoly is protected by the law. You are not being consistant.

I mentioned monopolies because you said the following;


What is your problem with rewarding, rather than punishing, success?

From that question I wanted to get a better understanding of your perspective. You say you want to reward success. I want to know how you define success, and what you think is acceptable to achieve that success.

My Perspective is that the insurance companies are not successful.

The difference between corporate and government monopolies is that one is done for profit and without limitations will abuse its power. The other is done to provide a service, the service its self being the primary motivator, not what it can get from the consumer. And if it is no good like you say, it will mostly provide service to those that the private insurance companies refuse to service. Those who can afford better health care will buy it. A government monopoly that is not run for profit has no interest in limiting competition. The United States postal service is run by the government but is not currently a monopoly because it doesn't dominate the market, nor deter competition.

[Drake]

I mentioned monopolies because you said the following;



From that question I wanted to get a better understanding of your perspective. You say you want to reward success. I want to know how you define success, and what you think is acceptable to achieve that success.

My Perspective is that the insurance companies are not successful.

The difference between corporate and government monopolies is that one is done for profit and without limitations will abuse its power. The other is done to provide a service, the service its self being the primary motivator, not what it can get from the consumer. And if it is no good like you say, it will mostly provide service to those that the private insurance companies refuse to service. Those who can afford better health care will buy it. A government monopoly that is not run for profit has no interest in limiting competition. The United States postal service is run by the government but is not currently a monopoly because it doesn't dominate the market, nor deter competition.

Did you just suggest that a government run health care insurer will not abuse its power? OH SIR I BEG TO DIFFER.

[1bad65]

Did you just suggest that a government run health care insurer will not abuse its power? OH SIR I BEG TO DIFFER.

He has also failed to answer my question about providing an example of ONE Government program that solved the problem it was designed to fix, and did so at or under budget.

What's amazing is that he knows he can't come up with even ONE, yet he is so sure the same entity that ALWAYS fails will somehow get it right this time. :rolleyes:

[1bad65]

I want to know how you define success, and what you think is acceptable to achieve that success.

In a nutshell, it's making money (or achieving your goals if they are not monetary gain) legally. Both the insurance companies and the drug companies are billion dollar industries that not only help people, but they employ vast numbers of people as well.


My Perspective is that the insurance companies are not successful.

Only a liberal could say an industry that earns billions annually and follows the law is not a success. :rolleyes:

And I'm still waiting for you to show us just ONE example of a Government program that was a success. ;)

[MasterKiller]

And I'm still waiting for you to show us just ONE example of a Government program that was a success. ;) How's your polio holding up these days?

[SanHeChuan]

And I'm still waiting for you to show us just ONE example of a Government program that was a success.


In a nutshell, it's making money (or achieving your goals if they are not monetary gain) legally.

By your definition of success all of them because they aren't designed to make money, they exist to provide a service. As long as they can provide that service they are a success.

But I'll name ONE the Post office. The Post office's purpose is to deliver mail, It has delivered mail for 235 years. When it stops devlivering mail you can call it a failure.

Social Security is successful. It provides money to old people. As long as there is more working people than retired old people it will provide money to those old people. If in 2037 Social Security needs to increase revenue by increasing payroll taxes to meet the demand Social Security it will still be meeting its GOAL and be successful as defined by you. You may not like the system, giving money to worthless non producing old people, but it’s doing what it was meant to do. You can jump up and down crying that the sky is falling, but until it actually happens I’m right.

"By 2017, Social Security is expected to start paying out more than it collects in payroll taxes, according to the 2009 Annual Report from the Social Security and Medicare Board of Trustees. There is currently a large surplus, but it will be drained by the year 2037. At that point, Social Security will only be able to pay out 75 percent of its benefits."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/34941334/Will_Baby_Boomers_Bankrupt_Social_Security


Did you just suggest that a government run health care insurer will not abuse its power? OH SIR I BEG TO DIFFER.

Then differ with some specific points. We both have government run health care, where are the abuses?

[1bad65]

How's your polio holding up these days?

There is a Government anti-polio program?

[1bad65]

San, you are becoming a waste of time.

You can't say they are a success, but only if you take the money part out of the equation, and be taken seriously.

[1bad65]

But I'll name ONE the Post office. The Post office's purpose is to deliver mail, It has delivered mail for 235 years. When it stops devlivering mail you can call it a failure.

Anyone with half a brain calls it a failure.

