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.

Well if I have to choose I think I'll take $100,000.

NOW.

In small unmarked bills.

Fateweaver wrote:Leave medical and health insurance optional. Making me pay a fine of so much a year because I feel I don't need it or maybe can't afford it (I somehow doubt my insurance premium under the Obamanation will be less than the $80 I pay per month) is plain absurd and is going to downright piss off more people than just me. If I can get the same coverage for half the price under the new Bill than I'll be the first to sign up but ONLY because I want to, not because I feel I have to.

Thing is, right now people are dropped from their health insurance for anything and everything that can be classified as a pre-existing condition. This is bad, and is one of the reasons that the leading cause of bankruptcy in the US is health related expenses.

So they're bringing in legal requirements that say you can get healthcare even if you have a pre-existing condition. This would produce a situation where no-one would bother to get insurance as you could just wait until you got sick and then get insurance. So now they're putting a tax incentive in place to get coverage while you're well. It isn't required, it is a 2.5% tax above an income threshhold.

It isn't a great solution. It would simpler, cheaper and more effective to expand basic coverage, and decouple health insurance from companies allowing people to directly choose their own coverage (the health insurers wouldn't dare cut people if they knew it would get out and their coverage changed to company that actually kept them covered when they got sick). But that's not going to happen. You won't see an expansion of medicare to cover everyone for basic care, because a significant proportion of the US has a ridiculous delusion about the wonders of the profit motive. And you won't get market reform that actually forces competition between insurers, because both parties take piles of cash from the health insurers.

This is a reasonable solution, once you consider the best solution is impossible due to the state of US politics.

sebster wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:It's been mathmatically shown that spreading the money used to bail out AIG amongst every legal taxpayer in the country would have amounted to everyone getting over $100k/per person.

No it hasn't. That's complete and utter rubbish. There's about 150 million tax payers in the US. Giving each of them $100,000, costing $15 trillion, or slightly more than US GDP. The AIG bailout was in fact $85 billion, or around $600 per tax payer. You said it was mathematically shown that is was $100,000, when it was $600.

$100,000... $600.

Oh come on Sebster, we all know that your math is just to real! The way we spend money in the US, usually by just making it, everyone would have $100K in no time! Not to be sarcastic Fateweaver, but your numbers were pretty ridiculous...

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Its not actually. We had a lawyer comrade get a hold of a copy of the House Bill and he actually read through (gak why). It would cover them.

How? Without registration there is no coverage. Illegals are unregistered by definition. Its literally impossible for them to be covered by a public healthcare plan in a way which is distinct from the present system.

Its important to note a single payer system is not the same thing as public option. Under a single payer system it is possible that illegals would covered by the plan; depending on how it was administered (one that depended on physician claim reports, for example). However, Obama didn't propose a single payer system. He alluded to one, but didn't support it.

The bill doesn't require any proof of citizenship. While it technically rules our illegal immigrants, someone would basically have to come up to the official through whom they are applying for health coverage and say "I'm really not supposed to be here, I came over from Cuba in a beer firkin. Want a hand rolled Cohiba?"

Yeah, not sure where I got that number from. It's actually 156M taxpayers and the total bailout for AIG is approximated to be $144B dollars

I know where you got it from .

youngblood wrote:
The bill doesn't require any proof of citizenship. While it technically rules our illegal immigrants, someone would basically have to come up to the official through whom they are applying for health coverage and say "I'm really not supposed to be here, I came over from Cuba in a beer firkin. Want a hand rolled Cohiba?"

That depends on how its administered. If it works anything like medicaid, it will be very difficult for illegals to gain access to it (tied to SSN). If it works like a standard insurance system any illegal will be paying into the system like any other person, which is no different from the way it works now with private insurance.

dogma wrote:

youngblood wrote:
The bill doesn't require any proof of citizenship. While it technically rules our illegal immigrants, someone would basically have to come up to the official through whom they are applying for health coverage and say "I'm really not supposed to be here, I came over from Cuba in a beer firkin. Want a hand rolled Cohiba?"

That depends on how its administered. If it works anything like medicaid, it will be very difficult for illegals to gain access to it (tied to SSN). If it works like a standard insurance system any illegal will be paying into the system like any other person, which is no different from the way it works now with private insurance.

True, I know that its not similar to medicaid. IIRC its closer to standard insurance. Still a problem though.

youngblood wrote:
True, I know that its not similar to medicaid. IIRC its closer to standard insurance. Still a problem though.

Politically, probably. It makes more strategic sense to overtly close the bill to immigrants so that immigration reform can be raised as a separate issue.

Practically, I don't have a problem with illegals paying for government insurance. If anything it will probably cut down on unnecessary ER visits, which is a pretty big hit to the balance sheet for urban hospitals.

dogma wrote:

youngblood wrote:
The bill doesn't require any proof of citizenship. While it technically rules our illegal immigrants, someone would basically have to come up to the official through whom they are applying for health coverage and say "I'm really not supposed to be here, I came over from Cuba in a beer firkin. Want a hand rolled Cohiba?"

