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.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Seriously though, did I get that right?

If you can't afford auto insurance it seems unlikely that you'll earn enough to see a significant change in your overall tax burden.

LOL I love this. The best part about a democracy? When one side loses.


The second best part? Vote the guy you dont like out in 2 more years. We have an election coming up, thats how government works, theres another one coming around lol.

halonachos wrote:This bill will not end well. At first it'll be hunky-dory, but when the average American lifespan doesn't increase then we'll see more people calling the bill useless. The lifespan isn't tied into health care, after all England has health care and they live about 1 more year than Americans on average.

I don't believe that increasing the average lifespan was the central purpose behind healthcare reform. Indeed, per your argument it couldn't be.

But, honestly, claiming that healthcare isn't connected to average life expectancy is ridiculous. It certainly isn't the only factor, but it is most certainly relevant.

halonachos wrote:
The issue is these doctors will now be fighting the government when an issue of coding is called up and it is far easier to fight a company than it is the government. (After all the companies may hire lawyers, but the government is made up entirely of lawyers.).

That's deeply spurious reasoning. The state can drag its feet in the course settlement, but the options available to a claimant when seeking restitution are far more flexible.

generalgrog wrote:I have mixed feelings.

On the one hand I'm glad we have a starting point for health care reform.

On the other hand I worry that during a recession is not the time to start it, and I worry about the numbers that are being tossed around.

A few comments.

Dr's aren't going anywhere. All other countries have National Health care systems so they gain nothing by leaving.

You are already "forced" to buy insurance if you drive an automobile.

Not one republican voted for this bill and 30-ish democrats voted no. I don't like the partisan way this was pushed through, and I believe it will cost the Dems dearly in future elections.

GG

Couple responses to your comments:

You are not currently forced to buy automobile insurance. Most states have provisions for wealthy individuals to post bonds in lieu of insurance. Also, no one forces you to purchase the car or other vehicles requiring insurance. In my state for example you can ride a scooter without insurance. People in New York and other major Metropolis areas have no need of vehicles. In my opinion auto insurance is not a great example to justify mandating the purchase of a good.

Like you I find the partisan activity is in stark contrast to the lip service the President is paying to bi-partisanship. The only bi-partisan votes are occurring in opposition to this Health Deform bill. I share your opinion of the likely cost for the Democrat party.

Frankly nothing would make me happier than to see every last seat in Congress and the White House filled by Independants. Both parties have committed what amounts to criminal negligence.

generalgrog wrote:
On the other hand I worry that during a recession is not the time to start it, and I worry about the numbers that are being tossed around.
GG

This is really the major reason I'm in opposition to this bill. Its a wonderfully nice idea, but I really worry about where the money is supposed to come from. It seems to me like buying a car and a new house right after you've gone bankrupt. But I guess what's done is done, we'll just have to wait it out and see where this goes. I'll try and stay optimistic.

Norwulf wrote:

generalgrog wrote:
On the other hand I worry that during a recession is not the time to start it, and I worry about the numbers that are being tossed around.
GG

This is really the major reason I'm in opposition to this bill. Its a wonderfully nice idea, but I really worry about where the money is supposed to come from. It seems to me like buying a car and a new house right after you've gone bankrupt. But I guess what's done is done, we'll just have to wait it out and see where this goes. I'll try and stay optimistic.

No.
We sue
We vote them all out.

Auto insurance is nothing short of a scam, if people were held to their liable for their own actions while driving then people would drive more carefully.

Ive been in 4 automotive collisions in my life, in 3 of them I was not at fault, we contacted insurance companies, tickets were written, and in the end I got no money or help paying for any damages. Insurance companies were able to sneak their way out of paying for anything. The 4th collison was entirely my fault, I was riding a motorcycle and hit an oil slick and slid into the car stopped in traffic ahead of me. In my state motorcycle insurance is not required, so I gave the person my information, they contacted me with the damage to their car and I payed them for the damages. ($400)

the cost for me to have car insurance is over $250 a month for the bare minimum legally required insurance with no personal coverage for me. I am under 25, I drive a 1989 honda civic, and I've been in 3 reported (not at fault) accidents in the last 6 years. In 4 months, the money I would save from not having car insurance could buy me another car. I have been driving for almost a decade and I've never had a speeding ticket, with no at-fault accidents in my name, why is my insurance cost on a small 80's economy car higher than the cost of car payments on a new sports car? makes no sense, and the only reason I have insurance is to avoid tickets.