For example look at John E Potter's salary. He is the current Postmaster General. He made $186k in 2007. He got a raise the next year to $260k. That's a 39% raise!!! And on top of that he got a $135k "performance bonus! And how well did he "perform" in 2007? Well lets see, the USPS lost $5.142 billion in 2007.

That's government waste right there.

Now keep in mind, the law says we must have a post office. And thus you see the waste and abuse that comes with Government mandated programs. Do you honestly think healthcare will be any different?

[1bad65]

When it stops devlivering mail you can call it a failure.

You do realize they are seriously considering dropping Saturday mail service, right? ;)

"The post office is renewing its drive to drop Saturday delivery -- and plans a rate increase -- in an effort to fend off a projected $7 billion loss this year.
Without drastic action the agency could face a cumulative loss of $238 billion over 10 years, Postmaster General John Potter said in releasing a series of consultant reports on agency operations and its outlook."

Source: http://www.wilx.com/news/headlines/85995182.html

Man, considering Mr Potter got a $135k "performance bonus" when they lost $5.1 billion in 2007, if they lose $7 billion this year he should be due for a monster bonus!

I thought Obama said CEOs of companies who lose money should not be getting bonuses? Oh wait, that's only in the private sector.

[Reality_Check]

And I'm still waiting for you to show us just ONE example of a Government program that was a success. ;)

The GI Bill.

[MasterKiller]

Anyone with half a brain calls it a failure.

For example look at John E Potter's salary. He is the current Postmaster General. He made $186k in 2007. He got a raise the next year to $260k. That's a 39% raise!!! And on top of that he got a $135k "performance bonus! And how well did he "perform" in 2007? Well lets see, the USPS lost $5.142 billion in 2007.

That's government waste right there.

Now keep in mind, the law says we must have a post office. And thus you see the waste and abuse that comes with Government mandated programs. Do you honestly think healthcare will be any different?

And the private sector has a better record lately of giving out raises and bonuses regardless of poor performance????

[SanHeChuan]

You can't say they are a success, but only if you take the money part out of the equation, and be taken seriously.

I was using the definition of success YOU gave me. Making money is not their purpose; their purpose is to provide a service.


Anyone with half a brain calls it a failure.

Yes, only someone with half a brain would :p


That's government waste right there.

The Post office doesn't use tax dollars.


I thought Obama said CEOs of companies who lose money should not be getting bonuses? Oh wait, that's only in the private sector.

So, do you think Private companies are Failures when they lose money and/or give inappropriate bonuses? :confused:


The GI Bill.

Good one.

[1bad65]

The GI Bill.

That is not a program that effects every American regardless of your circumstances. To get the GI Bill you must join the military which, unlike Obama's healthcare plan and Social Security, is voluntary.

[1bad65]

And the private sector has a better record lately of giving out raises and bonuses regardless of poor performance????

They sure do.

Look at one of the Post Office's main competitors, UPS. Their net income for 2008 was $3 billion. As opposed to the Post Office who lost more than $5 billion in 2007.

And in 2008 their CEO, Scott Davis earned a bonus of $176,944. So his company MADE $3 billion and he got a bonus that was just under $40k less than the Postmaster General whose company LOST $5 billion. Which company would you consider a success?

[1bad65]

The Post office doesn't use tax dollars.

So what money do they use to cover the BILLIONS they lose annually? :confused:

I'm dying to see your answer to this one....:D

[Reality_Check]

That is not a program that effects every American regardless of your circumstances. To get the GI Bill you must join the military which, unlike Obama's healthcare plan and Social Security, is voluntary.

Way to move the goalposts. You did not ask for a program that affects every American. You asked for:


He has also failed to answer my question about providing an example of ONE Government program that solved the problem it was designed to fix, and did so at or under budget.

What's amazing is that he knows he can't come up with even ONE, yet he is so sure the same entity that ALWAYS fails will somehow get it right this time. :rolleyes:



And I'm still waiting for you to show us just ONE example of a Government program that was a success. ;)

The GI Bill has certainly been a success.

[Reality_Check]

That is not a program that effects every American regardless of your circumstances. To get the GI Bill you must join the military which, unlike Obama's healthcare plan and Social Security, is voluntary.

Would the interstate highway system count as affecting every American?

[Drake]

Y'all need to STFU about the GI Bill. You don't understand it, much less know how it factors into the discussion. That goes for both sides.

And FYI... the new GI Bill is a f'ing mess right now, and it's hurting soldiers BAD.

[SanHeChuan]

So what money do they use to cover the BILLIONS they lose annually? :confused:

I'm dying to see your answer to this one....:D

The Postal Service receives no tax dollars for operating expenses, and relies on the sale of postage, products and services to fund its operations.
http://www.usps.com/communications/newsroom/2010/pr10_021.pdf#search='tax dollars'

They make up for their losses like every company, they make cuts and raise rates.

