The proposed health care bill thread (merged)

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

$4000 reduced you to welfare? You better not decide to have any kids.

lol no no no

the part where it said "you will receive government subsidies to help ensure that you dont spend more than 3-4 thousand dollars on insurance."

THATS what has put me on involuntary welfare of sorts. (get it?)

i dont want government subsidies, nor do i wish to pay a $2,000 fine if i refuse to do business with uncle sam.

I work for a living, i pay my own bills... dont need or want uncle sam's money nor do i want the mandate from congress

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

lol no no no

the part where it said "you will receive government subsidies to help ensure that you dont spend more than 3-4 thousand dollars on insurance."

THATS what has put me on involuntary welfare of sorts. (get it?)

i dont want government subsidies, nor do i wish to pay a $2,000 fine if i refuse to do business with uncle sam.

I work for a living, i pay my own bills... dont need or want uncle sam's money nor do i want the mandate from congress

Oh, well. Too bad about that democracy thing.

[GoldenRivet]

How is this a democracy?

The government socializes an entire industry and then requires you by law to do business with said industry.

Sorry, that scenario does not a democracy make.

This health care crap would be no different than congress coming out and saying "everyone has to buy Chevrolet products or we will fine you the cost of the car.

How is this a democracy?

Lets see, in two easy steps....
There was this group of people who stood for election saying they were going to bring in wide ranging healthcare and insurance reforms.

The voters elected them and the people who were elected brought in wide ranging healthcare and insurance reforms.

This health care crap would be no different than congress coming out and saying "everyone has to buy Chevrolet products or we will fine you the cost of the car.

For decades they have been giving money to Chevrolet(GM) and encouraging people to buy their products, since not enough people did they turned round and fined all the tax payers by giving piles more money to Chevy.

i dont want government subsidies

Can you go to your accountants and tell them to ignore all your allowances and credits because you wish to do without government subsidies

[GoldenRivet]

Tribesman... one simple question

Do you think it is fair for an individual to be required by law to purchase a good or service, whatever it might be or else be fined or punished for not doing so?

examples:

you must eat one meal a day at McDonalds or else you will be fined the cumulative cost of all the meals you didnt eat there.

or how bout...

You are required by law to purchase one high end gaming computer from dell for every room in your home, if you choose not to you will be fined the cost of all that equipment.

or...

You are required to have a land line telephone and the service must be through AT&T, if you elect not to have a land line you will be fined the cost of the service.

or here is a good one

You are required to purchase health insurance from one of the following companies, or else you are going to be fined $1800 per year for the rest of your life.

Personally, i don't think any of those situations are fair in the least, and here in the United States, this represents a gross overstepping of bounds by government.

Your two easy steps to democracy aside... myself being one of those voters who was in favor of health care reform... like many other voters im sure... probably didnt know the health care reform would involve socializing medicine as a whole, and setting up 200 new government agencies, loading the bill up with nonsense and garbage, fining those who elected not to participate and slapping a trillion dollar price tag on it.

sorry, but the whole thing stinks... you mean to tell me you trust the united states government to come up with an end all solution to health care in 365 days while pretty much locking out one entire political party from participation, suggestions or input of any kind?

Edit:

here is something else from the Washington post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...pinion/columns

Can Congress require every American to buy health insurance? In short, no. The Constitution assigns only limited, enumerated powers to Congress and none, including the power to regulate interstate commerce or to impose taxes, would support a federal mandate requiring anyone who is otherwise without health insurance to buy it.

Tribesman... one simple question

Do you think it is fair for an individual to be required by law to purchase a good or service, whatever it might be or else be fined or punished for not doing so?

examples:

oh dear thats a hard question. I take it you have now realised that your "subsidised" approach was very faulty in relation to both business and individuals.

you must eat one meal a day at McDonalds or else you will be fined the cumulative cost of all the meals you didnt eat there.

Is there any possible way a Mcd consumed in America can be covered under the constitution?

You are required by law to purchase one high end gaming computer from dell for every room in your home, if you choose not to you will be fined the cost of all that equipment.