The cost of insurance for me over my "career" as a driver is now well over the legal minimum insurance coverage. If I never had insurance to begin with, but insted kept my own money I would not only have a nest-egg with more money than insurance would provide, but i would also have a few thousand dollars to put into my car to make it safer on the road (tires, brakes, suspension, etc) to reduce my likelyhood of having another accident


TL;DR: Car insurance sucks

Norwulf wrote:

generalgrog wrote:
On the other hand I worry that during a recession is not the time to start it, and I worry about the numbers that are being tossed around.
GG

This is really the major reason I'm in opposition to this bill. Its a wonderfully nice idea, but I really worry about where the money is supposed to come from. It seems to me like buying a car and a new house right after you've gone bankrupt. But I guess what's done is done, we'll just have to wait it out and see where this goes. I'll try and stay optimistic.

If people cared enough to get it done when times were good then it would have already been done. You pass major budgetary laws during times of poor economics, historically thats always when the political will has been available. Otherwise no one cares enough to try. Nicely enough it wont even come online for several years, and if were still in a deep slump in 2015 then this recession is chronic and wont be going away at all.

Taxes start earlier. Benefits start later to fake balancing it.

As noted on another board, I'd be ok if the Swis Government were running it. The fact this group of incompetent bribe takers wrote it (and it being unconstitutional of course but never let that stop anyone) is the scary part.

Double counting Medicare "cuts" priceless.

Frazzled wrote:Taxes start earlier. Benefits start later to fake balancing it.

As noted on another board, I'd be ok if the Swis Government were running it. The fact this group of incompetent bribe takers wrote it (and it being unconstitutional of course but never let that stop anyone) is the scary part.

Double counting Medicare "cuts" priceless.

We were going to be bankrupted by it by 2025 with or without the passing of the legislation. Your favorite party would never attempt to fix the problem, so hey, it's a wash. It's no worse than what we had, and at least now were in a a dialogue of implementation meaning we can start throwing out the things that don't work. Liberal action is better than conservative plug-eared humming. Also I thought you were leaving rush!

ShumaGorath wrote:
We were going to be bankrupted by it by 2025 with or without the passing of the legislation. Your favorite party would never attempt to fix the problem, so hey, it's a wash. It's no worse than what we had, and at least now were in a a dialogue of implementation meaning we can start throwing out the things that don't work. Liberal action is better than conservative plug-eared humming. Also I thought you were leaving rush!

What I don't understand, is why must we always think of it as choosing between "liberal action" and "conservative plug-eared humming"? Why not idependant progress? I also like that this "liberal action" will take 4 years for anything to possibly happen.

BTW that joke will never get old.

For all those pointing out that this was the "wrong time" to implement health care reform:

Remember the cash-happy '90's? Yeah, Clinton tried to fix the health care system back then, and the GOP gleefully shot it down:

http://www.princeton.edu/~starr/20starr.html

If I remember right, isn't that right before the Republicans took back both branches of Congress for the first time in something like 30-40 years. Something about 'a tidal wave of retribution..."

Thats just low tide compared to whats coming.

Frazzled wrote:If I remember right, isn't that right before the Republicans took back both branches of Congress for the first time in something like 30-40 years. Something about 'a tidal wave of retribution..."

Thats just low tide compared to whats coming.

Yeah, remember when that tidal wave of retribution led us into two vietnams, crashed the economy, got us hated by the entire world, increased the number of muslim terrorists, cost us trillians, gained us no jobs, grew the rich poor divide, and ballooned the deficit?

Most people do. Though in fairness at least while clinton was around all the reds managed to do was talk about blowjobs and whine a lot. It's as if republican controlled legislature never does anything when it's not politically advantageous!

There is a lot of talk about car insurance not working and being a rip off and scam, would you think about some kind of, IDK, regulations to keep them from ripping people off. The argument just proves that big insurance companies are like kids that can't be left unsupervised. Funny how they can pour an unlimited amout of money into the pockets of politicians and get away with ripping people off.

Don't worry you can cry wolf when the taxs are due soon, then on the jobs bill.

