By a vote of 219 to 212, the House passed the bill after a day of tumultuous debate that echoed the epic struggle of the last year. The action sent the bill to President Obama, whose crusade for such legislation has been a hallmark of his presidency.
Nurgleboy77 wrote:Let the Cluster fething commence!
Amen! We can't even fix all the pot holes on the highways and the government has been trying for 60 years when the government was running at a surplus.
Nurgleboy77 wrote:Let the Cluster fething commence!
Amen! We can't even fix all the pot holes on the highways and the government has been trying for 60 years when the government was running at a surplus.
Potholes are caused by the cars driving over them. You don't stop them, they happen and they get filled in.
Think of a trip to the DMV, now picture yourself bleeding to death at the DMV.
You now have an accurate view of what it was like before. Oddly it's the same now.
Nurgleboy you have no idea what was in the healthcare bill.
As opposed to the all knowing Shuma who has read all 1K+ pages...
better than having read none of it, knowing nothing about it, having no concept of governance or economics, and having no idea how the healthcare system works.
Something important to note, is the formatting of the bill, as a legal document. Even though the bill is toted as an epic stack of paper, font is massive, and margins take up more than 1/3 of the page. Instead of 2000+ pages (written in font that can be read from across the room, along with being double spaced), think 500 pages of formulaic reading, backed up by around 250 pages of index, and reference material.
Wrexasaur wrote:Something important to note, is the formatting of the bill, as a legal document. Even though the bill is toted as an epic stack of paper, font is massive, and margins take up more than 1/3 of the page. Instead of 2000+ pages (written in font that can be read from across the room, along with being double spaced), think 500 pages of formulaic reading, backed up by around 250 pages of index, and reference material.
Just saying.
Most government legal documents are very long. The annual budget is huge.
Law Proposed: Healthcare for all.
Bill Contents: Healthcare for all.
How we do it: Tax you.
How you get it: You don't have healthcare.
How this bill solves it: You get healthcare.
I can solve the expensive health care issue with one fell swoop. Why not hand out Government Bills out instead of sleeping and pain medications. Yes we will lose the world's forests but a typical HR bill can be used for insomiacs that does respond to strong drugs. Plus people would learn to live with the pain just like before modern medical drugs instead of reading that boring .
Quite honestly, most of the bills read like a super boring mad lib.
The State of __________ (enter proper state name) gets $___,___,___,___.___ (enter random number) for ________________ (enter a useless earmarked porkbelly project) as a requirment for the funding of grade school lunch programs which can be cut at any time in order to fund the previously aforementioned project.
I am not a fan of being forced to buy health insurance. I find that to be one of my biggest problems with the bill. I have enough problems making enough money as it is, even with a subsidized plan, I will still have to fork over some money, which I am loathe to do...
Pipboy101 wrote:Quite honestly, most of the bills read like a super boring mad lib.
The State of __________ (enter proper state name) gets $___,___,___,___.___ (enter random number) for ________________ (enter a useless earmarked porkbelly project) as a requirment for the funding of grade school lunch programs which can be cut at any time in order to fund the previously aforementioned project.
And this post reads like you didn't read any of the bill.
JEB_Stuart wrote:I am not a fan of being forced to buy health insurance. I find that to be one of my biggest problems with the bill. I have enough problems making enough money as it is, even with a subsidized plan, I will still have to fork over some money, which I am loathe to do...
That is if they catch you! Just ride rings around the government...they will never force you to pay!
JEB_Stuart wrote:I am not a fan of being forced to buy health insurance. I find that to be one of my biggest problems with the bill. I have enough problems making enough money as it is, even with a subsidized plan, I will still have to fork over some money, which I am loathe to do...
Welcome to the same situation illegal immigrants are in. You can't pay your medical bills? Neither could they.
The bill provides support for super low income households in theory, so we'll see how it actually pans out.
JEB_Stuart wrote:I am not a fan of being forced to buy health insurance. I find that to be one of my biggest problems with the bill. I have enough problems making enough money as it is, even with a subsidized plan, I will still have to fork over some money, which I am loathe to do...
1% of your income is hardly a catastrophic fee. I have few doubts that if you can't afford it, you simply aren't required to pay it.
Nurgleboy77 wrote:Let the Clusterf*cking commence!
Amen! We can't even fix all the pot holes on the highways and the government has been trying for 60 years when the government was running at a surplus.
Potholes are caused by the cars driving over them. You don't stop them, they happen and they get filled in.
When it comes to road maintenance, you have no idea what you're talking about.
You're more adept at sophistry.
Stick to what you are good at.
Well, the law is now Americans must have healthcare. Take a few days to now see the rammifications to this new law and how you can use it to your advantage.
Nurgleboy77 wrote:Let the Clusterf*cking commence!
Amen! We can't even fix all the pot holes on the highways and the government has been trying for 60 years when the government was running at a surplus.
Potholes are caused by the cars driving over them. You don't stop them, they happen and they get filled in.
When it comes to road maintenance, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're more adept at sophistry. Stick to what you are good at.
A pothole (sometimes called kettle and known in parts of the Western United States as a chuckhole) is a type of disruption in the surface of a roadway where a portion of the road material has broken away, leaving a hole. Most potholes are formed due to fatigue of the pavement surface. As fatigue fractures develop they typically interlock in a pattern known as "alligator cracking". The chunks of pavement between fatigue cracks are worked loose and may eventually be picked out of the surface by continued wheel loads, thus forming a pothole. The formation of potholes is exacerbated by low temperatures, as water expands when it freezes to form ice, and puts greater stress on an already cracked pavement or road. Once a pothole forms, it grows through continued removal of broken chunks of pavement. If a pothole fills with water the growth may be accelerated, as the water "washes away" loose particles of road surface as vehicles pass. In temperate climates, potholes tend to form most often during spring months when the subgrade is weak due to high moisture content. However, potholes are a frequent occurrence anywhere in the world, including in the tropics. Potholes can grow to feet in width, though they usually only become a few inches deep, at most. If they become large enough, damage to tires and vehicle suspensions occurs.
You too. I'm great at knowing everything! And you're great at making snide comments that are easy to refute with the first paragraph from the wikipedia for the definition being argued.
Well, the law is now Americans must have healthcare. Take a few days to now see the rammifications to this new law and how you can use it to your advantage.
I was trying to be all righteous and you go and make me laugh.
America's road system is a marvel and a mess. With 3.9 million miles of highways and roads, many of them built in the asphalt rush of the 1950s, it is by far the world's biggest system. Ninety percent of all U.S. travel occurs on highways, and three-quarters of all domestic goods are shipped by road. No stretches are busier than the 1.2 million miles of interstate and other major highways. And yet, despite the $28 billion spent each year on maintenance and construction, the Federal Highway Administration admits that 52% of these thoroughfares are in miserable condition. Some are rated "low fair," meaning rutted, cracked and sometimes "unfit for high-speed travel." Others are "poor," meaning they have excessive bumps, depressions and potholes that "provide an uncomfortable ride." Roads like this contribute to congestion and accidents, which the government says cost the country $120 billion a year -- and untold lives.
JEB_Stuart wrote:I am not a fan of being forced to buy health insurance. I find that to be one of my biggest problems with the bill. I have enough problems making enough money as it is, even with a subsidized plan, I will still have to fork over some money, which I am loathe to do...
Yeah, it isn't great, but if we take it as a given that insurance companies should not be able to reject anyone for a pre-existing condition how do you get people to buy insurance when they're not sick?
Also, the fine is 1% of your income, and starts in four years time.
God dammit! Now if the death panels even let me see a doctor, it will have to be a Communist one, who will probably make me have an abortion. We need to fight back!
Here’s the plan:
STEP 1: All Americans for a government that abides by the Constitution change their local laws to allow the keeping of chickens by any taxpaying American.
STEP 2: Once taxpayers are allowed to keep chickens, we amend the law to allow all taxpayers to keep hogs. (After all, we wouldn’t want to discriminate now, would we?)
STEP 3: Hogs proliferate from sea to shining sea.
STEP 4: Government workers begin to disappear.
STEP 5: Missing government workers are replaced with new government workers.
STEP 6: The new government workers disappear too.
STEP 7: In short order, no one wants to be a government worker.
STEP 8: With a shrinking pool of government workers, fewer laws interfering with private enterprise are enacted.
STEP 9: Smaller government at all levels - federal, state, city, and local - result in HUGE SAVINGS being realized with the tax dollars returned to the taxpayers.
STEP 10: After eating off the FAT OF THE LAND, the tens of millions of hogs are sold to the Chinese for hefty profit, thereby paying off the debt caused by said government workers. America is now debt free.
Seriously guys, go and find some articles about the healthcare debate and find some valid points to bring around so we can discuss the merits of this system in better detail than what a talking head like Limbaugh has said about healthcare.
(yes, conservatives go find a liberal media outlet and see what they have to say).
Nurgleboy77 wrote:Let the Clusterf*cking commence!
Amen! We can't even fix all the pot holes on the highways and the government has been trying for 60 years when the government was running at a surplus.
Potholes are caused by the cars driving over them. You don't stop them, they happen and they get filled in.
When it comes to road maintenance, you have no idea what you're talking about.
You're more adept at sophistry.
Stick to what you are good at.
A pothole (sometimes called kettle and known in parts of the Western United States as a chuckhole) is a type of disruption in the surface of a roadway where a portion of the road material has broken away, leaving a hole. Most potholes are formed due to fatigue of the pavement surface. As fatigue fractures develop they typically interlock in a pattern known as "alligator cracking". The chunks of pavement between fatigue cracks are worked loose and may eventually be picked out of the surface by continued wheel loads, thus forming a pothole.
The formation of potholes is exacerbated by low temperatures, as water expands when it freezes to form ice, and puts greater stress on an already cracked pavement or road. Once a pothole forms, it grows through continued removal of broken chunks of pavement. If a pothole fills with water the growth may be accelerated, as the water "washes away" loose particles of road surface as vehicles pass. In temperate climates, potholes tend to form most often during spring months when the subgrade is weak due to high moisture content. However, potholes are a frequent occurrence anywhere in the world, including in the tropics.
Potholes can grow to feet in width, though they usually only become a few inches deep, at most. If they become large enough, damage to tires and vehicle suspensions occurs.
You too. I'm great at knowing everything! And you're great at making snide comments that are easy to refute with the first paragraph from the wikipedia for the definition being argued.
You're becoming bicameral in giving your half you brain to the machine.
