Let's count them up now

in reality or de facto. De facto ownership is far more pervasive than we might imagine. Government, by establishing games rules and/or how it allocates funding of tax dollars has considerable control over privately owned businesses and institutions. I won't make a list.

...the most succint post you've ever made here. Kudos.

The only bank the Federal Govt really owns is the Federal Reserve and that's more at arm's length. FDIC forces banks that don't meet certain guidelines into receivership and remove all deposits to another bank that is sound. While the govt doesn't "own" GM, they do have an undue amount of influence over them due to being a creditor for them, more so than any other creditor would ever have.

The govt did however by rescuing some banks and investment firms while deliberately not rescuing others which were same size or bigger, exercised a control that could easily be considered the same as if they "owned" them. For instance, why save Citi when it was worse off than WAMU, which the govt let fail. Why let Bear Stearns and Lehman Bros fail but help out the other investment houses? It's not unreasonable to look at govt as "owning" the banks and financial institutions when one considers the control exercised by the SEC, the Federal Reserve system, the FDIC.

Universal Health Care in other countries hasn't resulted in ownership of Big Pharma, at least here, but the effect on pharmaceutical companies there can be debated. Remember, there are overseas pharmaceutical companies which make their profits from selling to US users.

It would be interesting to see the power clash between a new govt universal health coverage program and it's effect on Big Pharma when those in the FDA began to realize or suspect their agency's power was being eroded by the new program.

Toni's point is the Federal Government is too involved with all of us on an individual level, which really was NEVER the intent of our founding fathers. It was always the States which were to have any involvement with citizens on any personal level. Slowly, ever so slowly, that has shifted from the States to the Federal level.

The biggest step in that direction was instituting an income tax on individuals. That gave the Feds all sorts of power to override constitutional protections regarding privacy of one's papers, etc. It's like a big brown crap stain on the Constitution that President Wilson and his cronies accomplished. Others had pushed it before him though, including none other than Teddy Roosevelt. Yet, the country had gotten along fine without it for more than 135 years. Why was it brought about? Well, because of ignoring another law against "standing armies" since more money was needed to pay for World War I and then to keep paying for larger military expenditures.
http://www.tax.org/museum/1901-1932.htm
One day maybe we will get that off our backs, and get our privacy rights back too.

Of course all Federal programs that people receive money from, even if it's a fund like Social Security which the people paid their own money into, is used to keep track of individuals, gather information on them, pass requirements against them, institute laws to control them more.

The problem it has had is related to the reimbursement they pay the providers. They are now aware that the time limits put on some hospital stays have proven to not be cost effective.

I don't know about Medicaid, except that the recipients have a hard time finding providers because of the even lower reimbursements paid to providers. Yet they get some perks that Medicare doesn't give, like transportation benefits.

Angeline

Obama's plan calls for a half-trillion dollar cut in Medicare. I also notice that the tax on wheelchairs and things like artificial hips is still in place, but now it's called an excise tax. I don't know about you, but I don't see such things improving my Medicare.

the 159 new government agencies and ALLLLLL those new Fed jobs that will be created in order to not only check on who is buying insurance so they can be dunned, have their refund checks confiscated, fined, or jailed for not buying it....plus some of those government agencies will oversee if the policy you decided to buy has GOVERNMENT approval first or you can't buy it....plus some of those agencies will actually be the ones deciding if the procedure your doctor (if you can find one since at least 1/3 of the doctors polled this past week have indicated they will quit or retire early so there will be a shortage for the extra 30M they are putting on the dole) has determined you need is really necessary so the 'death panel' really will exist.

In addition to this, although the Dems keep insisting that there are no government funds being used for abortions, there is a special exchange fund where policy premiums paid for will contribute $1 each policy will be dumped in order to actually PAY for those abortions. Now, although each person will be able to choose which policy they want, every single one that chooses those type of policies and IF they are getting a Federal subsidy because they can't afford the policy, has an end result of the Federal Government actually picking up the tab for those abortions thru those subsidies.

Then you have the MANDATED order stating you HAVE to buy health insurance (which is a PRODUCT). People argue that states already mandate that you have to have car insurance, BUT you aren't being forced into buying a car...if you don't buy a car, you aren't forced into buying that insurance. Health insurance is NOT a Constitutional right....it's a Federal Government ORDER once this goes thru.

I can't believe you actually support this outrage, Ang....I much prefer that changes in Health Care be done in increments that can actually SAVE money (go after the fraud and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid, allow insurance to be sold across state lines like car insurance can, get tort reform in place. Why is it necessary to use Medicare 'fraud' money AND Social Security increases (in this bill) to pay for a whole new insurance program (notice please that the SS increase is NOT going into the SS fund to bolster THAT up).

TONI H

...LOL...

because I will lose my Humana Medicare Advantage policy if VA doesn't get the other 38 states involved with suing over this unConstitutional law after Sunday. In order to cover 30 million, mainly with subsidies from the Feds, over 15 million with Medicare Advantage will lose their coverage all across the country, even tho we are ALREADY paying for it....isn't that just grand?

TONI H

Do you remember this quote:
?First of all, if you?ve got health insurance, you like your doctors, you like your plan, you can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan. Nobody is talking about taking that away from you.?.

...... the military would include coverage for a parent not living in the same household. I do know a parent out of the household can buy long term care insurance at a good price.