Come 2011 when you are back in power, you won't have anyone else to blame. What's that plan to make government smaller? End the two wars? Fix housing? It's the same as your plan under Bush, NOTHING.

sexiest_hero wrote:There is a lot of talk about car insurance not working and being a rip off and scam, would you think about some kind of, IDK, regulations to keep them from ripping people off. The argument just proves that big insurance companies are like kids that can't be left unsupervised. Funny how they can pour an unlimited amout of money into the pockets of politicians and get away with ripping people off.

Don't worry you can cry wolf when the taxs are due soon, then on the jobs bill.

Come 2011 when you are back in power, you won't have anyone else to blame. What's that plan to make government smaller? End the two wars? Fix housing? It's the same as your plan under Bush, NOTHING.

Shrinking government will destroy the Republicans. If they could pass such monumental legislation that would kill millions of Federal jobs and take people off of health care, those who made these decisions would ultimately never be elected again.

sexiest_hero wrote:There is a lot of talk about car insurance not working and being a rip off and scam, would you think about some kind of, IDK, regulations to keep them from ripping people off. The argument just proves that big insurance companies are like kids that can't be left unsupervised.

What kind of regulations should be used to fix the problem?

That's my poit WarOne. Same as the "Let the market correct itself", then saying The government should be dealing with the job market. What can the goverment do to help job creation withough messing with the market?
As for cutting taxes, states are already bleeding dry, any more cuts will see them go bankrupt. There is only so many Police and fire fighters you can fire.

More regulations! REGULATIONS FOR THE REGULATIONS GOD!!! PREVENT! LIMIT! UNDERCUT!

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:More regulations! REGULATIONS FOR THE REGULATIONS GOD!!! PREVENT! LIMIT! UNDERCUT!

Cannerus, in recognition of the funny thing you just said, I present to you this magical triforce cookie.

It doesn't grant wishes, or give you super powers or anything, but it is tasty.

Rush should leave america; Mexico has great over-the-counter pharmaceuticals.

Frazzled wrote:
No.
We sue

Good luck with that. Let me know how it works out. I'm sure claiming that 1/6 pf the national economy has nothing to do with interstate commerce will hold up very well.

Frazzled wrote:
We vote them all out.

Sadly, just voting someone out of office does not alter legislation. You'll also have to work on repealing the bill itself, or at least the parts of it that you don't like.

Frazzled wrote:...and it being unconstitutional of course but never let that stop anyone...

I fail to see how you can derive this conclusion with any confidence. There are certainly ways to contextualize all the elements of the bill such that they are consistent with the Constitution. At best, its a judgment call as opposed to a matter of unequivocal certainty.

It seems more like you're trying to make yourself feel better, as opposed to taking a rational stance.

Frazzled wrote:
Double counting Medicare "cuts" priceless.

Wait, what? Why is the word 'cuts' in quotation marks? Medicare is being cut. Are you trying to indicate that it isn't being cut, or do you think that quotation marks somehow denote a certain degree of severity which transcends your usual choice of 'gut'? Its all so confusing when you don't bother to deal with actual numbers, or legislative language.

There is a lot of talk about car insurance not working and being a rip off and scam, would you think about some kind of, IDK, regulations to keep them from ripping people off. The argument just proves that big insurance companies are like kids that can't be left unsupervised. Funny how they can pour an unlimited amout of money into the pockets of politicians and get away with ripping people off.

Private insurance is a broken and illogical system, you fix it by leveling the field and preventing a middleman from absorbing money between care and payment while doing nothing but lengthening the process.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:If I remember right, isn't that right before the Republicans took back both branches of Congress for the first time in something like 30-40 years. Something about 'a tidal wave of retribution..."

Thats just low tide compared to whats coming.

Yeah, remember when that tidal wave of retribution led us into two vietnams, crashed the economy, got us hated by the entire world, increased the number of muslim terrorists, cost us trillians, gained us no jobs, grew the rich poor divide, and ballooned the deficit?

Most people do. Though in fairness at least while clinton was around all the reds managed to do was talk about blowjobs and whine a lot. It's as if republican controlled legislature never does anything when it's not politically advantageous!

I didn't know we went to Vietnam twice (to prevent the spread of communism), I also didn't know that Republicans are the sole reason the entire world hated us (Perry, Big Stick diplomacy, Clinton in bed with the Saudis, the whole basic concept of America; we've been hated for awhile dude.), I also didn't know that Republicans somehow supported the formation of terror groups (if this is the case then I guess they did create jobs). Also, I'm sure Clinton had a hand with the housing and credit bubble.