Does Dell with all its overseas opearations and the fact that there are viable alternatives within the US entirely negate that approach?

You are required to have a land line telephone and the service must be through AT&T, if you elect not to have a land line you will be fined the cost of the service.

Now you is getting down to business
So if for example an organisation which set limits on a countries financial rating which meant the measure of that countries ability could meet the requirements for financial and industrial expansion in relation to access to available credit....then yes....can you name a country or organisation that goes along those guidelines?
Have a clue you live in one and....errrr....you live in one.
If you get lost on your answerr then think "you live in one" and other people go by that measure and depend on the terms set up in the country you live in.

Personally, i don't think any of those situations are fair in the least, and here in the United States, this represents a gross overstepping of bounds by government.

We have recently seen how little you understand the bounds of your own government in a relatively straightforward look at the constitution, so for you to claim an overstepping puts the onus fairly on you.
Given past efforts by yourself to show how your interpretation of the constitution and all its amendments is correct I expect this to be a rather short and inconsequencial effort on your part.

[AVGWarhawk]

Some key points to the bill I watched on the news today:

Insurance can not turn you down for a pre-existing condition.
Insurance can not drop you for a medical condition.
You may keep the insurance you have.

I do not think it was the governments intention of shutting down the entire insurance industry. However, it may be possible considering the premium costs issued by Uncle Sam's Insurance Company. At any rate, something needs to be done. Every year the insurance premiums go up, copay goes up and deductible goes up. It is high time someone makes a wave or two and reel in the skyrocketing costs of insurance. From what I understand we are looking at 30 million Americans needed coverage. Can those that already have a policy with ABC Insurance now get a reduction if the policy holder does not have to pay additional monies for the uninsured that has been going on for decades? There are many holes to cover and thankfully it will be 4 years of hopeful meaningful study of the problems with the current system. I do not see this legislation as all bad and I do not see it as all good either. I see it as a mess drafted in part by a person who basically says the CIA lies. But what do I know Is it November yet?

[August]

Told ya not to feed the troll GR, but you didn't listen... He's not interested in having an actual friendly conversation with anyone. Notice how he answers every question with another question. That'a sure sign that all he want's to do is play gotcha games.

AVG. One part of that, you now pay for the uninsured.
You will still pay for the uninsured.
You also now pay for the illegals, you will still pay for the illegals.
But there will be less uninsured to pay for which will also mean less people at ER because they can go to family doctors which means better ER as they are not clogged up with cases that should be elsewhere.
So in effect it does suggest better more efficient service at less cost for the taxpayer.
Of course you will still get the arguements about paying for those that don't pay, but as they pay for that already those arguements are hollow.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

AVG. One part of that, you now pay for the uninsured.
You will still pay for the uninsured.
You also now pay for the illegals, you will still pay for the illegals.
But there will be less uninsured to pay for which will also mean less people at ER because they can go to family doctors which means better ER as they are not clogged up with cases that should be elsewhere.
So in effect it does suggest better more efficient service at less cost for the taxpayer.
Of course you will still get the arguements about paying for those that don't pay, but as they pay for that already those arguements are hollow.

We pay for the illegals and have been. That does not look to be going away however there will 30 million others helping to pay for the illegals. I think you are bit ahead of yourself in stating there will be less traffic in the ER now that people can get a family doctor. That would have to be studied after said medical plans have commenced. It would require many years of study as well.

There are other ramification here as well. What about my medical files? Is it now open for all to see now that Uncle Sam holds the reigns? Who dictates who gets what treatment and when? Uncle Sam (clerk in DC) or the doctors? A lot of unanswered questions above and beyond how this will be paid for.

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by August

Told ya not to feed the troll GR, but you didn't listen... He's not interested in having an actual friendly conversation with anyone. Notice how he answers every question with another question. That'a sure sign that all he want's to do is play gotcha games.

yes...

plucking out the questions he either lacks the knowledge or intelligence to answer - so he simply counters them with another question.... sometimes, in fact frequently the question has no bearing on the "discussion".

simple fact is that the supreme court has ruled in the past that Congress does not have the authority to require American Citizens to purchase a good or service.

it is a breach of constitution.

congress has acted contrary to the constitution by passing the bill.

