How Health Care Reform Reduces the Deficit in 5 Not-So-Easy Steps Americans think the bill is too expensive because they don't understand its cost controls.
It's hard to overstate how important the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)—which makes the official judgments on how much bills cost and save—is in Washington. "I consider CBO God around here," Sen. Chuck Grassley, ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, recently said.
But that's a faith peculiar to Washington, D.C. The rest of the country doesn't know what the CBO is, and it doesn't care. "Washington may live and die by the pronouncements of the Congressional Budget Office," wrote the pollsters Doug Schoen and Scott Rasmussen in the Wall Street Journal, "but 81 percent of voters say it's likely [health care reform] will end up costing more than projected."
That's left Democrats in a worst-of-both-worlds situation: They've built a bill that Washington's toughest scorekeeper says will cut the deficit by more than a trillion dollars over 20 years. They're getting attacked for the taxes and Medicare reforms that save all that money. But the country doesn't believe the savings are real.
One of the problems Democrats have had is that it's very easy to understand the one thing the bill does to spend money—purchase insurance for people who can't afford it—and considerably harder to explain the many things it does to save money. Another is that a lot of the savings have to do with changing how medicine is practiced, which people are less familiar with than how insurance is purchased.
But the fact that the cost controls are complicated and numerous doesn't mean they're absent, or that they won't work. Here's a guide to a few of the bill's best ideas, and how they work:
Create a competitive insurance market:
This is the bill's first, and most important, step. Right now, the insurance market's version of competition is pretty brutal. Companies compete to avoid the sickest people and sign up the healthiest people. Offering the best coverage for the lowest cost isn't much of a priority, because most consumers don't know whose coverage is best, and the ones who really do know are probably sick customers who spend their days researching this stuff.
Outlawing the bad kind of competition while enabling the good kind, which the bill does, is more than just a humanitarian measure. It's a cost control. The insurance "exchanges" imitate the market in which federal employees (including congressmen) purchase their health care insurance. Participating insurers can't discriminate based on pre-existing conditions, they have to answer to regulators if they attempt to jack up premiums, and consumers will be able to rate their insurers, a rating that everyone else will see when shopping for their insurance.
If all goes well, consumers will be able to log onto the exchange's Website, compare insurance plans, and choose their favorite. That means insurers will have to compete for customers. As any free-market conservative will tell you, that should drive prices down and quality up. If it doesn't, insurers will have some annoyed legislators to answer to: The bill says congressmen and their staff members need to buy their insurance from these exchanges, too.
The Medicare Commission:
The next cost control worth mentioning is an effort by Congress to solve the problem of, well, Congress. Medicare's cost problem is, in many ways, a political problem: Saving money means cutting someone's profits or someone's benefits, and politicians are afraid to do either.
Enter the Independent Medicare Advisory Board. Modeled off of the highly-respected (but totally toothless) Medicare Payment and Advisory Commission, IMAC is a 15-person board of independent experts chosen by the president, confirmed by the Senate, and empowered to cut through congressional gridlock. IMAC will write reforms that bring Medicare into like with certain spending targets. Congress can't modify these proposals, it can't filibuster these proposals, and if it wants to reject them, it needs to find another way to save the same amount of money. Making the process of passing tough reforms easier is the single most important thing you can do to make sure tough reforms actually happen.
A tax on "Cadillac plans":
The least popular, but most direct, cost control is the tax on expensive, employer-provided coverage. Today, the average employer who offers insurance pays more than 70 percent of a worker's premiums, all of it tax-free. This amounts to an annual $250 billion subsidy for private insurance for people with good jobs. But it's not just the size of the subsidy; it's how we use it that matters. People have their employers pay for their health-care insurance, which means individuals don't know how much their insurance really costs and don't have as much incentive to keep those costs down. Imagine the pressure for cost control if the 70 percent that employers pay were coming out of our own pockets, instead of quietly coming out of our wages.
In 2018, the proposed excise tax on so-called "Cadillac plans" slaps a 40 percent tax on every dollar spent on an insurance plan above $27,500 annually. So if your plan costs $27,600, the final $100 bucks would be taxed (technically, the insurer pays the tax, but it'll pass that onto your employer). But the idea isn't that people will pay this tax. It's that they, or their employers, evade it by choosing insurance that holds its costs down more aggressively. That gives insurers who hold costs down a competitive advantage against insurers who don't. because those who don't are not only more expensive, but also paying a hefty tax on their excess spending.
Medicare "bundling" programs:
The most obviously illogical part of our current health care system is that we pay doctors the way we pay car dealers: They get more money for every item they sell. But while we aren't afraid to ignore a car dealer's recommendations, we are afraid to disagree with our doctors. As you'd expect, this pushes costs higher.
The health-care bill seeds Medicare with many experiments to change this status quo, the most immediately promising of which are the "bundling" programs. Instead of getting paid for everything they do to help a diabetic, hospitals will get paid once for treating that person's diabetes and all related conditions over a certain period of time. If this leads to lower costs and doesn't harm patients, it will be expanded. That would be the beginning of the end of paying for quantity of treatment, and the beginning of paying for quality of treatment.
Changing the politics of reform:
Republicans and Democrats both agree that we need more cost control in the health-care system. But politicians don't like to actually cut costs, because those votes reduce benefits and make people angry. So we've played a game in the past: We passively control costs by letting people become and stay uninsured, or by letting their insurance deteriorate and cover less, because those things don't require a vote in Congress.
But because the individual mandate in the bill brings everyone into the insurance market and the subsidies for those who can't afford insurance on their own put Washington on the hook for costs, Congress will have to get serious about holding costs down in the system. The alternatives, for lawmakers, are high costs infuriating constituents who're being forced to buy something they can't afford, or yawning deficits forcing them to vote to take subsidies -- and thus health-care coverage -- away from people who currently have it. The days of letting inertia win the day and watching the system fall apart on its own are over.
There's more, of course. Five is just a good round number. The bill's basic theory is to try pretty much everything in the hopes that some of it works out. The net effect is to make reform a continuous, rather than occasional, process, with different cost cops patrolling different beats. Insurers will have to work hard to stay a step ahead of the excise tax because employers won't want to buy plans that trigger it. The industries that provide medical care and technologies will have to hold their costs down because they don't want to become a target for the Medicare Commission. Hospitals will need to make sure they don't spend more than their competitors because they'll lose money under bundling.
Until now, our health care system has had few internal cost controls and the comforting knowledge that Congress doesn't have the gumption to pass any. No longer. If the bill passes, it's change the health-care industry will have no choice but to believe in.
I for one praise our new Medical Overlords, and despite their inability to do common math, am sure they are 100% correct in that this will reduce the deficit. I am sure that if we just believe hard enough in Dear Leader, it will all come to pass.
Whelp, now that fraz is done trolling a thread (How is he a mod?) we can get back to the topic at hand.
It's just too bad he had to use a giant image to further show his ample intelligence. I mean, he must be a genius he's clearly smarter than the CBO, whose job it is to count how much this thing would cost. Fraz managed to do it in his spare time by gleaning facts from sean hannities radio show.
Of course I'll let the personal attacks slide 'cause we all know, deep down you know I'm right, and it wakes you up screaming.
One easy real point. The CBO only scores based on the assumptions given to it. It HAS to use those assumptions. Even when, in this case, those assumptions or not sane.
Frazzled wrote:Its not trolling if the initial post is trolling.
Of course I'll let the personal attacks slide 'cause we all know, deep down you know I'm right, and it wakes you up screaming.
Exactly how was a simple article an attempt at trolling? Seriously, how are you a mod? Like, what do the other mods think of how you act? I mean if this is a "Trolling thread" what the hell is "Its a dark day for America"?
One easy real point. The CBO only scores based on the assumptions given to it. It HAS to use those assumptions. Even when, in this case, those assumptions or not sane.
Generally the mods question my sanity when we're sober enough to think about, but then again unless I am posting as a Mod I'm not posting AS A MOD. besides another hit from the pipe and none of the Mods care. Meth. By Americans, For Americans. EDIT: In the other sections I'm pure Mod generally. in the dungeon of the OT I Mod only when needed. Otherwise I am just a sweet bunny rabbit.
The fact you don't know the grounds is itself a difficulty.
Frazzled wrote:The fact you don't know the grounds is itself a problem.
Why should I? It's not like you do either. That much is clear from your posts which contain no content, examples, quotations, names, locations, anecdotes, or really much else that could be confused for fact. It's mostly just derogatory rambling and flaming. Then you come in, post a troll post and say that my article is an attempt at trolling.
The Congressional Budget Office’s preliminary “score” says the health care overhaul will cost $940 billion over the first 10 years, saving $138 billion over that time. But the CBO must assess legislation as written, rather than whether it will actually be carried out. Or, as the Economist put it, “The CBO is required to pretend to believe many impossible things before breakfast.”
1. Medicare cuts
The Senate health care bill relied heavily on unprecedented cuts in Medicare spending increases. If implemented, this would have a huge impact on seniors’ care. But Congress has always balked at Medicare cuts. (See No. 3).
2. Delayed start
To make the budget math work, Democrats plan on delaying the start of subsidies and other costly provisions for several years. (The bill spends just $17 billion through 2013). The true 10-year cost is far higher.
3. The “doc fix” is excluded
The Sustainable Growth Rate imposes automatic cuts in Medicare payment rates to doctors.
For several years, fearing a revolt by doctors — and seniors — Congress has suspended those cuts. The original draft of the House health care bill included a permanent “doc fix.” But that ballooned deficits, so Democrats dropped it, even though everyone knows Congress isn’t going to slash doctors’ rates. The CBO has estimated a “doc fix” would cost $247 billion over 10 years.
4. Student loans are included
Doctors’ payments are excluded from the health bill, but major student loan program changes are included? Yep. The reconciliation bill will end student loan subsidies to lenders. The CBO says this will save $19.4 billion over the first decade, accounting for virtually all of the $19.8 billion in deficit reduction from the health care reconciliation bill. Reconciliation bills must cut the deficit by at least $1 billion. So, without the non-health care items, the health care reconciliation bill would not pass muster.
5. It’s a CLASS act
In the Senate health bill, a new, voluntary long-term care insurance program called CLASS accounted for some $72 billion of the deficit reduction. The Community Living Assistance Services and Supports program is supposed to be deficit-neutral long-term. But Democrats are counting the upfront premium surplus in the short term and ignoring the significant operating deficits after 2029. Update: Democrats also are counting on projected additional Social Security revenues from payroll taxes on higher wages in lieu of lower health benefits. Again, those benefits have to be paid out.
But wait, there’s more! Let’s assume that the cost savings materialize as planned. It still makes the long-term fiscal outlook worse. Why? Democrats are using up a lot of tax hikes, spending cuts and upfront payment just to get barely better than deficit-neutral. That leaves future lawmakers less scope to bring the nation’s finances into order.
Though I understand both view points frazz is rather correct in that a CBO, much like their counterparts CIO'S, COO'S, and DAA'S generally go off of the paperwork their managers hand to them. This is why they become managers as they are trusted ergo I would say the fault lies more in middle management then the top. If I were to hand work to my DAA and it was horrendous then I would be fired as an IAM since they trust me to know and do my job. Also though what does him being a mod have to do with anything. I know your answer so don't actually respond to that part.
