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.

**RustyKnight**

How was the bill illegally passed?

**ShumaGorath**

RustyKnight wrote:How was the bill illegally passed?

It wasn't. It was passed via inclusion as a budget item which does not require a supermajority in order to break filibuster. This is how democracy is supposed to work. The filibuster shouldn't even exist. There are arguments that the method and the bill were unconstitutional, but those same arguments have been failing in similar cases for 40 years, so it's unlikely this will actually be found to be illegal.

Primarily it's just conservative crying while they abandon their own principles in order to try and fan the flames of populist idiocy.

**MagickalMemories**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Fateweaver wrote:Sugar-coat it all you want. A turd is a turd and this bill is such a large steaming turd brontosaurus dung piles pale in comparison.

Perhaps, but I seriously question if you have the slightest inkling as to why you believe that.

Agreed.
It sounds more like Fateweaver is regurgitating sound bites from Sean hannity and Fox news, rather than reading anything about it, only to make light of it when he's called on it. Almost like he just wants something to complain about.

My bet, if I was going to, is that Fateweaver didn't vote for Obama and was irate when he was elected. This would cloud his judgement on anything Obama did. Even resigning would be met with jeers and insults, I'd wager.

Eric

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:
RustyKnight wrote:How was the bill illegally passed?

It wasn't. It was passed via inclusion as a budget item which does not require a supermajority in order to break filibuster. This is how democracy is supposed to work. The filibuster shouldn't even exist. There are arguments that the method and the bill were unconstitutional, but those same arguments have been failing in similar cases for 40 years, so it's unlikely this will actually be found to be illegal.

Primarily it's just conservative crying while they abandon their own principles in order to try and fan the flames of populist idiocy.

LOL

...what he said... again...

Republican politicians, their sycophants, some (most?) conservatives and some democrats are against the bill. Those who didn't get their way are looking for something to complain about. They're trying to find any tiny little thing they can & blow it out of proportion.
No laws were broken in the passing of this law.
Some claim it's unconstitutional, however. I do not believe it is, and we'll see what happens to those lawsuits.

The worst atrocities, IMO, were by the republicans who:

1) Successfully lobbied Democrats to let them in on the writing of the bill
2) Voted against it ANYWAY
3) Have stated openly that they will not cooperate in a bipartisan manner with ANYTHING the Democrats want for the rest of the year as a protest against the bill.
4) Claim shenanigans against the Democrats for doing things that Republicans did regularly when THEY were in control.

Eric

**Wrexasaur**

Lawsuits... right...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/24/wyden-health-care-lawsuit_n_511748.html

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has a message for all the attorneys general and Republican lawmakers who are threatening lawsuits and claiming that an individual mandate for insurance coverage is unconstitutional: You don't have to abide by it -- just set up your own plan.

...

"Why don't you use the waiver provision to let you go set up your own plan?" the senator asked those who threaten health-care-related lawsuits. "Why would you just say you are going to sue everybody, when this bill gives you the authority and the legal counsel is on record as saying you can do it without an individual mandate?"

...

... All it would require is applying for a waiver from the Department of Health and Human Services, which has a 180-day window to confirm or deny such a waiver.

That language has been inserted, almost verbatim, into the bill Obama signed into law on Tuesday. And if there is any confusion about how much leverage it gives states to drop the mandate, Wyden cleared it up months ago during a hearing at the Senate Finance Committee.

**Noble713**

sebster wrote:
In the first article, the thing to note is that Caterpillar is complaining that it’ll cost a lot of money to provide workers with healthcare. Well, yeah, providing health insurance for people who had none is going to cost money. The alternative is to leave people with no healthcare, is that something you want?

To a certain extent, yes. Allow me to clarify: the purpose of health care is to improve the productivity of your population by reducing the labor force's downtime due to illness. For one thing, we need to avoid compensating people for bad lifestyle choices as it does nothing to shake them out of their complacency and lack of personal responsibility, so healthcare related to obesity, smoking, drugs, etc. should go out the window. Second, the government needs to make some sort of Return on Investment analysis for any healthcare expenses. If a 30 year old with a PhD in Materials Science gets cancer, you should probably pay to have him fixed: he stands a good chance of making a sufficient contribution to the general welfare through carbon nanotube research over the next 40 years to make the investment worthwhile. In contrast, if a 65 year old Wal-Mart manager get's cancer, I wouldn't recommend forking over a dime. He's got maybe 5-10 years of output left in him, and the impact is comparatively minor. Not a sound investment.