By the way, hot or cold mix?
Is that a kind of coffee? Or is this some sort of odd method by which you illustrate that I don't know much about asphalt then somehow imply that vehicles traveling on roadways aren't a cause of potholes.
STEP 1: All Americans for a government that abides by the Constitution change their local laws to allow the keeping of chickens by any taxpaying American.
STEP 2: Once taxpayers are allowed to keep chickens, we amend the law to allow all taxpayers to keep hogs. (After all, we wouldn’t want to discriminate now, would we?)
STEP 3: Hogs proliferate from sea to shining sea.
STEP 4: Government workers begin to disappear.
STEP 5: Missing government workers are replaced with new government workers.
STEP 6: The new government workers disappear too.
STEP 7: In short order, no one wants to be a government worker.
STEP 8: With a shrinking pool of government workers, fewer laws interfering with private enterprise are enacted.
STEP 9: Smaller government at all levels - federal, state, city, and local - result in HUGE SAVINGS being realized with the tax dollars returned to the taxpayers.
STEP 10: After eating off the FAT OF THE LAND, the tens of millions of hogs are sold to the Chinese for hefty profit, thereby paying off the debt caused by said government workers. America is now debt free.
Pipboy101 wrote:Here is a couple things that can solve any healthcare issue which is a hell of a lot cheaper.
and
True for the first one, but the second one is cheaper for the first 2 years, after which the not paying for healtcare tax would be greater and therefore make the second option cheaper.
You understand that government is not taking over healthcare, don't you? Because that's been a basic component of this debate for a year now, and I'm really struggling to see how you missed it.
So either you've not followed this debate at all, or have ignored it's basic facts because it's easier to make sweeping allegations.
You're becoming bicameral in giving your half you brain to the machine.
By the way, hot or cold mix?
Is that a kind of coffee? Or is this some sort of odd method by which you illustrate that I don't know much about asphalt then somehow imply that vehicles traveling on roadways aren't a cause of potholes.
Just pointing out that by saying "they happen and they get filled in" means you really don't have a clue about how the process works. It makes other proclamations that you know how the government will administer health care dubious.
The bicameral comment was an extrapolation of "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" by Julian Jaynes.
You understand that government is not taking over healthcare, don't you? Because that's been a basic component of this debate for a year now, and I'm really struggling to see how you missed it.
So either you've not followed this debate at all, or have ignored it's basic facts because it's easier to make sweeping allegations.
Alright, it is like the DMV telling your car insurer to insure people who run over other people, crash regularly, and set fire to cars for the sake of it (though the analogy is off by the fact that people with pre-existing conditions do not actually intentionally harm their bodies). The DMV would be directing car insurance companies what to do, guiding them in a direction they probably would not go otherwise.
JEB_Stuart wrote:I am not a fan of being forced to buy health insurance. I find that to be one of my biggest problems with the bill. I have enough problems making enough money as it is, even with a subsidized plan, I will still have to fork over some money, which I am loathe to do...
if the house bill remains as is you should have know problem getting insurance that is next to nothing or free, besides most of it wont tak effect till 2014
You're becoming bicameral in giving your half you brain to the machine.
By the way, hot or cold mix?
Is that a kind of coffee? Or is this some sort of odd method by which you illustrate that I don't know much about asphalt then somehow imply that vehicles traveling on roadways aren't a cause of potholes.
Just pointing out that by saying "they happen and they get filled in" means you really don't have a clue about how the process works. It makes other proclamations that you know how the government will administer health care dubious.
The bicameral comment was an extrapolation of "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" by Julian Jaynes.
So are you arguing that potholes don't happen? Or that the don't get filled in? I'm confused here because you're wrong on both counts and haven't actually stated much beyond your belief that I don't know what I'm talking about. I'll admit, I don't work in road maintenance, however I'm quite sure that holes happen when gak happens to the rocky gak thats under the cars and then dudes show up and put gak into those holes which makes them kind of go away.
Please, enlighten me. Clearly this is a simplistic description of the methodology used.
Oh, and since were comparing book quotes.
I have a fantasy where Ted Turner is elected President but refuses because he doesn't want to give up power.
youbedead wrote:if the house bill remains as is you should have know problem getting insurance that is next to nothing or free, besides most of it wont tak effect till 2014
Insurance companies will be barred from dropping people from coverage when they get sick. Lifetime coverage limits will be eliminated and annual limits are to be restricted.
Insurers will be barred from excluding children for coverage because of pre-existing conditions.
Young adults will be able to stay on their parents' health plans until the age of 26. Many health plans currently drop dependents from coverage when they turn 19 or finish college.
Uninsured adults with pre-existing conditions will be able to obtain health coverage through a new programme that will expire once new insurance exchanges begin operating in 2014.
A temporary reinsurance programme is created to help companies maintain health coverage for early retirees between the ages of 55 and 64. This also expires in 2014.
Medicare drug beneficiaries who fall into the "doughnut hole" coverage gap will get a $250 rebate. The bill eventually closes that gap which currently begins after $2,700 is spent on drugs. Coverage starts again after $6,154 is spent.
A tax credit becomes available for some small businesses to help provide coverage for workers.
A 10 per cent tax on indoor tanning services that use ultraviolet lamps goes into effect on July 1.
youbedead wrote:if the house bill remains as is you should have know problem getting insurance that is next to nothing or free, besides most of it wont tak effect till 2014
Insurance companies will be barred from dropping people from coverage when they get sick. Lifetime coverage limits will be eliminated and annual limits are to be restricted.
Insurers will be barred from excluding children for coverage because of pre-existing conditions.
Young adults will be able to stay on their parents' health plans until the age of 26. Many health plans currently drop dependents from coverage when they turn 19 or finish college.
Uninsured adults with pre-existing conditions will be able to obtain health coverage through a new programme that will expire once new insurance exchanges begin operating in 2014.
A temporary reinsurance programme is created to help companies maintain health coverage for early retirees between the ages of 55 and 64. This also expires in 2014.
Medicare drug beneficiaries who fall into the "doughnut hole" coverage gap will get a $250 rebate. The bill eventually closes that gap which currently begins after $2,700 is spent on drugs. Coverage starts again after $6,154 is spent.
A tax credit becomes available for some small businesses to help provide coverage for workers.
A 10 per cent tax on indoor tanning services that use ultraviolet lamps goes into effect on July 1.
so i was right, mandatory insurance does nor begin until 2014
Most people will be required to obtain health insurance coverage or pay a fine if they don't. Healthcare tax credits become available to help people with incomes up to 400 per cent of poverty purchase coverage on the exchange.
WarOne wrote:Alright, it is like the DMV telling your car insurer to insure people who run over other people, crash regularly, and set fire to cars for the sake of it (though the analogy is off by the fact that people with pre-existing conditions do not actually intentionally harm their bodies). The DMV would be directing car insurance companies what to do, guiding them in a direction they probably would not go otherwise.
Tell me the government is not doing that.
Yes, government is telling insurers they can't reject people with pre-existing conditions. Is that a bad thing?
And how is government regulation comparable to complete take over?
WarOne wrote:Alright, it is like the DMV telling your car insurer to insure people who run over other people, crash regularly, and set fire to cars for the sake of it (though the analogy is off by the fact that people with pre-existing conditions do not actually intentionally harm their bodies). The DMV would be directing car insurance companies what to do, guiding them in a direction they probably would not go otherwise.
Tell me the government is not doing that.
Yes, government is telling insurers they can't reject people with pre-existing conditions. Is that a bad thing?
And how is government regulation comparable to complete take over?
Hush, he doesn't understand what premiums are. Let him enjoy his little teenage rage fantasy.
I'm watching Michael Steele talk about what will transpire in the wake of this bill. He continually posits that the bill will cost 2 trillion dollars as it will give roughly 33% of the nation access to healthcare. I understand the value that number has in terms of rhetoric, but to seriously believe that 33% of the nation is going to double annual spending on healthcare is almost mind bogglingly stupid; especially given that the most expensive patients are already supported via medicare.
Yes, government is telling insurers they can't reject people with pre-existing conditions. Is that a bad thing?
And how is government regulation comparable to complete take over?
Sigh...now you make me have to get all serious and stuff.
On the first point, depends on what road you wish to take in addressing this issue in terms of rating government directed and regulated health care as a "bad thing."
The United States has a strong history of passing laws which bars discrimination of people based on a perceived inequality brought about by their color, race, gender, sexual orientation, economic background and various other socially constructed identities that contribute to perceptions that hinder a person from what society and the government believe people should be entitled to. In this case, the government seeks to address something akin to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_Information_Nondiscrimination_Act by effectively forcing insurers not to discriminate people against pre-existing conditions of health.
In my opinion, this is a "good thing" that government is taking steps to help these people who cannot get coverage and help pay for medical treatments that balloon out of control for families unable to privately fund their healthcare costs.
The burden of taking on the costs of the new provisions to provide healthcare for people may indirectly cause healthcare costs to rise faster than inflation and living wages that must rise as well in order to cover potentially higher costs.
Historically, American has progressed foward in giving healthcare coverage to all, with a serious push beginning with Progressives in the early 20th century. Up to this point in history, we have had the ability to cover those under current federal laws with healthcare.
The graver concern I have is the cost. Republicans have a ring of truth that the bill may cost more than we thought. The government office associated with figuring out how much initiatives and bills will cost the United States may have an accurate appraisal that the bill will save the federal government money. It could also be wrong. The article sums up the fears of what could be a very expensive bill that won't see the final cost until years down the road.
Being afraid of cost however does not give you a sufficiently justifiable reason to call this bill "a bad thing."
What has gone from a clear and defined goal of a government run health care system to what we don't even know what it is. The rammifications of this bill are not fully understood yet. The Democrats rushed this bill through the House in order to get it passed:
The 114-page reconciliation package (plus 39 pages on student loans, included to make reconciliation work better in the Senate) just released by the House is a reminder of the two basic problems with what the Democrats are doing. The first is that too much is being done too quickly. True, we have had nearly three months to think about the Senate bill since it was rushed through that body.
But the House reconciliation bill would change it in fundamental ways, and House leaders want to pass it in just three days. In the meantime, we have no choice but to rely on the summary provided by House staff. The bill itself is stuffed with unhelpful language like, “in subclause (i), by striking ‘90’ and inserting ‘94,’” and so forth and so on, ad infinitum, referring back to the Senate bill.
The second point ties into the previous point about unintended costs.