That depends on how its administered. If it works anything like medicaid, it will be very difficult for illegals to gain access to it (tied to SSN). If it works like a standard insurance system any illegal will be paying into the system like any other person, which is no different from the way it works now with private insurance.

IIRC, something like a third of all medicaid assisted births in hospitals in California are going to illegal immigrants...Doesn't sound to hard to me...

That is kinda scary, I will admit...

How do illegal immigrants get medicaid BTW? Just wondering... oddly enough it seems hard as hell to get medicaid.

Wrexasaur wrote:That is kinda scary, I will admit...

How do illegal immigrants get medicaid BTW? Just wondering... oddly enough it seems hard as hell to get medicaid.

I don't know, but my grandpa did, and he was an illegal immigrant...

I know a guy that has lived in this country as an illegal since he was a young kid. He somehow went to school here (they must have never checked I guess), he also worked here, as well as being married to a native U.S. citizen, and having a 5 year old kid nonetheless. The problem here, is that this guy is just as much of a citizen, if not more than I am, in my eyes; even if he tries to apply he has to go back to his country for like 2-3 years... which is totally frakking lame.

Anyone know how I could help this cat out? I have been wondering for some time how he could possibly skip that whole insane endeavor.

If he's married to a US native and has a child then whats the issue?

In order to get a passport and all that malarkey he will have to go home for the entire duration of processing.

This means that his wife will have to, essentially, be a single mother for that period of time. This could be as long as 3 whole years, my Father took around 10 to get his, although I think his route was much less direct, and most definitely less urgent. My dad was with green card since he arrived, so his situation was a lot different.

As soon as this guy applies for a green card, I am quite sure he will be taking his first steps to being kicked out on a technicality.

Frazzled wrote:If he's married to a US native and has a child then whats the issue?

he could have been a swing vote in the last election.

JEB_Stuart wrote:IIRC, something like a third of all medicaid assisted births in hospitals in California are going to illegal immigrants...Doesn't sound to hard to me...

That's a hospital thing. They have to assist in the birth by law, and then they bill medicaid in order to recoup costs.

An interesting situation has arisen in the UK.

A UK citizen married a Canadian girl who is 19. However, a new UK law makes it illegal for someone aged under 21 to be married and brought into the country.

The Canadian gilr got married while in the UK, however her visa then expired and she had to be deported, and now she can't come back.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/09/09/wallis-britain-deport-marriage813.html

Wrexasaur wrote:In order to get a passport and all that malarkey he will have to go home for the entire duration of processing.

This means that his wife will have to, essentially, be a single mother for that period of time. This could be as long as 3 whole years, my Father took around 10 to get his, although I think his route was much less direct, and most definitely less urgent. My dad was with green card since he arrived, so his situation was a lot different.

As soon as this guy applies for a green card, I am quite sure he will be taking his first steps to being kicked out on a technicality.

I guess is sucks to be him. At least he doesn't pay income taxes...

More or less. At this point I am pretty sure his best option would be to just go with the flow, and get applied. Waiting until his kid is older could be a good idea.

fateweaver wrote:
How does a home cooked meal stimulate the economy anymore than eating at BK? Grocers and BK get their fruits and veggies and meat from farmers. Only thing eating at home might do is support the local mom and pop supermarket but if that family shops at Wal-mart they are feeding the corporate machine just the same as anyone buying movies or cd's or dvd's.

Let's go over that. Its a good question.
1: Supporting local grocers stimulates the local economy. Local producers supply local business who in turn supply non chain restaurants and local residents. Food distributors are as likely to draw from local producers as distant and all hire their staff locally thus keeping more money in motion locally.
2: Immigrant workers (or in my case contract workers. Its odd how the parallel still functions) with families are incentivized to live well below their means in order to send a significant portion of their income out of the area. This takes the money out of the local economy.
3: I've beaten that 'Pound Cake' speech to death over the last two days. The principle of reinforcing social expectations implies that the expectations will be further applied outside the home. More money circulating locally raises the relative standard of living locally before migrating outward for luxuries. By keeping a workforce available (rather than say in prison) locals compete on value added services rather than lowest initial cost.
4: Chain food providers are incentivized to use the lowest cost product they can. Lower quality and more processed foodstuffs carry a significant correlation to increased health risks, and related health maintenance costs. Increasing the quality of food consumed quite likely could reduce long term health costs.

Not saying anything wrong with staying at home and doing things as a family but we have to be realistic....

Pardon me. What the devil does this have to do with
A:healthcare and its economic impacts?
B:Staying home for dinner?
I missed the transition.

Fair is about the same rules for everyone, not complaining that there might be another bill every month.

I somehow doubt my insurance premium...will be less than the $80 I pay per month

But you don't know, and most importantly, the speech specifically lays out:

President Barack Obama wrote:We spend one-and-a-half times more per person on health care than any other country...

Sounds like there's an opportunity for your $80 to drop.

President Barack Obama wrote:...No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance...

So, you don't have to participate. You already have insurance.

Much like Joe Wilson (R, SC) you're presuming this guy is out to get your precious little dollar rather than giving him the respect due his position and a rational ear.

Lets see the plan before we say its bad.