So, in other words, it WILL save all of the projected money and do all those great things it promises unless our "benevolent" overlords in Washington do things like NOT follow through, block certain actions, etc.
Right.
So, as long as the Republicans (who, maturely, have promised not to cooperate with Democrats on ANYTHING -regardless what it is- for the rest of the year because they're mad about this) and Democrats who voted against it don't stall or undermine the rest of the process, it WILL save money and be better for everyone in the long run.
Gotcha.
So, now's the time for Republicans to prove the Democrats wrong by trying to purposefully make this thing fail so they can be "right," rather than giving it a chance to help those of us who need it.
Yay, politics.
The idea that Republicans criticize this as Socialism and attack it because of the supposed detrimental effects it will have on Medicare/Medicaid is ridiculous.
"We don't want this Socialist policy to mess up Medicare ( which is just as Socialist)!"
Thats not the argument. You're confusing your talking points.
Medicare is being eviscerated by $500BN. This money is going to help support the uninsureds. Call it what you want but that is happening. They are robbing citizens who worked hard all their lives and rely on Medicare to fund this powergrab. Its an absolute.
I am not a republican by any means what so ever, but ya it is socialism. In Democracy the government is not to control the banks(to late), The healthcare system(now to late), heck they have now taken over students loans with all publice colleges. If you want to get a loan from now on the Gov't has to approve it. This is the death of our nation and look at all other countries that have health care like this. Their tax rates were no were near as low as our was. Our tax rates made it so people could affoard insurance. Really this bill will bankrupt us even further, and for those who don't think so just wait you will see.
Probably not as bad as China owning 2 out of 3 "American" automakers.
The point people are missing with this 2700 page of shadily/illegally passed documentation is the fact the government is telling me I HAVE to buy coverage by 2014 or pay a fine. That is bs anyway you slice it. I don't want "Uncle Obama" telling me HOW to spend my money. If I want to protect myself by buying healthcare coverage that should be my choice. If I want to risk having a $200k medical bill because I suffer a stroke at 34 years of age with no insurance to cover it that should be on MY shoulders to worry about.
If I want to spend the money on hookers and blow that should be my choice (both illegal but you get my point). The HCR Bill ONLY hurts those who are poor/middle class.
If I was a billionaire I'd be annoyed at this bill. Not pissed but annoyed. Bill Gates does not NEED medical insurance. His son breaks an arm the $5K doctor bill for him would be like us going to a candy store and buying a single $.05 piece of candy. His wife having to undergo surgery at an expense of say $200k would be like us walking out of that same store with $.50 worth of candy. Millionaires and Billionaires just aren't going to care about hospital/cost of medicines or anything else that ails them. All those people worry about are the DOW and NASDAQ.
If buying insurance was still a choice and not a requirement than there would have been a lot less opposition to it. It was shadily, if not illegally passed, because the Administration knew it was never going to pass fairly so they (questionably) broke ethics laws and or the very least bent them, to pass it.
Of course we all know if Bush had done the same thing it would for sure have been illegally passed. His wars he "started" were more legal than this stack of asswipe that Obama passed into law.
Frazzled wrote:Thats not the argument. You're confusing your talking points.
Medicare is being eviscerated by $500BN. This money is going to help support the uninsureds. Call it what you want but that is happening.
Lousy Govt. helping people.
What part of TAKING MONEY FROM MEDICARE can be in any way confused with helping people?
It's the Robin Hood philosophy. Robin Hood HELPED the poor by screwing over the rich. Taking from one person and giving to another is okay in some peoples books.
You know it is rather stupid all around because people need to realize...if you go to the ER they cannot refuse treatment of you and trust me somone will pick up your bill. That said insurance if you know how to shop around can be as low as 60 bucks a month with a $10.00 copay. Here in mass we have mandatory insurance and it is no were as bad as what the gov't is proposing. Now my taxes will hike up for me to pay for some illegal on the otherside of the country. The gov't is slowly taking more control and damn it people I WORK FOR THEM!!! This is a horrible idea instead of IDK helping create civil service jobs our illustrious leader is going to go down in history as sinking us further in debt then that idiot Goerge Bush(I'm sorry frazz I know you Texans love him).
Frazzled wrote:Thats not the argument. You're confusing your talking points.
Medicare is being eviscerated by $500BN. This money is going to help support the uninsureds. Call it what you want but that is happening.
Lousy Govt. helping people.
What part of TAKING MONEY FROM MEDICARE can be in any way confused with helping people?
Well how else are they going to fund the Death Panels ? And all the compulsory abortions. And all the other lies people keep saying that this will do or lead to...
..but, from what I've read and heard this side of the pond : the medicare system as was, was going to wind up totally insoluable and more broken than the old IW list by 2017. With this current bill and changes this prevents for the best part of anotehr decade or so. NOt ideal I'll grant you, but, given the general hoo ha and catfighting even getting people to the table in the first place to talk about the problems that's not bad going IMO.
More pertinently, no one was offering up or doing anything better. Sure, especially given the nearly unimaginable sums involved, it s big risk/gamble... but so's any long term commitment or spending plan.
Frazzled wrote:Thats not the argument. You're confusing your talking points.
Medicare is being eviscerated by $500BN. This money is going to help support the uninsureds. Call it what you want but that is happening. They are robbing citizens who worked hard all their lives and rely on Medicare to fund this powergrab. Its an absolute.
So it's moving money away from people with chronic problems, that give nothing to the nation and economy and into a younger workforce that does. I don't see the huge moralistic issue here. One group had it's cake and was eating it, the other group had no cake. The concept of gains and losses aren't moralistic. The cake is just split between both now. Amusingly you seem to love defending people on medicare for paying for it all their lives, despite acknowledging in the past that the program was unsustainable and that people currently paying into it would likely never be able to benefit from what they pay.
Shuma, it's my understanding you are still in HS. What school do you go to where you can spend all day on dakka because I got robbed when I was in HS? I had to actually LEARN.
(Not taking a stab at your learning comprehension but if I'm right you are too young to have a world view of anything going on outside your school walls).
Fateweaver wrote:Probably not as bad as China owning 2 out of 3 "American" automakers.
The point people are missing with this 2700 page of shadily/illegally passed documentation is the fact the government is telling me I HAVE to buy coverage by 2014 or pay a fine. That is bs anyway you slice it. I don't want "Uncle Obama" telling me HOW to spend my money. If I want to protect myself by buying healthcare coverage that should be my choice. If I want to risk having a $200k medical bill because I suffer a stroke at 34 years of age with no insurance to cover it that should be on MY shoulders to worry about.
If I want to spend the money on hookers and blow that should be my choice (both illegal but you get my point). The HCR Bill ONLY hurts those who are poor/middle class.
I'm going to take "you" out of the equation and make it "someone," so it doesn't seem personal.
So, someone decides they want to risk going without health insurance and has that stroke -or whatever- and a $200,000 bill.
Awesome. Good for them.
That would be fine, if that was where it stopped.
What's this, though? That person also didn't have any money, and they're filing for bankruptcy so they don't have to pay the bills?
Awesome. Now, not only do the uninsured get to worry about their own impending uninsured health issues, but they get to pay for Joe Bankruptcy's unpaid bill, due to the inflated charges next year because so many people filed bankruptcy to avoid medical bills. I'm tired of paying for slackers.
Fateweaver wrote:If I was a billionaire I'd be annoyed at this bill. Not pissed but annoyed. Bill Gates does not NEED medical insurance. His son breaks an arm the $5K doctor bill for him would be like us going to a candy store and buying a single $.05 piece of candy. His wife having to undergo surgery at an expense of say $200k would be like us walking out of that same store with $.50 worth of candy. Millionaires and Billionaires just aren't going to care about hospital/cost of medicines or anything else that ails them. All those people worry about are the DOW and NASDAQ.
If buying insurance was still a choice and not a requirement than there would have been a lot less opposition to it. It was shadily, if not illegally passed, because the Administration knew it was never going to pass fairly so they (questionably) broke ethics laws and or the very least bent them, to pass it.
Billionaire's have other worries. Your assessment about the cists are about right -until someone they love comes up with a chronic disease, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars a year... every year... because, that much money is painful for even them. if you think millionaires don't care about that stuff, I know some people you should have a talk with. Trust me. They care.
The only thing that's unfair about this bill (IMO) is the cost to our nation's richest. They're footing the majority of the bill for this. I don't believe in that. I believe that taxes should be universal. it should be a standard percentage, totally independent of how much you make a year.
Your argument re: opposition isn't correct, either, IMO. Anything Democrats want to do is going to be opposed by Republicans. The reverse is true, as well. The only time you're going to see cooperation is in extreme circumstances, like war (occasionally) or if one party introduces a bill that is in favor of something that is a favored topic of the other party (not that it would happen, though). I'm not talking about small numbers, like a dozen or less, I'm talking about true bipartisan actions.
Frazzled wrote:Thats not the argument. You're confusing your talking points.
Medicare is being eviscerated by $500BN. This money is going to help support the uninsureds. Call it what you want but that is happening. They are robbing citizens who worked hard all their lives and rely on Medicare to fund this powergrab. Its an absolute.
So it's moving money away from people with chronic problems, that give nothing to the nation and economy and into a younger workforce that does. I don't see the huge moralistic issue here. One group had it's cake and was eating it, the other group had no cake. The concept of gains and losses aren't moralistic. The cake is just split between both now. Amusingly you seem to love defending people on medicare for paying for it all their lives, despite acknowledging in the past that the program was unsustainable and that people currently paying into it would likely never be able to benefit from what they pay.
1. Medicare was a contract. The people on it are of moderate means. If you think this group "had its cake and was eating it" I won't say you don't have a brain cell in your head, but will say you need further education in this area.
2. they were productive. You have no proff the other group is. More importantly group #1 votes. A lot. For Fun.
Shuma, it's my understanding you are still in HS. What school do you go to where you can spend all day on dakka because I got robbed when I was in HS? I had to actually LEARN.
(Not taking a stab at your learning comprehension but if I'm right you are too young to have a world view of anything going on outside your school walls).
I'm 23 and pursuing my second degree. I think I've stated that at least 10 times in the past. Don't talk to me about reading comprehension when you clearly lack it. I attend the University of Maine at Orono, and I'm pursuing a BA in New Media. My previous degree with an AS in applied graphic design.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
1. Medicare was a contract. The people on it are of moderate means. If you think this group "had its cake and was eating it" I won't say you don't have a brain cell in your head, but will say you need further education in this area.
Contracts are words on paper. They mean little to most, and in the terms of social or government contracts even less.
2. they were productive. You have no proff the other group is. More importantly group #1 votes. A lot. For Fun.
You know every persons history that was ever on medicare? Goddamn, I'm debating doctor Manhattan here.
If I was a billionaire I'd be annoyed at this bill. Not pissed but annoyed. Bill Gates does not NEED medical insurance.
MagickalMemories wrote:
So, someone decides they want to risk going without health insurance and has that stroke -or whatever- and a $200,000 bill.
Awesome. Good for them.