But aside from what the bill actually brings to the table, it now spawns a political battle that will span the entire year as elections get underway for pivtoal House and Senate seats.
The health care bill has now spawned a monster of epic proportions. Unleashed, it will consume the debate for upcoming elections that may turn the tide for Democrats or Republicans. Emboldened, the Democrats may push for other sweeping changes to law. If the public approves their mandate, it could mean a political shift that places America closer to center-right countries such as traditional European Western Democracies. It could further radicalize the Repulican right wing and its constituents, emboldening them with new venom and fervor to reject Obama and what his backers stand for. In that sense, the healthcare bill could be a "bad thing."
Keeping this short, the bill could give Americans more jobs. Obama has been big on tying in job creation to his other initiatives such as reducing America's fossil fuel dependency by creating more green jobs. That funny talking republican head on the Foxnews reel stated 15,000 new IRS jobs to keep track of the bill. What will this bill really do for the American economy by adding 30+ million more Americans to the insurance industry of America? What kind of impact will this bill have on the economy when the true effects of the bill are revealed.
Okay. I am done with your first statement.
Now for number two.
Well, which system would you prefer?
or
Or are both of these highly exaggerated aspects of two different sides of an argument?
Of course, given how these systems were thought up, here is how I think either way could go if left to their own devices:
I really don't care if I have to go to the DMV to get my healthcare. So long as I get some free healthcare from a company that the government runs, it is all good by me.
And lastly, how could you take those pictures seriously? If you believed I believed in the statement I made in the prior paragraph, your reading too far into my motivations to not really care about the debate at all and really focus on making humor of it instead.
Of course, this could be me doing this to your two lines of comment:
Well, the law is now Americans must have healthcare. Take a few days to now see the rammifications to this new law and how you can use it to your advantage.
I was trying to be all righteous and you go and make me laugh.
I will enjoy watching the lawsuits. 38 states are promising lawsuits at point of writing. That whole Constitution thing is just SO inconvenient.
"The tree of Liberty needs to be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. "
Thomas Jefferson
3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)
Well, here are my thoughts for those who don't care. Our healthcare "system" is a disaster. It is an endless cycle of debt that is slowly creeping over the middle class. That cycle being;
1. Someone can't afford insurance, as they make too much for Medicaid and make too little to buy a policy (Or have a preexisting condition). They are therefore without insurance.
2. That someone gets ill and requires hospitalization. Unfortunately, this means a bill that will easily reach 6 digits, perhaps more depending on issue.
3. That someone obviously can't afford to pay for that bill, provided they could not afford insurance in the first place. They default, file and the hospital eats the bill. It's estimated anywhere from 50-65% of all bankruptcy claims are due to medical bills.
4. To cover that cost, the hospital begins raising prices on mundane items and services for those whom do have insurance. Insurance companies pay more.
5. To cover that cost, insurance companies raise premiums, copays and deductibles. Insurance coverage grows more expensive with less benefits.
6. Due to raising insurance costs, less employers offer benefits and begin hiring part time people to cover shifts. The differential pay for part time/prn staff is nowhere the cost of hiring full time with benefits.
7. Due to less employers offering insurance and rising costs, more individuals can't afford insurance. The are therefore without insurance and hope they do get sick. If they do, go to step 2.
This is rather simplistic but I feel it's a honest appraisal of our issues. Slip in litigation, technology costs and nurse/physician shortages and the picture starts to become even clearer; the system is doomed to fail. Now, I have no doubt that the bill will be an unmitigated disaster from the gate. There is no way any institution, be it private or government owned, can take over the system as it is currently and 'fix it'. It will take revision upon revision and countless mistakes to find viable solutions...but we are forced to start somewhere are we not? Obviously, if we can swallow our pride a bit and look to foreign soil (Such as the Swedish health care system).... those revisions will take less time.
So, in short, I'm glad we are taking our first steps. There are portions of the bill I agree strongly with, other areas not so much...but I'm willing to compromise for us to take that first step.
Y'know, it occurs to me that something happened to the "my country wrong or right" and "you can like it or GTF out"-type rhetoric we heard from 2000-2008. Wonder where that all went?
Personally, I'm mixed on the bill. However, if it makes the tea partiers retreat to their underground bunkers, I'm content to chalk it up as a win.
I am very pleased this first step towards a more socially aware and morally responsible state are being taken before my arrival, I consider it most hospitable of you folks.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:I am very pleased this first step towards a more socially aware and morally responsible state are being taken before my arrival, I consider it most hospitable of you folks.
Frazzled wrote:
I will enjoy watching the lawsuits. 38 states are promising lawsuits at point of writing. That whole Constitution thing is just SO inconvenient.
Nothing in the bill is blatantly unconstitutional. The best argument seems to be that the 16th amendment does not allow for the taxation of anything other than income; meaning that the requirement to purchase health insurance, if you viewed as a tax, violates the 10th amendment.
This bill will not end well. At first it'll be hunky-dory, but when the average American lifespan doesn't increase then we'll see more people calling the bill useless. The lifespan isn't tied into health care, after all England has health care and they live about 1 more year than Americans on average.
Comparing those I'll blame working on the lower life expectancy. (The lower the average hours worked, the higher the life expectancy save for Japan and I think Greece.).
The "health care reform" bill does not reform health care at all, it just gives the "insured" title to the uninsured at a premium. As for those who don't have insurance, they have to buy it and even if it's cheap, lack of money means you can't buy it so you get fined for being unable to afford it.
Also, I would say that its similar to car insurance (which is mandatory in most states). You pay for a car and then are needed to pay for its insurance lest you want to face a fine, thus raising the actual cost of owning a car.
The difference is you don't buy yourself.
We need to be able to fund this program. Most companies will pay for part of the treatment depending on the price you pay and what program you enlisted in. The price for this new program is going to be low, but medical treatment is expensive so the price differences need to be met. The government is the source of insurance and will pay for the treatment costs, seeing as though the people pay the government, we can effectively say that we pay for the treatment.
Also, an issue for many private practice doctors is that they "down-code" a.k.a price for a lower service than the one that they actually give. A magazine directed towards private practice physicians was giving tips on how to stay afloat in terms of business. It told them to write down the exact service and code for what they actually did. The reason some doctors down-code is because the insurance companies don't like paying more for what they need to, but if the services rendered match the code, the doctors are fine and get paid what they actually deserve.
The issue is these doctors will now be fighting the government when an issue of coding is called up and it is far easier to fight a company than it is the government. (After all the companies may hire lawyers, but the government is made up entirely of lawyers.).
The response will be a higher pricing for the government insurance or less pay for doctors. Either way is not a good ending.
The price goes up and people once again become uninsured, or taxes goes up and people all across the country become more miserable. This is if the government plan begins to cost more.
If the doctors get paid less, then we see a lower income for the doctors. Sure the doctors should be sworn to help whomever they can and should be made to take care of your sick family members, but doctors have family members of their own who most likely take precedence. This could lead to medical care becoming a less lucrative business (college and med-school are expensive and so are the loans to go through them) so we may see less doctors entering the practice. Or we may see private practice doctors denying care to those with the government insurance only (they can do this).
On the one hand I'm glad we have a starting point for health care reform.
On the other hand I worry that during a recession is not the time to start it, and I worry about the numbers that are being tossed around.
A few comments.
Dr's aren't going anywhere. All other countries have National Health care systems so they gain nothing by leaving.
You are allready "forced" to buy insurance if you drive an automobile.
Not one republican voted for this bill and 30-ish democrats voted no. I don't like the partisan way this was pushed through, and I believe it will cost the Dems dearly in future elections.
halonachos wrote:This bill will not end well. At first it'll be hunky-dory, but when the average American lifespan doesn't increase then we'll see more people calling the bill useless. The lifespan isn't tied into health care, after all England has health care and they live about 1 more year than Americans on average.
Naaaa, that average is for the whole of Great Britain. The average age gets increased when you factor out the Scots only living till their 34 because of their ponchant for 9% Super Tenents at 10AM and deep fried pizza and mars bars for Supper. The average Englishman lives to 104 on a healthy diet of Tea, Roast Beef and smugness.
Most go, I have to get down to the Death Panel see if this headache is worth taking an aspirin for or whether they will just slot me there and then.
I honestly don't care how this affects anyone but me. I have no insurance and haven't for 6 or so years. I'm 24. So now unless I get insurance I have to pay a fine starting 2014? And I pay more taxes to support the people who are going to fine me? Looks like I lose :p
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I honestly don't care how this affects anyone but me. I have no insurance and haven't for 6 or so years. I'm 24. So now unless I get insurance I have to pay a fine starting 2014? And I pay more taxes to support the people who are going to fine me? Looks like I lose :p
HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH How's that change working out for ya now????
You are allready "forced" to buy insurance if you drive an automobile.
I have had auto insurance for 6 months of the past 3 years. Amazingly I always seem to get a new policy right before registration renewal and inspection is due. I've gotten one ticket in that time. I think mandatory auto insurance is really, really stupid as the insurance company tries to feth everyone in the process anyway.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Seriously though, did I get that right?
generalgrog wrote:
You are allready "forced" to buy insurance if you drive an automobile.
I have had auto insurance for 6 months of the past 3 years. Amazingly I always seem to get a new policy right before registration renewal and inspection is due. I've gotten one ticket in that time. I think mandatory auto insurance is really, really stupid as the insurance company tries to feth everyone in the process anyway.
That's highly irresponsible. Mandatory automobile insurance is not for you, it is for the injury you may cause a third party (Or their property).
Find a way to work in my budget the money I owe some ambiguous figure for the rampant pain and destruction I'm apparently causing and I'll gladly take them up on their offer. In the mean time, nobody's losing so I fail to see the harm. At the moment I'm scrambling to keep a roof over my head, electricity and a phone, even with searching for additional employment over the past 7 months. My grocery budget weekly is under $20. So I:
A. Don't drive and rely on more-expensive public transportation that can't get me to work.
B: Drive in limited amount so I can pay all of my other bills by holding what job I do have.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Seriously though, did I get that right?
generalgrog wrote:
You are allready "forced" to buy insurance if you drive an automobile.
I have had auto insurance for 6 months of the past 3 years. Amazingly I always seem to get a new policy right before registration renewal and inspection is due. I've gotten one ticket in that time. I think mandatory auto insurance is really, really stupid as the insurance company tries to feth everyone in the process anyway.
