Obamacare

or Register to post new content in the forum

31 RepliesJump to last post

 

Comments

  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Nov 7, 2009 9:54 am

Looks like the House will vote today or tomorrow.  I am wondering how Pelosi can bring this turkey to a vote when it violates many of the requirements Obama had.  $900 billion price tag.  Pelosi bill is at $1.3 trillion.  Abortion not covered.  Many Dems are threatening to vote no unless there is specific language.  Illegal immigrants are not covered.  The Hispanic Caucas is threatening to vote no over this issue.

 
Now Obama is working Capitol Hill to get the votes needed to pass this pig, even though it violates many primary talking points he has used to gain support for HCR.  I agree the system needs improvement, yet what the Dems are suggesting doesn't seem to be the way to go.  Thoughts?
Nov 7, 2009 10:09 am

To be honest, I don't know where to begin to pick something like this apart.



The problem is too many people have too many opinions on how to fix it. My guess is that it won't pass. Just not enough votes.

Nov 7, 2009 10:11 am

To be honest, I don't know where to begin to pick something like this apart



 
 
My post or the bill?  If you were referring to my post, pick away.
Nov 7, 2009 10:29 am

the bill.

Nov 7, 2009 10:22 pm

I don't think any of us have the time or experience to fully understand all of the implications of this bill...so, we must all turn to Glenn Beck for a fair and balanced opinion of what this bill really means!

Follow up:
Glenn says this bill is destroying the America he loves...and I was shocked, the poor guy was crying. I will now repeat everything that he says, without ever considering the facts or determining if this bill would actually benefit me.

Nov 8, 2009 8:58 am

So, it's been passed. Looks like this thing will happen. The Senate will certainly pass this. I was wrong about it not passing, but hey, I'm often wrong.



Why is it more expensive (to the tune of $400 billion) than it was originally?



Especially when they cut some things. Oh, well. We were so far behind Europe in Debt/GDP ratio, maybe this will help us catch up.

Nov 8, 2009 7:39 pm

I can't believe they continually ignore the failing government programs already in existence to waste time creating another. And if you don't think the government will f*** this up too, then you are completely blind and should have your voting rights revoked. It's not like voting makes that much difference considering both major parties create new government entities that will FUBAR this country.

Nov 8, 2009 8:06 pm

The main problem from my perspective is that the higher taxes means less money for me to manage.

Nov 8, 2009 8:27 pm

I would like to hear Bondguy's opinion if he is willing.

Nov 8, 2009 9:24 pm
DeBolt:

I can't believe they continually ignore the failing government programs already in existence to waste time creating another. And if you don't think the government will f*** this up too, then you are completely blind and should have your voting rights revoked. It's not like voting makes that much difference considering both major parties create new government entities that will FUBAR this country.



If you haven't been paying attention, this is what a politician and the government does...

they take a good idea that the public supports. They put it into action using their supporters and party loyalists. These guys completely f*** it up and cash out (the Iraq war is a great example of this). Then, as the idea starts to lose support (over-budget, behind schedule, blah blah blah), brighter minds and brighter ideas take over and try to make this work before the party gets voted out for their failure. 

I support this health care overhaul not because I believe they will do it right...I just believe this is something that needs to be changed. I only hope that Obama cares more about his legacy than about the party loyalists and will move this program forward in a way that benefits the long-term prosperity of our country.


Nov 8, 2009 9:53 pm

Too much has already changed!


The U.S. Constitution gives the federal government the right to collect taxes, coin money, declare war, regulate commerce, provide for common defense and general welfare.
 
Many politicians believe this statement but will never get voted into office in enough of a majority to make any changes. This is because of the bribery for votes that programs such as this health care bill provide.
 

Which beginning of many statements do you feel is correct?


The United States are...


The United States is...
 
I personally relate to the first.
Nov 8, 2009 10:45 pm
DeBolt:

Too much has already changed!


