I'm kind of confused with the news I've been hearing over Obamacare. I thought since Scott Brown got elected the bill would be shot down with his vote, but from what I hear it seems like the bill still has a very good chance of passing.
I hear terms thrown around like "reconciliation" and "nuclear option." What does this mean? How are the dems going to pass a bill if they no longer have a super majority?
The bill should be dead but the Dem's are trying to do any back door deal they can to ram it through. They have to know how many Dem's will be voted out if they do that. I can only imagine how much they owe to special interest groups to commit political suicide like this.
We need TERM LIMITS for all of them.
Remember in November.
I can't believe the tactics they're using...it's appauling.
The polls say 3 in 4 Americans want this bill scrapped. I'm generally sceptical about polls, but I can agree with this one. I just got finished reading this article on yahoo. If you scroll to the bottom and look at the coments and the thumbs up or down for the comment it clearly indicates 3 in 4 oppisition to this bill, if not more. http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100316/ts_csm/288060
Yes, we need term limits so special interests have an opportunity to buy their politicians on regular intervals. Now that the Supreme Court has asserted that corporations are people we need to combine that with term limits so we can be assured we have the best politicians that corporate America can buy.
And we all know that comments on a Yahoo site count as an actual representation of all Americans.
And we all know that comments on a Yahoo site count as an actual representation of all Americans.
The commentors on Yahoo are common Americans....everyday normal people. I could understand your point if was I pointing out comments on Fox news, but I'm not...it's Yahoo!
As far as I know, no one knows for sure because the actual bill has not been released because all of the "backdoor" deals are not finalized. From the debates I've heard from the Democrats, it's the same old argument, "We'll worry about paying for it later but right now lets get something passed and we'll work out the details later because 46 million peolple are without health insurance." From my experience, if it's not in writing, then it's not going to happen. So any promises that are not specifically listed in the bill will not happen. Also, everyone will be required to purchase insurance and if you "cannot afford it," the government will buy it for you. I've heard illegals will get the insurance too but that is just hearsay.To me, the US is beyond broke and is at risk of losing its triple A credit rating and our currecy being used as the reserved currency. In addition, there are many ways to lower the costs of healthcare as opposed to what the Democrats are proposing. My philosphy of the new Democrats is what I read on another blog, "Democrats, working hard to create a permant underclass and moving the middle class into it."
Here is the funny thing, Once this monstroicty is finally drafted, and they give everyone 72 hours to read it (Which is Impossible) They will then vote on something they truly know very little about.
If everyone voting on this bill were given a test about it's content, I would guarentee everyone of them would fail. This alone is one of the reasons they need to shoot this legislation down.
wakenator
(Laker1234)Join Date: Mar 2010
03-19-2010, 6:13 AM
I am curious how the argument can be made that they are trying to pass these bills without the time for people to read them since the bill is so new, yet the columnist at yahoo or whoever else, had enough time to read, analyze and do the math on the whole thing?
Sounds a little bs to me since it has to be one or the other.
The column is based on how they plan to pay for the bill once it is completed, the bill itself is constantly being changed.
I am just pointing out the hypocrisy behind the argument. You can't say that no one knows what is being passed because they are pushing it through, or it is so new or it is so long, out of one side of your mouth and then out of the other say that we cannot afford it when you just admitted that you don;t even know what it is.
Skubz, in the above you does not = Skubz, but rather used as a general term. Not talking about you or your statement directly. My disclaimer
I read the one of the first bills but I've yet to find the one that is up for vote now. I did find the numbers, so the hypocrisy is states have had no input, special breaks for certain states, and more taxes for less services, and the medicare fraud will likely continue. It's all smoke a mirrors. http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/health.cfm
Manzo, even Obama in his recent interview with Brett Baeir slipped up and said when the bill is finally drafted, we will al know what's in it. He didn't even know what was in it. Nancy Polosi even made a gaffe when she said earlier this week we need to just pass it then we can work on revising it. The whole thing doesn't make any sense.
This isn't about givig people healthcare, at this point, Obama knows he will look foolish if this thing doesn't pass. He has a mojoirty house and does not need a single republican vote, so if this thing fails, then his presidecny will be a disaster. On the other hand, since none of this will start until 2014 he can run for a second term saying he was the first President to pass health care refrom.