So you're a burden on the system, paying nothing, but fully prepared to have others pay for you in the event of your injury or car accident (or since you don't have either kinds of insurance both at the same time)? Quite responsible of you. I love the parallels here between anti-healthcare people not having insurance and the oft cited statistic of illegal immigrants getting free healthcare because they don't have insurance.
Find a way to work in my budget the money I owe some ambiguous figure for the rampant pain and destruction
They used to call that debtors prison. Now they call it legal action.
ShumaGorath wrote:
So you're a burden on the system, paying nothing, but fully prepared to have others pay for you in the event of your injury or car accident (or since you don't have either kinds of insurance both at the same time)? Quite responsible of you. I love the parallels here between anti-healthcare people not having insurance and the oft cited statistic of illegal immigrants getting free healthcare because they don't have insurance.
I love that you assume that I'm anti-healthcare. Thanks for jumping to conclusions. No one has to pay for me in the event of anything happening, and if they do, I'll pay it off when I have the money (sorta like how I'd have insurance if I had the money because some guy says I need to and he's entitled to spend the ridiculously low amount I earn for me).
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Find a way to work in my budget the money I owe some ambiguous figure for the rampant pain and destruction I'm apparently causing and I'll gladly take them up on their offer.
This is exactly why you should have insurance. Flip the tables. Given your financial status, if someone were to hit you and lack insurance, you would have no compensation for your vehicle, damages or lost work potential. That sure would suck, wouldn't it?
ShumaGorath wrote: So you're a burden on the system, paying nothing, but fully prepared to have others pay for you in the event of your injury or car accident (or since you don't have either kinds of insurance both at the same time)? Quite responsible of you. I love the parallels here between anti-healthcare people not having insurance and the oft cited statistic of illegal immigrants getting free healthcare because they don't have insurance.
I love that you assume that I'm anti-healthcare. Thanks for jumping to conclusions. No one has to pay for me in the event of anything happening, and if they do, I'll pay it off when I have the money (sorta like how I'd have insurance if I had the money because some guy says I need to and he's entitled to spend the ridiculously low amount I earn for me).
I'm pretty sure thats not how lawsuits stemming from car accidents work. You would pay them when the court demands you do or they would seize what little assets you have. Chipper up though, at the lowest levels insurance would be practically free due to this, so it's unlikely anyone would have to pay 2.5% of their earnings unless they refused to get insurance at all. As for the car insurance thing you just shouldn't be driving without it. Period. It's not a particularly safe thing to do financially.
Seeing as it's happened to both me and my brother, sure does. Legal action ended up costing us money and time and nothing positive happened for either us because, amazingly, the guy didn't have money. The practical solution was to fix it out of our own pockets and let it be because nothing was going to happen the other route. Again, where does the money for me to get insurance come from? From the swarms of jobs out there?
Edit: I came here looking for an answer, not a lecture :p Thanks for the opinions, but I'll do what I can when I can.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Seeing as it's happened to both me and my brother, sure does. Legal action ended up costing us money and time and nothing positive happened for either us because, amazingly, the guy didn't have money. The practical solution was to fix it out of our own pockets and let it be because nothing was going to happen the other route. Again, where does the money for me to get insurance come from? From the swarms of jobs out there?
Which one? Car or health? The health will likely be comped or simply ludicrously cheap, though you wont be charged for it for 4 years anyway. And if you don't have a job by then you have bigger problems. For car insurance theres no real way to get it cheap, and you just shouldn't drive without it. Wait a few months for things to slowly begin to come online and take effect and then look into it. Theres not much to be done right now, none of its started.
OMG healthcare passed? We are all socialist, Communist nazis now? I didn't even notice the sky falling this morning, or the country turing to ash? Turns out we just got on par with every other 1st world nation.
They said the same nonsense when Obama got elected, and for every other thing he has done.
In the UK it is illegal to not have at least 3rd party insurance. And rightly so. If you accidentally mount the curb and wipe out another guys new car and caravan, you owe the guy money, and then there are injuries and such...
No, it is illegal. I also can't afford it. I can't have a job without driving since public transportation sucks around here. Do the math and you'll see the problem I'm having.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:No, it is illegal. I also can't afford it. I can't have a job without driving since public transportation sucks around here. Do the math and you'll see the problem I'm having.
I have a friend in a similar situation, and it's really not an easy thing to deal with. Honestly the only real option you have is to keep trying to get a job, theres not much other recourse right now if you're in a similar situation to his. You should probably be really careful not to get in an accident or pulled over.
Hey mate, i sympathise with you if your skint of course, but im just saying, you know.. it is illegal for a good reason.
Im a good driver, but everyone makes mistakes, if you happen to feth up and wipe out a whole bunch of people, then you really do need to be able to hold up your hands and say "at least i had insurance"
Im not exactlly rockerfella, but ive always had insurance. Just get a crappy car and get third party only, it cant cost that much surely?
I want to clarify, I'm not trying to glorify anything or encourage breaking the law or whatever. I'm just in a pickle and doing my best to get to the legal limit and make my life better. Lesson, kiddies: stay in school and live with your parents until you're stable. If they happen to remarry and move to another country the moment you turn 18 while having previously forbidden you from having a job so you have no work experience or basis in the real world, just end your life or prepare to fight like hell to make it better.
AgeOfEgos wrote:Well, here are my thoughts for those who don't care. Our healthcare "system" is a disaster. It is an endless cycle of debt that is slowly creeping over the middle class. That cycle being;
1. Someone can't afford insurance, as they make too much for Medicaid and make too little to buy a policy (Or have a preexisting condition). They are therefore without insurance.
2. That someone gets ill and requires hospitalization. Unfortunately, this means a bill that will easily reach 6 digits, perhaps more depending on issue.
3. That someone obviously can't afford to pay for that bill, provided they could not afford insurance in the first place. They default, file and the hospital eats the bill. It's estimated anywhere from 50-65% of all bankruptcy claims are due to medical bills.
4. To cover that cost, the hospital begins raising prices on mundane items and services for those whom do have insurance. Insurance companies pay more.
5. To cover that cost, insurance companies raise premiums, copays and deductibles. Insurance coverage grows more expensive with less benefits.
6. Due to raising insurance costs, less employers offer benefits and begin hiring part time people to cover shifts. The differential pay for part time/prn staff is nowhere the cost of hiring full time with benefits.
7. Due to less employers offering insurance and rising costs, more individuals can't afford insurance. The are therefore without insurance and hope they do get sick. If they do, go to step 2.
This seems to be something that isn't quite grasped by many of the people opposed to health insurance reform. You're already paying to cover everyone in case of catastrophe, just because you aren't writing a check to the government doesn't mean it isn't occuring.
Good move by the government that helps the Average Joe instead of just sending them off to war.
We haven't had a draft for decades. That is a good thing.
It has yet to be seen how this will actually help the Average Joe. If small businesses see this as bad for their future there will be less hiring and the economy does not come back as quickly (if at all). That would be bad for the 'Average Joe'.
If insurance companies cannot exclude for pre-existing conditions they KNOW clients with pre-existing conditions will cost them more. They either must charge those clients more for the coverage (like many do for smokers now) or raise premiums on everybody or some combination. (They cannot pay out more without taking in more and stay in business). If thier profit margines drop companies will move on to other business vice health insurance leaving the 'Average Joe' with less choices which cost more. That does not sound good for the Average Joe.
So again, your basic 'sending them off to war' comment was pretty misplaced and whether this helps the 'Average Joe' in fact remains to be seen.
Good move by the government that helps the Average Joe instead of just sending them off to war.
We haven't had a draft for decades. That is a good thing.
It has yet to be seen how this will actually help the Average Joe. If small businesses see this as bad for their future there will be less hiring and the economy does not come back as quickly (if at all). That would be bad for the 'Average Joe'.
If insurance companies cannot exclude for pre-existing conditions they KNOW clients with pre-existing conditions will cost them more. They either must charge those clients more for the coverage (like many do for smokers now) or raise premiums on everybody or some combination. (They cannot pay out more without taking in more and stay in business). If thier profit margines drop companies will move on to other business vice health insurance leaving the 'Average Joe' with less choices which cost more. That does not sound good for the Average Joe.
So again, your basic 'sending them off to war' comment was pretty misplaced and whether this helps the 'Average Joe' in fact remains to be seen.
Yup we haven't had a draft for decades but we did have two wars during the previous adminsitration that are currently still going on and have arguably been mishandled, inefficient, and detrimental to the USA and its allies. With health care reform we may get similar negative qualities but at least it gives hope for those who can't get insurance now and deals with the problem that is the heatlth care industry instead of creating conflicts overseas.
I'd like to point out that I had a family member who had to pay for her own insurance out-of-pocket due to being a small business owner. One company denied her for her hay fever. And yes, you read that right. She later found coverage, thankfully. But it underlines that healthcare insurers are/were under no obligation to cover anyone unless they thought they'd be profitable. And god forbid if you actually have something wrong with you.
Also, you can never really underestimate the selfishness of Americans at times. I've seen people complain about paying school taxes because they don't have any children...never mind the fact that they themselves attended public schools on someone else's dollar when they were young. "Gimme, gimme, gimme...wait, I have to pay for this?!?"
LOL I love this. The best part about a democracy? When one side loses.
The second best part? Vote the guy you dont like out in 2 more years. We have an election coming up, thats how government works, theres another one coming around lol.
halonachos wrote:This bill will not end well. At first it'll be hunky-dory, but when the average American lifespan doesn't increase then we'll see more people calling the bill useless. The lifespan isn't tied into health care, after all England has health care and they live about 1 more year than Americans on average.
I don't believe that increasing the average lifespan was the central purpose behind healthcare reform. Indeed, per your argument it couldn't be.
But, honestly, claiming that healthcare isn't connected to average life expectancy is ridiculous. It certainly isn't the only factor, but it is most certainly relevant.
halonachos wrote:
The issue is these doctors will now be fighting the government when an issue of coding is called up and it is far easier to fight a company than it is the government. (After all the companies may hire lawyers, but the government is made up entirely of lawyers.).
That's deeply spurious reasoning. The state can drag its feet in the course settlement, but the options available to a claimant when seeking restitution are far more flexible.
On the one hand I'm glad we have a starting point for health care reform.
On the other hand I worry that during a recession is not the time to start it, and I worry about the numbers that are being tossed around.
A few comments.
Dr's aren't going anywhere. All other countries have National Health care systems so they gain nothing by leaving.
You are already "forced" to buy insurance if you drive an automobile.