@Dogma,
Sorry about that "not related to health care" thing, I meant to say "not completely related to health care", although the media sure made it seem as if health care was the ONLY factor in life expectancy. I also tie in the stress associated with working to compensate for the Japanese who do yoga and stress-reduction exercises at work sometimes.
My state is seeking legal action as it is against the constitution to force someone to buy healthcare, I don't know the complete deal, just that basic knowledge.

@Sexiest_Hero
Obama is using the timetables established by Bush in ending the war.

Also, a soldier is not an "average joe". A soldier is someone who has decidedly joined the armed forces due to some reason and knows that they may be sent to war. During a draft, the average joe is made to go to war. I would put a soldier in the same level as a police officer, fireman, etc. Their jobs are dangerous and they do their job at the whimof another. A fireman fights fires when the fire starts and the fireman doesn't control when a fire starts, the officer fights crime when another person decides to commit crime, a soldier goes to war when the government decides it is time to go to war.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
At mattyrm, it is illegal to not have car insurance at all times in most states. In Wisconsin, it is only illegal if you get into an accident and do not have insurance.

Here is a series of choice cartoons about healthcare that really got me thinking:









How many thousands of cartoonists draw these things a day?

WarOne wrote:Sigh...now you make me have to get all serious and stuff.

Yeah, I'll do that. Sorry

On the first point, depends on what road you wish to take in addressing this issue in terms of rating government directed and regulated health care as a "bad thing."

I just don't get the complaint that there will be government directed healthcare. The government is already involved in the system, that's not changing. Compared to the current level of involvement the establishment of new regs is marginal at best. The only point is that these regulations might actually let people get treated without losing their homes.

In my opinion, this is a "good thing" that government is taking steps to help these people who cannot get coverage and help pay for medical treatments that balloon out of control for families unable to privately fund their healthcare costs.

However, this does lead deeper into the actual costs of healthcare in America.

I look at this 'we can't afford it' thing and I admit to just shaking my head. It's just... you cover the bare minimum stuff and then worry about the nice things afterwards. If something basic, like getting people cancer treatment, isn't happening, you don't say 'we can't afford it' - you pay for it then make a saving elsewhere.

The second issue is that people without insurance are still getting treatment in most cases, it's just that afterwards they get bankrupted and the hospital recovers what little it can. All the resources are still used, all the same money is spent.

The burden of taking on the costs of the new provisions to provide healthcare for people may indirectly cause healthcare costs to rise faster than inflation and living wages that must rise as well in order to cover potentially higher costs.

Healthcare costs are rising faster than living wages, and have been for a long time (arguably everything has been rising faster than living wages, if you look at the median point of income from 1970 to now wages in the US have been stagnant).

Rising healthcare costs are a significant issue, and I’d agree this bill doesn't do enough to address costs. But then, I think that could only be managed by setting a basic standard of health coverage (but there was no way the public option was getting up), and introducing genuine competition between healthcare companies by letting employees shop around for their own healthcare (but we’ve seen how bitterly fought this minor level of reform was, imagine a complete restructure?)

The graver concern I have is the cost. Republicans have a ring of truth that the bill may cost more than we thought. The government office associated with figuring out how much initiatives and bills will cost the United States may have an accurate appraisal that the bill will save the federal government money. It could also be wrong. The article sums up the fears of what could be a very expensive bill that won't see the final cost until years down the road.

Being afraid of cost however does not give you a sufficiently justifiable reason to call this bill "a bad thing."

It’s a fair point, healthcare costs, especially over the long term, are very hard to predict. Coming from an accounting background, I know how those loose final savings figures can be as they’re net figures – a 10% blowout in costs doesn’t shift the saving from $140 billion to $126 billion, it shifis it to $40 billion.

What has gone from a clear and defined goal of a government run health care system to what we don't even know what it is. The rammifications of this bill are not fully understood yet. The Democrats rushed this bill through the House in order to get it passed:

It’s been debated for a year. There’s hundreds of summaries of the content of the bill out there, some are linked in this thread. Sure, the specific language will get messy during reconciliation, but that’s politics. The reality is that the Dems can’t go to election without a bill passed. That isn’t ideal, but it is the unfortunate result of the GOP using this as a political football.