Now, we can argue over what is considered a worthwhile contribution to the general welfare. That 65 year old probably has a bunch of life experiences that he passes down to his grandkids and local community, and stuff is important. But I don't feel that such social intangibles should be subsidized by the Federal government.

In the second article Dick Bus notes they can drop their current coverage and pay the fine. Right now they can drop their coverage and pay nothing – except they don’t because decent coverage makes you a desired employer, able to choose the best employees. That won’t change.

Fair enough. The more important I derived from the article is that companies have considerable incentive to downsize to reduce their healthcare costs, exacerbating our unemployment situation.

The last article points out how people are now required to get coverage even if they don’t want it. It sounds like a wonderful freedom to have, to not have coverage, but life threatening illness isn’t just for the middle aged, does society have the freedom to watch a 23 year old die of a treatable disease, because he didn’t have coverage. If society won’t let him die, why shouldn’t that guy pay $750 a year?

Some coverage should be mandatory (things like cancer), but others in the Bill are just nonsensical . If your ovaries are broken you shouldn't have to pay for any maternity-related stuff. Society DOES have the freedom to watch people die, which would be correctly holding him accountable for his actions (his CHOICE to not have a safety net for illnesses). If society goes and pays for his treatment anyway, without him spending a dime, it just further undermines the sense of personal responsibility, which is in pretty poor shape right now anyway.

So, outside of telling insurance companies they cannot change rates to avoid covering unprofitable people, what would you do?

Abolish all private health insurance. Small, affordable stuff like outpatient care and basic prescriptions can remain privatized, in which case people just pay out of pocket. If you can't afford a $100 check-up and an $8 prescription, you're probably Doing It Wrong. Next time manage your finances better.* (personal anecdote below) There is an incentive for private practices to innovate, providing affordable, quality care that attracts patients but keeps costs under control to maximize profits. Major treatments and surgeries should be managed and paid for by state governments (as undertaken by the aforementioned ROI analyses), possibly with some Federal subsidization, at actual cost for the procedures (rather than the current inflated costs to cover the shortfalls elsewhere).

Based on the performance of the Dept. of Veterans Affairs, I'm convinced the government is actually capable of running a competent, large-scale healthcare organization. One of the many hurdles though, is dragging the rest of the healthcare industry into the 21st century by adopting digital medical records for 300 million Americans. An expensive and time-consuming initial investment is required, but that would truly yield savings in the long-term and improve the quality of care too.

I'd also like to point out that I'm not particularly knowledgeable on the intricacies of the healthcare industry. A good friend of mine is doing her residency in pediatric infectious diseases so I sometimes pick her brain on things, but that's about it.

*I wanted new contact lenses before going on a trip last weekend, as I only had one pair that I'd been using off-and-on for months. I was told that I'd have to set an appointment to sign up for Tricare at a nearby installation, then set an appointment to get an eye exam (also at this installation) and maybe then I'd be able to get something. I had no patience for all this, so I went to Wal-Mart, got an eye exam + a pair of trial lenses immediately + two boxes of lenses in less than a week. Total was ~$230. I was amazed when they asked if I had health insurance. Why would something so cheap and simple be covered by insurance? Stop pissing your money away on Xbox games and buy that sh1t yourself!

**Wrexasaur**

Noble713 wrote:Society DOES have the freedom to watch people die, which would be correctly holding him accountable for his actions (his CHOICE to not have a safety net for illnesses). If society goes and pays for his treatment anyway, without him spending a dime, it just further undermines the sense of personal responsibility, which is in pretty poor shape right now anyway.