That would be fine, if that was where it stopped.
What's this, though? That person also didn't have any money, and they're filing for bankruptcy so they don't have to pay the bills?
Awesome. Now, not only do the uninsured get to worry about their own impending uninsured health issues, but they get to pay for Joe Bankruptcy's unpaid bill, due to the inflated charges next year because so many people filed bankruptcy to avoid medical bills. I'm tired of paying for slackers.
Here's another scenario:
Public "Free for All" health care becomes available.
Freeloaders know that they don't have to care for themselves because they get "Free" healthcare
Obesity, sedentary lifestyles, and self abuse in the form of tobacco and alcohol usage drive up need for "Free" healthcare
Productive members of society that are too busy working to sit around all day smoking and drinking pay for the "Free" healthcare.
Well by your terms there is no social contract so why am I supporting any of these people or you? Frankly this works for me as I am way more heavily armed then you turkeys. Man I am going to make some bank at the LGS tonight.
Mmm, I like those titans. Give them to me.
No
Well according to Shuma social contracts are less than words on paper. so (Click) I'll take those Titans.
Fateweaver wrote:If I want to protect myself by buying healthcare coverage that should be my choice. If I want to risk having a $200k medical bill because I suffer a stroke at 34 years of age with no insurance to cover it that should be on MY shoulders to worry about.
But the issue there is, can you actually pay back your $200,000 debt? Especially if you find it more difficult to work post-stroke?
Because if you can't then the hospital has to eat the cost, and that's a lot of the problem.
MagickalMemories wrote:
So, someone decides they want to risk going without health insurance and has that stroke -or whatever- and a $200,000 bill.
Awesome. Good for them.
That would be fine, if that was where it stopped.
What's this, though? That person also didn't have any money, and they're filing for bankruptcy so they don't have to pay the bills?
Awesome. Now, not only do the uninsured get to worry about their own impending uninsured health issues, but they get to pay for Joe Bankruptcy's unpaid bill, due to the inflated charges next year because so many people filed bankruptcy to avoid medical bills. I'm tired of paying for slackers.
Here's another scenario:
Public "Free for All" health care becomes available.
Freeloaders know that they don't have to care for themselves because they get "Free" healthcare
Obesity, sedentary lifestyles, and self abuse in the form of tobacco and alcohol usage drive up need for "Free" healthcare
Productive members of society that are too busy working to sit around all day smoking and drinking pay for the "Free" healthcare.
Like you, I too am tired of paying for slackers.
What are you talking about?
Who gets it for free under the new Obama plan?
I've done a bit of reading on it (from both sides) and haven't seen ANYONE getting FREE healthcare.
MagickalMemories wrote:
What are you talking about?
Who gets it for free under the new Obama plan?
I've done a bit of reading on it (from both sides) and haven't seen ANYONE getting FREE healthcare.
Eric
honestly... i've been reading it... every word, every page... I haven't seen anything yet. I guess everyone here has finished reading every part of the document and are discussing how it works as opposed to pushing republican talking points that often times are:
A) Lies
B) Outdated and dealing with older versions
Or
C) may have a shred of truth to them, but are being interpreted by the majority of people incorrectly.
yea... don't see the cost... can someone find it for me in the document? :( Sorry I am a rules guy and would like to see some quotes from the text that pertain to the subject at hand...
btw, I AM a registered republican... (sorry Frazz... i think we are in the same political party )
Frazzled wrote:Well by your terms there is no social contract so why am I supporting any of these people or you? Frankly this works for me as I am way more heavily armed then you turkeys. Man I am going to make some bank at the LGS tonight.
Mmm, I like those titans. Give them to me. No Well according to Shuma social contracts are less than words on paper. so (Click) I'll take those Titans.
Go ahead. The IRS has more guns than you do. I live in the real world, and for someone who understands social contracts so poorly as yourself (Whats your stance on torture again?) I hope you're a real good shot. Or hey, they could just bring other lawyers down on you, I'm sure your not the only one in the world with a gun!
From what I've seen, all I've heard the republicans say, this is more govt, more govt, Marxism, Marxism, blah, blah, what are your real arguments, not just insults and vagueness, why do you not like this bill, and I need quotes from it, i need actual fact.
The article posted in the OP was an interesting read, thanks for that Shuma. It’s obviously in favour of the HCR bill, but there’s plenty of information in there that shows the strengths and weaknesses of the bill and could lead to some interesting conversation. Personally I’m not convinced about every cost control measure, and am a little concerned about paying simply for a patient and not his care (as that would provide too great an incentive towards too little treatment, it would be better to have the profit based payment on treating a patient, with treatment paid on cost recovery only).
It’s just a shame we didn’t get that conversation in this thread. Instead we’ve got the same folk posting the same rhetoric about bad old government. Do you realise how empty all that rhetoric is? Is reality that uninteresting to you that you’d stay wrapped up in your ideologies?
sebster wrote:The article posted in the OP was an interesting read, thanks for that Shuma. It’s obviously in favour of the HCR bill, but there’s plenty of information in there that shows the strengths and weaknesses of the bill and could lead to some interesting conversation. Personally I’m not convinced about every cost control measure, and am a little concerned about paying simply for a patient and not his care (as that would provide too great an incentive towards too little treatment, it would be better to have the profit based payment on treating a patient, with treatment paid on cost recovery only).
It’s just a shame we didn’t get that conversation in this thread. Instead we’ve got the same folk posting the same rhetoric about bad old government. Do you realise how empty all that rhetoric is? Is reality that uninteresting to you that you’d stay wrapped up in your ideologies?
Best post in the thread!
I agree, re: not being sure about everything. I mean, I do support the measure, but there ARE things about it I admit having some issues with.
You can't always get everything you want. Right? I mean, this thread is proof that there will ALWAYS be people who don't want the same things as everyone else.
The thing to keep in mind about treating the patient vs. the illness is that the physicians are also graded on how well they help their patients. IIRC, that affects their paychecks.
MagickalMemories wrote:I agree, re: not being sure about everything. I mean, I do support the measure, but there ARE things about it I admit having some issues with.
Definitely. I am encouraged by the test and see approach, bringing reforms in at the micro-level to assess if they work before rolling them out across the greater system.
The thing to keep in mind about treating the patient vs. the illness is that the physicians are also graded on how well they help their patients. IIRC, that affects their paychecks.
Eric
True, which in turn, if implemented poorly, can lead to people playing the game, taking the patients with the best chance of quick recovery and shuffling the rest on. That depends on how the program is implemented, of course, if there's an issue it'll be in the details.
Empchild wrote:That said insurance if you know how to shop around can be as low as 60 bucks a month with a $10.00 copay.
Well, I just got done shopping around for health insurance, and here's what I found. For $68 a month, which is the absolute maximum I could afford, I get a plan that has a $10,000 deductible and doesn't cover any prescription drugs, not even generics. Hey, perhaps that's why I don't waste my money on it!!! This whole health care mess is just a trick anyway. Our illegal "President" (Who was born in Indonesia and Knows it!) Barry Soetoro and his NWO handlers want to provoke violent resistance so that they can have the opportunity to declare martial law and round up the excess population for efficient disposal. See below.
warpcrafter wrote:
Well, I just got done shopping around for health insurance, and here's what I found. For $68 a month, which is the absolute maximum I could afford, I get a plan that has a $10,000 deductible and doesn't cover any prescription drugs, not even generics. Hey, perhaps that's why I don't waste my money on it!!! This whole health care mess is just a trick anyway. Our illegal "President" (Who was born in Indonesia and Knows it!) Barry Soetoro and his NWO handlers want to provoke violent resistance so that they can have the opportunity to declare martial law and round up the excess population for efficient disposal. See below.
warpcrafter wrote: Well, I just got done shopping around for health insurance, and here's what I found. For $68 a month, which is the absolute maximum I could afford, I get a plan that has a $10,000 deductible and doesn't cover any prescription drugs, not even generics. Hey, perhaps that's why I don't waste my money on it!!! This whole health care mess is just a trick anyway. Our illegal "President" (Who was born in Indonesia and Knows it!) Barry Soetoro and his NWO handlers want to provoke violent resistance so that they can have the opportunity to declare martial law and round up the excess population for efficient disposal. See below.
No, plain and simply.
So, your only form of rebuttal is a video from a lame bunch of techo-sissies? Sorry, but that's not good enough. Prove to me that you at least glanced at the links I provided. Otherwise, your response is laughable.
People as voters have an avenue to express their opinions in 2010. This was not done in any underhanded way. It is easy to be in the opposition and make sound bites. All I am saying is that this bill was passed legally, and if the people are really pissed they have recourse through election. No ones USA is the same USA!
warpcrafter wrote:
Well, I just got done shopping around for health insurance, and here's what I found. For $68 a month, which is the absolute maximum I could afford, I get a plan that has a $10,000 deductible and doesn't cover any prescription drugs, not even generics. Hey, perhaps that's why I don't waste my money on it!!! This whole health care mess is just a trick anyway. Our illegal "President" (Who was born in Indonesia and Knows it!) Barry Soetoro and his NWO handlers want to provoke violent resistance so that they can have the opportunity to declare martial law and round up the excess population for efficient disposal. See below.
No, plain and simply.
So, your only form of rebuttal is a video from a lame bunch of techo-sissies? Sorry, but that's not good enough. Prove to me that you at least glanced at the links I provided. Otherwise, your response is laughable.
How do you respond to the dude on the soapbox shouting about the end coming on the corner of the street? I mean, I would give you change, but I don't think the quarters I put in my cd drive will come out yours.
warpcrafter wrote:
Well, I just got done shopping around for health insurance, and here's what I found. For $68 a month, which is the absolute maximum I could afford, I get a plan that has a $10,000 deductible and doesn't cover any prescription drugs, not even generics. Hey, perhaps that's why I don't waste my money on it!!! This whole health care mess is just a trick anyway. Our illegal "President" (Who was born in Indonesia and Knows it!) Barry Soetoro and his NWO handlers want to provoke violent resistance so that they can have the opportunity to declare martial law and round up the excess population for efficient disposal. See below.
No, plain and simply.
So, your only form of rebuttal is a video from a lame bunch of techo-sissies? Sorry, but that's not good enough. Prove to me that you at least glanced at the links I provided. Otherwise, your response is laughable.
How do you respond to the dude on the soapbox shouting about the end coming on the corner of the street? I mean, I would give you change, but I don't think the quarters I put in my cd drive will come out yours.
Man, that is one incoherent response. Maybe you should be the one hanging around on the corner. As for the warning of the end times, I've been doing research on this topic for the last couple of years, and the more I learn, the more sure I am. Screw health insurance, put that money toward dehydrated food, water purification equipment, weapons and all the ammo you can get.
Alex Jones and Glenn Beck will be the death of you, mate...
Your theory is that of a paranoid, delusion mind. I have no problem with you having that perspective, but I will not hesitate to fight fire with fire. You flamed this topic in a way that pisses me off, and I responded.
warpcrafter wrote:So, your only form of rebuttal is a video from a lame bunch of techo-sissies? Sorry, but that's not good enough. Prove to me that you at least glanced at the links I provided. Otherwise, your response is laughable.