It's all about the President and his legacy. The people have nothing to do with this. Do you honestly think we can add 30 million people to a health care program and save money? It doesn't take a genious to figure out these people either think we are stupid, or can just look at you and me in the face and lie without a concience.
look I know that health care costs are out of control and we need to really look for some solutions that will benefit as many as possible. That being said, you don't craft a bill behind closed doors, try and skip a house vote on it, and then tell the people they have nothing to worry about. If this lunacy continues God help us all.
I can't understand how Democrats can pass this in good conscience (sp).
Do they not ask/position themselves if they were in this situation - " Is this really something I would want for myself/family/parents?"
Come November I hope that everyone has a list of these "officials" who voted Yes.
PS - Yes I do understand politicians don't have a soul. But they are somewhat human.
I can't understand how Democrats can pass this in good conscience (sp).
Do they not ask/position themselves if they were in this situation - " Is this really something I would want for myself/family/parents?"
Vs the status quo? Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phantom5815
Come November I hope that everyone has a list of these "officials" who voted Yes.
And No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phantom5815
PS - Yes I do understand politicians don't have a soul. But they are somewhat human.
They also know very little about what they legislate. And they never will because they aren't experts at any of the decisions they make. That's why they can either do nothing or make mistakes and learn from them to move forward.
Flight said it best... can really afford to give 30 million people health care? IMO yes, because we have to in good conscious. And we never will figure out how to do it if we don't try.
John seems to think that adding government healthcare is actually going to save him money. How laughable. It won't happen as long as billing rates are as they are and as long as usage is what it is. It will not happen.
Like I said. Germany Costs each German 15% AND 2% of their gross salary. Keep in mind German billing rates are about 2/3 less than American billing rates.
In France, you still have to pay the taxes for healthcare but you still have to pay 25% of each bill. That keeps usage down.
I think it is pretty conclusive. You say you pay too much for your policy. You think the government taking over will lower the costs and cost you less out of pocket. I think I have your thoughts on it nailed down pretty well. Isn't that a huge motivation of all the supporters of health care. Then add in the few that would like to see all people covered and some that would like no one to be non- coverable due to illness.
All are great dreams, but, it is not going to happen without great costs. With those costs other things are going to suffer greatly. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
deltahoosier
(Laker1234)Join Date: Mar 2010
03-20-2010, 4:05 PM
Well said, Someone Else, and in addition to the cost of our new Health Care, Social Security and Medicare are still in the red. I'd rather see the huge tax increase that's coming go to stabilizing those programs.
I think it is pretty conclusive. You say you pay too much for your policy. You think the government taking over will lower the costs and cost you less out of pocket. I think I have your thoughts on it nailed down pretty well.
See how easy it is to be wrong? I even stated on this forum before that I don't mind paying what I pay for health insurance if I knew that I would still have it if something happened to me and couldn't afford it. The idea of paying in for 30-40 years of good health and not having it when I need it is what I object to.
I also am concerned about my children and other family members having health insurance. It's my personal philosophy that healthcare is more important than most all other material possessions that we value. Not surprising considering I'm not the kind of person who has to have the best boat, car, or anything else you can think of. The only way to make it more efficient and improve the care for everyone is to be forced to face the issue. That's were I stand and it has less to do with what I pay each month than the idea of not having it when I need it. How much I pay each month only makes it more of a pressing issue in my mind.
Haha John. Fair enough. I hear what you are saying. A guy a work and I had this conversation. He was concerned about not being able to have it when he needs it as well. He said he wished he had an option that cost wise stayed in the black that he and a group of other people could pay into and never have to worry about losing their coverage. I explained to him that insurance companies today only make 5% to 7% profit. He agreed. I also explain that insurance companies pretty much have the math down on this stuff. He agreed with that as well. In order to only make the 5% to 7% profit they tend to either kick some people off or not allow high liability people to not enter the plan that have not paid into the pot while healthy. He agreed with that as well. We both agreed that premiums are going up and are getting too expensive for many. The math pretty much dictates that if the people they keep out were allowed on the plan the profit margin would disappear and most likely fail. Now take that back to his wish of this plan with no cap with the potential sick people that no one ever lost. I explained to him that he and the others most likely would not be able to afford such a plan and keep it in the black. That is the realism of the math under our current usage and cost of doctors and overall services.
deltahoosier
(loveronix)Join Date: Feb 2010
03-21-2010, 10:18 AM
These are possibly the 5 best sentences on politics you'll ever read.