The U.S. Constitution gives the federal government the right to collect taxes, coin money, declare war, regulate commerce, provide for common defense and general welfare.
 
Many politicians believe this statement but will never get voted into office in enough of a majority to make any changes. This is because of the bribery for votes that programs such as this health care bill provide.
 

Which beginning of many statements do you feel is correct?


The United States are...

The United States is...
 
I personally relate to the first.



Not until 1913

Nov 8, 2009 10:59 pm

The Sixteenth Amendment was created to expand the ability to tax not create the right of taxation. It has existed since the need to fund the Civil War. Before that it was in the forms of tariffs. That is why they are called amendments.

Nov 9, 2009 5:58 am
Still@jones:
DeBolt:

I can't believe they continually ignore the failing government programs already in existence to waste time creating another. And if you don't think the government will f*** this up too, then you are completely blind and should have your voting rights revoked. It's not like voting makes that much difference considering both major parties create new government entities that will FUBAR this country.



If you haven't been paying attention, this is what a politician and the government does...

they take a good idea that the public supports. They put it into action using their supporters and party loyalists. These guys completely f*** it up and cash out (the Iraq war is a great example of this). Then, as the idea starts to lose support (over-budget, behind schedule, blah blah blah), brighter minds and brighter ideas take over and try to make this work before the party gets voted out for their failure. 

I support this health care overhaul not because I believe they will do it right...I just believe this is something that needs to be changed. I only hope that Obama cares more about his legacy than about the party loyalists and will move this program forward in a way that benefits the long-term prosperity of our country.



Still@jones, I can understand how someone can want change because they think that the present system isn't good or can be improved.  Please explain why you support change that you don't believe will be handled properly.  I'm having trouble envisioning any possibility of this being a positive for this country.
Nov 9, 2009 7:34 am
anonymous:
Still@jones:
DeBolt:

I can't believe they continually ignore the failing government programs already in existence to waste time creating another. And if you don't think the government will f*** this up too, then you are completely blind and should have your voting rights revoked. It's not like voting makes that much difference considering both major parties create new government entities that will FUBAR this country.



If you haven't been paying attention, this is what a politician and the government does...

they take a good idea that the public supports. They put it into action using their supporters and party loyalists. These guys completely f*** it up and cash out (the Iraq war is a great example of this). Then, as the idea starts to lose support (over-budget, behind schedule, blah blah blah), brighter minds and brighter ideas take over and try to make this work before the party gets voted out for their failure. 

I support this health care overhaul not because I believe they will do it right...I just believe this is something that needs to be changed. I only hope that Obama cares more about his legacy than about the party loyalists and will move this program forward in a way that benefits the long-term prosperity of our country.



Still@jones, I can understand how someone can want change because they think that the present system isn't good or can be improved.  Please explain why you support change that you don't believe will be handled properly.  I'm having trouble envisioning any possibility of this being a positive for this country.



Maybe I am a little pessimistic because I used to work for a company that did work with the government and I've seen some of the games that are played. I automatically assume there are layers and layers of fraud and corruption (both legal and illegal) that the general public will never see.

I know there was terrible mis-management of the Iraq war. (Didn't a billion dollars in cash get misplaced!!! WTF!!!) I can only hope health-care reform will be managed better. Even though my expectations are not very high, it's a risk I'm glad we are taking.

Nov 9, 2009 8:32 am

I agree with the last line of still@jones, "it's a risk I'm glad we are taking".

 
If some how people with out insurance can start using primary care clinics instead of hospital emergency rooms, then the cost of healthcare will decrease. On average in my state, a hospital needs to charge $1500 per patient to break even. So when someone comes in the emergency room for the flu, they are losing money. But that is what most people without insurance do.
 
I think an attempt is better than nothing(it can always be reformed later)
Nov 9, 2009 9:39 am
Squash1:

I agree with the last line of still@jones, "it's a risk I'm glad we are taking".