Not one republican voted for this bill and 30-ish democrats voted no. I don't like the partisan way this was pushed through, and I believe it will cost the Dems dearly in future elections.
GG
Couple responses to your comments:
You are not currently forced to buy automobile insurance. Most states have provisions for wealthy individuals to post bonds in lieu of insurance. Also, no one forces you to purchase the car or other vehicles requiring insurance. In my state for example you can ride a scooter without insurance. People in New York and other major Metropolis areas have no need of vehicles. In my opinion auto insurance is not a great example to justify mandating the purchase of a good.
Like you I find the partisan activity is in stark contrast to the lip service the President is paying to bi-partisanship. The only bi-partisan votes are occurring in opposition to this Health Deform bill. I share your opinion of the likely cost for the Democrat party.
Frankly nothing would make me happier than to see every last seat in Congress and the White House filled by Independants. Both parties have committed what amounts to criminal negligence.
generalgrog wrote:
On the other hand I worry that during a recession is not the time to start it, and I worry about the numbers that are being tossed around.
GG
This is really the major reason I'm in opposition to this bill. Its a wonderfully nice idea, but I really worry about where the money is supposed to come from. It seems to me like buying a car and a new house right after you've gone bankrupt. But I guess what's done is done, we'll just have to wait it out and see where this goes. I'll try and stay optimistic.
generalgrog wrote:
On the other hand I worry that during a recession is not the time to start it, and I worry about the numbers that are being tossed around.
GG
This is really the major reason I'm in opposition to this bill. Its a wonderfully nice idea, but I really worry about where the money is supposed to come from. It seems to me like buying a car and a new house right after you've gone bankrupt. But I guess what's done is done, we'll just have to wait it out and see where this goes. I'll try and stay optimistic.
Auto insurance is nothing short of a scam, if people were held to their liable for their own actions while driving then people would drive more carefully.
Ive been in 4 automotive collisions in my life, in 3 of them I was not at fault, we contacted insurance companies, tickets were written, and in the end I got no money or help paying for any damages. Insurance companies were able to sneak their way out of paying for anything. The 4th collison was entirely my fault, I was riding a motorcycle and hit an oil slick and slid into the car stopped in traffic ahead of me. In my state motorcycle insurance is not required, so I gave the person my information, they contacted me with the damage to their car and I payed them for the damages. ($400)
the cost for me to have car insurance is over $250 a month for the bare minimum legally required insurance with no personal coverage for me. I am under 25, I drive a 1989 honda civic, and I've been in 3 reported (not at fault) accidents in the last 6 years. In 4 months, the money I would save from not having car insurance could buy me another car. I have been driving for almost a decade and I've never had a speeding ticket, with no at-fault accidents in my name, why is my insurance cost on a small 80's economy car higher than the cost of car payments on a new sports car? makes no sense, and the only reason I have insurance is to avoid tickets.
The cost of insurance for me over my "career" as a driver is now well over the legal minimum insurance coverage. If I never had insurance to begin with, but insted kept my own money I would not only have a nest-egg with more money than insurance would provide, but i would also have a few thousand dollars to put into my car to make it safer on the road (tires, brakes, suspension, etc) to reduce my likelyhood of having another accident
generalgrog wrote: On the other hand I worry that during a recession is not the time to start it, and I worry about the numbers that are being tossed around. GG
This is really the major reason I'm in opposition to this bill. Its a wonderfully nice idea, but I really worry about where the money is supposed to come from. It seems to me like buying a car and a new house right after you've gone bankrupt. But I guess what's done is done, we'll just have to wait it out and see where this goes. I'll try and stay optimistic.
If people cared enough to get it done when times were good then it would have already been done. You pass major budgetary laws during times of poor economics, historically thats always when the political will has been available. Otherwise no one cares enough to try. Nicely enough it wont even come online for several years, and if were still in a deep slump in 2015 then this recession is chronic and wont be going away at all.
Taxes start earlier. Benefits start later to fake balancing it.
As noted on another board, I'd be ok if the Swis Government were running it. The fact this group of incompetent bribe takers wrote it (and it being unconstitutional of course but never let that stop anyone) is the scary part.
Frazzled wrote:Taxes start earlier. Benefits start later to fake balancing it.
As noted on another board, I'd be ok if the Swis Government were running it. The fact this group of incompetent bribe takers wrote it (and it being unconstitutional of course but never let that stop anyone) is the scary part.
Double counting Medicare "cuts" priceless.
We were going to be bankrupted by it by 2025 with or without the passing of the legislation. Your favorite party would never attempt to fix the problem, so hey, it's a wash. It's no worse than what we had, and at least now were in a a dialogue of implementation meaning we can start throwing out the things that don't work. Liberal action is better than conservative plug-eared humming. Also I thought you were leaving rush!
ShumaGorath wrote:
We were going to be bankrupted by it by 2025 with or without the passing of the legislation. Your favorite party would never attempt to fix the problem, so hey, it's a wash. It's no worse than what we had, and at least now were in a a dialogue of implementation meaning we can start throwing out the things that don't work. Liberal action is better than conservative plug-eared humming. Also I thought you were leaving rush!
What I don't understand, is why must we always think of it as choosing between "liberal action" and "conservative plug-eared humming"? Why not idependant progress? I also like that this "liberal action" will take 4 years for anything to possibly happen.
If I remember right, isn't that right before the Republicans took back both branches of Congress for the first time in something like 30-40 years. Something about 'a tidal wave of retribution..."
Frazzled wrote:If I remember right, isn't that right before the Republicans took back both branches of Congress for the first time in something like 30-40 years. Something about 'a tidal wave of retribution..."
Thats just low tide compared to whats coming.
Yeah, remember when that tidal wave of retribution led us into two vietnams, crashed the economy, got us hated by the entire world, increased the number of muslim terrorists, cost us trillians, gained us no jobs, grew the rich poor divide, and ballooned the deficit?
Most people do. Though in fairness at least while clinton was around all the reds managed to do was talk about blowjobs and whine a lot. It's as if republican controlled legislature never does anything when it's not politically advantageous!
There is a lot of talk about car insurance not working and being a rip off and scam, would you think about some kind of, IDK, regulations to keep them from ripping people off. The argument just proves that big insurance companies are like kids that can't be left unsupervised. Funny how they can pour an unlimited amout of money into the pockets of politicians and get away with ripping people off.
Don't worry you can cry wolf when the taxs are due soon, then on the jobs bill.
Come 2011 when you are back in power, you won't have anyone else to blame. What's that plan to make government smaller? End the two wars? Fix housing? It's the same as your plan under Bush, NOTHING.
sexiest_hero wrote:There is a lot of talk about car insurance not working and being a rip off and scam, would you think about some kind of, IDK, regulations to keep them from ripping people off. The argument just proves that big insurance companies are like kids that can't be left unsupervised. Funny how they can pour an unlimited amout of money into the pockets of politicians and get away with ripping people off.
Don't worry you can cry wolf when the taxs are due soon, then on the jobs bill.
Come 2011 when you are back in power, you won't have anyone else to blame. What's that plan to make government smaller? End the two wars? Fix housing? It's the same as your plan under Bush, NOTHING.
Shrinking government will destroy the Republicans. If they could pass such monumental legislation that would kill millions of Federal jobs and take people off of health care, those who made these decisions would ultimately never be elected again.
sexiest_hero wrote:There is a lot of talk about car insurance not working and being a rip off and scam, would you think about some kind of, IDK, regulations to keep them from ripping people off. The argument just proves that big insurance companies are like kids that can't be left unsupervised.
What kind of regulations should be used to fix the problem?
That's my poit WarOne. Same as the "Let the market correct itself", then saying The government should be dealing with the job market. What can the goverment do to help job creation withough messing with the market?
As for cutting taxes, states are already bleeding dry, any more cuts will see them go bankrupt. There is only so many Police and fire fighters you can fire.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:More regulations! REGULATIONS FOR THE REGULATIONS GOD!!! PREVENT! LIMIT! UNDERCUT!
Cannerus, in recognition of the funny thing you just said, I present to you this magical triforce cookie.
It doesn't grant wishes, or give you super powers or anything, but it is tasty.
Good luck with that. Let me know how it works out. I'm sure claiming that 1/6 pf the national economy has nothing to do with interstate commerce will hold up very well.
Frazzled wrote:
We vote them all out.
Sadly, just voting someone out of office does not alter legislation. You'll also have to work on repealing the bill itself, or at least the parts of it that you don't like.
Frazzled wrote:...and it being unconstitutional of course but never let that stop anyone...
I fail to see how you can derive this conclusion with any confidence. There are certainly ways to contextualize all the elements of the bill such that they are consistent with the Constitution. At best, its a judgment call as opposed to a matter of unequivocal certainty.
It seems more like you're trying to make yourself feel better, as opposed to taking a rational stance.
Wait, what? Why is the word 'cuts' in quotation marks? Medicare is being cut. Are you trying to indicate that it isn't being cut, or do you think that quotation marks somehow denote a certain degree of severity which transcends your usual choice of 'gut'? Its all so confusing when you don't bother to deal with actual numbers, or legislative language.
There is a lot of talk about car insurance not working and being a rip off and scam, would you think about some kind of, IDK, regulations to keep them from ripping people off. The argument just proves that big insurance companies are like kids that can't be left unsupervised. Funny how they can pour an unlimited amout of money into the pockets of politicians and get away with ripping people off.
Private insurance is a broken and illogical system, you fix it by leveling the field and preventing a middleman from absorbing money between care and payment while doing nothing but lengthening the process.
Frazzled wrote:If I remember right, isn't that right before the Republicans took back both branches of Congress for the first time in something like 30-40 years. Something about 'a tidal wave of retribution..."
Thats just low tide compared to whats coming.
Yeah, remember when that tidal wave of retribution led us into two vietnams, crashed the economy, got us hated by the entire world, increased the number of muslim terrorists, cost us trillians, gained us no jobs, grew the rich poor divide, and ballooned the deficit?
Most people do. Though in fairness at least while clinton was around all the reds managed to do was talk about blowjobs and whine a lot. It's as if republican controlled legislature never does anything when it's not politically advantageous!
I didn't know we went to Vietnam twice (to prevent the spread of communism), I also didn't know that Republicans are the sole reason the entire world hated us (Perry, Big Stick diplomacy, Clinton in bed with the Saudis, the whole basic concept of America; we've been hated for awhile dude.), I also didn't know that Republicans somehow supported the formation of terror groups (if this is the case then I guess they did create jobs). Also, I'm sure Clinton had a hand with the housing and credit bubble.