Hang on, you were being serious with the Indonesian president stuff*? Do we really, guaranteed, 100% have a birther amongst us?
*I thought he was meant to Kenyan, when did that change?
warpcrafter wrote:So, your only form of rebuttal is a video from a lame bunch of techo-sissies? Sorry, but that's not good enough. Prove to me that you at least glanced at the links I provided. Otherwise, your response is laughable.
Hang on, you were being serious with the Indonesian president stuff*? Do we really, guaranteed, 100% have a birther amongst us?
*I thought he was meant to Kenyan, when did that change?
Depends on which conspiracy theory Glenn Beck is pushing that day. I figure birthers are closet Biden fans since they want him to be President so bad.
Frazzled wrote:Well by your terms there is no social contract so why am I supporting any of these people or you? Frankly this works for me as I am way more heavily armed then you turkeys. Man I am going to make some bank at the LGS tonight.
Mmm, I like those titans. Give them to me.
No
Well according to Shuma social contracts are less than words on paper. so (Click) I'll take those Titans.
Go ahead. The IRS has more guns than you do. I live in the real world, and for someone who understands social contracts so poorly as yourself (Whats your stance on torture again?) I hope you're a real good shot. Or hey, they could just bring other lawyers down on you, I'm sure your not the only one in the world with a gun!
This would be a good television special.
That argument would only hold boy toy if there is a social contract. per you, there isn't. I'm not after the IRS's stuff. I'm after YOUR stuff.
Ah reminds me of the good old days in LA.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:The article posted in the OP was an interesting read, thanks for that Shuma. It’s obviously in favour of the HCR bill, but there’s plenty of information in there that shows the strengths and weaknesses of the bill and could lead to some interesting conversation. Personally I’m not convinced about every cost control measure, and am a little concerned about paying simply for a patient and not his care (as that would provide too great an incentive towards too little treatment, it would be better to have the profit based payment on treating a patient, with treatment paid on cost recovery only).
It’s just a shame we didn’t get that conversation in this thread. Instead we’ve got the same folk posting the same rhetoric about bad old government. Do you realise how empty all that rhetoric is? Is reality that uninteresting to you that you’d stay wrapped up in your ideologies?
Yea because you have an open mind to arguments there Sebster? The same old arguments are the correct arguments.
Blokus wrote:People as voters have an avenue to express their opinions in 2010. This was not done in any underhanded way. It is easy to be in the opposition and make sound bites. All I am saying is that this bill was passed legally, and if the people are really pissed they have recourse through election. No ones USA is the same USA!
True that.
Here's my beef. Why didn't we just review the systems, and take the best one? With the same tort standards and requirement that everyone have to have it, not a system for the rich and influential and a crapcare for the worker drones. I'd have been ok with that, not the tidal wave of miasmic bribe laden filth we got.
MagickalMemories wrote:
What are you talking about?
Who gets it for free under the new Obama plan?
I've done a bit of reading on it (from both sides) and haven't seen ANYONE getting FREE healthcare.
Eric
Apparently you missed the part about subsidies for those earning less than XXX dollars. What do you think that means exactly? It's when you take money away from someone and give it to someone else.
Do you really expect that everyone will be paying their own way? Of course not. Just like over 50% of those filing IRS tax returns actually take more out of the system than they pay in, we fully expect that a minority of US taxpayers will shoulder the burden of costs.
Blokus wrote: This was not done in any underhanded way. It is easy to be in the opposition and make sound bites. All I am saying is that this bill was passed legally, and if the people are really pissed they have recourse through election.
Not done in an underhanded way... that's amusing. No, back room deals, exemptions for key votes and outright lies to parties to assuage conscience at the 11th hour... nope nothing underhanded there. I will give Pelosi this: The Dems are "transparent" in their corruption.
Any read the report Fidelity Mutual posted today. With this "New " health care I will have to save on top of my retirement 200k to pay for the margins for doctors and such when I retire. Now I make almost 79k a year(not bad for only a year of college eh) sounds like a lot but it isn't. I am 27 years old....how in the hell can I save with a mortgage and family 200k on top of what I would need to have saved in my IRA's for the time I retire. Who the hell can pull that off I'm sorry I am damn good with my finances and have made a lot of money in the past in the stock market(just ask the single moms at the clubs I used to frequent) but that is ungodly. Instead of say issuing a reform to bring about more civil service hjobs or jobs in general we are now so far in the debt it's not even funny. That 293 billion is only for 4 years if you read the Gov't report. For 10 years it will be another 1.4 trillion if you read what the financial analisysts have posted. The end of an era my friends.
@shuma: ok your in college and I give you a lot of credit as you can learn some great stuff on book there., but this isn't trying to be a personal attack you have to see that your real world experience is very limited. 5 Internet cookies if somone can state who said this quote " a man should never enter politics until their 30's as they don't have a clue what they are talking about". Now I see you are a smart individual and you have a strong knowledge, but in debate especially over the internet you have to be a little more clear and concise, and when you start by going straight into personal attacks as in some of your posts you lose a lot of credability to some people thus limiting what you are actually saying.
warpcrafter wrote:
Well, I just got done shopping around for health insurance, and here's what I found. For $68 a month, which is the absolute maximum I could afford, I get a plan that has a $10,000 deductible and doesn't cover any prescription drugs, not even generics. Hey, perhaps that's why I don't waste my money on it!!! This whole health care mess is just a trick anyway. Our illegal "President" (Who was born in Indonesia and Knows it!) Barry Soetoro and his NWO handlers want to provoke violent resistance so that they can have the opportunity to declare martial law and round up the excess population for efficient disposal. See below.
Our illegal "President" (Who was born in Indonesia and Knows it!)
Although you're wrong... remind me again why it would matter where the Natural Born American Citizen was popped out of a womb?
The Green Git wrote:
MagickalMemories wrote:
What are you talking about?
Who gets it for free under the new Obama plan?
I've done a bit of reading on it (from both sides) and haven't seen ANYONE getting FREE healthcare.
Eric
Apparently you missed the part about subsidies for those earning less than XXX dollars. What do you think that means exactly? It's when you take money away from someone and give it to someone else.
No.
I didn't miss th subsidies.
If you check the math, though, you'll see that the subsidies won't cover 100% of their costs.
So, I reiterate, where's the FREE healthcare under the Obama plan?
ShumaGorath wrote:My previous degree with an AS in applied graphic design.
Not to derail anything, but is it possible to get a degree in theoretical graphic design?
And thanks for bringing Fate out of the woodwork Shummy. It's been a calm and pleasant few weeks without him. Top marks!
I've been here H. I just have chosen.......so far....to not get into a flame war with you. Though it is fun it's like listening to a broken record. Same old song and dance about anything GW. It's like Shuma's same old song and dance that because he has a few pieces of paper on his wall that he is somehow a brighter, more enlightened individual than I am. These days Bozo the Chimp could get a degree so they really aren't that special anymore (unless it's a degree in beer making or gun manufacturing than that's something to be proud of but I know no such degree exists).
MagickalMemories wrote:
No.
I didn't miss th subsidies.
If you check the math, though, you'll see that the subsidies won't cover 100% of their costs.
So, I reiterate, where's the FREE healthcare under the Obama plan?
Now you're just purposefully being obtuse. You and I both know that the burden of this Trillion dollar abortion will land squarely on the backs of the middle class taxpayer. Saying that because someone pays one penny out of every dollar spent on them they share in the burden equally is distorting the truth.
Note: when I say "Taxpayer" I'm not referring to tax FILERS. I'm referring to those that actually pay money into the system.
The fact of the matter is no matter how you look at it, no matter how you try and color the truth, the Fed is taking money way from someone to put it in the pockets of someone else. This has nothing to do with Federally sanctioned powers according to the Constitution. It's vote buying and power grabs at it's most blatant.
The Green Git wrote:
Now you're just purposefully being obtuse. You and I both know that the burden of this Trillion dollar abortion will land squarely on the backs of the middle class taxpayer. Saying that because someone pays one penny out of every dollar spent on them they share in the burden equally is distorting the truth.
But he didn't say that. He said there was no free coverage in the bill. He is correct.
The Green Git wrote:
The fact of the matter is no matter how you look at it, no matter how you try and color the truth, the Fed is taking money way from someone to put it in the pockets of someone else. This has nothing to do with Federally sanctioned powers according to the Constitution. It's vote buying and power grabs at it's most blatant.
Actually, that whole redistribution thing? Yeah, that's how taxes work. If you really think this is some sort of attempt to buy votes, I'll kindly direct you to all the elderly people (among others) angry about the cuts to medicare. If this is a power grab, it isn't a particularly good one; especially since the baby-boomers represent a very large, and nearly elderly, voting block.
@shuma: ok your in college and I give you a lot of credit as you can learn some great stuff on book there., but this isn't trying to be a personal attack you have to see that your real world experience is very limited. 5 Internet cookies if somone can state who said this quote " a man should never enter politics until their 30's as they don't have a clue what they are talking about". Now I see you are a smart individual and you have a strong knowledge, but in debate especially over the internet you have to be a little more clear and concise, and when you start by going straight into personal attacks as in some of your posts you lose a lot of credability to some people thus limiting what you are actually saying.
I just get tired of having to field comments about my age or levels of experience. I've had quite a bit occur to and around me in my life, and I'm in most ways at this point a self made man (mock that how you will). I believe I've fielded that exact question for both Frazzled and Fateweaver before, it's not my job to have to continuously defend my age, so why do I have to be polite when doing it? What exactly have I not been clear or concise on? I make personal attacks when others direct personal attacks at me.
I've been here H. I just have chosen.......so far....to not get into a flame war with you. Though it is fun it's like listening to a broken record. Same old song and dance about anything GW. It's like Shuma's same old song and dance that because he has a few pieces of paper on his wall that he is somehow a brighter, more enlightened individual than I am. These days Bozo the Chimp could get a degree so they really aren't that special anymore (unless it's a degree in beer making or gun manufacturing than that's something to be proud of but I know no such degree exists).
So you don't respect degrees unless they are in gun manufacturing or beer making? Color me shocked.
@shuma: ok your in college and I give you a lot of credit as you can learn some great stuff on book there., but this isn't trying to be a personal attack you have to see that your real world experience is very limited. 5 Internet cookies if somone can state who said this quote " a man should never enter politics until their 30's as they don't have a clue what they are talking about". Now I see you are a smart individual and you have a strong knowledge, but in debate especially over the internet you have to be a little more clear and concise, and when you start by going straight into personal attacks as in some of your posts you lose a lot of credability to some people thus limiting what you are actually saying.
I just get tired of having to field comments about my age or levels of experience. I've had quite a bit occur to and around me in my life, and I'm in most ways at this point a self made man (mock that how you will). I believe I've fielded that exact question for both Frazzled and Fateweaver before, it's not my job to have to continuously defend my age, so why do I have to be polite when doing it? What exactly have I not been clear or concise on? I make personal attacks when others direct personal attacks at me.
I've been here H. I just have chosen.......so far....to not get into a flame war with you. Though it is fun it's like listening to a broken record. Same old song and dance about anything GW. It's like Shuma's same old song and dance that because he has a few pieces of paper on his wall that he is somehow a brighter, more enlightened individual than I am. These days Bozo the Chimp could get a degree so they really aren't that special anymore (unless it's a degree in beer making or gun manufacturing than that's something to be proud of but I know no such degree exists).