The health care bill has now spawned a monster of epic proportions. Unleashed, it will consume the debate for upcoming elections that may turn the tide for Democrats or Republicans. Emboldened, the Democrats may push for other sweeping changes to law. If the public approves their mandate, it could mean a political shift that places America closer to center-right countries such as traditional European Western Democracies. It could further radicalize the Repulican right wing and its constituents, emboldening them with new venom and fervor to reject Obama and what his backers stand for. In that sense, the healthcare bill could be a "bad thing."

I don’t think anything will embolden the Democrats, it just isn’t there nature to be, you know, politically brave. Armed with an almost absolute mandate, they almost self-destructed in trying to pass a watered down, healthcare bill that was 20 years over due.

The fringe of the Republicans have been drifting further right for a long time now, that started with the Southern Strategy.

Keeping this short, the bill could give Americans more jobs. Obama has been big on tying in job creation to his other initiatives such as reducing America's fossil fuel dependency by creating more green jobs.

In bad economic times everyone argues their legislation, whatever it is, will create jobs. This might, but no more than any other piece of stimulus spending. The issue really is giving everyone access to healthcare.

And lastly, how could you take those pictures seriously? If you believed I believed in the statement I made in the prior paragraph, your reading too far into my motivations to not really care about the debate at all and really focus on making humor of it instead.

I’ve been on Dakka for a while. Lesson number one; the more ridiculous a political statement, the more likely its author was serious. If you don’t believe that, read this thread.

halonachos wrote:This bill will not end well. At first it'll be hunky-dory, but when the average American lifespan doesn't increase then we'll see more people calling the bill useless. The lifespan isn't tied into health care, after all England has health care and they live about 1 more year than Americans on average.

Life expectancy is only one measure used in health metrics, and it isn’t given that heavy a weighting (as lifestyle, diet, work safety and so many other factors play a significant part). Health metrics look at other issues, such as deaths in child birth, instances of malpractice, success rates of basic surgeries – those kinds of things. The US is a poor performer on these measures, a bizarre result considering they spend between 150 and 200% more on healthcare than the rest of us.

The "health care reform" bill does not reform health care at all, it just gives the "insured" title to the uninsured at a premium.

Umm, it means that once you get that title, you go to hospital and are not billed for your treatment. Which is, you know, how insurance works. Your statement was ridiculous.

The issue is these doctors will now be fighting the government when an issue of coding is called up and it is far easier to fight a company than it is the government. (After all the companies may hire lawyers, but the government is made up entirely of lawyers.).

You think it’s harder to get money off of government than off of private companies? What?

generalgrog wrote:Not one republican voted for this bill and 30-ish democrats voted no. I don't like the partisan way this was pushed through, and I believe it will cost the Dems dearly in future elections.

Exactly what are you supposed to do when the opposition party makes it a central plank of their platform to vote no on any healthcare reform, and will not bring forward any negotiating terms at all?

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I honestly don't care how this affects anyone but me. I have no insurance and haven't for 6 or so years. I'm 24. So now unless I get insurance I have to pay a fine starting 2014? And I pay more taxes to support the people who are going to fine me? Looks like I lose :p

If you're struggling for work then you'll be under the expanded Medicare. If you are making money then you'll pay 1% of your income, and in exchange you won't lose everything if you get sick.

CptJake wrote:If insurance companies cannot exclude for pre-existing conditions they KNOW clients with pre-existing conditions will cost them more. They either must charge those clients more for the coverage (like many do for smokers now) or raise premiums on everybody or some combination.

It will be illegal to raise premiums on people with pre-existing conditions, as presently companies will price someone with a pre-existing condition out of treatment. Yes, it is possible average premiums will increase, but it has to be put in the context of the current state of the industry. Health insurance companies are consistently among the most profitable elements of the economy, while hospitals are marginally profitable at best.

It is likely that health insurance will continue to overcharge, that can only be fixed with direct competition (removing employers from the system) or through a direct government option. But that isn’t going to happen, so you get what you get.

Frazzled wrote:If I remember right, isn't that right before the Republicans took back both branches of Congress for the first time in something like 30-40 years. Something about 'a tidal wave of retribution..."

Thats just low tide compared to whats coming.