1
"You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity."
2
"What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving."
3
"The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.”
4
"When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that, my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation."
One thing that is certain with the elimination of pre existing clauses and spending capitation your insurance is going to cost you a lot more.
There was no mention of capping the amount insurances can charge you - just that they cannot deny you.
Just like auto insurance if you have several tickets/accidents/violation on our record - you will pay more.
So you can't afford your monthly premium? What does Obama Care want to do - punish you by making you pay a fine for not having HC insurance.
Does this sound logical to you?
What I also don't like is that my HSA will be affected. Something that I can if and when I get to Medicare age.
There are many things that need to be changed/addressed. Issues that should have been corrected instead of powering garbage through to meet an agenda.
So you can't afford your monthly premium? What does Obama Care want to do - punish you by making you pay a fine for not having HC insurance.
Does this sound logical to you?
If you get injured or sick and can't afford to pay you are going to get free health care at the emergency room. Is that logical? Right now sick people who can pay are being punished for the ones that can't. So expanding that from just sick people to everyone makes more sense. Remember you have the option of asking your politicians to let sick or injured people die and deny them free treatment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phantom5815
There are many things that need to be changed/addressed. Issues that should have been corrected instead of powering garbage through to meet an agenda.
Should have been addressed, but not going to happen in this political climate. Just vote the GOP in next election and they will fix everything. Simple as that.. right?
BTW .... I believe Obama has noble intentions, but I can guarantee you by giving the Government this much power someone in the future will not have the scruples to keep themselves from using this power to further their agenda. It is a slippery slope.
I live 45 miles outside of Chicago I got out of IL 12 years ago because of high taxes and uncontrolled corruption. Do you realy think Obama came out of the nations cesspool with a noble agenda? The bill they passed was the last ditch effort to get something done. They didnt even READ it before the passed it. Now the more I read about it the worse it gets. I am tired of bringing up Bush every time the Dems screw up. They wanted the ultimate power and now they have it . Well what have they done right so far?
Over the past few years, I’ve become a fan of Fareed Zakaria’s commentary, mainly published in his weekly column in Newsweek. Zakaria is centrist who’s analysis is almost never partisan. He skips all that, calls it like he sees it, both on domestic and international issues. Smart guy, good analysis and probably the best summary of Healthcare that I’ve read yet:
Just vote the GOP in next election and they will fix everything. Simple as that.. right?
No, but that's what will happen. After COMPLETE Dem control, this is what they pass? They deserve to lose power. At least Repubs won't spend till their blue in the face THEN tax the **** out us. That part hasn't even hit us yet... It's coming, slowly but surely. Starting in 2011 when the Bush (that evil bastard that the left STILL brings up on a weekly basis) tax cuts expire.
Jobs aren't coming back, yet lets focus on spending more money. How in the hell did healthcare become the issue anyway? Oh yea, Dems and their entitlements...
No, but that's what will happen. After COMPLETE Dem control, this is what they pass? They deserve to lose power.
No, the dems didn't have complete control. Unlike the GOP, Dems don't vote straight party line. Lots of concessions had to be made because of GOP stonewalling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by denverd1
At least Repubs won't spend till their blue in the face THEN tax the **** out us. That part hasn't even hit us yet... It's coming, slowly but surely. Starting in 2011 when the Bush (that evil bastard that the left STILL brings up on a weekly basis) tax cuts expire.
Cutting taxes without cutting expenses doesn't seem to work very well. Bush gave us a trillion dollar war. Dems gave us a trillion dollar bill healthcare plan. Between the two I'll take the later.
I have no idea why you guys think the GOP are conservative wrt spending. They were just as happy to give Goldman Sachs and AIG hundreds of billions as anyone was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by denverd1
Jobs aren't coming back, yet lets focus on spending more money. How in the hell did healthcare become the issue anyway? Oh yea, Dems and their entitlements...
Because the terrorist fear mongering worn thin and medical costs put healthcare out of the hands of too many people.
No, the dems didn't have complete control. Unlike the GOP, Dems don't vote straight party line. Lots of concessions had to be made because of GOP stonewalling.
Cutting taxes without cutting expenses doesn't seem to work very well. Bush gave us a trillion dollar war. Dems gave us a trillion dollar bill healthcare plan. Between the two I'll take the later.