Your solution is to simply deny access to emergency rooms, for those who choose not to pay the opt-out fee? I don't see that working out terribly well.. People tend to not dissappear from the steps of ER, when they are half-way out an ambulance, with no identification. Dude goes on hike and gets in an accident, doesn't bring ID due to the fact that he is dumb; because of this he is denied access to treatment that would save his life. I highly doubt that people will fancy having ID tags sewn into their necks, so I have little to no clue how your plan would actually work.

**Fateweaver**

MagickalMemories wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Fateweaver wrote:Sugar-coat it all you want. A turd is a turd and this bill is such a large steaming turd brontosaurus dung piles pale in comparison.

Perhaps, but I seriously question if you have the slightest inkling as to why you believe that.

Agreed.
It sounds more like Fateweaver is regurgitating sound bites from Sean hannity and Fox news, rather than reading anything about it, only to make light of it when he's called on it. Almost like he just wants something to complain about.

My bet, if I was going to, is that Fateweaver didn't vote for Obama and was irate when he was elected. This would cloud his judgement on anything Obama did. Even resigning would be met with jeers and insults, I'd wager.

Eric

Love how you assume I'm a Fox News flunkie or Hannity groupie. Love how liberals think THEIR news sources are unbiased. Jon Stewert? Yeah, I trust my dentist to know more about the goings on in the world than him; NBC or ABC? Please, if they got anymore leftist aimed they would make liberals look conservative.

Keep assuming. It just makes you look the ass.

Again, how does me having to pay for stuff I don't need in my healthcare a good thing? I have no kids right now but in 4 years if I still don't have kids my insurance has to include coverage for pediatric care. Tell me again when did pediatric care become something OTHER THAN care for children? If I have no kids why the hell am I supposed to be able to cover care I'll never use. I'm pretty damn sure I can't get a pediatrician to give me an exam or look at any problems I have.

As to I don't like Obama because I didn't vote for him? Duh. What an odd concept that if someone you didn't vote for because you didn't like them gets elected you will find fault with everything. Liberals did it to Bush and I bet you were one who did his fair share of mocking him (oh yeah, that's write MM you have done your share of mocking Bush).

So you take stabs at me and call me a hater when you yourself are just as guilty of hating our President as I am. I guess in your world MM the educated Liberal with a degree on his wall should stand on a higher podium than a Conservative Christian with no fancy piece of paper on his wall.

**Wrexasaur**

FW wrote:Again, how does me having to pay for stuff I don't need in my healthcare a good thing? I have no kids right now but in 4 years if I still don't have kids my insurance has to include coverage for pediatric care. Tell me again when did pediatric care become something OTHER THAN care for children? If I have no kids why the hell am I supposed to be able to cover care I'll never use. I'm pretty damn sure I can't get a pediatrician to give me an exam or look at any problems I have.

Can you reference that assertion in any way? I would like to see an article at the very least, that brought information indicating such a requirement, through this bill. The subsidies you can receive (depending on your income), will be used through private insurance, which as far as I know can offer whatever plans they like; aside ridiculous caps and pre-existing condition clauses.

**Fateweaver**

Wrexasaur wrote:
FW wrote:Again, how does me having to pay for stuff I don't need in my healthcare a good thing? I have no kids right now but in 4 years if I still don't have kids my insurance has to include coverage for pediatric care. Tell me again when did pediatric care become something OTHER THAN care for children? If I have no kids why the hell am I supposed to be able to cover care I'll never use. I'm pretty damn sure I can't get a pediatrician to give me an exam or look at any problems I have.

Can you reference that assertion in any way? I would like to see an article at the very least, that brought information indicating such a requirement, through this bill. The subsidies you can receive (depending on your income), will be used through private insurance, which as far as I know can offer whatever plans they like; aside ridiculous caps and pre-existing condition clauses.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=528137

Posted on page 3 of this thread about halfway down.

**Wrexasaur**

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=528137

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Investors wrote:4. Think you'd like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn't cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that's what the customer wants. (Section 2712).

"Sec. 2712. Prohibition on rescissions. (H. R. 3590, pg. 13)

Bill wrote:‘‘A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering
group or individual health insurance coverage shall not rescind
such plan or coverage with respect to an enrollee once the enrollee
is covered under such plan or coverage involved, except that this
section shall not apply to a covered individual who has performed
an act or practice that constitutes fraud or makes an intentional
misrepresentation of material fact as prohibited by the terms of
the plan or coverage. Such plan or coverage may not be cancelled
except with prior notice to the enrollee, and only as permitted
under section 2702(c) or 2742(b).