Health reform is important and long overdue. The current system is bankrupting people and getting others killed. But there's a chance to retake power, and sacrifices have to be made.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:I didn't know we went to Vietnam twice (to prevent the spread of communism), I also didn't know that Republicans are the sole reason the entire world hated us (Perry, Big Stick diplomacy, Clinton in bed with the Saudis, the whole basic concept of America; we've been hated for awhile dude.), I also didn't know that Republicans somehow supported the formation of terror groups (if this is the case then I guess they did create jobs).

The US consistantly polls among the most popular countries in the world, almost always the most popular. The idea that everyone hates you is pretty much a myth - there are certainly vocal elements that don't like what you do (some with reason, some without) but this is greatly overplayed some in the US, typically to justify doing something obnoxious.

Also, I'm sure Clinton had a hand with the housing and credit bubble.

Everyone had a hand in that. That particular piece of free market stupidity is multi-generational and international.

I just don't get the complaint that there will be government directed healthcare. The government is already involved in the system, that's not changing. Compared to the current level of involvement the establishment of new regs is marginal at best. The only point is that these regulations might actually let people get treated without losing their homes.

Republicans and Conservatives/Libertarians do not like to see the government in anything period. They forget however it is the government that protects their rights to do things like carry guns in churches and protest paying into healthcare.

While the government is already involved in healthcare and for the most part in United States history has had some say somewhere about healthcare, the mandate to establish these new regulations have sent shockwaves of concern through aforementioned Conservatives/Republicans/Libertarians. They are connecting dots that healthcare for everyone by private insurers will turn into a single payer system. If it does happen, I would be more concerned about the quality, affordability, and accountability of said system. Americans taxpayers want the best healthcare for as minimal a cost as we could get, but politicians usually don't see eye to eye with these voters when they go cast their votes.

I get the complaint, but I am more concerned about the result rather than the method. We're already going to get universal healthcare. I want to see it done right.

I look at this 'we can't afford it' thing and I admit to just shaking my head. It's just... you cover the bare minimum stuff and then worry about the nice things afterwards. If something basic, like getting people cancer treatment, isn't happening, you don't say 'we can't afford it' - you pay for it then make a saving elsewhere.

The second issue is that people without insurance are still getting treatment in most cases, it's just that afterwards they get bankrupted and the hospital recovers what little it can. All the resources are still used, all the same money is spent.

We will see how much healthcare will cost in the future. Again, I emphasise the fact that I am happy the federal government will step in to help people who die because they cannot afford healthcare. Now some of those cases of people not affording healthcare are due to factors beyond their control (genetics) and lifesytle choices that may cause them to get an illness which costs exceed far beyond what they could reasonably afford.

The real costs of healthcare are inflated to the point that something like cancer treatment becomes a terrible burden for even middle class income earners to cover. By inflated, I mean that costs for treatments has skyrocketed. Where could we stem the tide of such rising costs? Legislators have to look towards ways to reduce the price for patients so their burden isn't so severe.

http://www.cancer.gov/aboutnci/servingpeople/costofcancer

Healthcare costs are rising faster than living wages, and have been for a long time (arguably everything has been rising faster than living wages, if you look at the median point of income from 1970 to now wages in the US have been stagnant).

Rising healthcare costs are a significant issue, and I’d agree this bill doesn't do enough to address costs. But then, I think that could only be managed by setting a basic standard of health coverage (but there was no way the public option was getting up), and introducing genuine competition between healthcare companies by letting employees shop around for their own healthcare (but we’ve seen how bitterly fought this minor level of reform was, imagine a complete restructure?)

The market exchange idea for people to shop for healthcare was a great idea to be included in the bill. It is akin to the partial privatization push Bush made before 2006 of Medicare/Medicaid (I think that was what it was or Social Security, gonna look into that a bit moar) accounts. It attempts to put the decisions of healthcare into the hands of the people rather than the businesses they work for or the pressures of a noncompetitive system.

However, how it is implemented will have to be seen in practice.

It’s been debated for a year. There’s hundreds of summaries of the content of the bill out there, some are linked in this thread. Sure, the specific language will get messy during reconciliation, but that’s politics. The reality is that the Dems can’t go to election without a bill passed. That isn’t ideal, but it is the unfortunate result of the GOP using this as a political football.