I have no idea why you guys think the GOP are conservative wrt spending. They were just as happy to give Goldman Sachs and AIG hundreds of billions as anyone was.
Because the terrorist fear mongering worn thin and medical costs put healthcare out of the hands of too many people.
GOP " stonewalling" The Dems had the majority and could have passed anything they wanted to. The had a filibuster proof Senate as well. The only reason the Dems didn't pass it right away was their on party holding out for special deals. Can't blame the GOP for the bill not passing right away.
You haven't seen anything yet. The layoffs are a coming and our premiums will increase too. I'm sending my senators and congressman a bill when that happens to cover their mistake. http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/businesses-react-to-rising-cost-of-obamacare-they%27re-cutting-benefits-450638.html?tickers=mdt,cat,vz,xlv,ixj,^dji,^gspc&sec=topStories&pos=6&asset=&ccode= And, John, remember 9/11? If I'm not mistaken, the Taliban jumped on us didn't they or was I just imagining that?
I disagree. Terrorist were stationed and trained in Iraq. You've got to start somewhere. You'll also start seeing a lot of articles like the one posted above about having to pay for this massive takeover of health care.
Why were the GOP so worried about the Democrats "sealing their fate in November", proclaiming that if the bill passed, the Democrats would lose their seats in the elections?
Why would the GOP care if all of the Democrats got voted out if this thing passed?
Wouldn't the bill passing assure them of winning control back in the House?
If you don't think the GOP has stuff riding on this bill, you can't see the forest for the trees.
Jeremy, it's all spin. Which is just about everything that comes out of anyone's mouth. If you can convince people that 2/3 of the population is against something when only 1/3 is actually against it, then you might get them to think they are the minority opinion and they will change sides. That is always the theory of spin.
Even though Republicans have held Congress for 12 of the last 15 years and the White House for 28 of the 41 years, it's still the Dems who have led us into our financial crisis. Clearly this shows the Dems are far more effective at getting things done than the Republicans.
I agree, fly135. The Community Development Act the Clinton bunch ran through required the banks to make these sub prime loans in the first place. IMO that's why the administration is willing to bail the banks out because that idea led us into this mess in the first place. Also, I still say it's unconstitutional to require everyone to have insurance. Nancy P's argument of if you're healthier, you can pursue happiness better is kinda lame. Social Security is in the red, Medicare is in the red, so another program in the red shouldn't matter. What's another trillion among friends.
John, I think it is extremely misguided and ridiculous to believe that the country's economic difficulties all rest on the shoulders of Democratic lawmakers, that is spin at is finest. That is what conservatives do the best, play the blame game. But when they get their shot at the plate, the results never change much.
"IMO that's why the administration is willing to bail the banks out because that idea led us into this mess in the first place."
When you reference the "administration", who are you referring to, because the Bush Administration was behind the bank bailout in Sep 2008 and both Obama and McCain supported it.
"Also, I still say it's unconstitutional to require everyone to have insurance."
Let me ask you this, say the govt said "Okay, you can choose not to have health insurance. It is unconstitutional, (I don't see where you can get this argument, but I'll go along with it). But you are not allowed to visit any hospital, doctor's office, etc, without paying cash up front. Or if you decide to finance the health service, any default on payment will mean govt seizure of any property or garnishment of wages until the debt is satisfied." How many people that are calling this unconstitutional that do not have health insurance would go along with the mandatory payment idea, especially those without insurance that rack up half a million in treatment?
You still don't understand economics and cause and effect. Requiring you to buy insurance, regardless of the constitutionality of it, will not lower your costs of health care. It is just a windfall for the insurance companies. There is nothing about cost controls so unless all these 30 to 45 million people who did not have insurance before can afford $1500 a month for a zero/ near zero deductible insurance (service plan) they still will not have enough money to afford to go down to the doctor. They will not be any healthier. Now add in the addition that they can not exclude people from a plan and they have to keep adults to age 26 on the plan, the price is going to go through the roof. Remember, they only made a 5% to 7% profit and they did that by kicking people off the plans when they got sick. I think it is horrible that they do that but it seems like a financial reality to keep a very modest profit margin. They are going to start pricing insurance way out of reach more than likely. I don't think people were paying that much attention but costs really started to go out of control at about the same time they passed all these domestic partner insurance laws. That added more people into the system. The whole point is more people in the system using the system is not a avenue for reducing costs. That only works for manufacturing mass quantity of parts. In service industries, more demand equals higher costs and you have seen that. Ever since we went to managed care HMO type health care(aka the left overs from Clinton's efforts), the costs have actually risen not lowered. Before the doctors did not have a consistent money base they could bill. Now, the bill the heck out of the insurance and then the insurance turns around and bills the companies that offer insurance and they all pay. I remember in high school. I was taken to the emergency room to get checked out after a car cut me off on my bicycle. I had a cut on my finger. I got it rapped and got a tetnis (sp?) shot. It cost $75 dollars. Now, I bet it would be $7500.