Investors wrote:6. You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.
You're a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. You're a woman who can't have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. You're a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302).

Sec. 1302. Essential health benefits requirements. (H. R. 3590, pg. 45—50)

Bill wrote:
(a) ESSENTIAL HEALTH BENEFITS PACKAGE.—In this title, the
term ‘‘essential health benefits package’’ means, with respect to
any health plan, coverage that—
(1) provides for the essential health benefits defined by
the Secretary under subsection (b);
(2) limits cost-sharing for such coverage in accordance with
subsection (c); and
(3) subject to subsection (e), provides either the bronze,
silver, gold, or platinum level of coverage described in subsection
(d).
(b) ESSENTIAL HEALTH BENEFITS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary
shall define the essential health benefits, except that such
benefits shall include at least the following general categories
and the items and services covered within the categories:
(A) Ambulatory patient services.
(B) Emergency services.
(C) Hospitalization.
(D) Maternity and newborn care.
H. R. 3590—46
(E) Mental health and substance use disorder services,
including behavioral health treatment.
(F) Prescription drugs.
(G) Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices.
(H) Laboratory services.
(I) Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease
management.
(J) Pediatric services, including oral and vision care.
(2) LIMITATION.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall ensure that the
scope of the essential health benefits under paragraph (1)
is equal to the scope of benefits provided under a typical
employer plan, as determined by the Secretary. To inform
this determination, the Secretary of Labor shall conduct
a survey of employer-sponsored coverage to determine the
benefits typically covered by employers, including multi-employer
plans, and provide a report on such survey to the
Secretary.

....

In short, it appears to be a gross generalization to assume that a person with no children would be required to pay for services, associated with having children. It really seems an awful lot like basic insurance, to a minimum that can be offered. What that is exactly, is yet to be precisely defined, but I am sure it will not be very difficult to average out.

**MagickalMemories**

Fateweaver wrote:Love how you assume I'm a Fox News flunkie or Hannity groupie. Love how liberals think THEIR news sources are unbiased. Jon Stewert? Yeah, I trust my dentist to know more about the goings on in the world than him; NBC or ABC? Please, if they got anymore leftist aimed they would make liberals look conservative.

Keep assuming. It just makes you look the ass.

Actually, I made no assumption about you. I wouldn't. I don't know you that well. You should've read my post for the information in it, instead of looking for an attack.
I said it "sounds like" you were regurgitating conservative sound bites. Know why? Because it does.
I didn't say that IS the only place you got your information, only that it SOUNDS LIKE it. Because is does.
I don't know where you ACTUALLY get your information, so I won't say you DO get it anywhere.
Really, the only ones who "look the ass" are the ones makind ASSumptions.

BTW, I wouldn't have ANY clue what Jon Stewart thinks about it. I watch very little TV and, though I admit he AMUSES me in general, I don't bother with his show. I get my news by reading multiple sources (anything from Fox news to CNN to locall news sites and random internet articles) and making judgements based on my assessment of the combination of information. I'm capable of seeing through conservative AND liberal rhetoric.

Also, FWIW, I'm no liberal. I'm firmly moderate.
Also, my favorite local radio personality is Dave Glover from 97.1. I listen to him every afternoon on the ride home.
Google him. He's a conservative radio host. Good friends with Glenn Beck and has been a guest on his show a few times, even.
My point? I don't discriminate based on political affiliation. I get my information all over the place.

Fateweaver wrote:Again, how does me having to pay for stuff I don't need in my healthcare a good thing? I have no kids right now but in 4 years if I still don't have kids my insurance has to include coverage for pediatric care. Tell me again when did pediatric care become something OTHER THAN care for children? If I have no kids why the hell am I supposed to be able to cover care I'll never use. I'm pretty damn sure I can't get a pediatrician to give me an exam or look at any problems I have.