So you don't respect degrees unless they are in gun manufacturing or beer making? Color me shocked.
No, I just don't appreciate them waved in my face like propaganda leaflets. I have liberal friends who believe the only way to make it in life is to have a piece of paper, yet I know personally a dozen people, who I interact with daily, making as much if not more than my friends who spent 8-12 years in college.
Degree's mean a lot less today than they did 40 years ago.
No, I just don't appreciate them waved in my face like propaganda leaflets. I have liberal friends who believe the only way to make it in life is to have a piece of paper, yet I know personally a dozen people, who I interact with daily, making as much if not more than my friends who spent 8-12 years in college.
Degree's mean a lot less today than they did 40 years ago.
Magical. Why do you think anyone cares what you think about peoples degrees?
It's definitely odd, I've noticed Shuma being called out more than most about his age too. Maybe that's because his rage glows hotter than a thousand suns, which is often a trait of younger men.
I've toned down my righteous anger over the years, but I salute you Shuma. Your posts provide me with much entertainment.
Also, Fateweaver, you ask a question, you get an answer, I don't think it's fair to say that Shuma was "waving them in" your "face like propaganda leaflets". I've never seen him mention his education unless it was relevant (I think it came up in a thread before about photoshopping or something, I'm a bit fuzzy) or someone brought it up first.
I haven't really seen a rebuttal of the OP beyond "Yeah, right!" so far. Though maybe I haven't been looking hard enough.
Fateweaver wrote:
No, I just don't appreciate them waved in my face like propaganda leaflets. I have liberal friends who believe the only way to make it in life is to have a piece of paper, yet I know personally a dozen people, who I interact with daily, making as much if not more than my friends who spent 8-12 years in college.
To be fair, he only brings it up when you ask him how old he is, or if he's still in high school.
Either way, simply because someone criticizes you it doesn't necessarily follow that they think less of you as a person. It might, of course, but it isn't necessarily so.
Fateweaver wrote:
Degree's mean a lot less today than they did 40 years ago.
They may mean less in the sense that there are more of them, but in many fields they are far more important than they've ever been; especially in a highly competitive job market.
OT: I remember a post you made a few days ago indicating that you would be covered, medically, by your property and auto insurance. I don't know about your specific policy, but I've never heard of property or auto covering the policy holder in the event of injury. Not trying to criticize, just saying that you might want to check your policies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote:
I haven't really seen a rebuttal of the OP beyond "Yeah, right!" so far. Though maybe I haven't been looking hard enough.
Well, since the original article didn't deal directly with numbers, its difficult to refute without saying something akin "nuh uh!" Or, with a little more civility, "That seems awfully vague."
However, the obvious objection is that the insurance exchanges listed as being useful for the institution of competition are only expected to cover about 22-25% of all those insured. The remained being divided between Medicaid (15%), uninsured (10%), and those insured through employers (50%); meaning that the vast majority of insurance plans will function in an environment similar to the current one.
The Green Git wrote:
Now you're just purposefully being obtuse. You and I both know that the burden of this Trillion dollar abortion will land squarely on the backs of the middle class taxpayer. Saying that because someone pays one penny out of every dollar spent on them they share in the burden equally is distorting the truth.
Note: when I say "Taxpayer" I'm not referring to tax FILERS. I'm referring to those that actually pay money into the system.
The fact of the matter is no matter how you look at it, no matter how you try and color the truth, the Fed is taking money way from someone to put it in the pockets of someone else. This has nothing to do with Federally sanctioned powers according to the Constitution. It's vote buying and power grabs at it's most blatant.
You don't know me well enough to know what I am and am not doing on purpose. I can assure you, however, that your estimation of me is incorrect. I'm being nothing but sincere.
Also... please, show me where I said anyone was paying an equal or fair share. I believe, in fact, I've openly mentioned (in this thread or one other) that the one main thing that bothers me is the fact that the cost is not shared evenly. I believe in a flat % tax that is not on a sliding scale based on income. Your estimation that it will fall on the backs of the middle class is incorrect. It's obviously being funded largely by the wealthiest in our nation.
As for taking $ from one posket to go into another... They've always done that. Why would this one item be the tipping point, rather than one of the many before it?
Frazzled wrote:Yea because you have an open mind to arguments there Sebster? The same old arguments are the correct arguments.
This isn't an issue of keeping an open mind, it's an issue of basing arguments in reality. Debating specific reforms in the bill seems to me an interesting and useful debate, another round of 'Socialism!' seems a lot less useful.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Green Git wrote:The fact of the matter is no matter how you look at it, no matter how you try and color the truth, the Fed is taking money way from someone to put it in the pockets of someone else. This has nothing to do with Federally sanctioned powers according to the Constitution. It's vote buying and power grabs at it's most blatant.
If the redistributive effect of taxation is against the constitution you better close the whole shop and star cracking each other’s heads open to feast on the gooey mess inside. Seriously dude, redistribution is throughout the system and claiming now all of a sudden that its unconstitutional is bonkers.
This isn't an issue of keeping an open mind, it's an issue of basing arguments in reality. Debating specific reforms in the bill seems to be powerless in the face of another round of 'Socialism!'.
Just watched a WHOLE HOUR of the Factor and I have to say it was one the first time I sat there from beginning to Sean Hannity. I do have to say that I won't do that again anytime too soon.
Seriously, having the government distribute the money of the people IS a power we surrender to the government in order to protect our nation and our security. Healthcare may not be what people want the government to spend money on or force others to do the same, but that is what election and repealing of laws is all about in a civil, judicious society.
Even before President Obama signed the bill on Tuesday, Caterpillar said it would cost the company at least $100 million more in the first year alone. Medical device maker Medtronic warned that new taxes on its products could force it to lay off a thousand workers. Now Verizon joins the roll of businesses staring at adverse consequences.
In an email titled "President Obama Signs Health Care Legislation" sent to all employees Tuesday night, the telecom giant warned that "we expect that Verizon's costs will increase in the short term." While executive vice president for human resources Marc Reed wrote that "it is difficult at this point to gauge the precise impact of this legislation," and that ObamaCare does reflect some of the company's policy priorities, the message to workers was clear: Expect changes for the worse to your health benefits as the direct result of this bill, and maybe as soon as this year.
• Businesses with fewer than 25 employees that pay an average of no more than $40,000 will get a tax credit – up to 35 percent of the company’s share of their total health care premium.
• Companies with 26-49 workers are unaffected.
• Businesses with 50 or more workers must offer coverage or pay $750 per worker. That penalty applies for every employee if even one signs up for government-subsidized insurance.
But there are potential problems. Case in point: It would be much cheaper for Dick Bus to drop the generous coverage he now offers and take the hit at $750 a head for his 120 workers. The penalty would be $90,000 a year. He’s currently spending $480,000.
Bus would save $390,000, but canceling his plan would force his workers to the health plan exchange and could cost more than they’re paying now. The Senate is considering an increase in the $750 penalty to prevent that scenario.
So that's two articles indicating potential profit losses for companies due to Health Care Reform, leading to job losses for workers. Job losses means the double whammy of higher unemployment and associated costs, as well as lower tax receipts, worsening our already-terrible deficit and debt load.
1. You are young and don't want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the "privilege." (Section 1501)
2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You'll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That's because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person's health status. (Section 2701).
3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711).
4. Think you'd like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn't cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that's what the customer wants. (Section 2712).
5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn't allow your employees' slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714).
6. You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.
You're a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. You're a woman who can't have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. You're a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302).
Noble713 wrote:Here's a few articles with some actual numbers:
Cheers.
In the first article, the thing to note is that Caterpillar is complaining that it’ll cost a lot of money to provide workers with healthcare. Well, yeah, providing health insurance for people who had none is going to cost money. The alternative is to leave people with no healthcare, is that something you want?
In the second article Dick Bus notes they can drop their current coverage and pay the fine. Right now they can drop their coverage and pay nothing – except they don’t because decent coverage makes you a desired employer, able to choose the best employees. That won’t change.
The last article points out how people are now required to get coverage even if they don’t want it. It sounds like a wonderful freedom to have, to not have coverage, but life threatening illness isn’t just for the middle aged, does society have the freedom to watch a 23 year old die of a treatable disease, because he didn’t have coverage. If society won’t let him die, why shouldn’t that guy pay $750 a year?
And yeah, your coverage won’t be affected by a range of pre-existing conditions. This is not great, but previously healthcare companies would take those conditions, and not just the ones that can be easily attached as a moral failing on the individual, but genetic and biological conditions like autism or MS, and use those to increase coverage rates to outrageous levels, pricing the individual out of the market. So, outside of telling insurance companies they cannot change rates to avoid covering unprofitable people, what would you do?
Yeah, lets applause companies laying off more workers because they suddenly find the budget tighter due to mandatory offering of insurance coverage.
Tell me again how laying off people to pay for insurance for those they can afford to keep is better than not offering it at all and at least offering job security?
So being jobless so someone else can get insurance through work = good?
Also, I'm sorry. Men being forced to pay for pediatric care when they have no kids? Who the feth thought that up? Women unable to have kids due to natural defects or perhaps through surgical means needing to include paternity coverage in their insurance?
Seems to me as if a fething chimpanzee typed this bill up. No wait, a Chimpanzee could have typed up a Bill that wouldn't bankrupt our country even more, wouldn't feth over middle and upper lower class income families just so the deadbeats and illegals can get coverage.
That last box of bullet points is just a slap in the face to anyone that calls himself an American.
As far as pre-existing conditions. If they are self-induced too bad. You smoke 3 packs a day, eat McD's 3 times a day and don't get off the couch only to eat and make a cigarette run. Tough. You can't get insurance maybe you should change your damn lifestyle. The new bill says that I HAVE to have insurance so my money can go into a collection plate so that the aforementioned lazy fatass killing himself can get insurance that he should rightfully be denied because A) he probably can't afford it so Uncle O is going to help him and B) Insurance companies can no longer deny based on stupidity and laziness and bad living.
I'm sorry but there is NOTHING good about this bill.
But there are potential problems. Case in point: It would be much cheaper for Dick Bus to drop the generous coverage he now offers and take the hit at $750 a head for his 120 workers. The penalty would be $90,000 a year. He’s currently spending $480,000.
This quote alone shows that the article is a result of smoke and mirrors by those against the legislation.
Sure. Now that there's legislation, he could cancel and pay less in penalties than the healthcare costs him.
Couldn't he have canceled that health care BEFORE the legislation and not paid ANY penalty? The workers would have had to go on their own and purchased NON REGULATED posicies, under that scenario.
Explain to me again how the new policy is worse for them, then?
[edit: Hmm. Seems Sebster beat me to the punch. Nice one, Seb]
Seems to me as if a fething chimpanzee typed this bill up. No wait, a Chimpanzee could have typed up a Bill that wouldn't bankrupt our country even more, wouldn't feth over middle and upper lower class income families just so the deadbeats and illegals can get coverage.
This really has me questioning your knowledge, as it's rife with inaccuracies.