Well, all I have to say is with the new cadillac tax and the looming increase in insurance costs, get ready to have less insurance coverage from your employer or start waving goodbye to your co workers. Two things are going to happen. You can start looking for maybe 10% reduction in staff to keep insurance the same or you will be paying for a high deductible insurance plan for the same cost (in which case you will not be going to the doctor very much). I bet anyone in California or any rich state that works for a big company will be in the cadillac plan range and your company will be subject to the tax and of course the natural increase that will happen.
At the end of the day, the democrats may be trying to achieve what they do in France. They try and control costs by making you pay a larger part of your bill so you will not go to the doctor as much. Thus reducing demand and thus lower costs to attract patients.
On the idea of a mandatory payment of a million dollar bill..... Hate to tell you this but the kind of insurance that these people are only going to be able to afford to buy will not have that high of a life time cap. The insurance company still will not pay out.
Another thing to remember, this is still private insurance and the costs are going to continue to go up. The other part of the coin is the government already has 25% of the population under it's wing for insurance but pays over 50% of all medical payouts. Oh another thing. Do you know who is the biggest denier of claims is? It is the government medical plans not the private insurances. How does that strike you?
Where in the constitution does it allow the government to require a citizen to buy a product from a private company or be fined. Don't think you can find it anywhere. Therefore that portion of the HCBill is unconstitutional.
Andy you answered your own question. Auto insurance is also a State issue not Federal. The HCbill requires doing nothing other than breathing every man women and child buy or have insurance.
The way I see it, if you're comparing this to auto insurance, is when someone gets a DWI that person will pay more for insurance, and if you get enough DWI's, you will not be able to get insurance at all and lose your license for life, so if I live an unhealthy lifestyle, shouldn't I have to pay more for insurance?
so if I live an unhealthy lifestyle, shouldn't I have to pay more for insurance?
Yes. Works that way for life insurance too. The trick would be, how do you measure "healthy" lifestyle? With health insurance, seems like is measured mainly by age so far.
Now we know the real reason they wanted to pass this bill. Socialism on parade.
He is not my senator, but this is what I sent Baucus:
While you are not my senator, I am responding to a video I saw of you speaking of re-distribution of wealth and healthcare. I have contacted all of my representatives, stating my opposition to this, but wanted to respond to you, especially if your voting base does not feel the same. While I agree that healthcare is important to all people, there is a reason that it has not been "rammed through" yet. It is too expensive and it has been that way for the past 60+ years. To do this now, when the country is still trying to rebound from 9-11, high fuel costs and the housing crash is insane. The US owes so much to China now, that we are owned by them. Should we not get our house in order before we implement even more social programs? I, for one, am tired of supporting those who cannot support themselves. It is not that I feel that certain people do not need help. It is that not everyone, especially able bodied people with the ability to work, not just recently out of work people, are lifelong social program receivers. As you can tell, I do not understand why I am expected to work hard, pay my taxes and pay my bills. In doing so, I cannot buy things that are not within my budget. Why is it that the government can buy things that they (I) cannot afford?
As far as the redistribution of wealth: How can that be part of what this country stands for? How can money be taken from someone who worked for it and it be given to someone who didn't? That does nothing but condone laziness, stagnation and enforce financial irresponsibility of the poor. It also "enslaves" poor voters. They will always vote for those who will provide them the biggest socially provided check.
This is over-simplifying a complicated problem, but at least one more representative knows how another taxpayer and voter feels about this legislation.
Nice letter. This bunch of Dems are like Anut Bee in the Andy Griffith show. Good to go to when someone calls you a bad name and you need to sit in a lap, or if you fall and scratch a leg and need a kiss and a hug, but they have no idea about budgeting money or personal responsibility.
Linear Mode