@Dogma,
Sorry about that "not related to health care" thing, I meant to say "not completely related to health care", although the media sure made it seem as if health care was the ONLY factor in life expectancy. I also tie in the stress associated with working to compensate for the Japanese who do yoga and stress-reduction exercises at work sometimes.
My state is seeking legal action as it is against the constitution to force someone to buy healthcare, I don't know the complete deal, just that basic knowledge.
@Sexiest_Hero
Obama is using the timetables established by Bush in ending the war.
Also, a soldier is not an "average joe". A soldier is someone who has decidedly joined the armed forces due to some reason and knows that they may be sent to war. During a draft, the average joe is made to go to war. I would put a soldier in the same level as a police officer, fireman, etc. Their jobs are dangerous and they do their job at the whimof another. A fireman fights fires when the fire starts and the fireman doesn't control when a fire starts, the officer fights crime when another person decides to commit crime, a soldier goes to war when the government decides it is time to go to war.
Automatically Appended Next Post: At mattyrm, it is illegal to not have car insurance at all times in most states. In Wisconsin, it is only illegal if you get into an accident and do not have insurance.
WarOne wrote:Sigh...now you make me have to get all serious and stuff.
Yeah, I'll do that. Sorry
On the first point, depends on what road you wish to take in addressing this issue in terms of rating government directed and regulated health care as a "bad thing."
I just don't get the complaint that there will be government directed healthcare. The government is already involved in the system, that's not changing. Compared to the current level of involvement the establishment of new regs is marginal at best. The only point is that these regulations might actually let people get treated without losing their homes.
In my opinion, this is a "good thing" that government is taking steps to help these people who cannot get coverage and help pay for medical treatments that balloon out of control for families unable to privately fund their healthcare costs.
However, this does lead deeper into the actual costs of healthcare in America.
I look at this 'we can't afford it' thing and I admit to just shaking my head. It's just... you cover the bare minimum stuff and then worry about the nice things afterwards. If something basic, like getting people cancer treatment, isn't happening, you don't say 'we can't afford it' - you pay for it then make a saving elsewhere.
The second issue is that people without insurance are still getting treatment in most cases, it's just that afterwards they get bankrupted and the hospital recovers what little it can. All the resources are still used, all the same money is spent.
The burden of taking on the costs of the new provisions to provide healthcare for people may indirectly cause healthcare costs to rise faster than inflation and living wages that must rise as well in order to cover potentially higher costs.
Healthcare costs are rising faster than living wages, and have been for a long time (arguably everything has been rising faster than living wages, if you look at the median point of income from 1970 to now wages in the US have been stagnant).
Rising healthcare costs are a significant issue, and I’d agree this bill doesn't do enough to address costs. But then, I think that could only be managed by setting a basic standard of health coverage (but there was no way the public option was getting up), and introducing genuine competition between healthcare companies by letting employees shop around for their own healthcare (but we’ve seen how bitterly fought this minor level of reform was, imagine a complete restructure?)
The graver concern I have is the cost. Republicans have a ring of truth that the bill may cost more than we thought. The government office associated with figuring out how much initiatives and bills will cost the United States may have an accurate appraisal that the bill will save the federal government money. It could also be wrong. The article sums up the fears of what could be a very expensive bill that won't see the final cost until years down the road.
Being afraid of cost however does not give you a sufficiently justifiable reason to call this bill "a bad thing."
It’s a fair point, healthcare costs, especially over the long term, are very hard to predict. Coming from an accounting background, I know how those loose final savings figures can be as they’re net figures – a 10% blowout in costs doesn’t shift the saving from $140 billion to $126 billion, it shifis it to $40 billion.
What has gone from a clear and defined goal of a government run health care system to what we don't even know what it is. The rammifications of this bill are not fully understood yet. The Democrats rushed this bill through the House in order to get it passed:
It’s been debated for a year. There’s hundreds of summaries of the content of the bill out there, some are linked in this thread. Sure, the specific language will get messy during reconciliation, but that’s politics. The reality is that the Dems can’t go to election without a bill passed. That isn’t ideal, but it is the unfortunate result of the GOP using this as a political football.
The health care bill has now spawned a monster of epic proportions. Unleashed, it will consume the debate for upcoming elections that may turn the tide for Democrats or Republicans. Emboldened, the Democrats may push for other sweeping changes to law. If the public approves their mandate, it could mean a political shift that places America closer to center-right countries such as traditional European Western Democracies. It could further radicalize the Repulican right wing and its constituents, emboldening them with new venom and fervor to reject Obama and what his backers stand for. In that sense, the healthcare bill could be a "bad thing."
I don’t think anything will embolden the Democrats, it just isn’t there nature to be, you know, politically brave. Armed with an almost absolute mandate, they almost self-destructed in trying to pass a watered down, healthcare bill that was 20 years over due.
The fringe of the Republicans have been drifting further right for a long time now, that started with the Southern Strategy.
Keeping this short, the bill could give Americans more jobs. Obama has been big on tying in job creation to his other initiatives such as reducing America's fossil fuel dependency by creating more green jobs.
In bad economic times everyone argues their legislation, whatever it is, will create jobs. This might, but no more than any other piece of stimulus spending. The issue really is giving everyone access to healthcare.
And lastly, how could you take those pictures seriously? If you believed I believed in the statement I made in the prior paragraph, your reading too far into my motivations to not really care about the debate at all and really focus on making humor of it instead.
I’ve been on Dakka for a while. Lesson number one; the more ridiculous a political statement, the more likely its author was serious. If you don’t believe that, read this thread.
halonachos wrote:This bill will not end well. At first it'll be hunky-dory, but when the average American lifespan doesn't increase then we'll see more people calling the bill useless. The lifespan isn't tied into health care, after all England has health care and they live about 1 more year than Americans on average.
Life expectancy is only one measure used in health metrics, and it isn’t given that heavy a weighting (as lifestyle, diet, work safety and so many other factors play a significant part). Health metrics look at other issues, such as deaths in child birth, instances of malpractice, success rates of basic surgeries – those kinds of things. The US is a poor performer on these measures, a bizarre result considering they spend between 150 and 200% more on healthcare than the rest of us.
The "health care reform" bill does not reform health care at all, it just gives the "insured" title to the uninsured at a premium.
Umm, it means that once you get that title, you go to hospital and are not billed for your treatment. Which is, you know, how insurance works. Your statement was ridiculous.
The issue is these doctors will now be fighting the government when an issue of coding is called up and it is far easier to fight a company than it is the government. (After all the companies may hire lawyers, but the government is made up entirely of lawyers.).
You think it’s harder to get money off of government than off of private companies? What?
generalgrog wrote:Not one republican voted for this bill and 30-ish democrats voted no. I don't like the partisan way this was pushed through, and I believe it will cost the Dems dearly in future elections.
Exactly what are you supposed to do when the opposition party makes it a central plank of their platform to vote no on any healthcare reform, and will not bring forward any negotiating terms at all?
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I honestly don't care how this affects anyone but me. I have no insurance and haven't for 6 or so years. I'm 24. So now unless I get insurance I have to pay a fine starting 2014? And I pay more taxes to support the people who are going to fine me? Looks like I lose :p
If you're struggling for work then you'll be under the expanded Medicare. If you are making money then you'll pay 1% of your income, and in exchange you won't lose everything if you get sick.
CptJake wrote:If insurance companies cannot exclude for pre-existing conditions they KNOW clients with pre-existing conditions will cost them more. They either must charge those clients more for the coverage (like many do for smokers now) or raise premiums on everybody or some combination.
It will be illegal to raise premiums on people with pre-existing conditions, as presently companies will price someone with a pre-existing condition out of treatment. Yes, it is possible average premiums will increase, but it has to be put in the context of the current state of the industry. Health insurance companies are consistently among the most profitable elements of the economy, while hospitals are marginally profitable at best.
It is likely that health insurance will continue to overcharge, that can only be fixed with direct competition (removing employers from the system) or through a direct government option. But that isn’t going to happen, so you get what you get.
Frazzled wrote:If I remember right, isn't that right before the Republicans took back both branches of Congress for the first time in something like 30-40 years. Something about 'a tidal wave of retribution..."
Thats just low tide compared to whats coming.
Health reform is important and long overdue. The current system is bankrupting people and getting others killed. But there's a chance to retake power, and sacrifices have to be made.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:I didn't know we went to Vietnam twice (to prevent the spread of communism), I also didn't know that Republicans are the sole reason the entire world hated us (Perry, Big Stick diplomacy, Clinton in bed with the Saudis, the whole basic concept of America; we've been hated for awhile dude.), I also didn't know that Republicans somehow supported the formation of terror groups (if this is the case then I guess they did create jobs).
The US consistantly polls among the most popular countries in the world, almost always the most popular. The idea that everyone hates you is pretty much a myth - there are certainly vocal elements that don't like what you do (some with reason, some without) but this is greatly overplayed some in the US, typically to justify doing something obnoxious.
Also, I'm sure Clinton had a hand with the housing and credit bubble.
Everyone had a hand in that. That particular piece of free market stupidity is multi-generational and international.
I just don't get the complaint that there will be government directed healthcare. The government is already involved in the system, that's not changing. Compared to the current level of involvement the establishment of new regs is marginal at best. The only point is that these regulations might actually let people get treated without losing their homes.
Republicans and Conservatives/Libertarians do not like to see the government in anything period. They forget however it is the government that protects their rights to do things like carry guns in churches and protest paying into healthcare.
While the government is already involved in healthcare and for the most part in United States history has had some say somewhere about healthcare, the mandate to establish these new regulations have sent shockwaves of concern through aforementioned Conservatives/Republicans/Libertarians. They are connecting dots that healthcare for everyone by private insurers will turn into a single payer system. If it does happen, I would be more concerned about the quality, affordability, and accountability of said system. Americans taxpayers want the best healthcare for as minimal a cost as we could get, but politicians usually don't see eye to eye with these voters when they go cast their votes.
I get the complaint, but I am more concerned about the result rather than the method. We're already going to get universal healthcare. I want to see it done right.
I look at this 'we can't afford it' thing and I admit to just shaking my head. It's just... you cover the bare minimum stuff and then worry about the nice things afterwards. If something basic, like getting people cancer treatment, isn't happening, you don't say 'we can't afford it' - you pay for it then make a saving elsewhere.