The president has acted contrary to the consitution by signing it.

and there are a large number of states prepared to take this to the supreme court... where, God willing it will be overturned.

if and when that is the case, it is my opinion that any officials (President included) who have acted contrary to the constitution should be impeached or asked to resign.

against my better judgment ill give tribesman one last remark

Originally Posted by Tribesman

For decades they have been giving money to Chevrolet(GM) and encouraging people to buy their products

Now you understand, Tribesman, congratulations.

they can encourage the sh*t out of us

but they do not have the authority to require

ever since Obama took office he has been mandating to the citizens... requiring them to do business with GM (through $800B in tax payer allowances - one step short of requiring us to buy their products) and now requiring us to do business with the insurance companies.

[AVGWarhawk]

GR, yes, what was done was completely illegal. In short, the Constitution was used to finish up the paperwork in the bathroom. Sad really. We have in the past seen state sue the government on the same type grounds. We will see with this one. For the love of God, I wish Pelosi would just go away....

[tater]

This bill sucks, big time.

Note that the dems want to repeal all the medicare cuts they've been canceling each year. For docs, this is good, and how the (very left, BTW) AMA was bought (AMA is a fraction of doctors, maybe 20%). It's good because even without cuts, specialist docs lose money on every Medicare patient. Not lose income—which would be getting paid $70 when private pays $100, and saying "I lost $30 to see medicare." I mean lost actual cash. You get paid $70, and your COST to see that patient (rent, and employee wages, etc) is $100. So you actually get paid ZERO as the doc, and get to pay $30 for the privilege of seeing the patient. Medicaid is FAR worse than that. The AMA guys are more in the "medicine" camp (not surgical), and tend to be GPs, and other primary care docs—they have much smaller cost of sales, so medicare can be OK for them.

This bill increases the rolls of those programs. That is an incentive to cease accepting medicare/medicaid patients. In addition, providers need to secure contracts with real insurance to get paid MORE to offset losses due to seeing people on government care. This bill can only decrease access and raise insurance premiums on those already paying—someone has to pay, docs will not be able to see patients if they lose money on every visit. They cannot see patients even if they break even, they still need to have an income themselves.

With the 21% cut in medicare, my wife's practice was going to not see medicare any more at all. Also, some private plans claimed they would cut as well to keep some offset vs medicare. They'd find themselves having to airlift patients to another state in that case at a far greater expense (since they'd simply cancel the contract and leave that plan swinging in the breeze with zero docs), so they'd deal. Bottom line is that everyone with insurance subsidizes those already on government care in addition to their taxes.

Obama claimed that people would see their premiums drop by $2500/year for a family. LOL. Let me know how that works out for ya, I won't hold my breath.

The bottom line is that the only solutions to "bending the cost curve down"—which was Obama's stated purpose in going into health care reform—are not in the bill at all—except maybe rationing of care. That will indeed cut costs, and it's great as long as the person denied care isn't YOU, but just mortality stats.

While end of life care is the huge majority of total health expense (over 90% of lifetime costs!), it is also ultimately ineffective—or it'd not be "end of life" would it? But that is only half-true. Say you are a 35 YO mom or dad. You have cancer, and at great expense they buy you 3 years, then you die. With no treatment you'd have lived a year. What are those 2 years with your kids worth? Actuarially, they spent hundreds of thousands, and you are still a mortality stat—so to the bean counters that money was wasted. To your kids, and extra couple years with mommy is worth what again?

THAT is what you'll lose when they start the rationing, and that is the ONLY mechanism they have to deal with costs.

At least with private insurance you can fight, try that vs "city hall."

[AVGWarhawk]

Yeah but tater...to the common person it is ALL FREE. That is the only magical word anyone hears....FREE. We know it is not free and the bill has so many holes and ramification it is not even funny. Yet we see the likes of Obama, Reid and Pelosi just trying to be in the history books for generations to come. This is legislation is not over by a long shot.

[SteamWake]