True. The bill's previous forms and incarnations are easily searched for via the intraweb. I even added a few links that covered the changes in the bill. I am concerned about the language and any snipping away they may do at the bill. Nebraska's sweet deal for not having to pay for the system for its taxpayers is gone. How the bill is finalized will impact the costs and savings the bill will give to the American taxpayer as well as the way people will be able to get healthcare and afford it at the same time.

I agree the Democrats needed this bill badly to bolster their election chances later this year. Bad news is it didn't deflate the Republican base. It's only making things more heated.

I don’t think anything will embolden the Democrats, it just isn’t there nature to be, you know, politically brave. Armed with an almost absolute mandate, they almost self-destructed in trying to pass a watered down, healthcare bill that was 20 years over due.

The fringe of the Republicans have been drifting further right for a long time now, that started with the Southern Strategy.

Democrats have a basket load of bills they would like to see passed such as lowering our defense spending (I don't think we should do that), same sex marriage laws (I don't care who people choose to love, so I would support this), renewable energy (definately for, but we still have to rely on oil in the short term with more internal development of our oil resources that foreign, especially since China will be competing for these resources), progressive taxation (tax rich in order to achieve economic equality; first, we must change laws so that people who are disadvantaged/take advantage of the system get more opportunities to get an education and higher paying jobs; ergo opposed to an extent to this) among a few other issues Democrats would push for.

Political parties can become brave and certain individuals definately. If healthcare boosts Obama and the Democrats break even or do well in the next election cycle, that would be their mandate for further change.

And Republican right fringing has only become more prominent thanks to the election of Obama and the ascendancy of Glenn Beck.

In bad economic times everyone argues their legislation, whatever it is, will create jobs. This might, but no more than any other piece of stimulus spending. The issue really is giving everyone access to healthcare.

Agreed. Political spin will make this bill sound like the thing that got us out of the Great Recession.

To anyone who is of the belief that the healthcare reform will be "the death of America!":

You didn't get mad when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed a President.
You didn't get mad when Cheney allowed Energy company officials to dictate energy policy.
You didn't get mad when a covert CIA operative got outed.
You didn't get mad when the Patriot Act got passed.
You didn't get mad when we illegally invaded a country that posed no threat to us.
You didn't get mad when we spent over 600 billion(and counting) on said illegal war.
You didn't get mad when over 10 billion dollars just disappeared in Iraq.
You didn't get mad when you saw the Abu Grahib photos.
You didn't get mad when you found out we were torturing people.
You didn't get mad when the government was illegally wiretapping Americans.
You didn't get mad when we didn't catch Bin Laden.
You didn't get mad when you saw the horrible conditions at Walter Reed.
You didn't get mad when we let a major US city drown.
You didn't get mad when the deficit hit the trillion dollar mark.
You finally got mad when.. when... wait for it... when the government decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick. Yes, illegal wars, lies, corruption, torture, and stealing your tax dollars to make the rich richer are all ok with you but helping other Americans... well feth that. That about right?

WarOne wrote:Republicans and Conservatives/Libertarians do not like to see the government in anything period. They forget however it is the government that protects their rights to do things like carry guns in churches and protest paying into healthcare.

Yeah, there's a real and important debate to be had about the extent of government involvement in our lives and in the economy... but the debate in the US on that issue is not a sensible one.

While the government is already involved in healthcare and for the most part in United States history has had some say somewhere about healthcare, the mandate to establish these new regulations have sent shockwaves of concern through aforementioned Conservatives/Republicans/Libertarians. They are connecting dots that healthcare for everyone by private insurers will turn into a single payer system. If it does happen, I would be more concerned about the quality, affordability, and accountability of said system. Americans taxpayers want the best healthcare for as minimal a cost as we could get, but politicians usually don't see eye to eye with these voters when they go cast their votes.

A lot of countries have a basic level of free healthcare, but private insurance flourishes anyway. Countries where there is no option but to accept public care are very rare.

We will see how much healthcare will cost in the future.

Healthcare will cost more, no matter what. The only alternative to that is to stop increasing the standard of care, and let people with preventable illnesses die, and that's not really an option.

Again, I emphasise the fact that I am happy the federal government will step in to help people who die because they cannot afford healthcare. Now some of those cases of people not affording healthcare are due to factors beyond their control (genetics) and lifesytle choices that may cause them to get an illness which costs exceed far beyond what they could reasonably afford.