Since I don't know, I'm asking some questions. They're actual questions, not attacks or assumptions.
Are you employed?
Are you insured?
Does your insurance plan have pediatric coverage?
Were you given the choice to pick one without pediatric coverage?

If your answers were, in order, Yes, Yes, No (or even Yes, actually), and Yes, then congratulations are in order. I'm Yes, Yes, Yes, No. Most people, in fact, have insurance coverage that they'd never choose for themselves or, at least, weren't given the option whether or not they wanted it.

Fateweaver wrote:As to I don't like Obama because I didn't vote for him? Duh. What an odd concept that if someone you didn't vote for because you didn't like them gets elected you will find fault with everything. Liberals did it to Bush and I bet you were one who did his fair share of mocking him (oh yeah, that's write MM you have done your share of mocking Bush).

Of course, I mocked Bush. Mocked the HECK out of him. His dad, too. Also, Bill Clinton and a little Obama (I don't have too much on him yet).
I voted for two and didn't vote for two. That makes me about 50/50, huh? I'm an equal opportunity jokester (*not* hater. I don't hate anything or anyone).
I DO find it an odd concept that you are unwilling to support your president. I supported George W in a few things... The Middle East being part of that. Of course, I'm only 38. So, I didn't vote for ANYONE when his dad ran. I cared little for politics then (not that I care TOO much more now). On the converse, I voted for Clinton twice, but opposed him horribly with NAFTA ad "Lewinsky-gate."
Equal opportunity here.

Fateweaver wrote:So you take stabs at me and call me a hater when you yourself are just as guilty of hating our President as I am. I guess in your world MM the educated Liberal with a degree on his wall should stand on a higher podium than a Conservative Christian with no fancy piece of paper on his wall.

No stabs. Just commentary. Also, I never called you a hater. Never called you anything. If I was going to call you something, I might call you biased and unwilling to consider the possibility that there might be validity to opinions you disagree with.

In my world, "the liberals" get no more respect than "the conservatives" or "the moderates." I refuse to pidgeon-hole people by putting them in such groups (even myself. I'm moderate, but I'm not "a moderate"). Also -in my world- paper, fancy or not, is worth nothing more than what you can do with it, to it or on it. I don't judge people based on their level of education.

==================================================================================
Interesting information I read just before visiting this thread:

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/26/health-reform-whats-in-whats-out-and-what-it-will-cost/?icid=main|htmlws-main-n|dl1|link6|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politicsdaily.com%2F2010%2F03%2F26%2Fhealth-reform-whats-in-whats-out-and-what-it-will-cost%2F

Health Reform: What's In, What's Out and What It Will Cost

With congressional passage of a "fix-it" bill to accompany the landmark health law that President Obama signed Tuesday, work is finally done on his signature health care reform initiative. Now we can tell you for sure some of the changes that are coming. Here's a subject-by-subject look at how the new health laws affect health insurance, Medicare and other aspects of the U.S. health care system:
What's in:

Insurance mandate: The bill would require almost every American to purchase health insurance, either through an employer or through new health insurance exchanges created by the bill.

In order to encourage businesses to provide insurance for their employees, companies with more than 50 employees will pay fines to the government if they do not.

Health care exchanges: The new health care exchanges will include for-profit and nonprofit insurance companies and will be run by states or multistate cooperatives. At least two plans will be run by the Office of Personnel Management, which now handles plans for federal employees. Individual customers can shop for insurance in the exchanges, in some cases across state lines.

Insurance rules: Insurance companies will be required to include a minimum level of coverage for all customers and will be prohibited from dropping or denying coverage based on a customer's medical history. Companies also cannot implement caps on lifetime coverage.

Federal subsidies: If a person or family cannot afford coverage, the federal government will subsidize the cost of coverage for families making up to $88,000 a year.

Medicaid: The bill will also expand Medicaid to include as many as 15 million more people living just above the poverty line.

Medicare: The measure also eliminates Medicare co-payments for preventive and screening services and phases out the so-called "doughnut hole" that leaves some prescription drugs uncovered, starting with an immediate $250 rebate in 2010.