1) Middle and lower classes aren't taking the hit. Middle class might be paying more -as a whole- but there are MORE MIDDLE CLASS than any other, so that makes sense mathematically. Who's taking the biggest hit on this on an individual taxpayer basis is the wealthy. Dollar for dollar, they're paying more than any other group. Saying low & Middle class is taking a hit is Republican rhetoric.
2) Bankrupt our country? It's designed to LOWER our national debt. People who scream about the cost are overlooking the savings because (a) they don't want to acknowledge it or (b) they're unaware of the scope of the bill.
3) Illegal immigrants are specifically excluded from this legislation. They do NOT qualify.
That's a different story. It sucks but life sucks.
How is it fair that I am FORCED to buy health insurance just so that someone who is too lazy to work and buy their own can get it from the government, either free or at a fixed cheaper rate?
That is the issue with this bill. People not wanting or feeling they need health care being forced to get it so that someone who wants it or needs it can. I don't care if it's 1% of my monthly income in cost or .001% of my income in cost.
Forcing people to do something is going to anger more people than it will make people praise you.
Shadily, if not downright illegally, passed 2700 page document of BS = utter fail for the Dems. Howard Stern and Stuttering John could have concocted a better bill than this thing.
hadily, if not downright illegally, passed 2700 page document of BS = utter fail for the Dems. Howard Stern and Stuttering John could have concocted a better bill than this thing.
It perplexes me why document length matters so much. Government budget documents are usually ludicrously long, and this is a very large and comprehensive bill.
Do you just have a fear of large numbers or something? Why the constant rhetoric about document length?
How is it fair that I am FORCED to buy health insurance just so that someone who is too lazy to work and buy their own can get it from the government, either free or at a fixed cheaper rate?
See, there's a problem.
You don't seem to understand the bill. You're not forced to buy it *SO* that someone else can... and, as has been reiterated numerous times, it is NOT FREE for anyone (Note, I'm not arguing partial subsidies/CHEAP, though). You're not forced to buy it at all. You can pay the penalty and just be done with it.
If you don't like paying for other people, this bill shouldn't bother you any more than the current system. Believe me, you DO pay for the uninsured, now... if you're insured... Medical procedure costs are skyrocketing because of people who DON'T pay their bills. Why? because they "can't afford them." Uninsured people (and insured ones, too) claim bankruptcy ALL THE TIME to avoid medical bills. You don't REALLY think the medical facility/doctor just eats thoses costs. Do you?
Fateweaver wrote:That is the issue with this bill. People not wanting or feeling they need health care being forced to get it so that someone who wants it or needs it can. I don't care if it's 1% of my monthly income in cost or .001% of my income in cost.
I'm in the opposite field. I DO have insurance. I pay quite a bit for it. Every year, my premiums go up. Part of that is because medical providers are wanting more money to cover those UNINSURED PEOPLE who don't pay their bills (as well as the insured ones who don't). At least, if everyone's insured, the med. providers are recouping SOMETHING back for their troubles.
Here is a summary of the bill, there is a huge amount of information out there regarding this subject. Literally thousands of articles available, studying what this bill means, and how it will effect different demographics.
RustyKnight wrote:How was the bill illegally passed?
It wasn't. It was passed via inclusion as a budget item which does not require a supermajority in order to break filibuster. This is how democracy is supposed to work. The filibuster shouldn't even exist. There are arguments that the method and the bill were unconstitutional, but those same arguments have been failing in similar cases for 40 years, so it's unlikely this will actually be found to be illegal.
Primarily it's just conservative crying while they abandon their own principles in order to try and fan the flames of populist idiocy.
Fateweaver wrote:Sugar-coat it all you want. A turd is a turd and this bill is such a large steaming turd brontosaurus dung piles pale in comparison.
Perhaps, but I seriously question if you have the slightest inkling as to why you believe that.
Agreed.
It sounds more like Fateweaver is regurgitating sound bites from Sean hannity and Fox news, rather than reading anything about it, only to make light of it when he's called on it. Almost like he just wants something to complain about.
My bet, if I was going to, is that Fateweaver didn't vote for Obama and was irate when he was elected. This would cloud his judgement on anything Obama did. Even resigning would be met with jeers and insults, I'd wager.
Eric
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:
RustyKnight wrote:How was the bill illegally passed?
It wasn't. It was passed via inclusion as a budget item which does not require a supermajority in order to break filibuster. This is how democracy is supposed to work. The filibuster shouldn't even exist. There are arguments that the method and the bill were unconstitutional, but those same arguments have been failing in similar cases for 40 years, so it's unlikely this will actually be found to be illegal.
Primarily it's just conservative crying while they abandon their own principles in order to try and fan the flames of populist idiocy.
LOL
...what he said... again...
Republican politicians, their sycophants, some (most?) conservatives and some democrats are against the bill. Those who didn't get their way are looking for something to complain about. They're trying to find any tiny little thing they can & blow it out of proportion.
No laws were broken in the passing of this law.
Some claim it's unconstitutional, however. I do not believe it is, and we'll see what happens to those lawsuits.
The worst atrocities, IMO, were by the republicans who:
1) Successfully lobbied Democrats to let them in on the writing of the bill
2) Voted against it ANYWAY
3) Have stated openly that they will not cooperate in a bipartisan manner with ANYTHING the Democrats want for the rest of the year as a protest against the bill.
4) Claim shenanigans against the Democrats for doing things that Republicans did regularly when THEY were in control.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has a message for all the attorneys general and Republican lawmakers who are threatening lawsuits and claiming that an individual mandate for insurance coverage is unconstitutional: You don't have to abide by it -- just set up your own plan.
...
"Why don't you use the waiver provision to let you go set up your own plan?" the senator asked those who threaten health-care-related lawsuits. "Why would you just say you are going to sue everybody, when this bill gives you the authority and the legal counsel is on record as saying you can do it without an individual mandate?"
...
... All it would require is applying for a waiver from the Department of Health and Human Services, which has a 180-day window to confirm or deny such a waiver.
That language has been inserted, almost verbatim, into the bill Obama signed into law on Tuesday. And if there is any confusion about how much leverage it gives states to drop the mandate, Wyden cleared it up months ago during a hearing at the Senate Finance Committee.
sebster wrote:
In the first article, the thing to note is that Caterpillar is complaining that it’ll cost a lot of money to provide workers with healthcare. Well, yeah, providing health insurance for people who had none is going to cost money. The alternative is to leave people with no healthcare, is that something you want?
To a certain extent, yes. Allow me to clarify: the purpose of health care is to improve the productivity of your population by reducing the labor force's downtime due to illness. For one thing, we need to avoid compensating people for bad lifestyle choices as it does nothing to shake them out of their complacency and lack of personal responsibility, so healthcare related to obesity, smoking, drugs, etc. should go out the window. Second, the government needs to make some sort of Return on Investment analysis for any healthcare expenses. If a 30 year old with a PhD in Materials Science gets cancer, you should probably pay to have him fixed: he stands a good chance of making a sufficient contribution to the general welfare through carbon nanotube research over the next 40 years to make the investment worthwhile. In contrast, if a 65 year old Wal-Mart manager get's cancer, I wouldn't recommend forking over a dime. He's got maybe 5-10 years of output left in him, and the impact is comparatively minor. Not a sound investment.
Now, we can argue over what is considered a worthwhile contribution to the general welfare. That 65 year old probably has a bunch of life experiences that he passes down to his grandkids and local community, and stuff is important. But I don't feel that such social intangibles should be subsidized by the Federal government.
In the second article Dick Bus notes they can drop their current coverage and pay the fine. Right now they can drop their coverage and pay nothing – except they don’t because decent coverage makes you a desired employer, able to choose the best employees. That won’t change.
Fair enough. The more important I derived from the article is that companies have considerable incentive to downsize to reduce their healthcare costs, exacerbating our unemployment situation.
The last article points out how people are now required to get coverage even if they don’t want it. It sounds like a wonderful freedom to have, to not have coverage, but life threatening illness isn’t just for the middle aged, does society have the freedom to watch a 23 year old die of a treatable disease, because he didn’t have coverage. If society won’t let him die, why shouldn’t that guy pay $750 a year?
Some coverage should be mandatory (things like cancer), but others in the Bill are just nonsensical . If your ovaries are broken you shouldn't have to pay for any maternity-related stuff. Society DOES have the freedom to watch people die, which would be correctly holding him accountable for his actions (his CHOICE to not have a safety net for illnesses). If society goes and pays for his treatment anyway, without him spending a dime, it just further undermines the sense of personal responsibility, which is in pretty poor shape right now anyway.
So, outside of telling insurance companies they cannot change rates to avoid covering unprofitable people, what would you do?
Abolish all private health insurance. Small, affordable stuff like outpatient care and basic prescriptions can remain privatized, in which case people just pay out of pocket. If you can't afford a $100 check-up and an $8 prescription, you're probably Doing It Wrong. Next time manage your finances better.* (personal anecdote below) There is an incentive for private practices to innovate, providing affordable, quality care that attracts patients but keeps costs under control to maximize profits. Major treatments and surgeries should be managed and paid for by state governments (as undertaken by the aforementioned ROI analyses), possibly with some Federal subsidization, at actual cost for the procedures (rather than the current inflated costs to cover the shortfalls elsewhere).
Based on the performance of the Dept. of Veterans Affairs, I'm convinced the government is actually capable of running a competent, large-scale healthcare organization. One of the many hurdles though, is dragging the rest of the healthcare industry into the 21st century by adopting digital medical records for 300 million Americans. An expensive and time-consuming initial investment is required, but that would truly yield savings in the long-term and improve the quality of care too.
I'd also like to point out that I'm not particularly knowledgeable on the intricacies of the healthcare industry. A good friend of mine is doing her residency in pediatric infectious diseases so I sometimes pick her brain on things, but that's about it.
*I wanted new contact lenses before going on a trip last weekend, as I only had one pair that I'd been using off-and-on for months. I was told that I'd have to set an appointment to sign up for Tricare at a nearby installation, then set an appointment to get an eye exam (also at this installation) and maybe then I'd be able to get something. I had no patience for all this, so I went to Wal-Mart, got an eye exam + a pair of trial lenses immediately + two boxes of lenses in less than a week. Total was ~$230. I was amazed when they asked if I had health insurance. Why would something so cheap and simple be covered by insurance? Stop pissing your money away on Xbox games and buy that sh1t yourself!
Noble713 wrote:Society DOES have the freedom to watch people die, which would be correctly holding him accountable for his actions (his CHOICE to not have a safety net for illnesses). If society goes and pays for his treatment anyway, without him spending a dime, it just further undermines the sense of personal responsibility, which is in pretty poor shape right now anyway.
Your solution is to simply deny access to emergency rooms, for those who choose not to pay the opt-out fee? I don't see that working out terribly well.. People tend to not dissappear from the steps of ER, when they are half-way out an ambulance, with no identification. Dude goes on hike and gets in an accident, doesn't bring ID due to the fact that he is dumb; because of this he is denied access to treatment that would save his life. I highly doubt that people will fancy having ID tags sewn into their necks, so I have little to no clue how your plan would actually work.
