Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Orkestra wrote:*shakes head*

That's all the response I have left in me for America.

In fairness California has more people than all of canada and likes the bill.

The thread title is totally misleading! I had visions of people drinking tea with two sugars, staying up past 11pm and leaving the house with out a hat. Anarchy!

Did anyone else notice that he made a couple dollars off those people. I think it was a win for him. First of all he got his message out and made some green on top of it all.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Well, I just scanned it in order to better equip myself for talking about it. It took all of about 5 minutes, including the time it takes to make a cup of tea. If I can do it, then the people protesting against this bill should be able to. I get the distinct impression that this bill is just an excuse to march around and shout unpleasant things.

Am I being ignored? Does he have me on ignore?

Nope, not yet. Why?

Albatross wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Well, I just scanned it in order to better equip myself for talking about it. It took all of about 5 minutes, including the time it takes to make a cup of tea. If I can do it, then the people protesting against this bill should be able to. I get the distinct impression that this bill is just an excuse to march around and shout unpleasant things.

Am I being ignored? Does he have me on ignore?

Nope, not yet. Why?

You came to the conclusion seemingly alone that I had been stating for months.

Idiots are idiots. That part isn't news to me.

But I hadn't really read anything about the actual bill itself, as it doesn't afffect me in the slightest. I thought it was tacky to oppose universal healthcare anyway - but now I find out it isn't even universal healthcare, but simply 'progress' that they are opposed to?

It just makes me angry and a little depressed for decent Americans, who aren't looking for hand-outs, just a fair crack of the whip.

The vote passed. The tea partiers are going to have to go back home and keep on being a burden to the system.

Hmmmm... I do not know what to say. I truly think that they pushed this agenda through way too fast. I really hate the idea of imposing fines on Americans for not having insurance. What happens if you can afford the premiums but make to much for medicare and medicaid, a big fat fine. Yes, a tax credit for Americans but that is once a year thing and something that still will not make health insurance affordable.

Times like this, I am glad that I am government employee with good, cheap insurance along with being a service connected disability veteran with free health care from the VA. I knew taking a bullet for my country and letting Army doctors operate on my shoulder twice would pay off sooner or later.

Pipboy101 wrote:Hmmmm... I do not know what to say. I truly think that they pushed this agenda through way too fast. I really hate the idea of imposing fines on Americans for not having insurance. What happens if you can afford the premiums but make to much for medicare and medicaid, a big fat fine. Yes, a tax credit for Americans but that is once a year thing and something that still will not make health insurance affordable.

There's a big problem right now with Americans being denied coverage for pre-existing conditions. It's been pretty heavily documented that insurers will use any excuse possible to deny coverage instead of paying out for extensive treatment, they are trying to make a profit after all. It's why medical conditions are the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US.

The new bill does not allow insurers to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, and this is a really important thing. However, that produces a problem - who'd bother to get insurance at all, when they can just wait until they're sick as they can't be rejected? So the system requires everyone to get insurance, which isn't great, but it's better than getting cancer and being rejected from coverage because you forgot to mention you had an ulcer ten years ago.

Pipboy101 wrote:Hmmmm... I do not know what to say. I truly think that they pushed this agenda through way too fast. I really hate the idea of imposing fines on Americans for not having insurance. What happens if you can afford the premiums but make to much for medicare and medicaid, a big fat fine. Yes, a tax credit for Americans but that is once a year thing and something that still will not make health insurance affordable.

Times like this, I am glad that I am government employee with good, cheap insurance along with being a service connected disability veteran with free health care from the VA. I knew taking a bullet for my country and letting Army doctors operate on my shoulder twice would pay off sooner or later.

That doesn't go into effect until 2014 so it is likely this bill will be repealed the moment the republicans gain majority.

Most people will be required to obtain health insurance coverage or pay a fine if they don't. Healthcare tax credits become available to help people with incomes up to 400 per cent of poverty purchase coverage on the exchange.

Does anyone know how large the fine will be?

youbedead wrote:Does anyone know how large the fine will be?

1% of income

so almost nothing then, gee i thought it was like 8-10 %
the way people were screaming their heads off about it

youbedead wrote:so almost nothing then, gee i thought it was like 8-10 %
the way people were screaming their heads off about it

Can I have 1% of your income?

RustyKnight wrote:

youbedead wrote:so almost nothing then, gee i thought it was like 8-10 %
the way people were screaming their heads off about it

Can I have 1% of your income?

For total coverage of me and my family's healthcare, sure mate.

What sucks is I already pay 1% right off the top for my income ans so does my wife to the city of Kansas City, MO as an earnings tax. Combined we make alittle over a 100K a year so right from the top 1% for us is approx $1,000 a year. We can afford the 1% if we needed to pay it but the one income families that have kids but make too much for the income cap for medicare and medicaid they are already living at the end of the means so even that 1% is going to hurt. When there is too much month for you money any new thing added is going to throw middle class families under the bus.

If you think its only going to cost you 1% I've a bridge to sell you.

And how much should you benefit from the wage increase you'll receive once the state provides healthcare, that employers will no longer have the excuse to hold back a certain amount of your wage for employee healthcare? You may even have enough to justify choosing your own Private insurance to enhance the state provided care.

Dude what do you mean the state "provides" healthcare?

1. My costs are going to go up.
2. Why on earth do you think employers are going to give you any money? They have to cover you or be fined now.

Standards, and costs set by government and the insurance companies. this byt hte same people who brought you $700 hammers. Thinking this is anything but a godsend for BigPharma and the insurance companies is misplaced propaganda. They were bought a year ago.

Frazzled wrote:If you think its only going to cost you 1% I've a bridge to sell you.