Dependent care: Also starting immediately, parents will be able to keep dependent children on their health plans until they are 26 years of age, and insurance companies will have to cover children with pre-existing conditions.

"Cornhusker Kickback": There is no longer special aid to Nebraska to cover expansions in Medicaid, Instead, the federal government will pay for 100 percent of the Medicaid increase for all states through 2018, and a declining share after that.

Taxes and credits: Employers will pay a 40 percent excise tax on expensive insurance policies starting in 2018.

There will be a Medicare payroll tax increase on earnings over $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for married couples, and a new 3.8 percent tax on unearned income that kicks in at the same levels.

For small businesses, $40 billion in tax credits would help employers pay for insurance for their workers.

GOP contributions: A number of Republican ideas were incorporated into the health reform package during committee work, including new steps to combat fraud and abuse in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. On March 2, the president said he was open to four more proposals from GOP lawmakers. They are: Using undercover investigators to detect Medicare fraud, adding $50 million for medical malpractice demonstration programs, encouraging wider use of health savings accounts, and possibly increasing Medicaid reimbursement rates to doctors. For procedural reasons, it is not clear yet whether all four will be in the final package.

Abortion: Obama opted to keep the Senate's more liberal language on abortion funding in the bill. It would require at least one option on every heath care insurance exchange to provide coverage for elective abortion services and allow women who choose that coverage to pay for it, as long as they use their own money. Federal subsidies could not directly pay for abortion coverage.

Immigrants: Undocumented immigrants will not receive federal subsidies and will not be allowed to use their own money to buy insurance on the exchanges.

What's gone:

Public option: The House passed a public option, or government-run insurance plan, in November, but it did not make it into law.

Costs: The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the new law will cost $940 billion over 10 years. Taking into account new savings and taxes, CBO says the new law will cut the deficit by $138 billion in the first 10 years and more than $1 trillion in the next 10 years.

Eric

**JohnHwangDD**

Based on our government's track record at saving huge amounts of money on really big programs by avoiding special subsidies to a favored few, *clearly* health care "reform" is going to help the average American...

**ShumaGorath**

JohnHwangDD wrote:Based on our government's track record at saving huge amounts of money on really big programs by avoiding special subsidies to a favored few, *clearly* health care "reform" is going to help the average American...

Thats not a particularly scientific basis on which to place a belief.

**JohnHwangDD**

It's better than science - it's decades of actual experience.

**ShumaGorath**

JohnHwangDD wrote:It's better than science - it's decades of actual experience.

Thats not better than science or logic, and it's certainly not better in the field of politics.

**Fateweaver**

MagickalMemories wrote:
Fateweaver wrote:Love how you assume I'm a Fox News flunkie or Hannity groupie. Love how liberals think THEIR news sources are unbiased. Jon Stewert? Yeah, I trust my dentist to know more about the goings on in the world than him; NBC or ABC? Please, if they got anymore leftist aimed they would make liberals look conservative.

Keep assuming. It just makes you look the ass.

Actually, I made no assumption about you. I wouldn't. I don't know you that well. You should've read my post for the information in it, instead of looking for an attack.
I said it "sounds like" you were regurgitating conservative sound bites. Know why? Because it does.
I didn't say that IS the only place you got your information, only that it SOUNDS LIKE it. Because is does.
I don't know where you ACTUALLY get your information, so I won't say you DO get it anywhere.
Really, the only ones who "look the ass" are the ones makind ASSumptions.

BTW, I wouldn't have ANY clue what Jon Stewart thinks about it. I watch very little TV and, though I admit he AMUSES me in general, I don't bother with his show. I get my news by reading multiple sources (anything from Fox news to CNN to locall news sites and random internet articles) and making judgements based on my assessment of the combination of information. I'm capable of seeing through conservative AND liberal rhetoric.

Also, FWIW, I'm no liberal. I'm firmly moderate.
Also, my favorite local radio personality is Dave Glover from 97.1. I listen to him every afternoon on the ride home.
Google him. He's a conservative radio host. Good friends with Glenn Beck and has been a guest on his show a few times, even.
My point? I don't discriminate based on political affiliation. I get my information all over the place.