Fateweaver wrote:Sugar-coat it all you want. A turd is a turd and this bill is such a large steaming turd brontosaurus dung piles pale in comparison.
Perhaps, but I seriously question if you have the slightest inkling as to why you believe that.
Agreed.
It sounds more like Fateweaver is regurgitating sound bites from Sean hannity and Fox news, rather than reading anything about it, only to make light of it when he's called on it. Almost like he just wants something to complain about.
My bet, if I was going to, is that Fateweaver didn't vote for Obama and was irate when he was elected. This would cloud his judgement on anything Obama did. Even resigning would be met with jeers and insults, I'd wager.
Eric
Love how you assume I'm a Fox News flunkie or Hannity groupie. Love how liberals think THEIR news sources are unbiased. Jon Stewert? Yeah, I trust my dentist to know more about the goings on in the world than him; NBC or ABC? Please, if they got anymore leftist aimed they would make liberals look conservative.
Keep assuming. It just makes you look the ass.
Again, how does me having to pay for stuff I don't need in my healthcare a good thing? I have no kids right now but in 4 years if I still don't have kids my insurance has to include coverage for pediatric care. Tell me again when did pediatric care become something OTHER THAN care for children? If I have no kids why the hell am I supposed to be able to cover care I'll never use. I'm pretty damn sure I can't get a pediatrician to give me an exam or look at any problems I have.
As to I don't like Obama because I didn't vote for him? Duh. What an odd concept that if someone you didn't vote for because you didn't like them gets elected you will find fault with everything. Liberals did it to Bush and I bet you were one who did his fair share of mocking him (oh yeah, that's write MM you have done your share of mocking Bush).
So you take stabs at me and call me a hater when you yourself are just as guilty of hating our President as I am. I guess in your world MM the educated Liberal with a degree on his wall should stand on a higher podium than a Conservative Christian with no fancy piece of paper on his wall.
FW wrote:Again, how does me having to pay for stuff I don't need in my healthcare a good thing? I have no kids right now but in 4 years if I still don't have kids my insurance has to include coverage for pediatric care. Tell me again when did pediatric care become something OTHER THAN care for children? If I have no kids why the hell am I supposed to be able to cover care I'll never use. I'm pretty damn sure I can't get a pediatrician to give me an exam or look at any problems I have.
Can you reference that assertion in any way? I would like to see an article at the very least, that brought information indicating such a requirement, through this bill. The subsidies you can receive (depending on your income), will be used through private insurance, which as far as I know can offer whatever plans they like; aside ridiculous caps and pre-existing condition clauses.
FW wrote:Again, how does me having to pay for stuff I don't need in my healthcare a good thing? I have no kids right now but in 4 years if I still don't have kids my insurance has to include coverage for pediatric care. Tell me again when did pediatric care become something OTHER THAN care for children? If I have no kids why the hell am I supposed to be able to cover care I'll never use. I'm pretty damn sure I can't get a pediatrician to give me an exam or look at any problems I have.
Can you reference that assertion in any way? I would like to see an article at the very least, that brought information indicating such a requirement, through this bill. The subsidies you can receive (depending on your income), will be used through private insurance, which as far as I know can offer whatever plans they like; aside ridiculous caps and pre-existing condition clauses.
Investors wrote:4. Think you'd like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn't cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that's what the customer wants. (Section 2712).
"Sec. 2712. Prohibition on rescissions. (H. R. 3590, pg. 13)
Bill wrote:‘‘A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering
group or individual health insurance coverage shall not rescind
such plan or coverage with respect to an enrollee once the enrollee
is covered under such plan or coverage involved, except that this
section shall not apply to a covered individual who has performed
an act or practice that constitutes fraud or makes an intentional
misrepresentation of material fact as prohibited by the terms of
the plan or coverage. Such plan or coverage may not be cancelled
except with prior notice to the enrollee, and only as permitted
under section 2702(c) or 2742(b).
Investors wrote:6. You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.
You're a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. You're a woman who can't have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. You're a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302).
Sec. 1302. Essential health benefits requirements. (H. R. 3590, pg. 45—50)
Bill wrote:
(a) ESSENTIAL HEALTH BENEFITS PACKAGE.—In this title, the
term ‘‘essential health benefits package’’ means, with respect to
any health plan, coverage that—
(1) provides for the essential health benefits defined by
the Secretary under subsection (b);
(2) limits cost-sharing for such coverage in accordance with
subsection (c); and
(3) subject to subsection (e), provides either the bronze,
silver, gold, or platinum level of coverage described in subsection
(d).
(b) ESSENTIAL HEALTH BENEFITS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary
shall define the essential health benefits, except that such
benefits shall include at least the following general categories
and the items and services covered within the categories:
(A) Ambulatory patient services.
(B) Emergency services.
(C) Hospitalization.
(D) Maternity and newborn care.
H. R. 3590—46
(E) Mental health and substance use disorder services,
including behavioral health treatment.
(F) Prescription drugs.
(G) Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices.
(H) Laboratory services.
(I) Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease
management.
(J) Pediatric services, including oral and vision care.
(2) LIMITATION.— (A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall ensure that the
scope of the essential health benefits under paragraph (1)
is equal to the scope of benefits provided under a typical
employer plan, as determined by the Secretary. To inform
this determination, the Secretary of Labor shall conduct
a survey of employer-sponsored coverage to determine the
benefits typically covered by employers, including multi-employer
plans, and provide a report on such survey to the
Secretary.
....
In short, it appears to be a gross generalization to assume that a person with no children would be required to pay for services, associated with having children. It really seems an awful lot like basic insurance, to a minimum that can be offered. What that is exactly, is yet to be precisely defined, but I am sure it will not be very difficult to average out.
Fateweaver wrote:Love how you assume I'm a Fox News flunkie or Hannity groupie. Love how liberals think THEIR news sources are unbiased. Jon Stewert? Yeah, I trust my dentist to know more about the goings on in the world than him; NBC or ABC? Please, if they got anymore leftist aimed they would make liberals look conservative.
Keep assuming. It just makes you look the ass.
Actually, I made no assumption about you. I wouldn't. I don't know you that well. You should've read my post for the information in it, instead of looking for an attack.
I said it "sounds like" you were regurgitating conservative sound bites. Know why? Because it does.
I didn't say that IS the only place you got your information, only that it SOUNDS LIKE it. Because is does.
I don't know where you ACTUALLY get your information, so I won't say you DO get it anywhere.
Really, the only ones who "look the ass" are the ones makind ASSumptions.
BTW, I wouldn't have ANY clue what Jon Stewart thinks about it. I watch very little TV and, though I admit he AMUSES me in general, I don't bother with his show. I get my news by reading multiple sources (anything from Fox news to CNN to locall news sites and random internet articles) and making judgements based on my assessment of the combination of information. I'm capable of seeing through conservative AND liberal rhetoric.
Also, FWIW, I'm no liberal. I'm firmly moderate.
Also, my favorite local radio personality is Dave Glover from 97.1. I listen to him every afternoon on the ride home.
Google him. He's a conservative radio host. Good friends with Glenn Beck and has been a guest on his show a few times, even.
My point? I don't discriminate based on political affiliation. I get my information all over the place.
Fateweaver wrote:Again, how does me having to pay for stuff I don't need in my healthcare a good thing? I have no kids right now but in 4 years if I still don't have kids my insurance has to include coverage for pediatric care. Tell me again when did pediatric care become something OTHER THAN care for children? If I have no kids why the hell am I supposed to be able to cover care I'll never use. I'm pretty damn sure I can't get a pediatrician to give me an exam or look at any problems I have.
Since I don't know, I'm asking some questions. They're actual questions, not attacks or assumptions.
Are you employed?
Are you insured?
Does your insurance plan have pediatric coverage?
Were you given the choice to pick one without pediatric coverage?
If your answers were, in order, Yes, Yes, No (or even Yes, actually), and Yes, then congratulations are in order. I'm Yes, Yes, Yes, No. Most people, in fact, have insurance coverage that they'd never choose for themselves or, at least, weren't given the option whether or not they wanted it.
Fateweaver wrote:As to I don't like Obama because I didn't vote for him? Duh. What an odd concept that if someone you didn't vote for because you didn't like them gets elected you will find fault with everything. Liberals did it to Bush and I bet you were one who did his fair share of mocking him (oh yeah, that's write MM you have done your share of mocking Bush).
Of course, I mocked Bush. Mocked the HECK out of him. His dad, too. Also, Bill Clinton and a little Obama (I don't have too much on him yet).
I voted for two and didn't vote for two. That makes me about 50/50, huh? I'm an equal opportunity jokester (*not* hater. I don't hate anything or anyone).
I DO find it an odd concept that you are unwilling to support your president. I supported George W in a few things... The Middle East being part of that. Of course, I'm only 38. So, I didn't vote for ANYONE when his dad ran. I cared little for politics then (not that I care TOO much more now). On the converse, I voted for Clinton twice, but opposed him horribly with NAFTA ad "Lewinsky-gate."
Equal opportunity here.
Fateweaver wrote:So you take stabs at me and call me a hater when you yourself are just as guilty of hating our President as I am. I guess in your world MM the educated Liberal with a degree on his wall should stand on a higher podium than a Conservative Christian with no fancy piece of paper on his wall.
No stabs. Just commentary. Also, I never called you a hater. Never called you anything. If I was going to call you something, I might call you biased and unwilling to consider the possibility that there might be validity to opinions you disagree with.
In my world, "the liberals" get no more respect than "the conservatives" or "the moderates." I refuse to pidgeon-hole people by putting them in such groups (even myself. I'm moderate, but I'm not "a moderate"). Also -in my world- paper, fancy or not, is worth nothing more than what you can do with it, to it or on it. I don't judge people based on their level of education.
==================================================================================
Interesting information I read just before visiting this thread:
Health Reform: What's In, What's Out and What It Will Cost
With congressional passage of a "fix-it" bill to accompany the landmark health law that President Obama signed Tuesday, work is finally done on his signature health care reform initiative. Now we can tell you for sure some of the changes that are coming. Here's a subject-by-subject look at how the new health laws affect health insurance, Medicare and other aspects of the U.S. health care system:
What's in:
Insurance mandate: The bill would require almost every American to purchase health insurance, either through an employer or through new health insurance exchanges created by the bill.
In order to encourage businesses to provide insurance for their employees, companies with more than 50 employees will pay fines to the government if they do not.
Health care exchanges: The new health care exchanges will include for-profit and nonprofit insurance companies and will be run by states or multistate cooperatives. At least two plans will be run by the Office of Personnel Management, which now handles plans for federal employees. Individual customers can shop for insurance in the exchanges, in some cases across state lines.
Insurance rules: Insurance companies will be required to include a minimum level of coverage for all customers and will be prohibited from dropping or denying coverage based on a customer's medical history. Companies also cannot implement caps on lifetime coverage.
Federal subsidies: If a person or family cannot afford coverage, the federal government will subsidize the cost of coverage for families making up to $88,000 a year.
Medicaid: The bill will also expand Medicaid to include as many as 15 million more people living just above the poverty line.