Prove it does use taxs dollars...?


And FYI... the new GI Bill is a f'ing mess right now, and it's hurting soldiers BAD.

I use the GI Bill, The Montgomery not the 9/11, how is it hurting soldiers? What's wrong with it?

[Reality_Check]

The Postal Service receives no tax dollars for operating expenses, and relies on the sale of postage, products and services to fund its operations.
http://www.usps.com/communications/newsroom/2010/pr10_021.pdf#search='tax dollars'

They make up for their losses like every company, they make cuts and raise rates.

Prove it does use taxs dollars...?

http://www.usps.com/communications/newsroom/postalfacts.htm


0 Tax dollars received for operating the Postal Service

http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/16/news/companies/US_postal_service/index.htm


The USPS is a self-supporting government agency that receives no tax dollars. It relies solely on the sale of postage and products and services to generate sales.

[Reality_Check]

Y'all need to STFU about the GI Bill. You don't understand it, much less know how it factors into the discussion. That goes for both sides.

So, it's not a government program? It hasn't had success?

http://www.america.gov/st/educ-english/2008/April/20080423213340eaifas0.8454951.html

[Drake]

So, it's not a government program? It hasn't had success?

http://www.america.gov/st/educ-english/2008/April/20080423213340eaifas0.8454951.html

It's not a free program. Money is paid into it by soldiers, and there are some stringent requirements for you to use it. In fact, if, for whatever reason, you are unable to finish your initial enlistment, you end up $600 in the hole with zero benefits.

Worse yet, the new, post 9/11 GI Bill ran into funding problems, and a LOT of soldiers had to pay out of pocket for their college, and many who already paid for their classes had the money DEDUCTED (Up to $3k!!) from their pay over the whole mess.

So....NO, I wouldn't call it a terribly successful program given all the troops that have been burned by it.

[1bad65]

The GI Bill has certainly been a success.

But what problem was it designed to fix? I'm of the opinion it is a benefit offered to entice young men to join the military. Like 401k, profit sharing, vacation time, etc that private companies use to entice people to work for them. Drake may be a good one to hear from on this.

Long story short, IMO it is not a Government program. It is a benefit offered to those who voluntarily join the military.

The 2nd part of success I mentioned was coming in at or below budget. You would have to show those figures to prove success using the goalposts I enacted. ;)

EDIT: It appears Drake has chimed in. Thanks Drake.

[1bad65]

Would the interstate highway system count as affecting every American?

It does not affect those of us who do not drive. And those of us who do not drive do not pay to fund it either.

[1bad65]

If the Post Office lost over $5 billion in 2007, please explain why they are not bankrupt. They had to get that money somehow....

[Reality_Check]

It does not affect those of us who do not drive. And those of us who do not drive do not pay to fund it either.

Ah, but it does affect those who do not drive. How do you think food gets to your supermarket, or UPS manages to deliver your packages?

[Reality_Check]

But what problem was it designed to fix? I'm of the opinion it is a benefit offered to entice young men to join the military. Like 401k, profit sharing, vacation time, etc that private companies use to entice people to work for them. Drake may be a good one to hear from on this.

Long story short, IMO it is not a Government program. It is a benefit offered to those who voluntarily join the military.

The 2nd part of success I mentioned was coming in at or below budget. You would have to show those figures to prove success using the goalposts I enacted. ;)

EDIT: It appears Drake has chimed in. Thanks Drake.

I am referring to the The Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944. It was paid for and administered by the US Government. That makes it a government program. Drake's experiences with the current bill have nothing to with this one, as it expired in 1956.

http://www.america.gov/st/educ-english/2008/April/20080423213340eaifas0.8454951.html


Among its provisions, the law made available to World War II veterans immediate financial support in the form of unemployment insurance. Far more important, as it turned out, were generous educational opportunities ranging from vocational and on-the-job training to higher education, and liberal access to loans for a home or a business

...

Though it might appear that the adoption and passage of the bill was entirely the result of unbridled generosity on the part of a grateful Congress, it was also in large measure a product of justified concern, even a certain fear, on the part of lawmakers about a radicalized postwar America. Prior to World War II, America had provided benefits and care to those disabled by combat, but had paid little attention to its able-bodied veterans. Within living memory of many public men of the time, neglect of the returning veterans of World War I, exacerbated by deteriorating economic conditions, had led to protest marches and disastrous confrontations. In 1932, 20,000 veterans gathered in Washington, D.C., for a "bonus march," hoping to obtain financial rewards they thought they had been promised for service in World War I, leading to one of America's most tragic moments. Altercations led President Hoover to call out the army, which under the leadership of future military heroes General Douglas MacArthur and Majors Dwight Eisenhower and George Patton used guns and tanks against the "bonus army."