 
If some how people with out insurance can start using primary care clinics instead of hospital emergency rooms, then the cost of healthcare will decrease. On average in my state, a hospital needs to charge $1500 per patient to break even. So when someone comes in the emergency room for the flu, they are losing money. But that is what most people without insurance do.
 
I think an attempt is better than nothing(it can always be reformed later)


 
 
The problem with reforming it later is it never gets reformed.  Liberals in Congress keep pointing to Medicare as being great and then in the next breath talk about $500 bil in waste and fraud they can cut out to pay for HCR.  If you know the waste and fraud is there, why not work on that?  I would think you don't need a new law to get rid of it.   However, reforming Medicare to "fix" it is attached to HCR.  What will "fixing" HCR be attached too?
Nov 9, 2009 10:00 am

Easiest way to address the hospital emergency room issue is to simply bring a primary care clinic to the hospital and charge a small fee for its use.  Does not solve everything nor is it meant to do so.  It does however reduce health care costs and not require 1900 pages to do it.

Nov 9, 2009 12:27 pm

There are two issues trying to be reformed right now:

 
1. Access to coverage for everyone.
2. Decrease costs.
 
The current bill aims to do #1, but it will have an adverse effect on #2.  The way the House bill is written, the upper middle class is the group that will take the lumps with families below the 140% FPL receiving free to subsidized care.
 
I think the system is broken and unless we want to be selling $10,000 and $20,000 family deductibles in 5 years, something needs to change.  The main issue is that the current reform measures aren't reforming health care, it's an insurance industry take over.  The insurance is the funding mechanism, nothing more, nothing less.  It is not the cost driver although it is an easy target for politicians since the public associates them as one and the same.
 
The take care of #1, increase access for everyone, I see two options:
 
1. Guaranteed issue as being proposed, however, it doesn't work unless everyone is mandated to have coverage and it is actually enforced.
 
2. A national (or better yet, state) risk pool for the uninsurables.  My state has one currently that is capped at 125% of the private rate levels and it works well.  A few other states like Maryland have figured it out as well.
 
*Any government run plan is completely unneccessary to fix issue #1, it is simply a power grab.
 
As for issue #2, this is the difficult issue to tackle.  Some issue to tackle:
 
1. The main cost drivers are preventable illnesses.  Think obesity, smoking, ect.  No one wants to tackle this one, but it is the main cost driver.
 
2. End of life care.  Also not politically popular.
 
3. Tort reform.  A no brainer in my opinion, but not the main cost driver.
 
4. Unnessary emergency room visits for the uninsured.  Mandated coverage for everyone should in theory erase this problem, but what about the illegals.  The tough decision still has to be made, pay for them when they show up or turn them away.
 
No one wants to tackle the main cost drivers.  As I said above, access can be changed without a government take over and should be in my opinion.  The current system is broken from this standpoint.  The cost drivers are much more challenging to fix and politically difficult to navigate.
 
The problem with government intervention (and more mandates) is when the program goes in place, it will severely handicap the insurers leading to substantially increased rates for the upper middle class.  Congress will cry out at the "greedy insurance carriers" and say a "single payer" system is the only way to fix it, obviously the private system doesn't work.  In 15 years, I would predict we have a single payer system or the private market will be so heavily regulated like utility companies that they will essentially be a goverment system without the stigma.
 
Welcome to socialism.
Nov 9, 2009 12:33 pm

If you want an example of goverment bullsh*t at work already, just look inside the current House bill.  They want to expand the Medicaid levels to include more families, which will require substantially increased funding levels at the state levels (most are already severely underfunded).  But guess what, if you are fortunate enough to be in Harry Reid's state of Nevada (one of the main architects of the bill), your state won't have to pay anything extra as federal dollars will pick up the difference.  Only two other states were included.

 





Why only three states and in particular Nevada?  Because Harry Reid is considered vulnerable in the next elections and contributing to a state budget short fall might have negative implications for the Democratic party.  Government mismanagement at its finest.  Still want a goverment run option?