Medicare: The measure also eliminates Medicare co-payments for preventive and screening services and phases out the so-called "doughnut hole" that leaves some prescription drugs uncovered, starting with an immediate $250 rebate in 2010.
Dependent care: Also starting immediately, parents will be able to keep dependent children on their health plans until they are 26 years of age, and insurance companies will have to cover children with pre-existing conditions.
"Cornhusker Kickback": There is no longer special aid to Nebraska to cover expansions in Medicaid, Instead, the federal government will pay for 100 percent of the Medicaid increase for all states through 2018, and a declining share after that.
Taxes and credits: Employers will pay a 40 percent excise tax on expensive insurance policies starting in 2018.
There will be a Medicare payroll tax increase on earnings over $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for married couples, and a new 3.8 percent tax on unearned income that kicks in at the same levels.
For small businesses, $40 billion in tax credits would help employers pay for insurance for their workers.
GOP contributions: A number of Republican ideas were incorporated into the health reform package during committee work, including new steps to combat fraud and abuse in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. On March 2, the president said he was open to four more proposals from GOP lawmakers. They are: Using undercover investigators to detect Medicare fraud, adding $50 million for medical malpractice demonstration programs, encouraging wider use of health savings accounts, and possibly increasing Medicaid reimbursement rates to doctors. For procedural reasons, it is not clear yet whether all four will be in the final package.
Abortion: Obama opted to keep the Senate's more liberal language on abortion funding in the bill. It would require at least one option on every heath care insurance exchange to provide coverage for elective abortion services and allow women who choose that coverage to pay for it, as long as they use their own money. Federal subsidies could not directly pay for abortion coverage.
Immigrants: Undocumented immigrants will not receive federal subsidies and will not be allowed to use their own money to buy insurance on the exchanges.
What's gone:
Public option: The House passed a public option, or government-run insurance plan, in November, but it did not make it into law.
Costs: The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the new law will cost $940 billion over 10 years. Taking into account new savings and taxes, CBO says the new law will cut the deficit by $138 billion in the first 10 years and more than $1 trillion in the next 10 years.
Based on our government's track record at saving huge amounts of money on really big programs by avoiding special subsidies to a favored few, *clearly* health care "reform" is going to help the average American...
JohnHwangDD wrote:Based on our government's track record at saving huge amounts of money on really big programs by avoiding special subsidies to a favored few, *clearly* health care "reform" is going to help the average American...
Thats not a particularly scientific basis on which to place a belief.
Fateweaver wrote:Love how you assume I'm a Fox News flunkie or Hannity groupie. Love how liberals think THEIR news sources are unbiased. Jon Stewert? Yeah, I trust my dentist to know more about the goings on in the world than him; NBC or ABC? Please, if they got anymore leftist aimed they would make liberals look conservative.
Keep assuming. It just makes you look the ass.
Actually, I made no assumption about you. I wouldn't. I don't know you that well. You should've read my post for the information in it, instead of looking for an attack.
I said it "sounds like" you were regurgitating conservative sound bites. Know why? Because it does.
I didn't say that IS the only place you got your information, only that it SOUNDS LIKE it. Because is does.
I don't know where you ACTUALLY get your information, so I won't say you DO get it anywhere.
Really, the only ones who "look the ass" are the ones makind ASSumptions.
BTW, I wouldn't have ANY clue what Jon Stewart thinks about it. I watch very little TV and, though I admit he AMUSES me in general, I don't bother with his show. I get my news by reading multiple sources (anything from Fox news to CNN to locall news sites and random internet articles) and making judgements based on my assessment of the combination of information. I'm capable of seeing through conservative AND liberal rhetoric.
Also, FWIW, I'm no liberal. I'm firmly moderate.
Also, my favorite local radio personality is Dave Glover from 97.1. I listen to him every afternoon on the ride home.
Google him. He's a conservative radio host. Good friends with Glenn Beck and has been a guest on his show a few times, even.
My point? I don't discriminate based on political affiliation. I get my information all over the place.
Fateweaver wrote:Again, how does me having to pay for stuff I don't need in my healthcare a good thing? I have no kids right now but in 4 years if I still don't have kids my insurance has to include coverage for pediatric care. Tell me again when did pediatric care become something OTHER THAN care for children? If I have no kids why the hell am I supposed to be able to cover care I'll never use. I'm pretty damn sure I can't get a pediatrician to give me an exam or look at any problems I have.
Since I don't know, I'm asking some questions. They're actual questions, not attacks or assumptions.
Are you employed?
Are you insured?
Does your insurance plan have pediatric coverage?
Were you given the choice to pick one without pediatric coverage?
If your answers were, in order, Yes, Yes, No (or even Yes, actually), and Yes, then congratulations are in order. I'm Yes, Yes, Yes, No. Most people, in fact, have insurance coverage that they'd never choose for themselves or, at least, weren't given the option whether or not they wanted it.
Fateweaver wrote:As to I don't like Obama because I didn't vote for him? Duh. What an odd concept that if someone you didn't vote for because you didn't like them gets elected you will find fault with everything. Liberals did it to Bush and I bet you were one who did his fair share of mocking him (oh yeah, that's write MM you have done your share of mocking Bush).
Of course, I mocked Bush. Mocked the HECK out of him. His dad, too. Also, Bill Clinton and a little Obama (I don't have too much on him yet).
I voted for two and didn't vote for two. That makes me about 50/50, huh? I'm an equal opportunity jokester (*not* hater. I don't hate anything or anyone).
I DO find it an odd concept that you are unwilling to support your president. I supported George W in a few things... The Middle East being part of that. Of course, I'm only 38. So, I didn't vote for ANYONE when his dad ran. I cared little for politics then (not that I care TOO much more now). On the converse, I voted for Clinton twice, but opposed him horribly with NAFTA ad "Lewinsky-gate."
Equal opportunity here.
Fateweaver wrote:So you take stabs at me and call me a hater when you yourself are just as guilty of hating our President as I am. I guess in your world MM the educated Liberal with a degree on his wall should stand on a higher podium than a Conservative Christian with no fancy piece of paper on his wall.
No stabs. Just commentary. Also, I never called you a hater. Never called you anything. If I was going to call you something, I might call you biased and unwilling to consider the possibility that there might be validity to opinions you disagree with.
In my world, "the liberals" get no more respect than "the conservatives" or "the moderates." I refuse to pidgeon-hole people by putting them in such groups (even myself. I'm moderate, but I'm not "a moderate"). Also -in my world- paper, fancy or not, is worth nothing more than what you can do with it, to it or on it. I don't judge people based on their level of education.
==================================================================================
Interesting information I read just before visiting this thread:
Health Reform: What's In, What's Out and What It Will Cost
With congressional passage of a "fix-it" bill to accompany the landmark health law that President Obama signed Tuesday, work is finally done on his signature health care reform initiative. Now we can tell you for sure some of the changes that are coming. Here's a subject-by-subject look at how the new health laws affect health insurance, Medicare and other aspects of the U.S. health care system:
What's in:
Insurance mandate: The bill would require almost every American to purchase health insurance, either through an employer or through new health insurance exchanges created by the bill.
In order to encourage businesses to provide insurance for their employees, companies with more than 50 employees will pay fines to the government if they do not.
Health care exchanges: The new health care exchanges will include for-profit and nonprofit insurance companies and will be run by states or multistate cooperatives. At least two plans will be run by the Office of Personnel Management, which now handles plans for federal employees. Individual customers can shop for insurance in the exchanges, in some cases across state lines.
Insurance rules: Insurance companies will be required to include a minimum level of coverage for all customers and will be prohibited from dropping or denying coverage based on a customer's medical history. Companies also cannot implement caps on lifetime coverage.
Federal subsidies: If a person or family cannot afford coverage, the federal government will subsidize the cost of coverage for families making up to $88,000 a year.
Medicaid: The bill will also expand Medicaid to include as many as 15 million more people living just above the poverty line.
Medicare: The measure also eliminates Medicare co-payments for preventive and screening services and phases out the so-called "doughnut hole" that leaves some prescription drugs uncovered, starting with an immediate $250 rebate in 2010.
Dependent care: Also starting immediately, parents will be able to keep dependent children on their health plans until they are 26 years of age, and insurance companies will have to cover children with pre-existing conditions.
"Cornhusker Kickback": There is no longer special aid to Nebraska to cover expansions in Medicaid, Instead, the federal government will pay for 100 percent of the Medicaid increase for all states through 2018, and a declining share after that.
Taxes and credits: Employers will pay a 40 percent excise tax on expensive insurance policies starting in 2018.
There will be a Medicare payroll tax increase on earnings over $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for married couples, and a new 3.8 percent tax on unearned income that kicks in at the same levels.
For small businesses, $40 billion in tax credits would help employers pay for insurance for their workers.
GOP contributions: A number of Republican ideas were incorporated into the health reform package during committee work, including new steps to combat fraud and abuse in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. On March 2, the president said he was open to four more proposals from GOP lawmakers. They are: Using undercover investigators to detect Medicare fraud, adding $50 million for medical malpractice demonstration programs, encouraging wider use of health savings accounts, and possibly increasing Medicaid reimbursement rates to doctors. For procedural reasons, it is not clear yet whether all four will be in the final package.
Abortion: Obama opted to keep the Senate's more liberal language on abortion funding in the bill. It would require at least one option on every heath care insurance exchange to provide coverage for elective abortion services and allow women who choose that coverage to pay for it, as long as they use their own money. Federal subsidies could not directly pay for abortion coverage.
Immigrants: Undocumented immigrants will not receive federal subsidies and will not be allowed to use their own money to buy insurance on the exchanges.
What's gone:
Public option: The House passed a public option, or government-run insurance plan, in November, but it did not make it into law.
Costs: The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the new law will cost $940 billion over 10 years. Taking into account new savings and taxes, CBO says the new law will cut the deficit by $138 billion in the first 10 years and more than $1 trillion in the next 10 years.
Eric
The only good thing obama did was to extend my UI benefits longer but that is something McCain might have done (or Hilary if she'd stayed in and won) so with the exception of that little "favor" I have yet to find anything to support him about.
yeah its great for you non-smokers for sure. But it has me out snipe hunting. I guess it's still supporting my habit for free, so I shouldn't bitch. Who knows, maybe I'll have health care for that inevitable lung cancer I have comin up? Still though, not real happy about Comrade O doin that to me and my ilk. Every smoker I know is either poor or lower middle class. That is however only my own personal experiance I'm not claiming it as a concrete statistic or anything, (it could be that I hang out with mostly poor people).
Norwulf wrote:yeah its great for you non-smokers for sure. But it has me out snipe hunting. I guess it's still supporting my habit for free, so I shouldn't bitch. Who knows, maybe I'll have health care for that inevitable lung cancer I have comin up? Still though, not real happy about Comrade O doin that to me and my ilk. Every smoker I know is either poor or lower middle class. That is however only my own personal experiance I'm not claiming it as a concrete statistic or anything, (it could be that I hang out with mostly poor people).
..It's almost like they don't want you to smoke and spend your money elsewhere !
..anyway.. the thread...
TLR : we don't know. But we sure as hell won't go on about the Nuclear weapons reduction and shouting at Israel fo' sure. Take that freedom of speech !
)