In the minds of Washington policymakers who had witnessed this confrontation, the viable legislation to meet the needs of veterans that emerged in 1944 came not a moment too soon. Even when it was clear that the Allies were going to win, few foresaw the complete capitulation of the Axis powers one year later with the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the sudden return of more than 15 million veterans of the Army, the Navy, and the Marine Corps, streaming home from the Atlantic and Pacific theaters.

...

In spirit, as well as specific provisions, the GI Bill was enormously democratic. Benefits were available to every veteran upon his release from active service. The rules were the same for everyone. The only requirements were military service for at least 90 days, and an honorable discharge. No financial means tests were applied, no complex tax credits had to be computed, and, most important, no preferences were given for military rank or service experiences. Length of service was used to apply only to duration of educational benefits. Minimal bureaucratic red tape was imposed for the use of any benefit.

....

For educational benefits, the method was for the Veterans Administration (VA) to certify eligibility, pay the bills to the school for tuition, fees, and books, and to mail a monthly living stipend to the veteran for up to 48 months of schooling, depending upon length of service. For home loans for GIs, the VA guaranteed a sizeable portion of the loan to the lending institution and mortgage rates were set at a low 4 percent interest.

...

By the time initial GI Bill eligibility for World War II veterans expired in 1956 – about 11 years after final victory – the United States was richer by 450,000 trained engineers, 240,000 accountants, 238,000 teachers, 91,000 scientists, 67,000 doctors, 22,000 dentists, and more than a million other college-educated individuals.

...

The third legacy of the GI Bill devolved from the manner in which it was administered and funded. Under the terms of the statute, the administration of the program was concentrated in the Veterans Administration (now known as the Department of Veterans Affairs) rather than scattered government agencies or private institutions. It was a centralized federal program that was based on a decentralized market approach. Congress chose to fund the GI Bill educational benefits through the veterans themselves over the protests of the educational establishment, which had initially hoped and sought entirely to control the postwar allocation of such resources. This approach established the basic postwar method for subsequent federal loans and grants to college students. To this day in the United States, funds targeted at educational opportunity, such as student loans, still go directly to the student and not the institution. Similarly, the postwar housing crisis was addressed through individual loan guarantees rather than government-built and -managed housing projects, many of which have not served well in efforts to solve subsequent housing crises.

[Reality_Check]

The 2nd part of success I mentioned was coming in at or below budget. You would have to show those figures to prove success using the goalposts I enacted. ;)

Moving the goalposts was in reference to your comment "That is not a program that effects every American..." That was not in your original question. You only asked for one government program, you did not say it had to affect every American. Hence the goalposts were moved.

[dimethylsea]

It's not a free program. Money is paid into it by soldiers, and there are some stringent requirements for you to use it. In fact, if, for whatever reason, you are unable to finish your initial enlistment, you end up $600 in the hole with zero benefits.

Worse yet, the new, post 9/11 GI Bill ran into funding problems, and a LOT of soldiers had to pay out of pocket for their college, and many who already paid for their classes had the money DEDUCTED (Up to $3k!!) from their pay over the whole mess.

So....NO, I wouldn't call it a terribly successful program given all the troops that have been burned by it.

From the perspective of separated members who convert to post-911 (Chapter 33) it's not been a cakewalk, but depending on where you can go to school you can usually get a fee deferment till your checks come in, and if you handle the conversion properly you can actually get quite a bit of extra out of it.

That 12-month extension request is killer if you game the system and file conversion at the right time. Apparently the trick is to run out your chapter 30 (pre-911) and time it so it runs out halfway through the semester (cause chapter 30 will pay out to the finish of a semester even if your entitlement ends partway through, chapter 33 will not!) and file a conversion/extension request about 15 days prior to your entitlement ending date.
Then you finish out the semester getting regular chapter 30 and then go to chapter 33/post-911 for 12 more months.

Obviously this is from the University of "Some dude talking on the internet". TALK TO YOUR VA REP at school. Get everything you can. Be smart. If you are at a podunk school go talk to the VA rep at a major state university that processes hundreds of claims a year and get their input on your specific situation. You paid in. get everything you can.

It's all that's feeding some people's kids in this recession.