The fine is 2.5%.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:this byt hte same people who brought you $700 hammers.

$700 hammers happen when projects are hidden in the budget.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:And how much should you benefit from the wage increase you'll receive once the state provides healthcare, that employers will no longer have the excuse to hold back a certain amount of your wage for employee healthcare? You may even have enough to justify choosing your own Private insurance to enhance the state provided care.

Um, there is no provision for state-provided healthcare, is there? I made this mistake earlier. Apparently the bill just requires everyone to have insurance, and stops the insurance companies from being dickholes. It's a start, but it doesn't go far enough in my opinion.

I'm a firm supporter of the NHS.

Nope, no public option.

It's interesting. I can see pluses and minuses to each side. I suppose most of all it makes me think campaign finance needs to be reformed so that groups like the insurance companies and the pharmaceuticals have less power.

Definitely, a lot of us non-american posters should go read up before jumping in.
Hopefully this is a good starting point which can be built into a better structure later. I get the feeling the atmosphere around the issue is so toxic though that this'll be hard work.

What is the provision for people who can't afford cover? Is it medicaid or medicare? (Medicare is the one for older folks, right? and medicaid is for the very poor? Am I right?)

My grandfather died of Parkinson's before I was born. What asses.

Frazzled wrote:..Thinking this is anything but a godsend for BigPharma and the insurance companies is misplaced propaganda. They were bought a year ago.

If this is such a Godsend why did the insurance companies spend millions trying to stop it?

GG

generalgrog wrote:

Frazzled wrote:..Thinking this is anything but a godsend for BigPharma and the insurance companies is misplaced propaganda. They were bought a year ago.

If this is such a Godsend why did the insurance companies spend millions trying to stop it?

GG

Just let fraz live in his little bubble.

generalgrog wrote:If this is such a Godsend why did the insurance companies spend millions trying to stop it?

GG

I suspect they spent millions trying to control the process, and somewhat achieved their aims. They certainly don't like the idea of being unable to reject people who will be expensive to cover, but they did manage to stop the public option directly competing against them.

I understand people like Fraz being annoyed at mandatory insurance, but if they've only got themselves to blame for playing partisan politics and preventing a public option.

generalgrog wrote:

Frazzled wrote:..Thinking this is anything but a godsend for BigPharma and the insurance companies is misplaced propaganda. They were bought a year ago.

If this is such a Godsend why did the insurance companies spend millions trying to stop it?

GG

They didn't.
Their stock went up yesterday.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:

generalgrog wrote:If this is such a Godsend why did the insurance companies spend millions trying to stop it?

GG

I suspect they spent millions trying to control the process, and somewhat achieved their aims. They certainly don't like the idea of being unable to reject people who will be expensive to cover, but they did manage to stop the public option directly competing against them.

I understand people like Fraz being annoyed at mandatory insurance, but if they've only got themselves to blame for playing partisan politics and preventing a public option.

You're so blindingly wrong its not funny.
-I am just fine with mandatory insurance. I want all you young losers to pay for me.
-They purposefully are destroying Medicare Advantage whichn millions of seniors rely upon. they are going to gut medicare to pay for losers who don't have insurance.
-If Taxachusetts is the guide, premiums for everyone will rapidly go up 30%. There is no cost containment here, its all about power.

Frazz is either woefully ignorant or outright LYING. The insurance companies did indeed spend hundreds of millions of dollars trying to stop or cripple the bill:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/01/lobbyists-millions-obama-healthcare-reform

"The industry and interest groups have spent $380m (£238m) in recent months influencing healthcare legislation through lobbying, advertising and in direct political contributions to members of Congress. The largest contribution, totalling close to $1.5m, has gone to the chairman of the senate committee drafting the new law."

Commissar Molotov wrote:Frazz is either woefully ignorant or outright LYING. The insurance companies did indeed spend hundreds of millions of dollars trying to stop or cripple the bill:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/01/lobbyists-millions-obama-healthcare-reform

"The industry and interest groups have spent $380m (£238m) in recent months influencing healthcare legislation through lobbying, advertising and in direct political contributions to members of Congress. The largest contribution, totalling close to $1.5m, has gone to the chairman of the senate committee drafting the new law."

I'm ignorant yet you can't understand the purpose of lobbying. Its to modify something for your benefit. Thats what they did. you however, seemed to have taken the Democrat propaganda Koolaid hook line and sinker. Who do you think they were giving the money to? Why do you think their stock has gone up? They are simply trading margin for greater volume.

If this was a bad bill for them it would have opened up interstate competition or permitting people to purchase prescriptions internationally (aka Canada). They can't have competition so thats right out.

I said;

sebster wrote:I suspect they spent millions trying to control the process, and somewhat achieved their aims.

To which Fraz replies;

Frazzled wrote:You're so blindingly wrong its not funny.

He later expands on this;

Frazzled wrote:I'm ignorant yet you can't understand the purpose of lobbying. Its to modify something for your benefit.

Apparently I'm so blindingly wrong that I'm agreeing with Fraz.

The long answer is, like I said and Fraz agreed, the insurance companies put money into this to try and control the process. Mostly they opposed it though, and that was a mistake, particularly compared to the drug companies who signed on early. There are considerable caps on insurance practice in the bill, at least 85% of a premium must be spent on healthcare, total premium cost is capped by household income, and the big two - no rejecting someone for a pre-existing condition and no cap on the coverage offered. They did manage to get the public option cut, but that was always the bare minimum objective.

Drug companies suffered no such restrictions. When you combine this with Bush' pharmaceutical bill it's been a good decade for them in Washington.