Dependent insurance is costly for an active duty members, and they usually are under the care of the military health care system. You are fortunate that you do not have to be in a. network, so you can select your providers., just like conventional Medicare.

Angeline

"You are fortunate that you do not have to be in a. network, so you can select your providers., just like conventional Medicare."

There are only two doctors in my small town and one won't take Humana Medicare Advantage and the other will soon not be able to take us unless we pay larger deductibles for each visit. That means I have to hit the phone books out of my county (mountain area where towns and cities are pretty far apart) by requesting phone books (I have to pay for those extra) for other counties, and call every doctor in the books to find one who will accept Medicare even because many won't anymore. Since Medicaid pays the entire amount of the doctor's visit charge, plus glasses, plus dentists, etc. whereas Medicare by itself only pays a small percentage of the office visit and nothing else, most doctors here will still take a Medicaid patient, but they stopped taking Medicare patients a couple of years ago.

I have a pre-existing condition obviously, and even tho this current bill supposedly will force insurance companies to accept me, I can't even begin to imagine what my premium will be in order to get a new policy.

This administration literally makes me physically ill....and they don't seem to care that 15M of us don't need this extra stress, all so they can cover 30M that aren't already covered by free Medicaid and illegals. This was the big reason that the last holdout for the 216th vote was still voting "NO" until about an hour ago...he is Hispanic and wanted the coverage for illegals. A deal got made to include them soon because the next agenda is amnesty for them all and he's voting "YES" now, so everything will be voted on Sunday.

TONI H

411.com doesn't do it for you?

I have what is under my being a survivor of my husband's coverage. I figure it is either the premium or the deductibles.

I also have a pre-existing condition, and was tuned down for long term care coverage by one major insurance company because of it. I was able to get it through the same company that insures my car and belongings.

I suspect that the majority eligible for Medicare have a pre-existing condition. Conventional Medicare never denied anyone because of it. They have been the final hope for old sick people.,which makes insurance companies very happy. None of the financial burden falls on them. Their actuaries operate on the healthiest people. Another way the avoid the crunch and control their risk is by requiring pre-approval.

So, we will never see eye-to-eye on the issue, so must agree to disagree.


Angeline

My Medicare Advantage hasn't increased at all....

But I was talking about the supplemental insurance that covers many things that Medicare itself doesn't cover. With a pre-existing condition those are the premiums that would be pretty costly (I had checked into them before, until Humana came along). I still have to contact Humana to find out what other types of supplemental insurance they have and the costs to see if they can just transfer me to one of those policies once Advantage goes into the toilet since they are already aware of my heart issue...and see what those rates would be for me since I already am a customer of theirs.

TONI H

Medicare and Obamacare will basically merge eventually. There will be no justification for keeping them separate. To allay administration costs you will see them both become one and the same. It also means the same problems in obtaining medical care through Medicare payments being rejected will instead under a single payer govt insurance program become one of attrition, in which fewer go to medical school, fewer become doctors, and many current doctors will take other type of employment, something that pays better and is willing to accept any 4 year degree. For instance, my wife's degree is in Biology, but her job is Financial Analyst. Doctors may wait a couple years to see if things will get fixed to make it worth their while to stay in the new system, but if their reaction to Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement is any indication, eventually many, if not most of them, will leave the medical profession for other employment.

As near as I can tell from the thousand of pages that make up that bill, with adults insurance companies won't be required to cover people with a pre-existing condition until 4 years in the future. In other words, after the next Presidential election. So if Obama gets re-elected and that requirement causes things to "hit the fan", he does not have to worry about it having an effect on his re-election, he will be in his last term.

When I was in AF, I had my mother living in Tampa and qualified as my dependent, even after getting married. She had all the same medical coverage that any other dependent had, such as my children when they were born. The only insurance cost was for outside the military medical system, for CHAMPUS. It was not that expensive either.

and because I wasn't living in the same location (house/apartment), I couldn't be claimed as a dependent of his unless he could prove that he paid over half of my expenses every month.

TONI H

She was receiving SSI due to her medical conditions at the time and I'd paid off her house so by sending her $400 a month through an "allotment" taken from my pay, she was qualified. The way it worked then was I could still live in barracks, but get full Basic Allowance for Subsistence(?), I think that's what it was called. Since I was already receiving a full allowance when I got married my wife, due to mother's dependency status, my wife could get the additional half allowance through her military pay. Each military member has right to get that allowance if living out of quarters, but special rules apply when you have a dependent located elsewhere. Now if Derek's wife isn't in the military, then only one full allowance is given, no matter what. However, my main purpose was to get the medical coverage for my mother. You are correct the income test must be met.

... the free health care is for the active duty person. He/she must buy coverage for their dependents, which is comparable to to that of civilians, I suspect the Medicare-eligible dependent pays for it through their SS, and might have the secondary coverage subsidized.

Since you were in the AF,, dependents have to pay for medications, both perspiration and over-the-counter, as well.

There is no more Champus. Deadbeat coverage, like I s aid, is a separate policy. Retiree coverage is now called TRICARE.

I do know that the only way I could have coverage under my daughter is to live with them.

Angeline

Also in this great (and I use the term in a derogatory way) health care bill is a 'penalty' against married couples by increasing their premiums nearly double what they are now.

TONI H