Fateweaver wrote:Again, how does me having to pay for stuff I don't need in my healthcare a good thing? I have no kids right now but in 4 years if I still don't have kids my insurance has to include coverage for pediatric care. Tell me again when did pediatric care become something OTHER THAN care for children? If I have no kids why the hell am I supposed to be able to cover care I'll never use. I'm pretty damn sure I can't get a pediatrician to give me an exam or look at any problems I have.

Since I don't know, I'm asking some questions. They're actual questions, not attacks or assumptions.
Are you employed?
Are you insured?
Does your insurance plan have pediatric coverage?
Were you given the choice to pick one without pediatric coverage?

If your answers were, in order, Yes, Yes, No (or even Yes, actually), and Yes, then congratulations are in order. I'm Yes, Yes, Yes, No. Most people, in fact, have insurance coverage that they'd never choose for themselves or, at least, weren't given the option whether or not they wanted it.

Fateweaver wrote:As to I don't like Obama because I didn't vote for him? Duh. What an odd concept that if someone you didn't vote for because you didn't like them gets elected you will find fault with everything. Liberals did it to Bush and I bet you were one who did his fair share of mocking him (oh yeah, that's write MM you have done your share of mocking Bush).

Of course, I mocked Bush. Mocked the HECK out of him. His dad, too. Also, Bill Clinton and a little Obama (I don't have too much on him yet).
I voted for two and didn't vote for two. That makes me about 50/50, huh? I'm an equal opportunity jokester (*not* hater. I don't hate anything or anyone).
I DO find it an odd concept that you are unwilling to support your president. I supported George W in a few things... The Middle East being part of that. Of course, I'm only 38. So, I didn't vote for ANYONE when his dad ran. I cared little for politics then (not that I care TOO much more now). On the converse, I voted for Clinton twice, but opposed him horribly with NAFTA ad "Lewinsky-gate."
Equal opportunity here.

Fateweaver wrote:So you take stabs at me and call me a hater when you yourself are just as guilty of hating our President as I am. I guess in your world MM the educated Liberal with a degree on his wall should stand on a higher podium than a Conservative Christian with no fancy piece of paper on his wall.

No stabs. Just commentary. Also, I never called you a hater. Never called you anything. If I was going to call you something, I might call you biased and unwilling to consider the possibility that there might be validity to opinions you disagree with.

In my world, "the liberals" get no more respect than "the conservatives" or "the moderates." I refuse to pidgeon-hole people by putting them in such groups (even myself. I'm moderate, but I'm not "a moderate"). Also -in my world- paper, fancy or not, is worth nothing more than what you can do with it, to it or on it. I don't judge people based on their level of education.

==================================================================================
Interesting information I read just before visiting this thread:

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/26/health-reform-whats-in-whats-out-and-what-it-will-cost/?icid=main|htmlws-main-n|dl1|link6|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politicsdaily.com%2F2010%2F03%2F26%2Fhealth-reform-whats-in-whats-out-and-what-it-will-cost%2F

Health Reform: What's In, What's Out and What It Will Cost

With congressional passage of a "fix-it" bill to accompany the landmark health law that President Obama signed Tuesday, work is finally done on his signature health care reform initiative. Now we can tell you for sure some of the changes that are coming. Here's a subject-by-subject look at how the new health laws affect health insurance, Medicare and other aspects of the U.S. health care system:
What's in:

Insurance mandate: The bill would require almost every American to purchase health insurance, either through an employer or through new health insurance exchanges created by the bill.

In order to encourage businesses to provide insurance for their employees, companies with more than 50 employees will pay fines to the government if they do not.

Health care exchanges: The new health care exchanges will include for-profit and nonprofit insurance companies and will be run by states or multistate cooperatives. At least two plans will be run by the Office of Personnel Management, which now handles plans for federal employees. Individual customers can shop for insurance in the exchanges, in some cases across state lines.

Insurance rules: Insurance companies will be required to include a minimum level of coverage for all customers and will be prohibited from dropping or denying coverage based on a customer's medical history. Companies also cannot implement caps on lifetime coverage.

Federal subsidies: If a person or family cannot afford coverage, the federal government will subsidize the cost of coverage for families making up to $88,000 a year.