The second issue is that people without insurance are still getting treatment in most cases, it's just that afterwards they get bankrupted and the hospital recovers what little it can. All the resources are still used, all the same money is spent.
We will see how much healthcare will cost in the future. Again, I emphasise the fact that I am happy the federal government will step in to help people who die because they cannot afford healthcare. Now some of those cases of people not affording healthcare are due to factors beyond their control (genetics) and lifesytle choices that may cause them to get an illness which costs exceed far beyond what they could reasonably afford.
The real costs of healthcare are inflated to the point that something like cancer treatment becomes a terrible burden for even middle class income earners to cover. By inflated, I mean that costs for treatments has skyrocketed. Where could we stem the tide of such rising costs? Legislators have to look towards ways to reduce the price for patients so their burden isn't so severe.
Healthcare costs are rising faster than living wages, and have been for a long time (arguably everything has been rising faster than living wages, if you look at the median point of income from 1970 to now wages in the US have been stagnant).
Rising healthcare costs are a significant issue, and I’d agree this bill doesn't do enough to address costs. But then, I think that could only be managed by setting a basic standard of health coverage (but there was no way the public option was getting up), and introducing genuine competition between healthcare companies by letting employees shop around for their own healthcare (but we’ve seen how bitterly fought this minor level of reform was, imagine a complete restructure?)
The market exchange idea for people to shop for healthcare was a great idea to be included in the bill. It is akin to the partial privatization push Bush made before 2006 of Medicare/Medicaid (I think that was what it was or Social Security, gonna look into that a bit moar) accounts. It attempts to put the decisions of healthcare into the hands of the people rather than the businesses they work for or the pressures of a noncompetitive system.
However, how it is implemented will have to be seen in practice.
It’s been debated for a year. There’s hundreds of summaries of the content of the bill out there, some are linked in this thread. Sure, the specific language will get messy during reconciliation, but that’s politics. The reality is that the Dems can’t go to election without a bill passed. That isn’t ideal, but it is the unfortunate result of the GOP using this as a political football.
True. The bill's previous forms and incarnations are easily searched for via the intraweb. I even added a few links that covered the changes in the bill. I am concerned about the language and any snipping away they may do at the bill. Nebraska's sweet deal for not having to pay for the system for its taxpayers is gone. How the bill is finalized will impact the costs and savings the bill will give to the American taxpayer as well as the way people will be able to get healthcare and afford it at the same time.
I agree the Democrats needed this bill badly to bolster their election chances later this year. Bad news is it didn't deflate the Republican base. It's only making things more heated.
I don’t think anything will embolden the Democrats, it just isn’t there nature to be, you know, politically brave. Armed with an almost absolute mandate, they almost self-destructed in trying to pass a watered down, healthcare bill that was 20 years over due.
The fringe of the Republicans have been drifting further right for a long time now, that started with the Southern Strategy.
Democrats have a basket load of bills they would like to see passed such as lowering our defense spending (I don't think we should do that), same sex marriage laws (I don't care who people choose to love, so I would support this), renewable energy (definately for, but we still have to rely on oil in the short term with more internal development of our oil resources that foreign, especially since China will be competing for these resources), progressive taxation (tax rich in order to achieve economic equality; first, we must change laws so that people who are disadvantaged/take advantage of the system get more opportunities to get an education and higher paying jobs; ergo opposed to an extent to this) among a few other issues Democrats would push for.
Political parties can become brave and certain individuals definately. If healthcare boosts Obama and the Democrats break even or do well in the next election cycle, that would be their mandate for further change.
And Republican right fringing has only become more prominent thanks to the election of Obama and the ascendancy of Glenn Beck.
In bad economic times everyone argues their legislation, whatever it is, will create jobs. This might, but no more than any other piece of stimulus spending. The issue really is giving everyone access to healthcare.
Agreed. Political spin will make this bill sound like the thing that got us out of the Great Recession.
To anyone who is of the belief that the healthcare reform will be "the death of America!":
You didn't get mad when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed a President.
You didn't get mad when Cheney allowed Energy company officials to dictate energy policy.
You didn't get mad when a covert CIA operative got outed.
You didn't get mad when the Patriot Act got passed.
You didn't get mad when we illegally invaded a country that posed no threat to us.
You didn't get mad when we spent over 600 billion(and counting) on said illegal war.
You didn't get mad when over 10 billion dollars just disappeared in Iraq.
You didn't get mad when you saw the Abu Grahib photos.
You didn't get mad when you found out we were torturing people.
You didn't get mad when the government was illegally wiretapping Americans.
You didn't get mad when we didn't catch Bin Laden.
You didn't get mad when you saw the horrible conditions at Walter Reed.
You didn't get mad when we let a major US city drown.
You didn't get mad when the deficit hit the trillion dollar mark.
You finally got mad when.. when... wait for it... when the government decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick. Yes, illegal wars, lies, corruption, torture, and stealing your tax dollars to make the rich richer are all ok with you but helping other Americans... well feth that. That about right?
WarOne wrote:Republicans and Conservatives/Libertarians do not like to see the government in anything period. They forget however it is the government that protects their rights to do things like carry guns in churches and protest paying into healthcare.
Yeah, there's a real and important debate to be had about the extent of government involvement in our lives and in the economy... but the debate in the US on that issue is not a sensible one.
While the government is already involved in healthcare and for the most part in United States history has had some say somewhere about healthcare, the mandate to establish these new regulations have sent shockwaves of concern through aforementioned Conservatives/Republicans/Libertarians. They are connecting dots that healthcare for everyone by private insurers will turn into a single payer system. If it does happen, I would be more concerned about the quality, affordability, and accountability of said system. Americans taxpayers want the best healthcare for as minimal a cost as we could get, but politicians usually don't see eye to eye with these voters when they go cast their votes.
A lot of countries have a basic level of free healthcare, but private insurance flourishes anyway. Countries where there is no option but to accept public care are very rare.
We will see how much healthcare will cost in the future.
Healthcare will cost more, no matter what. The only alternative to that is to stop increasing the standard of care, and let people with preventable illnesses die, and that's not really an option.
Again, I emphasise the fact that I am happy the federal government will step in to help people who die because they cannot afford healthcare. Now some of those cases of people not affording healthcare are due to factors beyond their control (genetics) and lifesytle choices that may cause them to get an illness which costs exceed far beyond what they could reasonably afford.
The real costs of healthcare are inflated to the point that something like cancer treatment becomes a terrible burden for even middle class income earners to cover. By inflated, I mean that costs for treatments has skyrocketed. Where could we stem the tide of such rising costs? Legislators have to look towards ways to reduce the price for patients so their burden isn't so severe.
Which is where you bump into the unfortunate place of large corporations such as health insurers and drug companies in your political system. For the same reason that the public option would never fly, you'll also never see reform on health costs.
The market exchange idea for people to shop for healthcare was a great idea to be included in the bill. It is akin to the partial privatization push Bush made before 2006 of Medicare/Medicaid (I think that was what it was or Social Security, gonna look into that a bit moar) accounts. It attempts to put the decisions of healthcare into the hands of the people rather than the businesses they work for or the pressures of a noncompetitive system.
However, how it is implemented will have to be seen in practice.
Absolutely, yes. There's every chance it'll suck, but the idea is a decent start.
True. The bill's previous forms and incarnations are easily searched for via the intraweb. I even added a few links that covered the changes in the bill. I am concerned about the language and any snipping away they may do at the bill. Nebraska's sweet deal for not having to pay for the system for its taxpayers is gone. How the bill is finalized will impact the costs and savings the bill will give to the American taxpayer as well as the way people will be able to get healthcare and afford it at the same time.
I actually gave up on the bill when they let Nebraska's sweetener in there, and I'm glad it was cut from the final copy.
I agree the Democrats needed this bill badly to bolster their election chances later this year. Bad news is it didn't deflate the Republican base. It's only making things more heated.
I read an interesting piece just now, http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/how-republicans-blew-it, arguing that the GOP blew it by refusing to negotiate. Had they done so they could have got a bill with less subsidies and lower taxes at the top end. By playing the all or nothing game they've ended up with nothing but a really angry base. That base might bring them better results in the next election cycle, but isn't there more of a point to politics than the next election?
I'm not sure I completely agree with the article by the way, as the absolute NO! of the GOP was only one feature, with the Democratic's woeful selling of the bill the other.
Democrats have a basket load of bills they would like to see passed such as lowering our defense spending (I don't think we should do that), same sex marriage laws (I don't care who people choose to love, so I would support this), renewable energy (definately for, but we still have to rely on oil in the short term with more internal development of our oil resources that foreign, especially since China will be competing for these resources), progressive taxation (tax rich in order to achieve economic equality; first, we must change laws so that people who are disadvantaged/take advantage of the system get more opportunities to get an education and higher paying jobs; ergo opposed to an extent to this) among a few other issues Democrats would push for.
I think you're giving the progressive wing of the Democrats entirely too much credit. Those are policies among some Democrats, but the will of the party to bring those to the legislature is pretty marginal. With immense support for healthcare among the population, the presidency and huge majorities in both houses the Dems just managed to get watered down reform passed.
Political parties can become brave and certain individuals definately. If healthcare boosts Obama and the Democrats break even or do well in the next election cycle, that would be their mandate for further change.
It's unlikely the Dems will gain votes, unless the GOP goes completely off the deep end. Holding the presidency will generally cost seats, doubly so in a struggling economy.
And Republican right fringing has only become more prominent thanks to the election of Obama and the ascendancy of Glenn Beck.
Yeah, and each new generation of right wing talking head is crazier than the last. I can't wait to see what replaces Beck as the looniest of the loons.
Agreed. Political spin will make this bill sound like the thing that got us out of the Great Recession.
And the thing that kept the US in depression. Likely with the same set same of figures.
GOP blew it by refusing to negotiate. Had they done so they could have got a bill with less subsidies and lower taxes at the top end. By playing the all or nothing game they've ended up with nothing but a really angry base. That base might bring them better results in the next election cycle, but isn't there more of a point to politics than the next election?
I've been saying that the whole time. They could have gotten Obama (Who I feel is a lot more weak willed that republicans think) to Lick an elephants butt. They could have pushed the one vote as the guy who saved health care, or kept it from turning America into Red China. I think thier inability to look past 2010 mid-terms will bite them in the butt. Bash democrats got them swept out of power like never before, they need to learn that "Tax cuts, keeping you safe from terror, and This is a Christian country, are just talking points, and they are going to have to produce policy, or just get swept in 2012.