The real costs of healthcare are inflated to the point that something like cancer treatment becomes a terrible burden for even middle class income earners to cover. By inflated, I mean that costs for treatments has skyrocketed. Where could we stem the tide of such rising costs? Legislators have to look towards ways to reduce the price for patients so their burden isn't so severe.

Which is where you bump into the unfortunate place of large corporations such as health insurers and drug companies in your political system. For the same reason that the public option would never fly, you'll also never see reform on health costs.

The market exchange idea for people to shop for healthcare was a great idea to be included in the bill. It is akin to the partial privatization push Bush made before 2006 of Medicare/Medicaid (I think that was what it was or Social Security, gonna look into that a bit moar) accounts. It attempts to put the decisions of healthcare into the hands of the people rather than the businesses they work for or the pressures of a noncompetitive system.

However, how it is implemented will have to be seen in practice.

Absolutely, yes. There's every chance it'll suck, but the idea is a decent start.

True. The bill's previous forms and incarnations are easily searched for via the intraweb. I even added a few links that covered the changes in the bill. I am concerned about the language and any snipping away they may do at the bill. Nebraska's sweet deal for not having to pay for the system for its taxpayers is gone. How the bill is finalized will impact the costs and savings the bill will give to the American taxpayer as well as the way people will be able to get healthcare and afford it at the same time.

I actually gave up on the bill when they let Nebraska's sweetener in there, and I'm glad it was cut from the final copy.

I agree the Democrats needed this bill badly to bolster their election chances later this year. Bad news is it didn't deflate the Republican base. It's only making things more heated.

I read an interesting piece just now, http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/how-republicans-blew-it, arguing that the GOP blew it by refusing to negotiate. Had they done so they could have got a bill with less subsidies and lower taxes at the top end. By playing the all or nothing game they've ended up with nothing but a really angry base. That base might bring them better results in the next election cycle, but isn't there more of a point to politics than the next election?

I'm not sure I completely agree with the article by the way, as the absolute NO! of the GOP was only one feature, with the Democratic's woeful selling of the bill the other.

Democrats have a basket load of bills they would like to see passed such as lowering our defense spending (I don't think we should do that), same sex marriage laws (I don't care who people choose to love, so I would support this), renewable energy (definately for, but we still have to rely on oil in the short term with more internal development of our oil resources that foreign, especially since China will be competing for these resources), progressive taxation (tax rich in order to achieve economic equality; first, we must change laws so that people who are disadvantaged/take advantage of the system get more opportunities to get an education and higher paying jobs; ergo opposed to an extent to this) among a few other issues Democrats would push for.

I think you're giving the progressive wing of the Democrats entirely too much credit. Those are policies among some Democrats, but the will of the party to bring those to the legislature is pretty marginal. With immense support for healthcare among the population, the presidency and huge majorities in both houses the Dems just managed to get watered down reform passed.

Political parties can become brave and certain individuals definately. If healthcare boosts Obama and the Democrats break even or do well in the next election cycle, that would be their mandate for further change.

It's unlikely the Dems will gain votes, unless the GOP goes completely off the deep end. Holding the presidency will generally cost seats, doubly so in a struggling economy.

And Republican right fringing has only become more prominent thanks to the election of Obama and the ascendancy of Glenn Beck.

Yeah, and each new generation of right wing talking head is crazier than the last. I can't wait to see what replaces Beck as the looniest of the loons.

Agreed. Political spin will make this bill sound like the thing that got us out of the Great Recession.

And the thing that kept the US in depression. Likely with the same set same of figures.

GOP blew it by refusing to negotiate. Had they done so they could have got a bill with less subsidies and lower taxes at the top end. By playing the all or nothing game they've ended up with nothing but a really angry base. That base might bring them better results in the next election cycle, but isn't there more of a point to politics than the next election?


I've been saying that the whole time. They could have gotten Obama (Who I feel is a lot more weak willed that republicans think) to Lick an elephants butt. They could have pushed the one vote as the guy who saved health care, or kept it from turning America into Red China. I think thier inability to look past 2010 mid-terms will bite them in the butt. Bash democrats got them swept out of power like never before, they need to learn that "Tax cuts, keeping you safe from terror, and This is a Christian country, are just talking points, and they are going to have to produce policy, or just get swept in 2012.


@Kanluwen

All that stuff is what got them swept out of congress. That and Dick Cheney's 4th branch of government he created. How's that for smaller government?