Medicaid: The bill will also expand Medicaid to include as many as 15 million more people living just above the poverty line.

Medicare: The measure also eliminates Medicare co-payments for preventive and screening services and phases out the so-called "doughnut hole" that leaves some prescription drugs uncovered, starting with an immediate $250 rebate in 2010.

Dependent care: Also starting immediately, parents will be able to keep dependent children on their health plans until they are 26 years of age, and insurance companies will have to cover children with pre-existing conditions.

"Cornhusker Kickback": There is no longer special aid to Nebraska to cover expansions in Medicaid, Instead, the federal government will pay for 100 percent of the Medicaid increase for all states through 2018, and a declining share after that.

Taxes and credits: Employers will pay a 40 percent excise tax on expensive insurance policies starting in 2018.

There will be a Medicare payroll tax increase on earnings over $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for married couples, and a new 3.8 percent tax on unearned income that kicks in at the same levels.

For small businesses, $40 billion in tax credits would help employers pay for insurance for their workers.

GOP contributions: A number of Republican ideas were incorporated into the health reform package during committee work, including new steps to combat fraud and abuse in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. On March 2, the president said he was open to four more proposals from GOP lawmakers. They are: Using undercover investigators to detect Medicare fraud, adding $50 million for medical malpractice demonstration programs, encouraging wider use of health savings accounts, and possibly increasing Medicaid reimbursement rates to doctors. For procedural reasons, it is not clear yet whether all four will be in the final package.

Abortion: Obama opted to keep the Senate's more liberal language on abortion funding in the bill. It would require at least one option on every heath care insurance exchange to provide coverage for elective abortion services and allow women who choose that coverage to pay for it, as long as they use their own money. Federal subsidies could not directly pay for abortion coverage.

Immigrants: Undocumented immigrants will not receive federal subsidies and will not be allowed to use their own money to buy insurance on the exchanges.

What's gone:

Public option: The House passed a public option, or government-run insurance plan, in November, but it did not make it into law.

Costs: The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the new law will cost $940 billion over 10 years. Taking into account new savings and taxes, CBO says the new law will cut the deficit by $138 billion in the first 10 years and more than $1 trillion in the next 10 years.

Eric

The only good thing obama did was to extend my UI benefits longer but that is something McCain might have done (or Hilary if she'd stayed in and won) so with the exception of that little "favor" I have yet to find anything to support him about.

**Norwulf**

Don't forget Obama was nice enough to raise the price on my smokes too.
http://www.wkrg.com/financial/article/federal_cigarette_tax_going_up/23323/Feb-05-2009_8-29-am/

**Fateweaver**

Oooh yeah. Forgot about that.

Two thumbs up from me on that one (ex is a pack a day smoker so I'm glad she's paying over twice as much now).

**Norwulf**

yeah its great for you non-smokers for sure. But it has me out snipe hunting. I guess it's still supporting my habit for free, so I shouldn't bitch. Who knows, maybe I'll have health care for that inevitable lung cancer I have comin up? Still though, not real happy about Comrade O doin that to me and my ilk. Every smoker I know is either poor or lower middle class. That is however only my own personal experiance I'm not claiming it as a concrete statistic or anything, (it could be that I hang out with mostly poor people).

**ShumaGorath**

Every smoker I know is either poor or lower middle class.

It's as if you're spending your money unwisely!

**reds8n**

Norwulf wrote:yeah its great for you non-smokers for sure. But it has me out snipe hunting. I guess it's still supporting my habit for free, so I shouldn't bitch. Who knows, maybe I'll have health care for that inevitable lung cancer I have comin up? Still though, not real happy about Comrade O doin that to me and my ilk. Every smoker I know is either poor or lower middle class. That is however only my own personal experiance I'm not claiming it as a concrete statistic or anything, (it could be that I hang out with mostly poor people).

..It's almost like they don't want you to smoke and spend your money elsewhere !

..anyway.. the thread...

TL

R : we don't know. But we sure as hell won't go on about the Nuclear weapons reduction and shouting at Israel fo' sure. Take that freedom of speech !