@Kanluwen
All that stuff is what got them swept out of congress. That and Dick Cheney's 4th branch of government he created. How's that for smaller government?
Kanluwen wrote:To anyone who is of the belief that the healthcare reform will be "the death of America!":
You didn't get mad when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed a President.
You didn't get mad when Cheney allowed Energy company officials to dictate energy policy.
You didn't get mad when a covert CIA operative got outed.
You didn't get mad when the Patriot Act got passed.
You didn't get mad when we illegally invaded a country that posed no threat to us.
You didn't get mad when we spent over 600 billion(and counting) on said illegal war.
You didn't get mad when over 10 billion dollars just disappeared in Iraq.
You didn't get mad when you saw the Abu Grahib photos.
You didn't get mad when you found out we were torturing people.
You didn't get mad when the government was illegally wiretapping Americans.
You didn't get mad when we didn't catch Bin Laden.
You didn't get mad when you saw the horrible conditions at Walter Reed.
You didn't get mad when we let a major US city drown.
You didn't get mad when the deficit hit the trillion dollar mark.
You finally got mad when.. when... wait for it... when the government decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick. Yes, illegal wars, lies, corruption, torture, and stealing your tax dollars to make the rich richer are all ok with you but helping other Americans... well feth that. That about right?
No, not in many cases. The libertarians have been pretty stringently opposed the the wars, the Patriot Act, the deficit, and many of the other things you mentioned. The Tea Partiers are probably the biggest critics of the deficit active right now, and they are pretty hostile to the concept of government bailouts as well.
And more importantly, people didn't get mad when the government decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick. The mandate for hospitals to treat people who are unable to pay is pretty much taken for granted. So then the question now becomes "why are you angry that the government is actually taking steps to stop their mandate from costing people unfairly?" It's a government takeover (but not really) of something they've already taken over; now they're just trying to fix the blunt dictate with a system that won't distort everything.
If those decrying socialism want to really get the government out of healthcare, they should oppose mandatory treatment; as sebster once said, though, the image of people dying outside of hospitals because they can't afford emergency treatment isn't going to be a popular one.
halonachos wrote:This bill will not end well. At first it'll be hunky-dory, but when the average American lifespan doesn't increase then we'll see more people calling the bill useless. The lifespan isn't tied into health care, after all England has health care and they live about 1 more year than Americans on average.
Life expectancy is only one measure used in health metrics, and it isn’t given that heavy a weighting (as lifestyle, diet, work safety and so many other factors play a significant part). Health metrics look at other issues, such as deaths in child birth, instances of malpractice, success rates of basic surgeries – those kinds of things. The US is a poor performer on these measures, a bizarre result considering they spend between 150 and 200% more on healthcare than the rest of us.
Except the fact that it has been debated that most other countries count "child death" as stillbirth while americans count it as infant mortality if the newborn is alive for even a second. So, a misrepresentation due to the different standards of each country aren't really all that reliable.
sebster wrote:
The "health care reform" bill does not reform health care at all, it just gives the "insured" title to the uninsured at a premium.
Umm, it means that once you get that title, you go to hospital and are not billed for your treatment. Which is, you know, how insurance works. Your statement was ridiculous.
Except for the fact that illegals are able to get free medication even though they are uninsured and not having insurance doesn't mean you can't get care. There are free clinics and free ERs available. However, you are still billed even if you do have insurance. This bill can range from a $10 or $20 copay to $100+ for certain procedures. Also, there is no such thing as free medication. My mom usually pays $30-$100 out of pocket for her prescription pills. So that brings up another point, if you can't afford insurance besides the government plan, how do you expect they pay for what the insurance will not cover?
The issue is these doctors will now be fighting the government when an issue of coding is called up and it is far easier to fight a company than it is the government. (After all the companies may hire lawyers, but the government is made up entirely of lawyers.).
You think it’s harder to get money off of government than off of private companies? What?
The government hardly gives away money unless you bend over backwards while jumping over a hoop that is hung above a shark tank filled with sharks that have laser beams attached to their heads.
halonachos wrote:I didn't know we went to Vietnam twice (to prevent the spread of communism), I also didn't know that Republicans are the sole reason the entire world hated us (Perry, Big Stick diplomacy, Clinton in bed with the Saudis, the whole basic concept of America; we've been hated for awhile dude.), I also didn't know that Republicans somehow supported the formation of terror groups (if this is the case then I guess they did create jobs).
The US consistantly polls among the most popular countries in the world, almost always the most popular. The idea that everyone hates you is pretty much a myth - there are certainly vocal elements that don't like what you do (some with reason, some without) but this is greatly overplayed some in the US, typically to justify doing something obnoxious.
Also, I'm sure Clinton had a hand with the housing and credit bubble.
Everyone had a hand in that. That particular piece of free market stupidity is multi-generational and international.
These were responses to shuma, sebster. Shuma was blaming the republicans for all of americas' woes and I responded to that by showing them that it wasn't true. So you basically attacked my position by using my same position.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:To anyone who is of the belief that the healthcare reform will be "the death of America!":
I didn't get mad when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed a President.
I did get mad when Cheney allowed Energy company officials to dictate energy policy.
I did get mad when a covert CIA operative got outed.
I did get mad when the Patriot Act got passed.
I didn't get mad when we illegally invaded a country that posed no threat to us. (except that the taliban were in charge of afghanistan and Iraq was most likely aiding them)
I didn't get mad when we spent over 600 billion(and counting) on said illegal war.
I did get mad when over 10 billion dollars just disappeared in Iraq.
I didn't get mad when you saw the Abu Grahib photos.
I didn't get mad when you found out we were torturing people.
I did get mad when the government was illegally wiretapping Americans.
I did get mad when we didn't catch Bin Laden.
I did get mad when you saw the horrible conditions at Walter Reed.
I did get mad when we let a major US city drown.
I did get mad when the deficit hit the trillion dollar mark.
I did get mad when the government passed the healthcare bill in a secretive little chamber.
I did get mad when Obama broke all of his promises.
I did get mad when earmarks were placed into the bill.
Kanluwen, you can't wholesale describe a nonexistent person.
No one can clearly state what the ramifications of this Bill will be. Health care in the US is a mess and needs cleaned up. I don't know if this Bill will accomplish that or not.
Since companies can't deny individuals for pre-existing conditions, that should, in theory, drive up the cost.
However, since everyone will not be required to carry insurance, it will force a lot of 20-somethings to acquire it. There's a sizable block of young adults who don't bother with health insurance, just take the gamble that they won't become very ill at a young age. If they are hospitalized due to an accident, it's quite likely that someone else's insurance is pay for it (their auto, the other guy's auto, or even someone else's general liability if it's a company at fault). So, that would drive down the average cost.
Maybe those two balance, maybe they don't.
I'm not a big fan of government mandates. But, the health care system needs overhauled, and if this is the best way to do it, I'm fine with it.
And if Rush Limbaugh moves out of the US, this Bill was totally worth it! I say we ship him to France!
"The invasion of Iraq in 2003 began an inexorable erosion of America’s international reputation. Over the past five years, numerous international polls have charted the turn of America’s reputation from positive to negative. A 2006 Harris Interactive survey found that a significant percentage of the British, French, German, Italian, and Spanish interviewees considered the United States as the greatest threat to global stability.[3] Similarly, a Pew report concluded that, as of 2006, supporters of the US-led war on terrorism had decreased to a minority in Great Britain (49%), France (43%), Germany (47%), and Japan (26%).[4] More startlingly, support in Spain had decreased from 63% in 2003 to 19% at the time of the survey. Further, a BBC survey in 2007 of 28,000 people in 27 countries found that the U.S.—along with Israel, Iraq, and North Korea—had a negative influence in the world.[5] In early 2008, these trends finally began stabilizing somewhat. A BBC World Service poll found that positive attitude towards the U.S. in general and the role of this country in the world in particular has improved in 11 out of the 23 countries surveyed.[6] Nevertheless, it remains to be seen whether this shift represents a permanent change in foreign attitudes toward the U.S. "
halonachos wrote:These were responses to shuma, sebster. Shuma was blaming the republicans for all of americas' woes and I responded to that by showing them that it wasn't true. So you basically attacked my position by using my same position.
I don't think he was attacking your position on those points. Just adding his own commentary.
halonachos wrote:These were responses to shuma, sebster. Shuma was blaming the republicans for all of americas' woes and I responded to that by showing them that it wasn't true. So you basically attacked my position by using my same position.
I don't think he was attacking your position on those points. Just adding his own commentary.
Don't know, I'm not sebster so I can only interpret what he says.
halonachos wrote:
Except the fact that it has been debated that most other countries count "child death" as stillbirth while americans count it as infant mortality if the newborn is alive for even a second. So, a misrepresentation due to the different standards of each country aren't really all that reliable.
That's incredibly easy to correct for; simple addition really. The fact that I've not seen an adjusted statistic leads me to believe that the corrected numbers don't favor the American system, but of course that's just a feeling. I haven't done the research necessary for confirmation.
halonachos wrote:
Except for the fact that illegals are able to get free medication even though they are uninsured and not having insurance doesn't mean you can't get care. There are free clinics and free ERs available. However, you are still billed even if you do have insurance. This bill can range from a $10 or $20 copay to $100+ for certain procedures.
No, not always. Co-payment rates vary considerably from plan to plan. I don't have a co-pay for any service, or generic prescription drug.
Regardless, those free services, particularly ERs, are not free. People still pay for them, just not the people using the services. Every time someone fails to pay a medical bill the cost to providers is figured into the cost of care for everyone else.
halonachos wrote:
Also, there is no such thing as free medication. My mom usually pays $30-$100 out of pocket for her prescription pills. So that brings up another point, if you can't afford insurance besides the government plan, how do you expect they pay for what the insurance will not cover?
Didn't you just say that illegals get free medication?
Ignoring that fact: medication is often an incidental expense, as opposed to a sustained monthly one. Its entirely conceivable for someone to be capable of purchasing his prescription drugs while not being able to sustain a regular monthly payment.
halonachos wrote:
The government hardly gives away money unless you bend over backwards while jumping over a hoop that is hung above a shark tank filled with sharks that have laser beams attached to their heads.
That's hardly been my experience; particularly as it relates to the various health and social services programs that my grandparents are on. If anything, I've been shocked at how open the system is to abuse.
.
