How Health Care Reform Reduces the Deficit in 5 Not-So-Easy Steps

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.

**MagickalMemories**

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.

http://www.uhuh.com/control/garden.htm

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/camps.htm

http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Denver_Airport.html

http://obamacrimes.com/

Here you go.

Don't forget your hat.

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?

**Fateweaver**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
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).

**Major Malfunction**

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.

**dogma**

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.

**ShumaGorath**

@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.

**malfred**

"He's earning his second degree. Too bad his first degree...was murder."

The Revenge of Shumagorath: See the movie in 2010

**Frazzled**

Frankly, I greatly respect persons skilled in any of the beverage or cake making arts.

**The Dreadnote**

malfred wrote:"He's earning his second degree. Too bad his first degree...was murder."

YEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH

**Fateweaver**

ShumaGorath wrote:
@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.

**ShumaGorath**

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?

**Da Boss**

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.

**dogma**

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.

**MagickalMemories**

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?

Eric

**sebster**

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.

**WarOne**

sebster wrote:

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.

**Noble713**

Here's a few articles with some actual numbers:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703312504575141642402986422.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

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.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/24/video-will-obamacare-drive-businesses-out-of-providing-health-insurance/

• 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.

This one points out the sections of the actual bill describing how taxpayers are FORCED to pay for coverage they don't need:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=528137

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).

**sebster**

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?

**Manchu**

@sebster: I have nothing but applause for you tonight

**Fateweaver**

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.

**MagickalMemories**

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.

Eric

**sebster**

Fateweaver wrote:As far as pre-existing conditions. If they are self-induced too bad.

What about the pre-existing conditions that aren't self-induced?

**Fateweaver**

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.

**ShumaGorath**

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?

**Fateweaver**

Does a health care bill need 3,000 pages? Maybe if it's quadruple spaced than it's more like 800 pages single spaced. Still ludicrously long.

I'm not spouting on at the size of it. Even at 2 pages it'd still be a pile of gak.

**Tyyr**

Given the breadth and scope of what they were doing I'd expect it to be more than a pamphlet.

**ShumaGorath**

Fateweaver wrote:
I'm not spouting on at the size of it.

But yes. Yes you are.

**MagickalMemories**

Fateweaver wrote:

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.

Eric

**Fateweaver**

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.

**ShumaGorath**

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.

**Wrexasaur**

^

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.

I am not unhappy with this bill.