can someone explain the healthcare bill to me

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.

Well, this one shows a larger divide, but from what I could find in online polls, it appears to be more evenly split.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washingt...care-plan.html

Originally Posted by fly135

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!

Maybe Dave Williams can put a poll up on WW, to show how this sampling of common Americans feel about healthcare reform

I don't what all the confusion is about. Why shouldn't my neighbors have pay my medical bills?

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's an article about some of the myths:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100323/...aul_fact_check

Here is a good article on the overall picture.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36013261...new_york_times

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."

5
"You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it ..."

Adrian Rogers, 1931

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.

Originally Posted by phantom5815

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.

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?

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 A. - You're little giff illustration is a HOOT!! Nothing like making your point with a bunch of laughs.

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.

Auto insurance? But then again, I guess you can choose not to drive.

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.